• Not_mikey@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    What parts or acts, other than the act of existing, am I ignorant of or misremembering that make Israel the aggressor?

    The fact that they struck first. Closing a maritime route is not a cause for war just because someone says it is, just like Ukraine applying for nato wouldn’t be. Any action done by a country within its own borders is up to them, that’s sovereignty. Saying those acts are a cause for war and invading them for doing so is a violation of that sovereignty.

    Almost every invader in history claims their attack was a pre-emptive strike and/or the other countries legitimate peaceful sovereign actions are a cause for war. Japan told the u.s. if it continued its oil embargo that it would be a cause for war. The u.s. continuing that embargo doesn’t make pearl harbor a legitimate response. Poland began massing troops on the border prior to the nazi invasion, that doesn’t make them the agressor.

    The Arab states had done nothing that broke the peace prior to the war. They cut off maritime access through a strait completely within their territory and then massed troops on the border of a state that had invaded one of its neighbor a decade ago and was threatening to do so again.

    There’s a reason the UN doesn’t recognize preemptive attacks, they’re just excuses for aggressors to invade.

    • Lauchs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 minutes ago

      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.