• nonailsleft@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    14 hours ago

    I’m not sure if you’re joking, but if you’re not, you might want to read a little about the war you’re referencing.

    Israel invaded those territories because Jordan and Egypt were using them to launch a surprise attack.

    “Live in peace” is a bit subjective in your example lol

    • small44@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      I love of israelis themselves expose those lies

      The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. - Mossad Chief Meir Amit

      This entire story about the danger of extermination was invented and exaggerated after the fact to justify the annexation of new Arab territories“. - Israeli Minister Mordecai Bentov

      They attacked on a Monday, knowing that on Wednesday the Egyptian vice-president would arrive in Washington to talk about re-opening the Strait of Tiran. We might not have succeeded in getting Egypt to reopen the strait, but it was a real possibility.” - Dean Rusk, the American Secretary of State at that time

      We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn’t possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn’t shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that’s how it was. - Israeli general Moshe Dayan

      • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 hours ago

        You seem to have a very one sided view on this.

        Nasser and his allies knew that restarting their naval blockade would be a cause for war for Israel. They massed troops on the borders, threw out the peacekeepers overseeing the Strait and then announced they would be restarting their blockade.

        So was it a certainty that the muslim coalition was going to attack Israel first? No. Would a naval blockade and enemy troops ready to cross their borders from all sides be a tenable situation for Israel? I don’t know if you’re familiar with the map of Israel but having ‘unfriendly’ troops in the West Bank creates a huge strategic problem. They chose not to take the risk and destroy or scare them away.

        You’re certainly right that the ultrazionists made sure not to ‘miss any opportunity’ when it came to the spoils of war. But it’s also wrong to ignore that the opportunity to do so was largely given to them by their hostile neighbours.

        • small44@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          Of course I would be one sided when zionists leaders admitted that the plan what occupation. Nasser was ready to for a diplomatic solution but Israel decided to colonize more part of Arabs countries.

          Your excuse is similar to saying Ukraine and the us knew that Russia wouldn’t accept a country to join the coalition that was specifically created to fight the URSS, this doesn’t give Russia the right to invade ukraine.

          The quote about the Syrian side is very clear about Israel trying to provoke wars

          after the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine - Israel first prime minister

          Partition might be only a temporary arrangement for the next twenty to twenty-five years”. - Israel first president Chaim Weizmann It is not a coincidence that Gaza and the West bank was occupied in that time frame