Please or to access all these features

Conflict in the Middle East

I think a lot of people misunderstand this aspect of the situation re why civilians are staying in Gaza

166 replies

Jane3212 · 08/09/2026 17:33

I've seen quite a few posts on Mumsnet and elsewhere asking why Gazans with dependent children are staying there despite the danger, some speculating that it's due to Hamas brainwashing to stay no matter what danger and become martyrs.

But that completely ignores that the Rafah Crossing for various reasons has been closed from 2024 and is only partially open now. The huge amount of crowdfunding campaigns to get into Egypt suggest to me that a lot of Gazans DO want to leave while the fighting continues, and do want to protect their children. It's not their fault that this is extremely difficult.

OP posts:
Squeezingwildoranges · 22/09/2026 19:31

SigmundinaCafe · 22/09/2026 18:37

“His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

There are two important things to keep in mind when it comes to the Balfour Declaration: (1) in 1917, Palestine was not yet under British rule; thus, the British had no actual power to assign it to anyone, and (2) by the time the British were given administrative powers over Palestine, they’d already changed their tune in favor of the Arab aspirations. You also have to understand that the Balfour Declaration never specified the exact nature of this “national home for the Jewish people,” and, as such, the British felt that this promise did not actually contradict the earlier promise they had made to the Arabs in 1916 regarding a unified Arab state in Greater Syria.

The causes for the Balfour Declaration are subject to speculation. Some historians believe the British wanted to reward Chaim Weizmann, one of the most active proponents for a Jewish state, for producing acetone, which was critical to the British war effort during World War I. Others believe the British were desperate for the Americans to enter World War I, and because they held the antisemitic view that Jews had a great deal of power over the American government, they thought that in rewarding the Jews, the Jews would reward them. Others claim Lord Balfour was a Christian Zionist (not to be confused with a Christian who is a Zionist) and he felt that the returning of the Jews to the Land of Israel would hasten the Second Coming of Jesus. Others think the British “embraced” Zionism because they felt that it would justify their colonization of Palestine over the French colonization of Palestine, as the French were also vying for control of that strip of land.

Fundamentally, before the British even set foot in Palestine, they had made contradictory promises of sovereignty to Jews, Arabs, and other Middle Eastern minorities.

But, by the time that the British actually were in Palestine, they actively did everything they possibly could to appease the Arabs, actually working to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state.

Had a Jewish state not become a reality in spite of the British, the Balfour Declaration would have long been forgotten, just like the unfulfilled promises the British made to the Assyrians and Kurds.

The fact of the matter is that virtually every border in the Middle East was carved up by the British and French, yet only the Jewish state is delegitimized on that basis. In fact, some countries were invented by the British entirely. For example, the British aided in the creation of Saudi Arabia by funding and supporting the Al Saud family, which, with their help, came to dominate a large chunk of the Arabian Peninsula. The British quite literally invented Iraq when they created the Mandate of Iraq in 1921 in part of what had long been known as other regions, including Assyria, Mesopotamia, and Babylonia. And, of course, the British created Jordan when they handed an enormous piece of the Mandate of Palestine over to the Hashemites in 1922. The Hashemites are from Arabia, not Transjordan.

So you can do the hack thing of trying to delegitimize the State of Israel as a British colonial project by decontextualising one single paragraph-long, non-binding statement (Balfour Declaration) and ignore everything that happened before and since full, but you’re on a hiding to nothing.

The fact of the matter is that by the time the British actually occupied the territory that now encompasses the State of Israel and the Palestinian Territories, they actively worked with the Arabs against the establishment of a sovereign Jewish state.

Anyone familiar with the complicated history of the conflict beyond the same tired propaganda talking points knows this.

Try harder.

That was an interesting post but the only reason I posted the Balfour declaration is because I was busy but wanted to quickly show to the poster I was responding to that Palestine was not invented in the 60's.

Serenity75 · 22/09/2026 22:44

Why does any of this historical stuff matter? It’s not going to have any impact on the present

Steve3742 · 23/09/2026 01:52

Tiredtaxpayer · 22/09/2026 16:24

Can I remind you that we (UK) declared war on Germany after they invaded Poland ? Prior to that Hitler didn't have any plans in our direction.
Does that sit OK with you?
Germany didn't start WW2, we did, by declaring war on Germany when they invaded Poland

Germany invaded Poland. We, as an ally came to their defence.
In 1967, Israel invaded Egypt and Syria. Jordan, as an ally, came to their defence.

