David Irving Would Be Proud of Them ...

[curlyg]

Here is another quote and a link stating what historian Dr Michael Oren says ...



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contr..._War#section_1

PS
curlyg, I am still awaiting your quote, with page number, from Dr Oren's book to prove your assertions. Everything that I found so far, seems to contradict your allegations about what Dr Oren says about the topic. Frankly I am perplexed with your claims but I still have an open mind and I am willing to be corrected if you submit suitable evidence.

I am keenly awaiting your response ...

I can't speak for what Oren said in an interview - all I can say is that this claim is never made, certainly not in such explicit language, in his book on the Six Day War. In fact, when I read the book a few years ago, I was left with the distinct impression that the Egyptians had been trying to avoid war with Israel since the Suez Crisis (or to be more precise, at least Nasser was). This wasn't because of any love for Israel mind you, but the fact remains.

It might be that my recollection of his book is wrong, but I don't think so. I might have to read it again just to confirm.

[Pleepleus]

I agree with the way you and sharonb have summarised the situation above, i.e. that Egypt didn't want war primarily out of recognition of its own weakness....

If Egypt was so weak, then it was a very foolish thing for them to commit an act of war by closing off the Straits of Tiran. And massing their troops in the Sinai and demanding the UN observers leave while screaming about how they were going to destroy Israel was hardly a way to avoid war.

[Reffo]

I can't speak for what Oren said in an interview - all I can say is that this claim is never made, certainly not in such explicit language, in his book on the Six Day War. In fact, when I read the book a few years ago, I was left with the distinct impression that the Egyptians had been trying to avoid war with Israel since the Suez Crisis (or to be more precise, at least Nasser was). This wasn't because of any love for Israel mind you, but the fact remains.

It might be that my recollection of his book is wrong, but I don't think so. I might have to read it again just to confirm.

Thank you for acknowledging that at least there is a possibility that your recollection about what Oren said in his book MIGHT be wrong.

As for me, I just found too many other references on the net about what Oren says, to make me comfortable that he backs up what I have been saying. But I still have an open mind if you find a reference in his book that backs up what you thought he was saying. As long as you provide a page number.

As for whether the Egyptians were trying to avoid war, their body language and actual words, sure suggested otherwise but only they themselves know the truth. But it doesn't matter. The fact is that even sharonbn acknowledged that deep down the Arabs never gave up on the idea of Israel's destruction. At best, they were postponing to act on it till a time when they would feel strong enough to do "the job". And sharonbn didn't rush to deny my claim that once the war was unavoidable (irrespective of who triggered it - like Russia), if the Arabs would have been victorious, they would have destroyed Israel, killed a large number of Jews and would have expelled the rest.

All that adds up to one thing. It adds up to the fact that Firewire's narrative was not an exaggeration. The Arabs were as much of a threat to Israel in 1967 as in 1947. Although, I do agree that in 1967 Israel was better positioned to defend itself. What's your opinion curlyg? Can we at least agree on that?

[Reffo]

How can you say what you've just said, and then follow up with 'Israel was as much under threat in 1967 as in 1948'? After it is clear that the Arabs were completely divided internally, logistically unprepared, and militarily outclassed in every way?

Here is how I can justify it:

The threat to Israel was there in 1967 as much as in 1947. But Israel was better positioned to deal with the threat in 1967, so maybe just maybe the Arabs were willing to wait even though with the help of the Russians they managed to trap themselves into a war that they would have preferred to fight later after they hoped to become stronger.

You on the other hand, curlyg, seem to be confusing the threat of the Arabs towards Israel, which is even present TODAY, with the ability of Israel to deal with that threat.

Here is a thought experiment for you, curlyg, if indeed there was no threat from the Arabs in 1967, then Israel could have greatly reduced it's efforts to maintain it's armed forces and spent the money on the well being of it's citizens instead. How do you think things would have worked out then in 1967? Do you think the Arabs would have spared Israel if it would have allowed itself to become militarily weak?

[Reffo]

And another thing ...

If there was no real threat to Israel, then it would follow that Israel was wrong to carry out it's preemptive strike on Egypt. And then what would have happened? The Egyptian blockade would have continued, the full mobilization of the Israeli army would have had to continue too. And what would that have led to? It would have led to Israel's economic collapse. And beyond that, what would that have led to, curlyg? I hate to think ...

That scenario too describes the threats that Israel faced in 1967. Don't you think curlyg?

