Shadow, Israel attacked first, do you now accept that?

I have no more idea than you or anyone else as to whether an attack was imminent, the CIA, Israeli government, and the Arabs claim it wasn't. What we do know is, after they attacked and conquered their neighbours Israel annexed the Sinai and the Golan Heights, and occupied the West bank and Gaza strip, starting settlements in each.

Whatever the truth of it is, Israel attacked first, and yet most people still believe, as you did, that it was the other way round.

BD,

At no point did I claim otherwise. The first act of war was the blockade by the Arabs, and the first military action was the obliteration by Israel of the Egyptian air force.

The entire world knew that the Arabs intended to attack Israel. Nasser had said it many times, the entire Arab world had said it, and had at vast expense called up reserved and massed a huge army in the middle of the desert, and had the Egyptian news service broadcasting into Israel propaganda that they were going to be crushed. Only a moron would believe that there was any other intention. The only doubt is whether Nasser would get cold feet and commit to a humiliating backdown.

The attack by the Israelis has been accepted by all the world (with the exception of a few fanatics) as a legitimate act of defense.

Hasbeen, there is a mental set that we should always give the benefit
of the doubt to the moslems.
I think this is because they so often rave on & on about silly things
such as cartoons.
It is their culture of at the slightest offence what we call overreaction.
They consider it to be manly and properly establishing their rights.
They think our mild reaction to offence is a sign of weakness, not a
case of maturity.
The problem then is we tend to ignore what might be really dangerous threats.

It means that we have to take every threat a moslem makes seriously.
It is their cultural behaviour problem.

"At no point did I claim otherwise."

Yes you did, which was why I brought it up .....

"The capture of the west bank occurred only during a war started by the Arabs in 1967"

And it makes a huge difference when read ...

"The capture of the west bank occurred only during a war started by the Israelis in 1967"

..... especially in light of the settlements erected since, a HUGE difference, because it then looks as though Israel started the war in order to steal Palestinian land.

The other nonsense you spout is Jordan's capture of the West Bank, which was to save it from capture by the Israelis, not to keep it for themselves.

BD,

Unfortunately, the Arabs started the war. Technically as there had never been a peace treaty since 1949, there was still a state of war between Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

The first overt acts of aggression were the huge military build up by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, the first act of war was the blockade, and the second act of war was the Israeli retaliation.

You can think what you want, the facts and the rest of the world disagree.

Definition of Blockade:

Blockade: an act of war by which a belligerent prevents access to or departure from a defined part of the enemy's coasts.