... It has become fashionable in some circles to claim that Israel was not really under threat by Egypt's Gammal Abdul Nasser in 1967. They point to records which state that Egypt had no specific plans to attack Israel in 1967 and that therefore Israel was not justified in launching it's preemptive strike on Egypt.
Now let's look at reality. There was Israel surrounded by three mobilized Arab armies around it's border. The Arabs were openly declaring that the moment for Israel's destruction has arrived. They instituted a blockade of the straits of Tiran which was a vital route for the supply of oil to Israel. There was no question that Israel had to fully mobilize it's army in response. Otherwise the Arabs would have had the option of doing what they did in 1973, launch a surprise attack on Israel itself which would have been a greater disaster for Israel than the surprise attack of 1973. Need I explain why?
So there was Israel, fully mobilized for three weeks. Nothing was happening to end the crisis. Israel's industry ground to a halt. That situation could not continue. Israel had only one choice. It was the choice that it took.
But since then, the spin artists have been spinning. They have been telling half the story. And as usual, the perspective that they take is the Arab perspective. Israel's perspective is never discussed. Israel's choices (or lack of) at the time is never an issue to these usual suspects. The only issue to them is what momentary plans the Arabs had or didn't have at the time. And their simplistic conclusion is that the Arabs had no immediate plans to attack. Maybe so. But nevertheless they had a specific strategy to strangle Israel and then to finish it off. They just did not count on Israel's survival instincts and it backfired on them. So now the revisionist historians are working overtime with time proven techniques to tell half truths. And what is it they say? Half truths are lies too ...!!!