[Reffo]

... But if you still don't agree, curlyg, and claim that by 1967 the Arabs gave up their aim to destroy Israel, then perhaps you can tell me this. When did they have an epiphany, that caused them to give up that aim? And what was the cause of their enlightenment? Yes, I am being sarcastic but be careful, because if your answer is that the Arabs did not give up their hope of destroying Israel, they just just postponed it for the right opportunity, then you agree with me that the Arabs presented a threat to Israel and that Israel had to stay militarily strong. It also means, as I said earlier, that Firewire's narrative was NOT exaggerated.

[Pleepleus]

And another thing ...

If there was no real threat to Israel, then it would follow that Israel was wrong to carry out it's preemptive strike on Egypt. And then what would have happened? The Egyptian blockade would have continued, the full mobilization of the Israeli army would have had to continue too. And what would that have led to? It would have led to Israel's economic collapse. And beyond that, what would that have led to, curlyg? I hate to think ...

That scenario too describes the threats that Israel faced in 1967. Don't you think curlyg?

No, Israel would not have been "wrong" to carry out it's preemptive strike, because the blockade of the Straits of Tiran (an international waterway) was itself an act of war. The Egyptians sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind.

[Reffo]

No, Israel would not have been "wrong" to carry out it's preemptive strike, because the blockade of the Straits of Tiran (an international waterway) was itself an act of war. The Egyptians sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind.

You don't have to convince me. You have to convince curlyg. He is the one who seems to think that Nasser didn't mean to cause any harm to Israel in 1967. Or at least not as much harm as the Arabs intended to cause Israel in 1947. I too really don't understand how he arrived at that conclusion.

[sharonbn]

but I already answered that - Israel didn't know what we know today (about the Soviet master plan to provoke war) and it didn't know how deep is the quality gap between the armies of Israel on one hand and the Arab ones on the other. They really thought they were under existential threat

please, I already answered that

[Reffo]

but I already answered that - Israel didn't know what we know today (about the Soviet master plan to provoke war) and it didn't know how deep is the quality gap between the armies of Israel on one hand and the Arab ones on the other. They really thought they were under existential threat

please, I already answered that

I think we are arguing here about the meaning of the word "THREAT". According to sharonbn and probably curlyg too, if the Arabs were not able to destroy Israel, then they were not a threat. According to me, the threat was there. The Arabs DID want to destroy Israel but Israel did not let them.

Here is why I have a problem with their thinking. With the same benefit of twenty twenty vision in hindsight, they may as well say that there was no threat to Israel's existence in 1947 either. After all, Israel won that war too ...

[Reffo]

I think we are arguing here about the meaning of the word "THREAT". According to sharonbn and probably curlyg too, if the Arabs were not able to destroy Israel, then they were not a threat. According to me, the threat was there. The Arabs DID want to destroy Israel but Israel did not let them.

Here is why I have a problem with their thinking. With the same benefit of twenty twenty vision in hindsight, they may as well say that there was no threat to Israel's existence in 1947 either. After all, Israel won that war too ...

Just for interest, here is the dictionary definition of the word "THREAT" ...

threat (thrt)
n.
1. An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
2. An indication of impending danger or harm.
3. One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.
tr.v. threat·ed, threat·ing, threats Archaic
To threaten.
[Middle English, from Old English thrat, oppression; see treud- in Indo-European roots.]

Threat

So once again I repeat: Both in 1947 and in 1967, the Arabs threatened to destroy Israel. They couldn't actually carry out their threat but their threat was there. And that's why Firewire's narrative was spot on accurate and not exaggerated contrary to both sharonbn's and curlyg's claims.

[sharonbn]

Reffo,

Regarding the semnatics aspect, the way I see it -
If someone proclaims to want to destroy you - they threaten you.
However, regardless of that, if someone has the (at least theoretical) capability to carry out their statements - then they pose a threat to you.

The two faces are totally exclusive of one another:
One can shout threats at you w/o posing any, and can be dismissed, while another can pose a real threat even though he/she does not threaten you (or even pose as your friend, for example, Germany and Russia in WWII)

The first side is very easy to detect, since it is the public face that your opponent chooses to show. Its also the less interesting one of the two. The latter is sometimes very hard to correctly analyze and sometimes it is impossible w/o hindsight, however, this is the more truthful and interesting face - and this is the essence of this whole discussion:

Egypt, being the leader of the Arab world in 1967, did indeed threaten Israel - there is no dispute here.
However, by its mere public threats - did it pose any real threat to Israel and its people's existence?. if I understand you correctly - you say yes, curlyg and I say no.
I added that my answer relies on historical hindsight, and that the Israeli gov't, lacking this feature, assessed the Egyptian public threats as real existential danger, and acted upon that analysis - they were right from their point of view, but from our pov, we know that they were wrong. The outcome of the war was so decisive that it is hard to imagine any settings (even w/o the Israeli preemptive strike) in which the Arab armies wipe out the Israeli one and conquer and destroy Israel.

