Ugh, so sick of this type of shit. Fucking piece of shit politicians and fossil fuel companies trying to leverage our reliance on such for energy that they have no concern about conflicts that arise because they want to maintain their wealth and control.
For both people below, seriously, the Wiki page on this helps show that you're both wrong and right. And its pretty solid with backed up info (its weird to me how rarely people actually link Wikipedia any more, even though I think they've only gotten better about being objective), so no need to even resort to where your argument was heading. And really, I don't think either of you would dispute that for many reasons both sides were constantly on edge of attack and didn't need much to goad them to it, but that also the other side often attempted to goad them to it because they too were looking for an excuse to fight.
And Kage69, you I think are quite on board with admitting there's plenty of things to take issue with the Israeli government's actions (and that didn't just start becoming an issue in the past decade or two). But amenx, I hope you'd readily admit that the Arabs were very keen to war with Israel, so I wouldn't really call what they did as empty (that doesn't mean Israel was justified in their actions or the ones that followed, likewise for the other side). I think even Israel has admitted that they attacked first (after initially claiming they were attacked first, then they tried to justify attacking first themselves), so its not really disputed by anyone that Israel did attack first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_relating_to_the_Six-Day_War
Which, that first link, you quickly realize that, oh yeah, this was about a lot more than just that specific situation, and why you're both prone to wanting to argue even though I'm not sure either of you has a serious reason to (are either of you Israeli, Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian, Palestinian, Jewish, or Muslim?), and its more I think you don't want the valid point you're raising be ignored. You both have valid points, but also ignore each other's valid points in a way, when I think you'd both see the situation and see objectively that each of your valid points don't cancel each other out, and instead actually reinforce each other and help to understand why that region has struggled to find long term peace.
As with most conflicts, both sides have legitimate concerns. But when delving into that situation, there's long historical baggage that is included as well and that's what we need to try and work to get past so that instead of each further conflict just adding to it, that there can be progress made to stop constantly making the same mistakes. But because its hard for people embedded in such conflicts to see and accept that, it just leads to them justifying their bad actions because of bad actions by the other, and then you just get an unending chain of that as they go back and forth, which just makes it that much more difficult to try and move past it as how can you overlook all of that awful stuff the other side did!?! And of course they'll point yours as well.
If you're going to dispute the Egyptian/Pan Arab plan to attack in 67, I think we're done here. I try not to waste time debating with ideologues.
I don't think its actually that controversial to view that war as largely being carried out by Israel (Wiki pretty heavily shows Israel was the main attacker, but does note who started it is somewhat controversial - but is largely down to if you agree with Israel's notion that closing the Straits of Tiran was an act of war, or if you view Israel's pre-emptive strikes as the actual first attacks). Now, I do think there was definitely some goading (Egypt closing the Straits of Tiran after the conflicts over that specifically from before) and moving troops to the Israeli border (that's not in dispute). Nor is that fact that Israel is the one that launched the actual attacks and Egypt didn't seem to have much of an actual plan for war (I think they were wanting some conflict to break out, but didn't expect Israel to be so prepared, I think their plan was to get into skirmish at the border that would be a stalemate, and use that to garner more support against Israel, both locally and internationally). I don't think there's any doubt that there were hostile feelings from all involved though (as we saw both before and after, I'm speaking just of those directly involved, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, namely the prior Arab-Israeil War in the late 40s, and then the later conflicts).
In many ways, who initiated things is somewhat immaterial as there were a lot of issues that left both sides eager to act on. Thankfully cooler heads prevailed and we saw great strides made (from Israel, Egypt, and Jordan; Syria not so much...). But that's why recent events have been especially disheartening. Decades of work and poof, its like we're right back to the 70s. I just hope that Jordan and Egypt maintain their relative calm (granted Syria's state means they're not in a position to do much, which is exactly why Israel is picking this time to try and formalize things; just like they're doing with getting Turmp to move the American embassy).
Nice deflection. Links or references to the "Egyptian/Pan Arab plan to attack in 67"? These are your words, so no moving goal posts as to what you may find. I find it ludicrous that Egypt with half its army tied down in the Yemen war in Spring of 67 would even remotely ponder the possibility of an initiated war with Israel even with its much weaker Arab allies to help out.
The thing is, they clearly had some thought it was likely to happen, as Israel had invaded the Sinai in '56 over that issue, so when they once again shut down the Straits of Tiran, they moved forces to the Israeli border (because they almost certainly assumed Israel would retaliate as they had before and said they would view it happening again as an act of war).
Now, they didn't seem to have much of a plan beyond that (but they had some base plan, as they signed an agreement with Jordan just a few days prior, which was specifically about Jordan not being offensive but pulling Israeli forces from being able to concentrate on Egypt). So its not like they had absolutely no plan, but they didn't have any real concrete idea for full on war with Israel (at the time, I think that is important to note, as they might've just been setting up a reason to push for military expansion; I think they were hoping for Israeli invasion to help galvanize political sentiment for further conflict with Israel, both for international as well as local politicking; they try and portray Israel as the aggressor).
Your own link says that Egypt had made remarks but they were dismissed as bluffing. The thing is, it doesn't matter if they were bluff or not, they were inciting actions (which makes no sense to do if you weren't planning on fighting with Israel; they knew Israel would respond and it was pretty much certainly going to be through military action). I think their goal was likely to pull that shit, then Israel would attack and they'd run crying to the UN about it (while rah-rahing at home and to other Arab countries about the need to deal with Israel), but then because they didn't have a real plan, that Israel was able to kick their ass so hard that it basically killed that plan.