Jun 25, 2018 in Political

Cases of Israel and Egypt, and US and Iraq

The Arab world had been enjoying a relative peace until the Palestinian guerrilla groups given support by Syria and Egypt started attacking the Israeli border in 1965. The then President of Egypt, Abdel Nasser declared on 27th May was quoted saying that their “basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight” (News, 1967). The Arab nations had been preparing to attack Israel. The nations included Syria, Egypt and Jordan. They got support from Sudan, Algeria, Kuwait, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

On June, 5th 1967, Israeli forces launched reprisal attacks on Egypt. Israel decided that only surprise would work against rising threats from Arab nations. This was the only way they could defend themselves from the aggressors. The Israeli pre-emptive attacks destroyed Egypt military base, defeated Syria and Jordan. The Middle East conflicts never remained the same since then. When the war was over, Israel had increased the territory under its control. This is what came to be known as “the six-day war”.

In this case, Israeli was justified in its pre-emptive attacks on Egypt. The Arab nations had grouped and clearly demonstrated that they were ready to attack anytime. The reprisal attacks on were also justified since some elements of Palestinian guerillas had started attacking Israeli borders. There is enough evidence that Egypt would have attacked Israel were it not for the preventive attacks they launched (Walzer, 1977).

President Bush war against Iraqi is one which drew mixed reactions from different individuals, nations and organizations. This started in 2001 when Bush started talking of defending the world against weapons of mass destructions and terrorism attacks. He said that there is recognition all over the world that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the whole world.

President Bush gave all manner of justification. He said that Saddam was a danger had defied the UN for long. He went ahead to seek legal justification for attack from the UN which was never granted. Morally, he argued that he was protecting the world against new rising dangers. He claimed that Saddam was sponsoring terrorists’ activities, a ruthless dictator and a stumbling block to changes in the Middle East (Speeches, 2001, see full justification on the attached).

Whether these were justifications were based on facts is hard to know since no weapons of mass destructions were eventually found in Iraq. In Germany, Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz defended Bush administration justifying the war. He was quoted saying "You have to make decisions based on the intelligence you have, not on the intelligence you can discover later” (Sun, 2004).

Critics argue that these attacks were based on propaganda, hypocrisy and misguided tactics of US Intelligence about lethal weapons. They claimed that hundreds of civilian lives were lost for no apparent reason.

In this essay, Bush reasons seem justified to attack Saddam. However, critics see something else. It is therefore very difficult to classify this kind of attack. The world has experienced dangers of terrorism and possible existing lethal weapons of mass destruction. This kind of war is difficult to justify. All the allies supported the war and other several world leaders.

Related essays