By the way - the same is true (albeit in lesser degrees) for 1947. It is true that in the beginning of the war, in May-june 1948, the power balance between the two sides was pretty even, maybe even tilted towards the Arab regular armies. However, that changed very quickly as soon as the Soviets started selling weapons to Israel. The decisive factor of the 1048 war was more about the motivation and morale of the soldiers, as well as level of leadership and less about the level of armaments.

[sharonbn]

So once again I repeat: Both in 1947 and in 1967, the Arabs threatened to destroy Israel. They couldn't actually carry out their threat but their threat was there. And that's why Firewire's narrative was spot on accurate and not exaggerated contrary to both sharonbn's and curlyg's claims.

Regarding the article posted by Firewire, I say that it is a gross exaggeration regardless of the debate of 1967. The article claims that the Arab states publicly declare their wish for the destruction of Israel constantly since 1947 to this date. since 1967, some 45 years have passed, and Israel has signed peace treaty with half of its immediate neighbors, and has almost regular connections with some of the rest of the Arab states (e.g. Morocco). Of course there are ups and downs in the conflict, that is expected, but there is no justification for the description mentioned in the article.

[Reffo]

sharonbn

I think we arrived at a consensus on most of our discussion except this, as you said ...

Egypt, being the leader of the Arab world in 1967, did indeed threaten Israel - there is no dispute here.
However, by its mere public threats - did it pose any real threat to Israel and its people's existence?. if I understand you correctly - you say yes, curlyg and I say no

Let me explain why I think the threat was real in 1967 too ...

Because Egypt instituted a real economic blockade against Israel. Had Israel's leaders been intimidated by the three Arab armies that were lining up on it's borders, and not acted decisively, Israel could have faced an economic collapse. Indeed, some of Israel's leaders were intimidated. For example, Rabin who was the chief of staff, suffered a breakdown. You yourself mentioned it. And one shouldn't be critical of him. After all, at least on paper at that time, the odds seemed to be against Israel. Why? Because the Arab armies outmanned and outgunned Israel. That's a fact.

Not only that. Even if Israel would have eventually decided to act, had it waited too long, the results more than likely would not have been as favourable to it because by then the Arab armies would have consolidated their positions and would have been more entrenched. So Israel had to get it's timing right.

Moreover, although the surprise preemptive strike caught Egypt's airforce napping on the ground so the war was effectively won by Israel within the first few hours. But what if that initial attack not been as successful? What then? I doubt that the victory would have been as easy then. So serendipity (as well as good management) played a part too.

What about the Israeli soldiers who died and were injured at that war? One could argue that they and their loved ones lost the war. Why? Because the Arabs forced the war on Israel even though I am sure that you would argue that the Russians were the culprits because they stirred up the trouble for their own purposes. But I would argue that it was easy for them to stir the trouble because of the preexisting hatred by the Arabs towards Israel and because they operated in a climate of ongoing provocations by the Arabs against Israel. Cross border terrorist attacks, shellings etc.

There were other real consequences. The political fall out. Those are reverberating to this very day.

Last but not least, some historians claim that the Russians were prepared to intervene in the war against Israel. That would certainly been a real existential threat to Israel. According to those historians, the only reason why that didn't happen was because the war came to an end more quickly than the Russians expected. So they had no opportunity to claim that they were obliged to help their client Arab states.

And sharonbn, I'll say it again. Every war, by it's very nature, brings REAL threats with it and REAL costs irrespective how easy or hard the victories are. Otherwise you could argue in hindsight that for the victors, there was no threat, after all, they won the war didn't they?

[Reffo]

Regarding the article posted by Firewire, I say that it is a gross exaggeration regardless of the debate of 1967. The article claims that the Arab states publicly declare their wish for the destruction of Israel constantly since 1947 to this date. since 1967, some 45 years have passed,

The reason I flew off at you was because you came across as saying that by 1967, the Arabs gave up on their quest to destroy Israel. The fact is that in 1967 they openly declared their intent to destroy Israel and there is no doubt that they meant every word of it. As a consequence, Israel had to make lot's of sacrifices to make sure that they were in the position to meet that threat. That's what Firewire said. He said that Israel was effectively under siege by it's neighbours and indeed it was.