IF tommorow the Palestinian people peacably protested in the street+did so for month

[Edan]

I've been reading this thread with some mild amusement about what people consider to be history. If, as some people think, Egypt only wanted to live in peace with Israel, can someone explain Egypt's planned Operation Dawn, a planned offensive to capture the Negev and to escalate the tense situation (that it had innitiated by closing the straits, kicking out the UN troops and amassing troops on the border) into a war? It was only stopped when the US bluffed the Soviets into trying to put a stop to the escalating situation, who, in turn, pressured Egypt to put to postpone the planned offensive. It was stopped, quite literally, at the eleventh hour, but not before some Egyptian officers that had knowledge of the plan crossed into Israeli territory and had been captured by Israel.

And Siro is right, the Soviets did give bad information (probably on purpose, as I can't imagine that Russia's intelligence was that bad, and there were undoubtably reasons it would have been in Russia's interest to provoke a war.) that Israel had been amassing troops on the Syrian border. Egypt sent a General to the Syrian border who studied both arial photos and the border region and concluded there was no buildup by Israel. That didn't dissuade Egypt or Syria from claiming that Israel was mobilizing along the border. If you would like a source for that, take a look at the PBS dvd set entitled "The 50 years War - Israel and the Arabs", which has interviews with the Egyptian General who was sent to the Syrian border, as well as other aging Egyptians and Russians who had been involved in the situation.

As for Arafat, he wasn't a big player in 67, but he was a player, being one of the causes for the escalating in terrorist attacks against Israel. Even without Arafat, there would have likely have been an Arab-Israeli war (especially with the likes of Nasser in power, and with both Egypt and Syria goading the other to initiate an attack on Israel), but without Arafat (and other terrorists), Jordan might not have become involvedin the war - Jordan only became involved due to signing a military pact with Egypt and Jordan, Jordan's shelling of Tel Aviv, and some communication blunders by Jordan. Indeed, Israel had given Jordan a chance to stop attacking before initiating a response, as Israel didn't want a war with Jordan. And, in interviews, he late King Hussein said that attacking Israel in 67 was the biggest mistake he ever made. Without Arafat (and other terrorists) attacking Israel out of Jordan, Jordan would have probably faced less pressure to be involved in an Arab-Israeli conflict- Jordan had always been the Arab state with the best relations with Israel, and so the relationship would have been even better. OTOH, the Palestinians still wouldn't have had a state, as "Palestine" still wouldn't have been a country. Rather, it would have been occupied by Jordan, as it had been over the previous 19 years. And had Arafat or others tried to initiate attacks on Jordan, we probably would have seen a repeat of Black September, in which Jordan inflicted, IIRC, tens of thousands of casualties in order to stop the terrorism Arafat had initiated. Poor Arafat, he just can't ever seem to keep his friends.

[CyberGnu]

Ned, source?

And that is a fairly one sided part of the story. Remember, facts left out of a story are as bad as plain lies...

An alternative version of the same events, from factmonster.com (references to I. Abu-Lughod, ed., The Arab-Israeli Confrontation of June 1967: An Arab Perspective (1970))
After a period of relative calm, border incidents between Israel and Syria, Egypt, and Jordan increased during the early 1960s, with Palestinian guerrilla groups actively supported by Syria. In May, 1967, President Nasser, his prestige much eroded through his inaction in the face of Israeli raids, requested the withdrawal of UN forces from Egyptian territory, mobilized units in the Sinai, and closed the Gulf of Aqaba to Israel. Israel (which had no UN forces stationed on its territory) responded by mobilizing.

The escalation of threats and provocations continued until June 5, 1967, when Israel launched a massive air assault that crippled Arab air capability. With air superiority protecting its ground forces, Israel controlled the Sinai peninsula within three days and then concentrated on the Jordanian frontier, capturing Jerusalem's Old City (subsequently annexed), and on the Syrian border, gaining the strategic Golan Heights. The war, which ended on June 10, is known as the Six-Day War.

The Suez Canal was closed by the war, and Israel declared that it would not give up Jerusalem and that it would hold the other captured territories until significant progress had been made in Arab-Israeli relations. The end of active, conventional fighting was followed by frequent artillery duels along the frontiers and by clashes between Israelis and Palestinian guerrillas.

