David Irving Would Be Proud of Them ...

[Reffo]

... It has become fashionable in some circles to claim that Israel was not really under threat by Egypt's Gammal Abdul Nasser in 1967. They point to records which state that Egypt had no specific plans to attack Israel in 1967 and that therefore Israel was not justified in launching it's preemptive strike on Egypt.

Now let's look at reality. There was Israel surrounded by three mobilized Arab armies around it's border. The Arabs were openly declaring that the moment for Israel's destruction has arrived. They instituted a blockade of the straits of Tiran which was a vital route for the supply of oil to Israel. There was no question that Israel had to fully mobilize it's army in response. Otherwise the Arabs would have had the option of doing what they did in 1973, launch a surprise attack on Israel itself which would have been a greater disaster for Israel than the surprise attack of 1973. Need I explain why?

So there was Israel, fully mobilized for three weeks. Nothing was happening to end the crisis. Israel's industry ground to a halt. That situation could not continue. Israel had only one choice. It was the choice that it took.

But since then, the spin artists have been spinning. They have been telling half the story. And as usual, the perspective that they take is the Arab perspective. Israel's perspective is never discussed. Israel's choices (or lack of) at the time is never an issue to these usual suspects. The only issue to them is what momentary plans the Arabs had or didn't have at the time. And their simplistic conclusion is that the Arabs had no immediate plans to attack. Maybe so. But nevertheless they had a specific strategy to strangle Israel and then to finish it off. They just did not count on Israel's survival instincts and it backfired on them. So now the revisionist historians are working overtime with time proven techniques to tell half truths. And what is it they say? Half truths are lies too ...!!!

[Reffo]

I had many a discussion, with critics of Israel, on many forums, about this topic. But not one of them has been able to refute the above facts. The best that one of them could do, a certain chap who called himself Aristeides (on the +972 blog), was to say that economic strangulation of a country does not justify launching a war by that country. I don't agree but even if he would be right, the Arabs clearly stated their final goal in 1967. Economic strangulation was their first step in their overall strategy to destroy Israel. And Israel had the right to take them at their own words, the Arabs were very public about their intents to destroy Israel. It is on the public records. And Israel had the right to preempt their strategy and defend itself from the Arabs.

[dayag]

The closing the Straits of Tiran, an international waterway, by the Egyptians was legally an act of war.

[Reffo]

The closing the Straits of Tiran, an international waterway, by the Egyptians was legally an act of war.

Absolutely right. Plus, there were numerous cross border raids by Fedayeen from Gaza who killed and maimed Israeli civilians. That alone constituted an act of war, never mind the rest of what they [the Egyptians] did as outlined above. Any other country who would have faced all that would have acted in the same way as Israel did, if they had the capacity to do so. But according to the spin artists, Israel had no right to react in their own self interest.

Oh well, there is nothing new under the sun. Nothing changed ...

[sharonbn]

now you're comparing me with David Irving?
get a life

[Reffo]

now you're comparing me with David Irving?
get a life

Your name was not even mentioned on this thread. But now that you mention it, yes I do compare the ideas that you read elsewhere and seem to espouse, to the ideas of David Irving. Have you got a problem with that?

[Aliyah1995]

The following post of mine should have been made on this thread, rather than another one I posted it on. Sorry!!!!

Reffo, indeed, after reading the link you provided, I don't see how anyone can say his book "sides with the Arab narrative of the Six Day War". Now, whether one considers Michael Oren to be objective is a different story, but if you are going to bring his book into the debate, Israel definitely was NOT the culprit of the Six Day War according to his book.

[Reffo]

Reffo, indeed, after reading the link you provided, I don't see how anyone can say his book "sides with the Arab narrative of the Six Day War". Now, whether one considers Michael Oren to be objective is a different story, but if you are going to bring his book into the debate, Israel definitely was NOT the culprit of the Six Day War according to his book.

Thanks Aliyah.

But in that case, I better transfer the link that I presented in response to curlyg's comment here as well ...

Six Days of War
June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East. Author: Michael B. Oren
Oxford University Press, 2002

And as you know, I was not the one who brought this book into the debate, it was curlyg. He tried to tell me that Dr Michael Oren tends to agree with sharonbn's assessment about the intentions of the Arabs in 1967, rather than mine. But it seems that curlyg must have been reading another book rather than Dr Michael Oren's.

[sharonbn]

Now, what was the real reason for the six days war?
Why did Nasser kick out UN forces out of the Sinai, moved his troops into the peninsula and closed the Tiran straits?
Why did Egypt Syria and Jordan sign a military pact?
What were the driving forces behind the long escalation that ultimately led to the Israeli strike of June 5th 1967?

The most simple, straightforward answer, coming from the most simple minded persons would be Egypt's (and indeed all Arab states) long and constant desire to destroy Israel and drive all the Jews to the sea.
After all, we all know that for the last 60 years the sole desire of the entire Arab world was the destruction of Israel. They've been openly declaring their intentions all that time. They've been relentlessly making efforts to achieve just that, waging war after war after war with no end in sight. right?

So simple, so beautifully simple, so easy on the black-and-while, good-vs-evil, us-vs-them binary view that has become fashionable in some circles. Indeed, it seems Anders Behring Breivik would be proud of them.

