Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yov
remind me when Israel invaded a country that didn't attack it first again?
|
Interesting you should ask that question as Isreal is a pioneer of both preemption and prevention.*
In 1989, Israel launched an aerial attack upon the newly-built Osiraq reactor in Iraq, which they saw as a possible strategic threat down the road due to its possible ability to make weapons-grade plutonium as a by-product of enriched uranium fission. The reactor was crippled easily by Israeli bombs dropped by a squadron that stealthily moved through Iraqi airspace. So ended a chapter in Iraq’s nuclear programme, and so began an era of preventative warfare in international law with this new precedent.
In the Six Day War, Isrealli forces attacked opposing Arab forces who were builiding up on their own sides of Israelli territory. This was an excellent (and quite obviously justified) excercise of preemption. Because of this precedent set, had Iraq attacked American forces as they built up preparing to invade, it would have been completely legal.
* Preemption refers to forcing the initiation of an imminent conflict in order to gain some advantage, whereas prevention involves dealing with prospective conflicts or threats before they show any direct signs of occurrence. I'm a Political Science major. 