Steve3742 · 23/09/2026 01:54

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Steve3742 · 23/09/2026 02:04

Tiredtaxpayer · 22/09/2026 16:42

But Egypt were already mobilising their forces.
Historians debate whether Egypt was actively planning an immediate invasion in May and June 1967, but Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser's escalating military steps and explicit threats created an imminent danger that led Israel to launch a preemptive strike.

Key Actions Leading to the War;-
Expulsion of UN Forces: Nasser ordered the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) out of the Sinai Peninsula on May 16, 1967.

Blockade of the Straits of Tiran: Egypt closed the straits to Israeli shipping on May 22, cutting off Israel’s southern oil supply and primary sea route to Asia, which Israel officially considered an act of war.

Military Buildup: Egypt mobilized roughly 100,000 troops and hundreds of tanks in the Sinai Peninsula directly on Israel's border.

Alliances: Egypt signed a mutual defense pact with Jordan on May 30 and placed Jordanian and Syrian forces under Egyptian military coordination.

Inflammatory Rhetoric:* *Nasser and other Arab leaders publicly stated their goal to eliminate Israel, raising fears of an impending multi-front assault.

Ok, in order
Nasser had every right to ask the UN forces to leave Egyptian territory. It was his territory.

Likewise, the Straits of Tiran are Egyptian. Egypt have every right to close them. Israel may say they consider this an Act of War, but that's just a sign of Israel's aggression. They have no right to use a strait that belongs to another country.

Given the inflammatory rhetoric from Israel - that YOU'VE pointed out - moving troops into the Sinai is a justifiable move, to protect against a possible Israeli attack. Which, of course, is exactly what Israel did.

Likewise, military alliances with other countries is a reasonable move, given a neighbour that was threatening war - a war they soon launched with an unprovoked attack.

And rhetoric was, as you've admitted, there on both sides and counts for far less than actions. Israel launched an unprovoked assault on Egypt. Just like Germany did on Poland in 1939.

Steve3742 · 23/09/2026 02:09

SigmundinaCafe · 22/09/2026 17:30

Not familiar with the concept of a pre-emptive strike then?

My goodness, how willfully blind to you have to be not to get what happened in 1967, and it's build up.

Gamal Abdel Nasser publicly talked about destroying Israel in the run up to the Six Day war. In May 1967 was quoted as saying our : “Our basic objective is to destroy Israel.” And that wasn't defensive rhetoric.

Nasser moved Egyptian forces into Sinai, expelled the UN peacekeepers and closed the Straits of Tiran, while Egypt and Syria aligned militarily against Israel; realising it was about to be annihilated, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against Egypt on 5 June, beginning the Six-Day War. Israel weren't the aggressor.

Honestly, this is sub-GCSE level history 🙄

fathomjournal.org/1967-nassers-antisemitic-war-against-israel/

See my reply to taxpayer above. A "pre-emptive strike" are weasel words used by aggressors to make excuses for their aggression. Israel launched an unprovoked attack in 1967 and stole territory from the countries it attacked. Territory it's still occupying.

Tiredtaxpayer · 23/09/2026 05:55

@Steve3742" Likewise, the Straits of Tiran are Egyptian. Egypt have every right to close them. Israel may say they consider this an Act of War, but that's just a sign of Israel's aggression. They have no right to use a strait that belongs to another country."
Nonsense.
I think you need to read up on Maritime and International Law.
No-one 'owns' the Straits of Tiran because it is an international maritime strait, though the bordering and nearby sovereign nations include Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
The straits lie between the Sinai Peninsula (Egypt) and the Arabian Peninsula (Saudi Arabia).
Under international law, international straits used for international navigation are subject to the right of transit passage, meaning no country can broadly close or exclusively own the waters for navigation.

Tiredtaxpayer · 23/09/2026 05:57

Steve3742 · 23/09/2026 02:09

See my reply to taxpayer above. A "pre-emptive strike" are weasel words used by aggressors to make excuses for their aggression. Israel launched an unprovoked attack in 1967 and stole territory from the countries it attacked. Territory it's still occupying.

