4 ms·

In the six-day war, Syria attacked Israel before the opposite, so it's pretty misleading to say "in a war that Israel initiated". Sure, Israel struck Egypt fir

In the six-day war, Syria attacked Israel before the opposite, so it's pretty misleading to say "in a war that Israel initiated". Sure, Israel struck Egypt first, but Syria is not Egypt. And calling it a preemptive strike should be pretty uncontroversial considering Egypt's naval blockade, expulsion of peacekeepers, deployment of ~100k troops near Israel's border, and Nasser being pretty explicit about his intentions.

DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
Syria and Egypt had a mutual defense treaty. > And calling it a preemptive strike should be pretty uncontroversial It's actually highly controversial, given that: 1. Egypt had no intention of attacking Israel (as we now know for certain). 2. The Israeli leadership was extremely confident in its own military dominance over Egypt, and that it would win any war quickly. 3. The Israeli leadership of the time had ambitions of territorial expansion.
- dlubarov 1y ago
  > 1. Egypt had no intention of attacking Israel (as we now know for certain). Where are you getting this idea from? A leader with no intention of attacking Israel would not have made statements like "We will not accept any possibility of co-existence with Israel. [...] The war with Israel is in effect since 1948." (Nasser, May 28, 1967) and then proceeded to amass ~100k troops near the border, or in Nasser's words: "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel ..." As far as preemptive strikes go, it really doesn't get any clearer than this. Not to mention the naval blockade which was in itself an act of war, making the question of who started the war rather moot.
  - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
    The internal deliberations of the Egyptian government at the time are all publicly known now. The Egyptian leadership feared that Israel was planning an attack on Syria, which is why they mobilized their own army. They had no intention of attacking Israel. The Israelis had been planning their own attack on Egypt for years. Ben Gurion had aggressive, expansionist foreign policy views, which the crisis with Egypt allowed him to implement. The Israeli public was afraid of Egypt, but the leadership was extremely confident that Israel had massive military superiority over the Egyptians and would rapidly win any war. That's also what American intelligence thought, and what they told the Israelis. As for Egyptian public statements about Israel, remember the political context: Israel had been founded 19 years earlier through the mass theft of Palestinian land and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Israel had carried out terrorist bombings in Cairo in the early 1950s in order to try to politically destabilize the country, and had invaded Egypt in 1956, as part of a conspiracy with Britain and France to take over the Suez Canal. The Egyptians had good reasons to view the Israelis as enemies and loudly complain, but we now know they had no intention of attacking.
    - dlubarov 1y ago
      Your position boils down to an unverifiable claim about Nasser's mental state. Egypt had a plan (Operation Dawn) to invade Israel. Nasser had not approved it yet, but that doesn't mean he wasn't going to. Even if Nasser planned to wait and induce Israel to fire the first shot, how would Israel know when Egypt's actions, as well as many of their statements, were perfectly consistent with a military preparing to immanently invade? Taking this to the extreme, if Russia launched a silo of ICBMs targeting DC, and it turned out that they were all convincing decoys with no payload, would you say the US "initiated the war" for responding with real munitions? Realistically, pre-emptive strikes don't get any clearer than this. If one objects to this pre-emptive, one would pretty much have reject the notion of pre-emptive strikes categorically. There can be a legal argument that pre-emptive strikes never technically fall under then narrow language of Article 51, but that's more of a strict textualist argument and not a pragmatist one.
      - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
        It's not at all unverifiable. There is a lot known about the Egyptian government's internal deliberations at the time, such as the fact that they feared Israel was planning to imminently attack Syria. > Taking this to the extreme, if Russia launched a silo of ICBMs targeting DC Your analogy has already gone off the rails, because Israel held massive military superiority over Egypt. The Americans and the Israelis both knew that Israel would rapidly win any war with Egypt. The military escalation that preceded the 1967 war was triggered by Israel's own attack on Egypt in November 1966. Israel was pursuing an extremely aggressive foreign policy. It took actions that caused a massive increase in tensions, but then claimed those actions gave it the right to launch a preemptive war (though actually, when the war broke out, the Israeli government just chose to lie and claim that Egypt had attacked Israel first).
        dlubarov 1y ago
        > The Americans and the Israelis both knew that Israel would rapidly win any war with Egypt. I don't think that's accurate, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion anyway. The point was just that the instigator of a war isn't necessarily the side that technically fires the first munition. > Israel's own attack on Egypt in November 1966 What do you mean? There was no Israeli attack on Egypt at that time. > then claimed those actions gave it the right to launch a preemptive war Not sure what you mean. Israel's justification was the naval blockade and Egypt's apparent preparations for an invasion, nothing else.

