Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
I don't disagree at all.
The issue was whether or not the Israelis actions could be consdiered defensive despite the fact they made the first strike. By the time the pre-emptive strike had come, Egypt had almost all of their soldiers in the Sinai, despite the fact they were still fighting a war with Yemen. Syria, Jordan, and Iraq had also amassed large forces on the Israeli borders. A week prior to the Israeli strike, Jordan had called up reservists and Iraq had moved its own troops into Jordan. These are simply not the actions of nations who are taking a defensive stance.
I don't see anything in the rules of war or international warfare that says a nation has to wait until they've been attacked and are potentially overwhelmed. In other words, a pre-emptive atack can most certainly be declared defensive, if the other side has taken obvious steps towards an invasion.
|
Let me put it this way. Say you get info that your next door neighbour has plans to come over to your house and murder you. You decide to strike first and go over to his house and kill him when he's not expecting it. Then you decide to set up shop in his living room just so his children "don't get any ideas". Was that an act of self defence? No, you attacked first. Was it justified? Sure. But calling it an act of self defence is misleading. Is staying in the living room helping the situation? Probably not, those kids probably hate you too now.
I'm just not a fan of Israel constantly playing the victim card. Man up and say it as it is. "We pre-emptively attacked the surrounding Arab countries because they planned on exterminating us". It was a war that both sides prepared for and Israel won because they knew it was coming and prepared accordingly.