Again, nonsense.
Israel does not occupy Sinai or Gaza and the West Bank is their land.

Martymcfly24 · 23/09/2026 07:38

Tiredtaxpayer · 23/09/2026 05:57

Again, nonsense.
Israel does not occupy Sinai or Gaza and the West Bank is their land.

Edited

How would you define occupation?

I'm genuinely interested because obviously it's been recognized by an Occupied Territory by the UN, ICJ, EU etc.
Why do you think it doesn't reach the threshold?

Tiredtaxpayer · 23/09/2026 08:16

Martymcfly24 · 23/09/2026 07:38

How would you define occupation?

I'm genuinely interested because obviously it's been recognized by an Occupied Territory by the UN, ICJ, EU etc.
Why do you think it doesn't reach the threshold?

The West Bank was recognized as part of a Jewish homeland under the 1922 League of Nations Mandate and Jordan’s 1948–1967 occupation was never internationally recognized, making the territory historically disputed.
So Jordan illegally annexed the land in 1948. They gave the Arabs living there Jordanian passports.
Only the United Kingdom, Iraq, and Pakistan recognized Jordan's annexation.
The Arab League strongly opposed the move, viewing it as illegal, though they later treated Jordan as a temporary trustee.
The broader international community and the UN never acknowledged the annexation as valid under international law
Under international law, an occupying state cannot unilaterally acquire sovereignty over occupied territory by decree or annexation.

Squeezingwildoranges · 23/09/2026 09:10

Tiredtaxpayer · 23/09/2026 08:16

The West Bank was recognized as part of a Jewish homeland under the 1922 League of Nations Mandate and Jordan’s 1948–1967 occupation was never internationally recognized, making the territory historically disputed.
So Jordan illegally annexed the land in 1948. They gave the Arabs living there Jordanian passports.
Only the United Kingdom, Iraq, and Pakistan recognized Jordan's annexation.
The Arab League strongly opposed the move, viewing it as illegal, though they later treated Jordan as a temporary trustee.
The broader international community and the UN never acknowledged the annexation as valid under international law
Under international law, an occupying state cannot unilaterally acquire sovereignty over occupied territory by decree or annexation.

Edited

A lot of what you have said is true but not all. While the 1922 League of Nations Mandate did recognize a need for a Jewish homeland, it also recognized it should not be at the expense of the existing non Jewish population. The Mandate did not divide the land into specific territories earmarked for one group or another. You are correct about Jordan. We could bang on about Resolution 181 but even that is irrelevant. What matters is that the International Court of Justice, the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community classify the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as Occupied Palestinian Territory. In fact the ICJ ruled again as recently as July 2024 that not only is it Palestinian Territory under occupation but that the occupation itself is unlawful under International Law.

Tiredtaxpayer · 23/09/2026 09:13

Squeezingwildoranges · 23/09/2026 09:10

A lot of what you have said is true but not all. While the 1922 League of Nations Mandate did recognize a need for a Jewish homeland, it also recognized it should not be at the expense of the existing non Jewish population. The Mandate did not divide the land into specific territories earmarked for one group or another. You are correct about Jordan. We could bang on about Resolution 181 but even that is irrelevant. What matters is that the International Court of Justice, the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community classify the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as Occupied Palestinian Territory. In fact the ICJ ruled again as recently as July 2024 that not only is it Palestinian Territory under occupation but that the occupation itself is unlawful under International Law.

OK.
I can't see any point in discussing this any further with you. The land has been disputed since the year dot so I don't see anything on a social media forum is going to cause a 'meeting of minds' any time soon.
I'm out of here.
Have a nice day.

runfromthecrushingtide · 23/09/2026 09:15

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Again, wtf is a zionist zombie?

Tiredtaxpayer · 23/09/2026 09:16

runfromthecrushingtide · 23/09/2026 09:15

Again, wtf is a zionist zombie?

Yes, Id akso like to know what that creature is ?

