I just don’t think your position holds up under its own assumptions.

First, you require an Egypt that is simultaneously terrified of Israel but also blockades the Strait of Tiran for no obvious strategic or economic purpose. Yes, Israel was a part of the winning side in the previous war but also had significant British and French help.

Yes, Israel was fully mobilized, because Egypt had just crossed a line that Israel said was an act of war. Having neighbours on all sides who occasionally try to invade and murder all your people will also make you more willing to mobilize quickly, especially when about 1/3 of all Jews had just been murdered.

It just boggles the imagination that someone could look at the following facts and say “yeah, Israel started this.”:

A) Egypt, against maritime and international law (as brokered by the UN) and the terms of its previous peace deal, blockaded Israel from a major port. Israel declares (as per the terms of the peace treaty and Israel’s stated position) that this is an act of war.

B) Egypt then along with several neighbours deploys, along multiple borders, an army that outmans, outguns and outplanes (okay, has air superiority but that doesn’t work as well with the pattern!) Israel by a 2:1 ratio and 3:1 in the serious stuff (armour/planes.)

C) Israel on the night of the attack is alone, without allies or material support.

I cannot imagine you are seriously saying that despite all the facts on the ground, the correct course of action for Israel was to wait until being engaged and then just pray that this time things worked out for the Jews? That’s just wild to me. “Sorry kids, sure, we saw all those soldiers massing but we really thought the Jews were only due one massacre per half century. Whoopsies!”

Oh neat, thanks for sharing!

I don’t actually care about downvotes or upvotes for comments (for posts, I’m generally trying to make communities laugh, so I do like them there to refine my approach etc.)

I’m more just… Well, it’s Lemmy, some of the replies are, uhhh, impressive and heartbreaking (not because they’re mean, it just makes me wonder about how we win a majority of votes while being associated with some goddamn crazy people.)

Anyway, really appreciate you sharing this, I’ll probably use some of these settings!

And just like Poland in 1939, Israel was threatened by an amassing, significantly larger force.

As a lot of Jews died in Israel Poland, I’m pretty sure the costs of waiting until the other side attacks were absorbed, heavily, by Israelis.

I think nuclear standoffs are categorically different, the entire MAD doctrine depends on the impossibility of a first strike.

At the end of the day, Egypt and the other Arab states took a series of recklessly aggressive steps against a rightfully paranoid and numerically inferior opponent. (And it’s not like Egypt was seriously threatened by Israel when they started massing with multiple Arab states, the previous war had been fought with heavy UK/French support after the Egyptians again acted pretty recklessly.)

Edit: A country? Crossed it out above as I should own up to a silly typo like that.

These are so good, thanks for making them!

So your position is they should have waited until the massed armies that outnumbered them 2:1 attacked?

That seems like an insane demand to thrust upon a people who had years earlier been murdered on an industrial scale.

Exactlty. I found this a really uplifting story.

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?

Last comment didn’t go over well with moderators. To be more polite, I have you tagged as someone with whom it is not worthwhile to engage.

Regards.

I appreciate that! Honestly, it’s a little worrying how little historical context folks seem to have.

Don’t know why I feel compelled to point it out other than being a glutton for punishment.

Anyway, thanks!

Removed by mod

I mean, Israel was taken from the Jews way back when so by your logic, aren’t they just taking back their land and thus, apparently according to you, allowed to do whatever?

I take it you have 0 knowledge of the Six Day or Yom Kippur wars? Which is how the borders in the headlines moved. I mean, heck, a lot of recent maps of Israel show in which war the territory was taken.

I kinda guessed folks were ignorant of the history but come on, this is pretty basic stuff.

What on Earth?

When do you think the Six Day or Yom Kippur wars happened?

Edit: Well, as horrifying as it is to see how shallow folks understanding of history is, no one is paying me to be online and screaming against tiktok or whatever isn’t that much fun. G’night y’all!

Unpopular opinion but do folks honestly not understand how those borders shifted? Mostly because a bunch of countries tried to murder the Jews and yeah, Israel took part of their land in the counter offensives.

If Ukraine kept Kursk, I can’t imagine we’d really be complaining?

Basically, if you launch a surprise war I think you forfeit the right to be surprised or angry when your land gets taken.

Edit: Jesus, are the downvoters confused like the response below and think this is talking about Oct 7 as opposed to say, the repeated wars that actually changed the borders? Does TikTok not cover modern history or what?

Exactly. When I take a morning off to ski before work and the snow isn’t ideal, I’ll remember I don’t have to be grateful.

Probably the coolest looking group of non ninja/mutant/teenage animals I’ve ever seen.

Exactly. I don’t think the person above remembers the movie particularly well. They were actively trying to kill him until Maya Rudolph saved the day and showed everyone the smartest man in the world was right.

Exactly, the key bit being "Ms Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law’

In other words, even though he wasn’t found liable for rape, she was raped as the word is commonly understood. Unfortunately, Stephanopolous made the claim (repeatedly I believe) that trump had been found liable for rape.

I hope this is a parody account.

But also notes that he was found liable for something different. The judge makes clear that in colloquial terms, yeah, it’s rape. But legally, there is a difference. And Stephanopolous said he’d been found liable for rape, which is a very specific charge and a claim which is demonstrably false, even if we all understand his actions to be rape.

Law is fucked but in the confines of the law, trump’s legal team has a point and, it seems, the law on their side.