This version is also corroborated by UN protest of ISraeli raids across the Egyptian border.

Edan, do you have a better source than a DVD set?

[Ned]

CyberGnu, There is nothing inconsistent between the two versions. If one simply disgests the facts, the escallation was caused by Arafat and Syria. Arafat's terrorism increased. Israeli responses increased. Israel warned Syria to stop the shelling from the Golan. Nasser responded to Israel's raids and threats by declaring war. That he was dissuaded from actually attacking at the last minute is something I did not know before. I think this must come from US records at the Johnson library.

But the version published by Che has no basis in fact. It did not happen.

[Edan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu ISraeli raids across the Egyptian border.

Yes, Israel responded to the terrorist attacks. In April 1967, IIRC, Israel fired back on Syrian artillerys that had been shelling Israeli settlements (for months), which escalated into a dogfight between Israeli and Syrian planes over Damascus. Similar things occured with Jordanian attacks - and it's not suprising. Someone attacks you for long enough and any country will react.

Edan, do you have a better source than a DVD set?

Because, of course, first hand interviews with the actual individuals involved just isn't enough? You can take a look at Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East if you want. It's probably the most detailed book on the war (that I've seen, anyway)

[Edan]

Originally posted by Ned
Nasser responded to Israel's raids and threats by declaring war. That he was dissuaded from actually attacking at the last minute is something I did not know before. I think this must come from US records at the Johnson library.

Well, less dissuaded than postpone. But then, he had already initiated hostilities with the blockade of the straits of Tiran, as well as kicking out the UN peacekeepers. Each of those were acts of war and casus beli for Israel to respond. What Nasser wanted was for Israel to "fire the first shots", but he was willing and able to fire them in order to initiate war, as was shown by the abortive Operation Dawn.

[CyberGnu]

Ned, that there is nothing inconsistent is exactly what I'm saying. Your account is, AFAIK, factually correct, but written to put the blame for the war on Egypt.

Much like the more recent situation in lebanon, however, Israel kept making incursions over the borders into Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Whether these were designed to push the situation towards war ould be debated... I believe they were, in the grand tradition of provoking "defensive wars".

In this case, however, Israel jumped the gun. It is well documented that Israel shot down six Syrian MIGs, and days later launched a suprise strike on Egypt, taking out the Egyption airforce on the ground. I'm not sure what part of Che's post you are taking exception to... Just check out the EB or any other reliable source for these events.

[Edan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu In this case, however, Israel jumped the gun. It is well documented that Israel shot down six Syrian MIGs,

After Syria had been shelling Israeli settlements from January to April 1967, and after those Syrian MiGs entered Israeli air space.

and days later launched a suprise strike on Egypt, taking out the Egyption airforce on the ground.

It was a suprise to no one who was paying attention to the situation in late May/early June that there would be an Arab-Israeli War, least of all to Egypt or Syria who had been trying to provoke Israel into a war. Israel did not jump the gun, as witnessed by the diplomatic efforts of Abba Eban and by the abortive Operation Dawn.

[CyberGnu]

Edan:

Yes, Israel responded to the terrorist attacks. In April 1967, IIRC, Israel fired back on Syrian artillerys that had been shelling Israeli settlements (for months), which escalated into a dogfight between Israeli and Syrian planes over Damascus. Similar things occured with Jordanian attacks - and it's not suprising. Someone attacks you for long enough and any country will react.

In a 1976 interview, Moshe Dayan,
who was the defense minister in 1967, explained what led, then, to
the decision to attack Syria. In the collective Israeli consciousness
of the period, Syria was conceived as a serious threat to the security
of Israel, and a constant initiator of aggression towards the residents
of northern Israel. But according to Dayan, this is "bull-****" -
Syria was not a threat to Israel before 67: "Just drop it. . .I know
how at least 80% of all the incidents with Syria started. We were
sending a tractor to the demilitarized zone and we knew that the
Syrians would shoot." According to Dayan (who at a time of the
interview confessed some regrets), what led Israel to provoke Syria
this way was the greediness for the land - the idea that it is possible
"to grab a piece of land and keep it, until the enemy will get tired
and give it to us" (Yediot Aharonot, April 27 1997)


BTW, Hitler used the same technique when he produced a casus belli for the attack on Poland...