Steve3742 · 23/09/2026 09:21

Tiredtaxpayer · 23/09/2026 05:55

@Steve3742" Likewise, the Straits of Tiran are Egyptian. Egypt have every right to close them. Israel may say they consider this an Act of War, but that's just a sign of Israel's aggression. They have no right to use a strait that belongs to another country."
Nonsense.
I think you need to read up on Maritime and International Law.
No-one 'owns' the Straits of Tiran because it is an international maritime strait, though the bordering and nearby sovereign nations include Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
The straits lie between the Sinai Peninsula (Egypt) and the Arabian Peninsula (Saudi Arabia).
Under international law, international straits used for international navigation are subject to the right of transit passage, meaning no country can broadly close or exclusively own the waters for navigation.

The straits are bisected by an island, which belongs to Egypt, thereby forming 2 straits, the one between the Egyptian island and Saudi Arabia, which as you say, are international waters, and the one between the Egyptian mainland and the Egyptian island, which are Egyptian waters. It was this strait which Egypt closed to Israel which, as it's Egyptian territory, it had every right to do. Israel doesn't have any right to use another country's territorial waters, and threatening war unless it's allowed to is an Act of Aggression, one that led Nasser to send troops to the Sinai.

Steve3742 · 23/09/2026 09:23

Tiredtaxpayer · 23/09/2026 05:57

Again, nonsense.
Israel does not occupy Sinai or Gaza and the West Bank is their land.

Edited

Israel occupied Gaza and, even before 2023, occupied it by strangling its communication with the outside world. And the West Bank is not, and never has been, Israeli land.

Steve3742 · 23/09/2026 09:27

runfromthecrushingtide · 23/09/2026 09:15

Again, wtf is a zionist zombie?

Zombie Lie - a lie that keeps coming back, no matter how many times it's refuted.
Zionist Zombie Lies are Zombie Lies used to pretend that Israel has a case, that the Occupation is justified (or not an occupation), that the land has always been Israeli, etc. They're usually ridiculous, but no matter how many times you kill them, they keep coming back.

Squeezingwildoranges · 23/09/2026 09:37

Tiredtaxpayer · 23/09/2026 09:13

OK.
I can't see any point in discussing this any further with you. The land has been disputed since the year dot so I don't see anything on a social media forum is going to cause a 'meeting of minds' any time soon.
I'm out of here.
Have a nice day.

That dispute has been ruled on more than once. The international consensus and the legal ruling is that it is Palestinian Territory under an unlawful Israeli occupation. It doesn't matter how much Israel stamps its feet like a petulant child, the ruling is clear.

Martymcfly24 · 23/09/2026 09:47

Tiredtaxpayer · 23/09/2026 08:16

The West Bank was recognized as part of a Jewish homeland under the 1922 League of Nations Mandate and Jordan’s 1948–1967 occupation was never internationally recognized, making the territory historically disputed.
So Jordan illegally annexed the land in 1948. They gave the Arabs living there Jordanian passports.
Only the United Kingdom, Iraq, and Pakistan recognized Jordan's annexation.
The Arab League strongly opposed the move, viewing it as illegal, though they later treated Jordan as a temporary trustee.
The broader international community and the UN never acknowledged the annexation as valid under international law
Under international law, an occupying state cannot unilaterally acquire sovereignty over occupied territory by decree or annexation.

Edited

Sorry I was actually taking about Gaza and the assertion it is not occupied.
That's my fault for not making it clear.

Moulook31 · 23/09/2026 11:05

titchy · 10/09/2026 22:21

Is that you Donald?

🤣🤣

SummerFeverVenice · 23/09/2026 20:08

Tiredtaxpayer · 22/09/2026 17:19

So you don't think Egypt's actions amounted to an Act of War ? Well Israel did.
Viewing these combined actions as a direct casus belli (an act of war), Israel launched a pre-emptive Six-Day War strike on Egyptian airfields on June 5, 1967
And please stop with your snippy remarks, which just go to show you don't understand the chronology of events.

So you don't think Egypt's actions amounted to an Act of War? Well Israel did.

Legally, Egypt’s action- closing the Tiran Strait for shipping- did not constitute an act of war in the legally recognised sense. Israel was repeatedly warned by the US government that its grievance with Egypt over the use of the straits would need to be resolved through diplomacy, not military force. The actions of mobilising your own troops within your own borders into defensive positions is also not an act of war.

