David Irving Would Be Proud of Them ...

[Reffo]

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

So when did the Arabs give up on their idea of destroying Israel? By your own admission, not in 1947/48. But you seem to say that despite their loud proclamations in 1967 about their intentions to wipe Israel off the face of the map (their sayings are on public record), they really did not mean what they said?

My thinking might be simplistic. But where I come from, if a nation's intention would have been to help an ally in the face of an impending attack, in this case, Egypt helping Syria against a supposed attack by Israel, then I would expect that nation to say: "hands off Syria or we will defend Syria to our last man", or something like that anyway ... But is that what Nasser said? He said much more than that. He said what the Arabs said in 1947. He said that the moment for Israel's destruction has come. And he didn't just say it. He acted on it.

So people like me may be simplistic for believing our own ears when Israel's enemies openly say that their intention is to destroy Israel. But I posit that people who perform complicated mental gymnastics to deny their own senses (in this case, hearing and seeing) are what? I can think of some words for it but I won't mention them because I was already requested to tone things down.

[Reffo]

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

Read my above post. And if you object to the link that I gave to back up my points then you would do better than call it some random link. Maybe you should offer your own quotes from Dr Oren's book backed up with page numbers rather than just make assertions about what he says. In the meanwhile, I have no reason to believe that the link that I posted tells lies. But for what it's worth, I will buy Oren's book and read it.

[Reffo]

Here is a direct quote of what Dr Michael Oren said about the aftermath of the six day war ...

"The biggest outcome of the Six Day War was that the State of Israel wasn't destroyed. For the Arabs, the biggest outcome was the discrediting of the Arab nationalist idiom, the movement which had dominated the previous half century.... - [more...] Michael Oren

http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/aftermath.htm

Yes, the Russians created the spark for the six day war. But why would Dr Oren say such a thing if he didn't believe that the Arabs aim in 1967 was still the same as their aim in 1947, the destruction of Israel?

[Pleepleus]

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

Israel has withdrawn from Gaza and parts of the West Bank and would have withdrawn much further if Arafat or Abbas had accepted the generous peace deals that were offered them.

If the Arabs and the Soviet Union had defeated Israel in 1967, what do you think would have happened to the Jewish state? And how many Jews do you think would still be living in the Holy Land 44 years later?

[Reffo]

Israel should have attacked, indeed

This bothers me. It bothers me because if I truly believed that Nasser's aim, in 1967, wasn't Israel's destruction but only the defece of his ally Syria (which I don't) then I would not advocate that Israel should have attacked. That is inconsistent logic. Instead, I would advocate that Israel should have unilaterally demobilized and clearly shown that it has no hostile intent towards either Syria or Egypt. That would have given Nasser the face saving opportunity to do likewise.

But since I don't share sharonbn's belief that by 1967 the Egyptians have given up the idea of destroying Israel, I am glad that Israel did not take that option in 1967 because clearly Israel's government believed the Arab rhetoric about their intent to destroy Israel.

[Reffo]

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

For the record, I started this thread because sharonbn claimed, on the "BBC Poll: Israel's global image plummets" thread, that Firewire's narrative of Israel being a victim of the Arabs was exaggerated. He also made the claim that by 1967, unlike in 1947, the Arabs have given up the idea of wanting to destroy Israel.

I found NO evidence whatsover that such an assertion is true. To the contrary, everywhere I look, whether at what Dr Michael Oren says or what the Arabs themselves were saying in 1967, I come to the opposite conclusion. Moreover, what or who sparked the 1967 war is not relevant to that question. I am prepared to go along with the claim that the Soviet Russians concocted the whole crisis. So what? Once the crisis occurred, I contend that the Arabs DID intend to use it to eliminate Israel. What is my evidence? Simple: The Arabs own words at the time. I challange anyone, curlyg, sharonbn or anyone else to show me evidence that I am wrong.

[sharonbn]

So when did the Arabs give up on their idea of destroying Israel? By your own admission, not in 1947/48. But you seem to say that despite their loud proclamations in 1967 about their intentions to wipe Israel off the face of the map (their sayings are on public record), they really did not mean what they said?