And there are unconformed accusations about the US goverment feeding false information about the Lusitania to get the germans to sink it, thus providing a casus belli for the US.

Basically, Israel isn't the first nation to provoke a "defensive war".

Because, of course, first hand interviews with the actual individuals involved just isn't enough?

Well, in history I don't really trust anything that isn't peer reviewed or peer critiqued. But more importantly, it is pretty hard to download the PBS DVD, and thus check out the information. If whatever you are claiming is true, you should be able to find written confirmation of it.

You can take a look at Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East if you want. It's probably the most detailed book on the war (that I've seen, anyway)

You know that Michel Oren isn;t exactly a trusted source on the usbject, right? He is a former director of Israel's Department of Inter-Religious Affairs under the late Yitzhak Rabin and a senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem.

After Syria had been shelling Israeli settlements from January to April 1967, and after those Syrian MiGs entered Israeli air space.

See above. (BTW, where did you get the airspace thing from? I haven;t seen any mention of where the fight took place, so I assumed it was in Syrian airspace. Those syrian pilots must have been mighty fast to interdict Israeli planes before they even reached the border, otherwise.)

It was a suprise to no one who was paying attention to the situation in late May/early June that there would be an Arab-Israeli War, least of all to Egypt or Syria who had been trying to provoke Israel into a war. Israel did not jump the gun, as witnessed by the diplomatic efforts of Abba Eban and by the abortive Operation Dawn.

Funny, it seems the ONLY source for this Operation Dawn is Michael Oren...

[Edan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
In the collective Israeli consciousness
of the period, Syria was conceived as a serious threat to the security
of Israel, and a constant initiator of aggression towards the residents
of northern Israel.

True.

But according to Dayan, this is "bull-****" -
Syria was not a threat to Israel before 67:

This is false. Syria had rarely had a peaceful front with Israel, and had been a serious threat to Israel since at least 64, IIRC, if not earlier.

We were
sending a tractor to the demilitarized zone and we knew that the
Syrians would shoot.

This is probably true. But last I checked, a tractor wasn't a militarized object and it was within Israel's land. And, frankly, it's not suprising that the Syrians would shoot at it, given that it was what they had been doing for the last four month. Israel was trying to create a detterance so that Syria would stop launching such attacks.

According to Dayan (who at a time of the
interview confessed some regrets), what led Israel to provoke Syria
this way was the greediness for the land - the idea that it is possible
"to grab a piece of land and keep it, until the enemy will get tired
and give it to us" (Yediot Aharonot, April 27 1997)

Well, speaking of quetionable sources... As I have neither the context nor the accuracy of the quote above, I cannot reply to this except in that Eskol was hardly a war mongerer, and, to the contrary, was extremely reluctant to go to war, and delayed it as long as it was feesable. And if Israel was only interested in a land grab, why the delay in attacking Jordan and why the return of the Sinai to Egypt?

Now, by the time the war was in progress, the above may be true - a case can be made that Israel was trying to grab Syrian land, in order to prevent Syria from being able to shell the Israeli communities again, and to have something to bargain with in order to try and get peace (in vain) with Syria.

BTW, Hitler used the same technique when he produced a casus belli for the attack on Poland...

I must have missed the part where Poland blockaded an international waterway, as well as removing UN peace keepers and mobilizing it's army, preparing and scheduling an attack on germany that was only stopped at the last minute....

How would you have handled the situation Israel was in?

Basically, Israel isn't the first nation to provoke a "defensive war".

Israel "provoked" a defensive war by it's existance.

Well, in history I don't really trust anything that isn't peer reviewed or peer critiqued. But more importantly, it is pretty hard to download the PBS DVD, and thus check out the information. If whatever you are claiming is true, you should be able to find written confirmation of it.

On the internet, you can find "written sources" of anything you want.

You know that Michel Oren isn;t exactly a trusted source on the usbject, right? He is a former director of Israel's Department of Inter-Religious Affairs under the late Yitzhak Rabin and a senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem.

Doesn't change that he's written an extremly well detailed and well researched book on the 1967 book. Unless you have a better book from more credible sources?