Viewing these combined actions as a direct casus belli (an act of war)
Casus belli is not an act of war. It is a Latin phrase meaning 'occasion for war' — the act or event that a state cites publicly to justify going to war. It is the justification, distinct from the underlying causes. A state may go to war because it wants resources, fears a power shift, or sees a strategic opening, but it will frame the public reason as something narrower and more defensible: a border incident, a treaty violation, treatment of its nationals abroad.

The distinction between justification and cause matters because international law since 1945 cares about the justification.

Under the UN Charter, only two casus belli are lawful: self-defense under Article 51 (responding to an armed attack) and authorization by the UN Security under Chapter VII.

Everything else — honour, treaty breach, sovereignty disputes, treatment of nationals — has been demoted to political rhetoric without legal standing.

Israel launched a pre-emptive Six-Day War strike on Egyptian airfields on June 5, 1967
This surprise attack started the 1967 War. Your rhetoric that Egypt started it has no legal standing and is not reflected in the historical record of the 1967 war.

SummerFeverVenice · 23/09/2026 20:24

@Tiredtaxpayer

Gamal Abdel Nasser publicly talked about destroying Israel in the run up to the Six Day war. In May 1967 was quoted as saying our : “Our basic objective is to destroy Israel.” And that wasn't defensive rhetoric.

If you read the full context how he is saying IF Israel attacks, then the objective will be to destroy Israel. There was no intention to attack.
“If Israel embarks on, an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be a general one and not confined to one spot on the Syrian or Egyptian borders. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel.” https://jewishvirtuallibrary.org/statement-by-president-nasser-to-arab-trade-unionists-may-1967.

Nasser moved Egyptian forces into Sinai, expelled the UN peacekeepers and closed the Straits of Tiran

In fact, Israel’s own intelligence had assessed, following the Egyptian movement of troops, that Nasser had no intention of attacking Israel (they judged him not to be insane), which was an assessment shared by the US intelligence community.
The CIA observed that Egypt’s forces had taken up defensive positions after having received an intelligence report from the Soviet Union that Israel was amassing forces on the border with Egypt’s ally, Syria. (“The Soviet advice to the Syrians [sic] that the Israelis were planning an attack was not far off,” State Department Middle East analyst Harold Saunders subsequently assessed, “although they seem to have exaggerated the magnitude. The Israelis probably were planning an attack—but not an invasion.”)

The CIA also accurately predicted and warned President Lyndon Johnson that the war was coming, and that it would be Israel who would start it. The documentary record of diplomatic cables during this time (i.e., the State Department’s Foreign Relations of the United States collection) is replete with warnings to Israel that it would not be politically feasible for the US to intervene on Israel’s side—as Israel was pushing the Johnson administration to do—if it was the party responsible for firing the first shot of the war.

“As your friend,” President Johnson wrote in a letter delivered to Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol on May 28, for example, “I repeat even more strongly what I said yesterday to Mr. [Abba] Eban [Israel’s ambassador to the US]. Israel just must not take any preemptive military action and thereby make itself responsible for the initiation of hostilities.” (Emphasis added.)

Tiredtaxpayer · 23/09/2026 20:24

SummerFeverVenice · 23/09/2026 20:08

So you don't think Egypt's actions amounted to an Act of War? Well Israel did.

Legally, Egypt’s action- closing the Tiran Strait for shipping- did not constitute an act of war in the legally recognised sense. Israel was repeatedly warned by the US government that its grievance with Egypt over the use of the straits would need to be resolved through diplomacy, not military force. The actions of mobilising your own troops within your own borders into defensive positions is also not an act of war.

Viewing these combined actions as a direct casus belli (an act of war)
Casus belli is not an act of war. It is a Latin phrase meaning 'occasion for war' — the act or event that a state cites publicly to justify going to war. It is the justification, distinct from the underlying causes. A state may go to war because it wants resources, fears a power shift, or sees a strategic opening, but it will frame the public reason as something narrower and more defensible: a border incident, a treaty violation, treatment of its nationals abroad.

The distinction between justification and cause matters because international law since 1945 cares about the justification.