DiogenesKynikos 1y ago

Syria and Egypt had a mutual defense treaty. > And calling it a preemptive strike should be pretty uncontroversial It's actually highly controversial, given that: 1. Egypt had no intention of attacking Israel (as we now know for certain). 2. The Israeli leadership was extremely confident in its own military dominance over Egypt, and that it would win any war quickly. 3. The Israeli leadership of the time had ambitions of territorial expansion.

dlubarov 1y ago
> 1. Egypt had no intention of attacking Israel (as we now know for certain). Where are you getting this idea from? A leader with no intention of attacking Israel would not have made statements like "We will not accept any possibility of co-existence with Israel. [...] The war with Israel is in effect since 1948." (Nasser, May 28, 1967) and then proceeded to amass ~100k troops near the border, or in Nasser's words: "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel ..." As far as preemptive strikes go, it really doesn't get any clearer than this. Not to mention the naval blockade which was in itself an act of war, making the question of who started the war rather moot.
- DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
  The internal deliberations of the Egyptian government at the time are all publicly known now. The Egyptian leadership feared that Israel was planning an attack on Syria, which is why they mobilized their own army. They had no intention of attacking Israel. The Israelis had been planning their own attack on Egypt for years. Ben Gurion had aggressive, expansionist foreign policy views, which the crisis with Egypt allowed him to implement. The Israeli public was afraid of Egypt, but the leadership was extremely confident that Israel had massive military superiority over the Egyptians and would rapidly win any war. That's also what American intelligence thought, and what they told the Israelis. As for Egyptian public statements about Israel, remember the political context: Israel had been founded 19 years earlier through the mass theft of Palestinian land and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Israel had carried out terrorist bombings in Cairo in the early 1950s in order to try to politically destabilize the country, and had invaded Egypt in 1956, as part of a conspiracy with Britain and France to take over the Suez Canal. The Egyptians had good reasons to view the Israelis as enemies and loudly complain, but we now know they had no intention of attacking.
  - dlubarov 1y ago
    Your position boils down to an unverifiable claim about Nasser's mental state. Egypt had a plan (Operation Dawn) to invade Israel. Nasser had not approved it yet, but that doesn't mean he wasn't going to. Even if Nasser planned to wait and induce Israel to fire the first shot, how would Israel know when Egypt's actions, as well as many of their statements, were perfectly consistent with a military preparing to immanently invade? Taking this to the extreme, if Russia launched a silo of ICBMs targeting DC, and it turned out that they were all convincing decoys with no payload, would you say the US "initiated the war" for responding with real munitions? Realistically, pre-emptive strikes don't get any clearer than this. If one objects to this pre-emptive, one would pretty much have reject the notion of pre-emptive strikes categorically. There can be a legal argument that pre-emptive strikes never technically fall under then narrow language of Article 51, but that's more of a strict textualist argument and not a pragmatist one.
    - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
      It's not at all unverifiable. There is a lot known about the Egyptian government's internal deliberations at the time, such as the fact that they feared Israel was planning to imminently attack Syria. > Taking this to the extreme, if Russia launched a silo of ICBMs targeting DC Your analogy has already gone off the rails, because Israel held massive military superiority over Egypt. The Americans and the Israelis both knew that Israel would rapidly win any war with Egypt. The military escalation that preceded the 1967 war was triggered by Israel's own attack on Egypt in November 1966. Israel was pursuing an extremely aggressive foreign policy. It took actions that caused a massive increase in tensions, but then claimed those actions gave it the right to launch a preemptive war (though actually, when the war broke out, the Israeli government just chose to lie and claim that Egypt had attacked Israel first).
      - dlubarov 1y ago
        > The Americans and the Israelis both knew that Israel would rapidly win any war with Egypt. I don't think that's accurate, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion anyway. The point was just that the instigator of a war isn't necessarily the side that technically fires the first munition. > Israel's own attack on Egypt in November 1966 What do you mean? There was no Israeli attack on Egypt at that time. > then claimed those actions gave it the right to launch a preemptive war Not sure what you mean. Israel's justification was the naval blockade and Egypt's apparent preparations for an invasion, nothing else.