See above. (BTW, where did you get the airspace thing from? I haven;t seen any mention of where the fight took place, so I assumed it was in Syrian airspace. Those syrian pilots must have been mighty fast to interdict Israeli planes before they even reached the border, otherwise.)

The dogfights started over Israeli air space above the Kibbutz Shamir, and the Israeli planes had to get IAF approval to follow them back into Syrian Airspace.

Funny, it seems the ONLY source for this Operation Dawn is Michael Oren...

If you read more of the book than the inside jacket description of the author, you would find that Oren very clearly footnotes and cites his sources, and cites a number of sources on the section on Operation Dawn, including US, Egyptian and Israeli sources and interviews.

Oh, and that PBS dvd set also mentions Russia's pressuring Egypt not to strike first, as they had been planning to do, although, IIRC, it does not cite the name of the operation.

[Ned]

I find it interesting that the USSR was able to pursuade the UAR from striking first.

According to the history I quoted, France tried to dissuade Israel from attacking first as well. But there is no indication that anyone knew that Israel intended to attack. Israel's attack took everyone by complete surprise.

CyberGnu, this gets us to the problem with the theory that all this was part of a larger Israeli plan to conquer territory. If that was their intention, no one knew about it and no one could figure it out from Israel's actions. I also believe that no member of the Israeli government has subsequently confirmed that this was Israel's plan. So how can one say for certain that Israel provoked the UAR and Syria for this purpose? But that is exactly what you and Che are saying.

What I think happened is exactly what the historians say happened. Terrorism took a marked uptick in '67. Syria began shelling Israel. Israel reacted with raids (into Jerusalem? and where else) against terrorist (Fatah) bases and with a dogfight over Syria. Israel told Syria that it would tolerate no further shelling. The UAR then moved agressively towards war (probably with an USSR guarantee).

[Dr Strangelove]

Blockading a nation's ports, i.e., closing the Gulf of Aquaba, is usually a fairly adequate casus belli .

[Edan]

Originally posted by Ned
I find it interesting that the USSR was able to pursuade the UAR from striking first.

Well, it wasn't that hard - they simply pointed out that if Egypt was seen as firing the first shot, the US would enter the war (ie, passing along Johnson's bluff), and that the USSR wouldn't back them. Nasser wasn't prepared to fight Israel and America. Also, Nasser needed the help of the USSR, especially for the parts needed for his airforce.

According to the history I quoted, France tried to dissuade Israel from attacking first as well.

France certainly advised Israel not to attack first (where even attempting to send a ship through the straits would be considered an "attack" by France),as it wouldn't be able to support Israel if it did. France wasn't ready to put at jeapordy it's growing relations with the Arab world.

[gsmoove23]

Oh c'mon, this is ridiculous. The idea that the 67 war was a plot to get all of historical Israel is as ridiculous as saying 67 was strictly a defensive war on Israel's part. All this idiotic polarization is the only reason a solution may never be found. Ned, your quote, while it seems factual, acts as if there was nothing but peace lovers within Israel's borders and seems to sidestep the fact that Eshkol, who I think was a relatively reasonable individual and didn't want war, was a **** leader bullied by the hawks in his government like Moshe Dayan(defense portfolio) and Menachem Begin(terrorist in his own right).

Terrorism across the border, yeah there was quite a lot of it but remember the situation created in 48. 700,000 refugees expelled. They didn't need to be egged on by governments and if Israel couldn't keep em out she certainly couldn't have expected her neighbours to keep em in. Both sides of the argument like to choose a date where the conflict started and claim there side only retaliated from here out and its bull.

As for retaliation Israel certainly wouldn't be upstaged. Reprisals on civilian villages were commonplace, you only have to go to Sharon's first claim to fame, Qibya in 1953. In Jordan's West Bank, Sharon lead his Unit 101 in a pre-dawn attack on a village killing 69 civilians, men, women and children. There was no resistance, no weapons retrieved. A horrible act certainly but one set in a context of horrible acts. This was the UNs first introduction to the man I believe as they quickly did an investigation.

