Warning
Possibly creates one of the biggest refugee crisis but what would middle east look like in 2021?....considering Israel won all the other wars decisively
Likely either the Arab states don't give due to hatred and the far more is they try to get nuclear weapons given Israel is clear, expansionist threat that will cleanse them.Possibly creates one of the biggest refugee crisis but what would middle east look like in 2021?....considering Israel won all the other wars decisively
It was a matter of hours or days before they were to be attacked. The 6 days war is a textbook example in international relations studies on valid pre-emptive attacks for defensive purposes.Israel was clearly the aggressor in 1967. It attacked Egypt and Syria. Doesn't matter as they like to term it, a "pre-emptive strike". It was their planes what flew the first attack missions.
That is a matter of conjecture. Israel clearly was the aggressor.It was a matter of hours or days before they were to be attacked. The 6 days war is a textbook example in international relations studies on valid pre-emptive attacks for defensive purposes.
It was nothing aggressive about it. They exercised self defence. If they didn't Israel wouldn't exist today. If anything the Arab states that were lining up around Israel forced their hand. Talking about aggression doesn't make sense here.That is a matter of conjecture. Israel clearly was the aggressor.
Israel also maintains that its attacks were justified by the Egyptian closure of the Straits of Tiran, an international waterway, the closure of which constituted a casus belli under customary international law later codified in 1958 Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea. However, since the UAR and its Arab allies were not signatories to the 1958 Geneva Conventions, they argued that since the Gulf of Aqaba was not a waterway connecting two regions of open sea, it was not technically a strait, and therefore that it was not covered by the 1949 ICJ decision ruling that a country is required to allow passage through a strait. Moreover, the UAR disputed Israel's legal right to Eilat, which had been captured after the 1949 armistice imposed by the Security Council. However, the United States and the Western European nations agreed with the Israeli interpretation that Israeli vessels had a right of passage through the Straits of Tiran. On the other hand, Egypt's position was supported by much of the third world.
That's a common fallacy. Nasser did precipitate a crisis--to get the other arabs to rally around him restoring his leadership of the arab world. But the arabs had no intention to attack.It was a matter of hours or days before they were to be attacked. The 6 days war is a textbook example in international relations studies on valid pre-emptive attacks for defensive purposes.
Post-ipso-factor justification. Israel attacked first, therefore it earnt the title of aggressor. It's claims about Arab intentions are not necessarily supported by facts.It was nothing aggressive about it. They exercised self defence. If they didn't Israel wouldn't exist today. If anything the Arab states that were lining up around Israel forced their hand. Talking about aggression doesn't make sense here.
Israel justified its preemptive action with a review of the context of its position: Economic strangulation through the shipping blockade in the Straits of Tiran (90% of Israeli oil passed through the Straits of Tiran), the imminence of war on three fronts (hundreds of thousands of enemy troops and hundreds of tanks massed on its borders), and possible social and economic difficulty of maintaining a civilian army draft indefinitely.
That's a common fallacy. Nasser did precipitate a crisis--to get the other arabs to rally around him restoring his leadership of the arab world. But the arabs had no intention to attack.
Arab rhetoric belied actual deployment; on all fronts deployment was defensive. In sinai, for example, there were only two divisions, both infantry, on the frontier manning defensive positions. The bulk of the armor was much farther back and was intended to counter an Israeli attack.
By 2020s world would generally forget about this. And Israel would have better opinion today (worse atrocity, but commited over fifty years ago, would fade away from people's memory faster than less atrocious but fresh events).
That's a common fallacy. Nasser did precipitate a crisis--to get the other arabs to rally around him restoring his leadership of the arab world. But the arabs had no intention to attack.
Arab rhetoric belied actual deployment; on all fronts deployment was defensive. In sinai, for example, there were only two divisions, both infantry, on the frontier manning defensive positions. The bulk of the armor was much farther back and was intended to counter an Israeli attack.
precipitate a crisis... he, the Syrians and their Soviet sponsors engaged in super dangerous brinksmanship
and the unfortunate thing with brinksmanship is that the other party might not tolerate it and appease you
Nasser and the Syrians did the following
1. Sponsor irregulars out of the Golan and elsewhere into Israel for the express purpose of attacks inside Israeli territory, and conduct border clashes and artillery strikes into Israeli territory
2. Have state and semi state radio whip up their populace with calls for a war off annihilation against Israel
and the big ones
3. Close the strait of Tiran. Egypt was party to an armistice treaty that promised safe passage of Israeli ships through the strait, this was approved via the UN ceasefire agreements in 1956 and 1957 and signed by all of the major world powers who affirmed Israel's right to transit the water way. Israel stated in public forums in 1956-57, 1962 and 1967 that they would regard closure of the straits as an act of war, the USA and others reaffirmed Israel's right to passage through the strait before and during the crisis. Full stop if you open a blockade on your neighbor, they aren't going to take that well, especially when they have announced clearly before hand that they consider it a red line for war
4. He kicked out the UN emergency defense force who where there, by treaty signed by Egypt in 1956-57 for the express purpose of not letting there be a new war in the Sinai. Israel had signed on to the 1957 armistice with this as a stipulation in order to have a promise of border security. This was far more aggressive given the concurring events than Hitler's remilitarization of the Rhineland
5. and final and most important, he mobilized his army, including the call up of reservists and sent them to the border; this condition is no different than 1914, no country with Israel's demographics could possibly go to general mobilization and just sit there its economically devastating to have the reserves called up; and even with their high quality intelligence services, they couldn't know for certain that Egypt and Syria would go to such extreme war like measures without actually being ready to start the war; it was clearly established international policy at that time and the wars that preceded it, that mobilization meant war
Israel fired the first shots, and their behavior after the fact in the conquered lands has been reprehensible, but the blame for starting the 6 day war belongs in significant share to Nasser and friends
precipitate a crisis... he, the Syrians and their Soviet sponsors engaged in super dangerous brinksmanship
5. and final and most important, he mobilized his army, including the call up of reservists and sent them to the border
... they couldn't know for certain that Egypt and Syria would go to such extreme war like measures without actually being ready to start the war