Under the UN Charter, only two casus belli are lawful: self-defense under Article 51 (responding to an armed attack) and authorization by the UN Security under Chapter VII.

Everything else — honour, treaty breach, sovereignty disputes, treatment of nationals — has been demoted to political rhetoric without legal standing.

Israel launched a pre-emptive Six-Day War strike on Egyptian airfields on June 5, 1967
This surprise attack started the 1967 War. Your rhetoric that Egypt started it has no legal standing and is not reflected in the historical record of the 1967 war.

There are some people that persist in wanting to re-write history.
They want the world to believe the 1967 war was a bellicose act by Israel.
Incorrect, it was an act of self-defense in the face of genocidal threats to vanquish the Jewish state, not to mention the maritime blockade of the Straits of Tiran, the abrupt withdrawal of UN peacekeeping forces, and the redeployment of Egyptian and Syrian troops.
All wars have consequences and this one was no exception. Unfortunately the aggressors have failed to take responsibility for the actions they instigated.

SingingShrews · 23/09/2026 20:28

Tiredtaxpayer · 23/09/2026 05:57

Again, nonsense.
Israel does not occupy Sinai or Gaza and the West Bank is their land.

Edited

If the West Bank is Israels land why are Palestinians in the West Bank not offered Israeli citizenship, the right to vote in Israeli elections, access to Israeli healthcare etc?

SummerFeverVenice · 23/09/2026 20:36

Tiredtaxpayer · 23/09/2026 20:24

There are some people that persist in wanting to re-write history.
They want the world to believe the 1967 war was a bellicose act by Israel.
Incorrect, it was an act of self-defense in the face of genocidal threats to vanquish the Jewish state, not to mention the maritime blockade of the Straits of Tiran, the abrupt withdrawal of UN peacekeeping forces, and the redeployment of Egyptian and Syrian troops.
All wars have consequences and this one was no exception. Unfortunately the aggressors have failed to take responsibility for the actions they instigated.

Sorry but you are the one attempting to rewrite history.

86. Telegram From the Department of Stateto the Embassy in Israel1
Washington, May 27, 1967, 9:09 p.m.
203943. You are instructed to proceed at once whatever the hour or the circumstances to deliver the following message from the President to the Prime Minister2 even if the Cabinet is sitting.3
[Page 163]
“Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I have just this afternoon received a most important and private message from the Soviet Union. I am sharing its contents with you on a personal and intimate basis. It should under no circumstances become public.
The Soviets tell me that they have information that you are preparing to take military action against your Arab neighbors, and provoke a conflict which would be fraught with great consequences. They emphasize their commitment to restraint on all sides and the Soviet view that solutions must be found without a military conflict. They tell us that they know the Arabs do not wish a military conflict. The message adds, however, that if Israel begins military action, the Soviets will give aid to the countries attacked. This message also makes clear the Soviet view that the Soviet Union, the Arab peoples and the people of Israel are not interested in a conflict.4 The Soviet Union appeals to us to take all measures to insure that there be no military conflict. They state that they will undertake measures in the same direction.
Mr. Eban will be reporting to you fully on my talk with him, and on our interest in the safety and vital concerns of Israel.
As your friend, I repeat even more strongly what I said yesterday to Mr. Eban. Israel just must not take any preemptive military action5 and thereby make itself responsible for the initiation of hostilities.6
In my reply to the Soviets I shall of course take up your and our common views about the international character of the Gulf of Aqaba and the Strait of Tiran.
Yours faithfully,
Lyndon B. Johnson”
If any explanation is necessary, you should add that the British and we are proceeding urgently to prepare the military aspects of the international naval escort plan, and that other nations are responding vigorously to the idea. The Dutch and Canadians have already joined, even before a text was presented to them. With that assurance of international determination to make every effort to keep the straits open to the [Page 164]flags of all nations, unilateral action on the part of Israel would be irresponsible and catastrophic.

More at
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19/ch1

The Six-Day War, which took place from June 5 to June 10, 1967, was a significant conflict involving Israel and several Arab nations, primarily Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The war was initiated by Israel's preemptive strike against Egyptian airfields, following years of escalating tensions in the region, rooted in the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/military-history-and-science/six-day-war

Swipe left for the next trending thread