Closing the Gulf of Aqaba is a thin casus belli, Israel did the lion's share of its trade with the West. It was a provocative move, but a certain step to war? No. Egypt still had a significant force tied down in Yemen in 67 and during the supposed Operation Dawn. To think they would provoke a war with Israel while below full strength is difficult to believe. They were simply playing the game, both sides blustering and bullying as much to impress their own citizens as anything else. As for CyberGnu's reference to Moshe Dayan's comments I can point you to "The Iron Wall" by Avi Shlaim. Dayan refers to moving bulldozers illegally past lines previously agreed upon by Israelis and Syrians.

[chequita guevara]

Israel tried three times to take the Sinai, nearly succeeding the first time, and succeeding the two subsequent times (only to have her chain yanked by the US and forced to give up the area the second time). If Israel hadn't needed peace with Egypt (in order to secure her back while she attacked Lebanon), Israel would still be there. In 1967, Nasser provided Israel with an excuse, but there is no evidence that they intended to attack Israel, unless Israel carried through with its threats to attack Syria.

Now, the key word here, is threats. Israel and Syria were both provoking one another. Neither side was willing to let the other have the last word, and *** for tat had been going on for a long time. Yes, Syria was shelling Israel. Yes, Israel was shooting at Syrians. The point that should always be remembered is, this had been going on so long, neither side had clean hands.

The UAR may have been lied to by the USSR, but they still knew what was going on, heard the bellicose threats from Israel, and had a treaty obligation to defend Syria from attack. If the USSR was threatening to attack Germany, and the US moved troops up to the front, would that be proof of American intentions to start a war? No, more correctly it should be interpeted as American attempts to forestall a war. The same needs to be said about Egypt. Egypt even told the world that it was moving its forces up, hardly the preparations for a sneak attack. "Hey everybody, I'm gonna launch a sneak attack."

As for the Straits of Tiran, they lie completely within Egyptian territory. Just as Turkey is within its rights to say only a certain number of oil tankers may go through the Sea of Marmara, Egypt was fully within its rights to close the Straights of Tiran to whomever it wished. They were Egyptian national waters. Furthermore, Israel hadn't even sent or received a ship through there in the two years leading up to the closure. Israel didn't use the Gulf of Aqaba, it was not threatened or harmed by the closure. It was just another pretext.

Again, UN troops were only stationed on Arab soil, unlike elsewhere in the world, where they were stationed on both sides of the border. Why should Egypt have to allow foreign troops on its soil when Israel refused?

Everyone knew that if Egypt attacked Israel it would get clobbered. Even the Egyptians knew that. Only if all of Israel's neighbors attacked at once would they have stood a chance, and there is no indication that Syria or Jordan was prepared for, let alone trying to prepare for, war.

And lets not forget Israel's attack on the USS Liberty, a electronic listening ship. They knew what the ship was, they knew to whom it belonged. They needed it disabled, to prevent the US from knowing about Israeli plans to continue the war against Syria, after both Egypt and Jordan had been defeated.

Azazel, within three days of the conquest of the West Bank, more than ten thousand Palestinians had been evicted and their homes demolished.

[GePap]

gsmoove23

People have been trying to figure out why Nasser did what he did in 1967. Egypt was not prepared to fight Israel, even if the 3rd Army had gotten back from Yemen. And Egypt never actualy did mine the straits of Tiran as it claimed it would.
From what I have read, Nasser in '67 seemed to be trying to regain some lost stature in the Arab world at the time, and when he got a FALSE soviet intelligence report that Israel was on the erge of an attack on Syria, he acted to deter an israeli action. There is an interesting story, told in a book about the Israeli nuclear project at diamona, that states that in the early 60's Nasser moved troops very close to the border to deter Israeli action elsewhere, and that the Israeli government kept the incident silent. In fact, at first the Israeli kept mum about Egypts actions in '67 as well, though eventually Nasser said to much to keep quiet. BUt it also states that Israel stayed at a low leel of readiness through this whole time until late in May or Early June an Egyptian reconaissance flight went over Diamona, which some in the government took as a possible sign that Egypt might really try to hit the facilities there, and thus the Egyptian threat was bigger than they realized (even if Egypt wasn't ready to do anything).

[Ned]

Che, Your spin ties together to a point. The problem is that Nasser stated, publicly, that he intended to destroy Israel on the same day he dismissed the UN force in the Sinai. He then moved force into the Sinai and actually gave the order to attack - at least according to Eden.

