David Irving Would Be Proud of Them ...

[sharonbn]

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.

you're speculating. Egypt's "real economic blockade" was enforced only on Israel's port on the red sea (Eilat). it did not close all the country's sea connections with the world. I argue that Israel could have survived such a partial blockade, working on the diplomatic arena until Egypt would be forced to open the straits.

Indeed, some of Israel's leaders were intimidated. For example, Rabin who was the chief of staff, suffered a breakdown. You yourself mentioned it.

Rabin suffered a nervous breakdown b/c he was told NOT to go to war. and I don't see how the temporal collapse of the chief of staff is supposed to pose existential threat to the country.

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.

I already agreed that "on paper" Israel was justified in its fear from the Arab armies, you don't need to rehash this every time.

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.

more speculation. we don't know what would happen if Israel waited. perhaps a diplomatic solution could be reached? perhaps something else? as long as we're in the area of speculation, every opinion is acceptable...

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.

Your whole speculation is based on the assumption that the stars had to be alligned in only one way for Israel to win: they had to strike at precise timing, using precise plan of action, etc. according to you, any small deviation would spell doom. based on the outcome, I fail to see how you reach that analysis. Seems more likely to me (again, we're both playing history/military/political expert role here, something we both aren't) that since the outcome was so decisive, the defeat of the Arab armies so complete, that any and all deviations from the plan would bring the same results. It may have taken more time and with more casualties, but I reiterate - Israel could not have lost the six days war.

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.

you're grasping now. every war has casualties among the armed forces and sometimes among the civilian population - from both sides.

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?

the topic is whether there was existential threat to Israel during the 1967 conflict, not about the nature of every war. if we can't differentiate and say different analysis about every war, than there is no point to argue. but I forget that you seem to think it is ok to derail the topic every now and then, and get angry when I point it out.

[sharonbn]

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.

that is not what Firewire said. his article states that Israel is under 60-years constant threat.

[Reffo]

you're speculating. Egypt's "real economic blockade" was enforced only on Israel's port on the red sea (Eilat). it did not close all the country's sea connections with the world. I argue that Israel could have survived such a partial blockade, working on the diplomatic arena until Egypt would be forced to open the straits

And you are ignoring what I posted at least three times already. Israel's entire able bodied adult population was forced to mobilize. That caused the entire country's industry to ground to a halt. How long could Israel maintain such a situation without an economic collapse?

[Reffo]

Rabin suffered a nervous breakdown b/c he was told NOT to go to war. and I don't see how the temporal collapse of the chief of staff is supposed to pose existential threat to the country

That wasn't my point. Did you choose to deliberately miss my point? Or did you really miss it? I gave Rabin's reaction as an example. Go read my post again and respond to my real point if you want to. But if you don't want to, then that's ok with me too.

[Reffo]

I already agreed that "on paper" Israel was justified in its fear from the Arab armies, you don't need to rehash this every time

It seems that I do because you keep on claiming that there wasn't a real threat.

[Reffo]

more speculation. we don't know what would happen if Israel waited. perhaps a diplomatic solution could be reached? perhaps something else? as long as we're in the area of speculation, every opinion is acceptable...

Yea, perhaps and perhaps not. That's speculation too. In the meanwhile, Israel faced three Arab armies which outgunned and outmanned it, backed by a very hostile superpower, the Soviet Union. The clock was ticking and there was not much margin for error. That to any ordinary thinking person was a real threat.

[Reffo]

Your whole speculation is based on the assumption that the stars had to be alligned in only one way for Israel to win: they had to strike at precise timing, using precise plan of action, etc. according to you, any small deviation would spell doom. based on the outcome, I fail to see how you reach that analysis. Seems more likely to me (again, we're both playing history/military/political expert role here, something we both aren't) that since the outcome was so decisive, the defeat of the Arab armies so complete, that any and all deviations from the plan would bring the same results. It may have taken more time and with more casualties, but I reiterate - Israel could not have lost the six days war.

Yes the benefit of twenty twenty hindsight vision is wonderful, isn't it sharonbn? But there were so many things that could have gone wrong. There are so many things that can go wrong in any war. And by your own admission, the Arabs were always bent on Israel's destruction. So, had things gone wrong, they WOULD have destroyed Israel. To me that adds up to an existential threat in 1967.You mean to say that because it didn't happen, the threat was not there? OK I know your answer to that was already to deny that the threat was real. Fine, let's agree to disagree.

[Reffo]

you're grasping now. every war has casualties among the armed forces and sometimes among the civilian population - from both sides

Sure, and that's why the threat was REAL. Dead and injured soldiers are extremely real.

[sharonbn]

ok, I can't answer six posts in a row. all saying the same thing.
I made my point.

[Reffo]

the topic is whether there was existential threat to Israel during the 1967 conflict, not about the nature of every war. if we can't differentiate and say different analysis about every war, than there is no point to argue. but I forget that you seem to think it is ok to derail the topic every now and then, and get angry when I point it out

OK, Israel could have lost that war. Had it lost the war, the Arab promised to wipe Israel off the map. Therefore I have no reason to believe that they would not have kept their promise. Therefore the existential threat to Israel was REAL.

But you are grasping for straws by claiming that Israel could not have lost that war. I showed you a couple of possible scenarios which showed you how Israel COULD have lost the war. But you keep on clinging to the idea that because Israel managed the war well, those scenarios were impossible and that therefore Israel did not face a REAL existential threat. Fine then, it is just all in this right winger's feverish imagination, there was just no way that Israel could have lost that war so the threat wasn't real and you can go around in circles and repeat it till you will end up believing that all existential threat to Israel in all it's war against the Arabs is just pure fantasy and that Israel should just chill out and relax because it never faced any real threats. Fine, you just go and convince hourself of that sharonbn and maybe you will soon advocate that Israel should just disband the IDF because all the threats to Israel are just right wing war mongering and the Arabs are really peace loving neighbours.

Over and out. This forum is beginning to feel like the +972 magazine. I am sick of this discussion.

[Reffo]

that is not what Firewire said. his article states that Israel is under 60-years constant threat

You are right he did say or imply 60 years of constant threat and he was right in saying that because to this very day, Israel still cops the same threats at least from some of it's Arab neighbours. And there are real consequences to that. Because of it, Israel has to spend large amounts of effort and money to maintain a strong army.

But more importantly, I picked on you because you responded to what he said. You implied that by 1967, Israel did not face an existential threat.

All that time, the Arab states have promised the Arabs who once lived next to Jews in Israel, that Israel would soon be destroyed.

Really? is there any country in the world that says so today?
This was true for a brief period of time before the Arab invasion of 1947, and no more.

And now, I am really outa here.