reply to post by buddhasystem
Yes it can be characterized as such if you side with the narrative of the Jordanians, the Egyptians and the Syrians (and the Soviet Union that was
arming and providing those countries with dodgy intelligence) and reject the secular Western narrative.
You can characterize anything however you like if you choose to take a particular side. I could paint the Nazis as the victims of Allied aggression in
WWII if I chose to take their side. That doesn't mean I'd be correct.
However you cannot change the fact that Israel was surrounded on all sides by hateful regimes, armed to the teeth (thanks to the USSR), with hundreds
of thousands of troops, tanks and fighter jets at Israel's front door, and leaders who were openly, vociferously calling for Israel's destruction.
Nor can you change the fact that Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran and stopped Israel's oil supply. Or the fact that Syria was shelling Israeli
villages from the Golan Heights. Or that there were no less than 37 state-sponsored terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians in the first four months of
1967.
How much more aggression should Israelis have put up with before fighting back? Or would your sense of moral outrage be assuaged if Israel had just
not bothered to fight back at all?
If you choose to accept the narrative of the aggressors and failed tyrants and not that of the western democracy that was under attack from all sides
- that's your choice.
I don't.