Alas, in the real world, things are rarely this simple.
In the real world, a simple straightforward picture like the behavior of the Arab countries circa 1966-1967 means someone is driving the action behind the scene someone with interests in the area. someone very powerful.
A Superpower.

The 1956 Israeli-Egyptian war ("Kadesh" operation) on which Israel conquered the Sinai and then pulled back, turned out to be a diplomatic disaster for Israel and its coconspirators the UK and France. This, in turn, painted the opposing party, Egypt, as victorious, at least in the political sense. This was especially true for Egyptian president Nasser's position in the Arab world, where he was regarded as the one who (finally) defeated the European colonial powers, if only by virtue of the ultimate outcome of the conflict. Although it is true that the Egyptian army lost the war, Nasser really had no incentive to initiate a new conflict for the sake of "restoring honor".

Another interested party which had a positive gain from the conflict was the Soviet Union. After long peering through the keyhole of a closed door on what it considered a Western sphere of influence, it now found itself invited over the threshold as a friend of the Arabs. Shortly after it reopened, the Suez Canal was traversed by the first Soviet warships since World War I.

After acquiring a foothold, the Soviet Union desired absolute power and sole influence over the region, which meant eradication of Western (i.e. American) interests, chief among these was the state of Israel. In 1966, the Soviets devised a master plan to manipulate Egypt into provoking Israel to launch a first strike, following which the USSR would intervene to support the Arab side against the "aggressor". The plan, code named "Conqueror", included the creation of military pacts between the USSR, Egypt, Syria and Jordan, all of which were signed during 1966 and 1967. Then, according to plan, the Soviets fabricated intelligence reports regarding Israeli army buildup along the Syrian border, presumably as preparation for a strike against Syria. These, along with other propaganda campaigns, were supposed to drive Egypt and Syria on one side and Israel on the other on a collision course. The plan included steps, such as deliberate design of Egyptian thin line of defense in the Sinai, to lure Israel into striking Egypt first.

and yes, the plan included massive buildup of Soviet naval forces in the Mediterranean at the start of the war and as final step, an invasion of Soviet marine forces from the sea into Israeli shoreline. When hostilities broke out on June 5th, the Soviet invasion was set to go 6 days later, on June 10th. That did not happen as the quick collapse of the Arab armies rendered the Russian plan obsolete by that day.

Source:
THE COLD WAR'S LONGEST COVER-UP: HOW AND WHY THE USSR INSTIGATED THE 1967 WAR

by the way, Michael Oren's name is mentioned in that article, you might want to search it there....

[Reffo]

That's all well and good but will someone please explain to me how the Russian machinations that sharonbn describes above, negate what I said in posts #1, #2 and #4 of this thread?

I said much the same thing (as two of those three posts) to sharonbn on the "BBC Poll: Israel's global image plummets" thread but he did not answer me. So I am assuming he will still not want to clarify his answer here either. I would however welcome an explanation by someone else if they have one.

[Aliyah1995]

Not to mention the million dollar question. What else was Israel supposed to do? Wait it out? Hope the Egyptian, Syrian, etc. armies were only mobilizing their forces along the border for drills? Wait for America to come save the day like a knight in shining armor, despite the fact that they had their hands full in Vietnam? OR....the rest is history....

[sharonbn]

Aliyah, the issue I was addressing (back from the other thread) was not Israel's reactions to the Arab states provocations.
It was whether or not the Arab states (or their leaders to be exact) had indeed intended to destroy Israel, or had other intentions, like defending themselves against what they believed to be impending Israeli attack...
I really think Israel did not have another choice under the circumstances of the time.

[Aliyah1995]

Fair enough, Sharon, but too many of Israel's detractors (like the ones Reffo is talking about) claim that Israel shouldn't have attacked.

[sharonbn]

Israel should have attacked, indeed.
but it also shoulg have withdrew, when the opportunity for peace arose.

[curlyg]

The following post of mine should have been made on this thread, rather than another one I posted it on. Sorry!!!!

The question was never 'is Israel the culprit'. Sharon never said Israel was 'to blame' for the Six Day War, or that they were wrong for launching it. What was said in that thread, which is the context in which I made my comments, was that the Arabs didn't intend to go to war, and certainly not, as Reffo would have us believe, to wipe out the Jews as though this were 1948 all over again.

Thanks Aliyah.

But in that case, I better transfer the link that I presented in response to curlyg's comment here as well ...

Six Days of War
June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East. Author: Michael B. Oren
Oxford University Press, 2002

And as you know, I was not the one who brought this book into the debate, it was curlyg. He tried to tell me that Dr Michael Oren tends to agree with sharonbn's assessment about the intentions of the Arabs in 1967, rather than mine. But it seems that curlyg must have been reading another book rather than Dr Michael Oren's.

Reffo, are you serious? You're going to give me a link to some random website giving a political summary of this book? I've read it for the love of God. Go down to your local library and have a read instead of giving me this nonsense. And I suspect David Irving might be proud of you - the way you've twisted this debate away from its original question. The question was did the Arabs want war, and did they intend to destroy Israel as in 1948. The answer that Oren, a reputable historian of the Six Day War, has given, is no.