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.
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
It seems like one half of your brain is thinking on Ukraine, the other half on Palestine, and they keep crossing into eachother :-)
I don’t know which country you are in but if a neighbour declared a naval blockade and surrounded you with their armies, is your only thought that ‘they are looking for a diplomatic solution’?
I won’t let it slide. Zionists leaders was clear about the colonial intention. So who’s again started it? Why the native should accept foreigners to create a state in their land? How hard is it for you to see that both Ukraine and Palestine are occupied so they are valid comparison? You are really blinded by the belief that Israel did nothing wrong.
You don’t have to let it slide, I welcome you to analyse the situation to the fullest of your abilities.
I just think trying to compare it to Ukraine is quite dumb. Even now you have to move your argument from the '67 situation to the broader idea of the partition of Mandatory Palestine. Morocco’s annexation of the Western Sahara territory, for example, is much more comparable in that regard than the classic cold war style territory push happening in Ukraine.
What’s dumb is comparing a conflict between two native populations over territorial conflict to an actual occupation by people who came from all over Europe to steal land of people who lived there
The 67 occupation is connected to the partition where zionists didn’t really believe in it as stated by their own admission
You seem to have a very, very simplistic idea of the rather complicated and less black and white history here
The first immigrants that expanded the congregation that eventually grew into Israel were ‘internal’ , hoping that this would allow them to escape or alleviate discrimination by their Ottoman rulers. But the first ‘big push’ in those early days came from Ukraine and Russia, hoping to escape the genocides and creating a new country from a slice of the crumbling Ottoman Empire.
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.
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
It seems like one half of your brain is thinking on Ukraine, the other half on Palestine, and they keep crossing into eachother :-)
I don’t know which country you are in but if a neighbour declared a naval blockade and surrounded you with their armies, is your only thought that ‘they are looking for a diplomatic solution’?
I won’t let it slide. Zionists leaders was clear about the colonial intention. So who’s again started it? Why the native should accept foreigners to create a state in their land? How hard is it for you to see that both Ukraine and Palestine are occupied so they are valid comparison? You are really blinded by the belief that Israel did nothing wrong.
You don’t have to let it slide, I welcome you to analyse the situation to the fullest of your abilities.
I just think trying to compare it to Ukraine is quite dumb. Even now you have to move your argument from the '67 situation to the broader idea of the partition of Mandatory Palestine. Morocco’s annexation of the Western Sahara territory, for example, is much more comparable in that regard than the classic cold war style territory push happening in Ukraine.
What’s dumb is comparing a conflict between two native populations over territorial conflict to an actual occupation by people who came from all over Europe to steal land of people who lived there
The 67 occupation is connected to the partition where zionists didn’t really believe in it as stated by their own admission
You seem to have a very, very simplistic idea of the rather complicated and less black and white history here
The first immigrants that expanded the congregation that eventually grew into Israel were ‘internal’ , hoping that this would allow them to escape or alleviate discrimination by their Ottoman rulers. But the first ‘big push’ in those early days came from Ukraine and Russia, hoping to escape the genocides and creating a new country from a slice of the crumbling Ottoman Empire.