No one disagreed on the presence of this trait in Gamal Abdel Nasser's personality; his supporters described it as a love for peace, while his opponents characterized it as weakness and defeatism. Both confirm his preference not to resort to war as a primary line of defense.

Our introduction to him began with the Revolution of July 23, 1952, during which the Free Officers Movement staged a military coup to topple King Farouk. At the time, the organization demanded the trial and execution of the king. However, Abdel Nasser rejected this, arguing against the inherent contradiction in the request. If execution was already decided, then why the need for a trial? He advocated for peace, reasoning that blood only brings blood, and that was not the intended goal of the revolution.

While he was a military man, he never favored war and did not anticipate it from others. When the world was shaking with news confirming Britain, France, and Israel's aggression against Egypt, he did not believe it and was taken aback by the Suez Crisis in 1956. Everyone else took the news calmly as they had anticipated it. The aggression ended without a need for war or even defense, as the three hostile forces withdrew due to threats from the United States of intervention in the war.

But did his love for peace prevent him from aiding those who sought his help in their wars? When the Yemen Revolution of 1962 occurred, the nascent revolution appealed to Egypt for support in gaining independence. Former President Mohamed Anwar Sadat, who was then responsible for Egypt's foreign affairs, quickly approved Egypt's military intervention to aid the Yemen Revolution without hesitation or thought, considering it a national duty since Egypt was at the time a role model in supporting independence movements and freedom at any cost. Former President Gamal Abdel Nasser approved this and intervened militarily, while continuously striving to end the civil war resulting from the revolution.

The same happened in 1967 when Syria appealed to Egypt following a war threat from Israel. Abdel Nasser immediately sought a solution before it escalated into a battle, that is, resorting to a political solution before being forced into a military one. The Israeli forces quickly redirected from Syria to Egypt, and war was imminent. Abdel Nasser corresponded with the United States and France to intervene and resolve the crisis before it escalated into a war, and they promised to resolve it. French President Charles de Gaulle asked him not to initiate the first strike, and Abdel Nasser agreed. However, Israel launched a successful air strike on June 5, 1967, followed by the decision of the Egyptian army to withdraw from Sinai on the morning of June 6. It was said that this decision was made and executed without Abdel Nasser's knowledge, as the military responsibility was then under Field Marshal Abdel Hakim Amer, who was subsequently removed by former President Gamal Abdel Nasser from the leadership of the armed forces and appointed as the Vice President of the Republic, which Amer considered an insult. Amer was then arrested for conspiracy and an attempted military coup to topple Abdel Nasser, and he was placed under house arrest until his death was announced from poisoning on September 13, 1967.

Following the setback of 1967, matters changed for Abdel Nasser; there was no room for a political solution. This was a war that began with a battle, and it would only end with one. What was taken by force could only be regained by force. With the support of the Soviet Union, which Abdel Nasser had previously refused to antagonize without reason, he managed to reequip the army with supplies and equipment. Within a few months, the Egyptian army was ready for battle once more, leading to the War of Attrition in 1969, which many political figures consider the fourth battle in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

How easy it is for a military man to order a war! It is his field and specialization where his skills and capabilities shine. But as easy as war is for the commander, it is tough on the people. In defeat, there are victims; in victory, there are victims. However, the difference lies in the grief. In defeat, everyone grieves; in victory, the families of the lost grieve. And the hardest grief is mingled with joy. One's feeling of offering their son as a sacrifice to victory, a redemption for the rest of the people, the blending of agony with pride, the scream with the cheer. Therefore, for this, for this father and this mother, if he had a way out of the war and chose it, he would be sinful. His sense of responsibility, which necessitates protecting his entire people and not sacrificing his youth, is what brought him closer to the hearts of the people. It made the people love him in defeat before victory... This is Gamal Abdel Nasser.