None of this is consistent with "posturing" to defend Syria if Israel attacked Syria.

However, GePap makes a good point that large UAR forces were tied down in Yemen. It would seem to me that Nasser would have wanted everything he had before beginning a war with Israel.

What I think may have happened is that the USSR urged the UAR to act after the threat to Syria, and guaranteed victory. However, after Johnson said he would intervene if Israel were attacked, the USSR called Nasser off. Only, Israel didn't know this even if they did know the attack did not go off as scheduled.

[gsmoove23]

Ned, its not a problem if he didn't have the power to follow through. He knew that if that were his goal and if it seemed possible the US would certainly intervene as it would later in the Yom Kippur War. It is obvious chest-thumping aimed more at his citizens. Whether it was wise is another question.

[GePap]

Ned:

Nasser never gave orders to attack israel/. Nowehre have I ever seen such a claim, in any of the books I have seen. After all, even at full strength he, and the Israelis, both new Egypt would loose such a war.

I see the lead-up to the 1967 war a a tragicomedy of errors, mainly on Nasser's part, with his aim NOT being the destruction of Israel, but an imporvement of his stature among the Arab world.

[Az]

Closing the Gulf of Aqaba is a thin casus belli, Israel did the lion's share of its trade with the West

Israel has previously stated that would see such a move as a declaration of war. I think there is no more need of proof that war was exactly what Nasser wanted.
Che:Plus, not any attack has to be a sneak attack. your point is that there is no way that egypt would have attacked, because everyone saw it was attacking.

And lets not forget Israel's attack on the USS Liberty, a electronic listening ship. They knew what the ship was, they knew to whom it belonged. They needed it disabled, to prevent the US from knowing about Israeli plans to continue the war against Syria, after both Egypt and Jordan had been defeated

oh, a new version of why the evil Israelis needed that ship to be eliminated. last time it was the need to slaughter POWs. ( not your version, but still )

oh, and let us all not forget that there was no Aura of a strong army behind Israel like there is now.

all in all, I would like to point out that I am not saying that I think it was a clearly defensive war by Israel. but to victimise the arab nations in this side would be rather unrealistic.

[gsmoove23]

I certainly don't think history has victimized the arab nations. The myth of a defensive war is one of the biggest whoppers in Israeli history. I am at least saying that it was more of a WWI scenario or Dr. Strangelove possibly.

Israel has previously stated that would see such a move as a declaration of war. I think there is no more need of proof that war was exactly what Nasser wanted.

If this were true then Nasser probably thought it was another whopper like him saying he was going to erase Israel. The reasons that Israel couldn't consider this an act of war were pretty well stated by Che. Official government statements cannot be taken at face value, world leaders are continually playing a game of call my bluff.

[Az]

If this were true then Nasser probably thought it was another whopper like him saying he was going to erase Israel. The reasons that Israel couldn't consider this an act of war were pretty well stated by Che. Official government statements cannot be taken at face value, world leaders are continually playing a game of call my bluff.

definetly true. But, I'd say that Nasser lost, wouldn't you? Israel was not bluffing, and it was Nasser's fault for trying to call it.

[Az]

oh and :

Azazel, within three days of the conquest of the West Bank, more than ten thousand Palestinians had been evicted and their homes demolished.

I Don't know if this is true, but it still doesn't mean that the settlers moved instead of them. There was plenty of land in the west bank, esp. on hill tops.

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara As for the Straits of Tiran, they lie completely within Egyptian territory. Just as Turkey is within its rights to say only a certain number of oil tankers may go through the Sea of Marmara, Egypt was fully within its rights to close the Straights of Tiran to whomever it wished. They were Egyptian national waters.

The UN seems to disagree with you:

Releevant portion:

4. There shall be no suspension of the innocent passage of foreign ships through straits which are used for international navigation between one part of the high seas and another part of the high seas or the territorial sea of a foreign State.

Furthermore, Israel hadn't even sent or received a ship through there in the two years leading up to the closure. Israel didn't use the Gulf of Aqaba, it was not threatened or harmed by the closure. It was just another pretext.

This is False. Israel's main supplier of oil in 1967 was Iran. How do you think it was getting to Israel - around Africa?


