• Not_mikey@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    This is if you view the Arab states as the aggressor in 1967 even though Israel was the one who initiated the conflict. If you see Israel as the aggressor in 1967 and the yom kipper war as a counter offensive to take back land that Israel had stolen then it becomes less justifiable.

    It’s more like Russia keeping the Donbas after it launched a “preemptive strike” because it was afraid Ukraine was gonna team up with nato to attack them. Then 5 years after trump forces Ukraine to make peace they launch an offensive into the donbas to take there land back, only to get repelled again.

    • Lauchs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Sorry, missed this amongst a few less knowledgeable replies.

      Generally, I understand the Arab states as the aggressor in that.

      The Israeli attack was a first strike but happened with multiple armies deployed along its borders.

      It’s been awhile since I read about that war but my memory is that someone (Egypt?) cut off a Israel’s access to a major maritime route. Israel reiterated its decade long position that such an act was grounds for war. In other words saying “if you do this, we consider a war to have begun.”

      The Arab states deploy troops and units along multiple Israeli borders. A quick look at total troops available to the new Arab defence pact suggest they outmanned Israel’s by almost 2:1, with more than 2:1 and 3:1 advantage in aircraft and tanks respectively. (I admittedly I have no memory of quality of those forces.)

      The destruction of the Egyptian airforce is pretty famous in military history and based on those facts, I’ve always felt the Arab states as the aggressor in that one.

      What parts or acts, other than the act of existing, am I ignorant of or misremembering that make Israel the aggressor?