Yes, Israel did attack first. It was however, a preemptive strike. Egypt had already massed 1000 tanks and 100,000 men along the border with Israel. Israel believed they were going to be attacked and attacked first. The best defense is a good offense.
That's not quite the position. Both Israel and Egypt were rattling their sabres. But as Menachem Begin said afterwards:
"In June 1967 we again had a choice. 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.
This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.
We did not do this for lack of an alternative. We could have gone on waiting. We could have sent the army home. Who knows if there would have been an attack against us? There is no proof of it. There are several arguments to the contrary.
Or Ezer Weizman, then head of the IAF, who said the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was justified so that Israel could :
exist according to the scale, spirit and quality she now embodies
So many forget, or just plain ignore the fact that it was a preemptive strike and not just unwarranted aggression on the part of Israel.
The truth is it was a bit of both. Israel and Egypt were both squaring up for a fight. Portraying one side as the aggressor and the other the victim is wrong.
My simplest explanation to any who disbelieves israel's right to exsist is that look at the facts the religion of islam was only established in 70 ad it is quite literally impossible therefor for the jews to have no cliam to this land, nor was it "stolen". Jews have been living in the land of israel for thousands of years before the establishment of islam. (random fact)Did you know that the palestinians took there name from the phillistine empire? A nation with no connection to these people.
I don't think anyone is denying Israel's right to exist. Merely disputing whether it's policy towards the Palestinians is either just or even beneficial for Israelis.
Nashwan Israel did sieze these terrotories yes, but to manipulate the citizens....why?
I don't think they seized them to manipulate the Palestinians. Let's face it, to the Israelis the Palestinians are an inconvenience. They would much rather they didn't exist.
I think Israel seized the West Bank because it is part of historic Israel, because it gave them land to expand in to, and because it gave them access to more water supplies.
The point about the Palestinians was in answer to the claim the Israelis have always tried to give the Palestinians what they want. Palestinians have come pretty far down Israel's list of priorities.
Do you know that palestines where diffused among the arab world in 48 after the Arabs attacked FIRST after DENYING the partition plane set up by the UN?
Can you tell me what the "first" attack was? Because whatever you pick as the "start", I will show you an Israeli attack before that, and a Palestinian attack before that, and an Israeli attack, and a Palestinian attack, and so on back to where the records peter out.
The simple fact is the UN gave away land to Israel that already had a Palestinian population. You wouldn't accept the UN giving away your town, would you? I know I wouldn't, and I'm pretty sure the "cold, dead hands" Americans in this topic wouldn't agree to the UN giving a bunch of immigrants part of America to set up their state.
The sad part is the Jews deserved a state, but the Palestinians didn't deserve to have their land taken away. What you ended up with is white Europeans (which includes Americans) first persecuting the Jews, then taking land off the Arabs to recompense the Jews.
It's not hard to see why that annoyed the Arabs.
King abdullah of jordan even went so far as to attack these poeple with jets and killed somewhere in the tens of thousands of them. These people are unwanted by all nations even there own supposed "arab brothers".
Which just goes to prove how much they need their own territory.
Yet when provided territory they screw themselves over by declaring jihad, spitting rockets on sederot and ashquelon and blowing up cafes and busses.
When were they provided territory? Israel might have redeployed troops out of Gaza, but they kept up control of all movement in and out, and proceeded to impose a blockade that further wrecked the Gaza economy.
Look at what happened to the Greenhouses bought to provide an income for Gaza. They lasted until May 2006, finally driven out of business because they could never get their goods through the Karni crossing.
Israel redeployed troops and settlers, but it has not relinquished
control over Gaza.
The palestinain deserve to be portrayed in a different light not the poor nation being raped and pilaged by the evil israeli motherland, and although is israel has made numerous mistakes in dealing with them IMO there is no perfect way to deal with a self harming population.
The truth is the Palestinians are both. Yes they engage in terrorism, but yes they are pillaged by Israel. And it's been going on, with so many wrongs on both sides, that you cannot with any justification point to one side and say "they started it".
Israel is not going to run the West Bank and Gaza for the sake of the Palestinians. The Palestinians are not prepared to continue under Israeli rule. The only way out of this situation is negotiation of final status and separation.
Sadly both sides seem to think there is a military solution, and that a few more rockets/bombs/shells will solve the situation in their favour.