And, ultimately, if Israel hadn't attacked Egypt could have just sat back and waited. With a major oil shortage, and the maintaining the (expensive) call up of reserves in order to protect against a potential invasion, Egypt could have waited until Israel's economy was crippled and then attacked.

And, irregardless, any nation that faces a blockade will do what it can to stop that blockade. Do you think America would standby if Russia decided to blockade some tiny port in alaska? If you don't defend your rights, even if you don't use them, you lose them.

From what I've read of Nasser, he certainly wanted a war with Israel, even if he didn't think it was the right time for it, and was pressured into provoking it early by Syria and his own rhetoric.

[Edan]

Official government statements cannot be taken at face value, world leaders are continually playing a game of call my bluff.

"It is our experience that political leaders do not always mean the opposite of what they say"
- Abba Eban

[Edan]

Originally posted by Azazel
oh and :

I Don't know if this is true, but it still doesn't mean that the settlers moved instead of them. There was plenty of land in the west bank, esp. on hill tops.

I just checked. After the war, three villages were destroyed along the strategic Latrun corridor (villages that had been accused of assisting Jordan's bombardments and Egyptian commandos during the war), but chegitz is overestimating the number by a factor of 10x, and those that were evicted were offered compensation.

[Ned]

The above discussion I think makes clear that tensions built in '67 primarily due to terrorist attacks into Israel led by Arafat. He then was not at all interested in forming a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, then occuppied by Arab powers. He was interested in provoking a war that would destroy Israel.

He got that war, only Israel won.

Arafat's reward was promotion to the leadership of the PLO.

We all know he lead then a reign of terror against the World. He provoked the Lebanese War in '82 by continued attacks against Israel launched from Lebanon.

So, in the 1990's, Arafat now suddenly becomes a man of peace and awarded the Nobel prize. But when Sharon visits the Temple Mount, Arafat begins an intifada that is filled with terror attacks. Somehow we are to believe that this man, who life has been devoted to terror is not responsible for the current terrorism?

I believe it is abundantly clear that the main obstacle to peace in the Middle East is one man. If he leaves, peace is possible. If he stays, it is not.

That man is not Ariel Sharon. It is the hideous, bloodsoaked barbarian, Arafat.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Ned
But when Sharon visits the Temple Mount, Arafat begins an intifada that is filled with terror attacks.

Correction. The violence was initiated before Sharon visited the Temple Mount. For example:

Sharon Visits the Temple Mount on Sept 28, 2000

Bombings on Sept 27, 2000

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Edan
This is False. Israel's main supplier of oil in 1967 was Iran. How do you think it was getting to Israel - around Africa?

And, ultimately, if Israel hadn't attacked Egypt could have just sat back and waited. With a major oil shortage, and the maintaining the (expensive) call up of reserves in order to protect against a potential invasion, Egypt could have waited until Israel's economy was crippled and then attacked.

And, irregardless, any nation that faces a blockade will do what it can to stop that blockade. Do you think America would standby if Russia decided to blockade some tiny port in alaska? If you don't defend your rights, even if you don't use them, you lose them.

From what I've read of Nasser, he certainly wanted a war with Israel, even if he didn't think it was the right time for it, and was pressured into provoking it early by Syria and his own rhetoric.

The straits had been closed in the 50s as well, a lead to the Sinai campaign. Israel knew better then to rely heavily on Eilat, so I highly doubt that oft heard, rarely referenced claim. There were certainly alternatives to whatever oil Israel may or may not have been receiving from Iran and they could have been received in any number of Mediterranean(damn I never know how to spell that) ports that were not 'blockaded'.

I'm sure America would be highly perplexed if Russia decided to blockade some tiny port in Alaska. Perhaps we would humour them and blockade some tiny port in Kamchatka(?).

As for what you've heard of Nasser I'm sure you're right. Look up the 67 war on Google and it seems you only find Israeli views. I looked up Straits of Tiran and I found a couple of Israel slanted websites and a dozen scuba diving(??) websites.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Edan


Correction. The violence was initiated before Sharon visited the Temple Mount. For example:

Sharon Visits the Temple Mount on Sept 28, 2000

Bombings on Sept 27, 2000

You're kidding! There was a bombing in Gaza? Damn that Yassir. I happen to know the day before that there was a shooting in the Bronx.

[Az]