Let me try to say my view as clear and simple as I can for the likes of you:
The Arabs didn't give up their desire to see Israel gets destroyed. They never did and most of them have that desire to date.
However, only BEFORE the war in 1948 (which started as civil war in 1947) did they believe they're capable of achieving that goal. They thought they could simply march right into Tel Aviv and throw all the Jews to the sea. After all, the Jews had no regular army, only few guerrilla forces. and indeed, in the first months of the war, before we got some weapons from the Soviets, it seemed the Arabs have a real chance of pulling it off. They lost hope of that AT THE END of that war, in 1949, after they saw how deep was their defeat (except for the Jordanian legion, that's another story). Never again did they believe they could destroy Israel completely.

In 1967, several factors combined to escalate the Israeli Arab conflict to the point where hostilities broke out. Chief among them was the Soviet deliberate plan of luring Israel, the American client state, into attacking Egypt, by then the Soviet client state, giving pretext for Soviet forces intervention. Nasser got caught in his own rhetoric, as well as the general heated sentiment of the Arab people.

I think Nasser and his generals probably believed they could win the war in 1967, with the aid of the USSR. However, by that time, "winning" didn't include the total destruction of Israel. It meant infliction of enough damage to the IDF to demonstrate the superiority of the Arab armies.

[sharonbn]

Israel has withdrawn from Gaza and parts of the West Bank and would have withdrawn much further if Arafat or Abbas had accepted the generous peace deals that were offered them.

indeed, the Pals made a lot of mistakes over time. They probably could have owned their own state by now. However, Israel also missed several opportunities to end the conflict on a "land for peace" basis.

If the Arabs and the Soviet Union had defeated Israel in 1967, what do you think would have happened to the Jewish state? And how many Jews do you think would still be living in the Holy Land 44 years later?

and your point being?, we all know the inferiority of the Arab moral standards to those of the Jews. or are you one of those who say the Pals should be thankful we didn't slaughter them and gracefully allowed them to become our slaves (sorry, to become our second class fully paid workers...)

[sharonbn]

This bothers me. It bothers me because if I truly believed that Nasser's aim, in 1967, wasn't Israel's destruction but only the defece of his ally Syria (which I don't) then I would not advocate that Israel should have attacked. That is inconsistent logic. Instead, I would advocate that Israel should have unilaterally demobilized and clearly shown that it has no hostile intent towards either Syria or Egypt. That would have given Nasser the face saving opportunity to do likewise.

But since I don't share sharonbn's belief that by 1967 the Egyptians have given up the idea of destroying Israel, I am glad that Israel did not take that option in 1967 because clearly Israel's government believed the Arab rhetoric about their intent to destroy Israel.

as I explained, Nasser's aim, in 1967, was certainly to defeat Israel, but that doesn't mean he was aiming for Israel's destruction. He certainly was NOT looking for a face saving way out. and you are right, Israel did believe it was under great threat although it wasn't, that's b/c it didn't enjoy the benefit of historical perspective.

[Reffo]

Let me try to say my view as clear and simple as I can for the likes of you:
The Arabs didn't give up their desire to see Israel gets destroyed. They never did and most of them have that desire to date.
However, only BEFORE the war in 1948 (which started as civil war in 1947) did they believe they're capable of achieving that goal. They thought they could simply march right into Tel Aviv and throw all the Jews to the sea. After all, the Jews had no regular army, only few guerrilla forces. and indeed, in the first months of the war, before we got some weapons from the Soviets, it seemed the Arabs have a real chance of pulling it off. They lost hope of that AT THE END of that war, in 1949, after they saw how deep was their defeat (except for the Jordanian legion, that's another story). Never again did they believe they could destroy Israel completely

Had you put it that way to Firewire or to me after I disagreed with you on that other thread, I would not have made all this fuss (and I do admit that I made a fuss). I do however still disagree even with your current assessment that the Arabs have given up all hope of BEING ABLE TO destroy Israel. I would agree that some of them have but many others still have not. Nevertheless, as far as I am concerned, that's not worth arguing about at least for now, because I have had enough of this argument. Unless of course curlyg ends up disagreeing with the way you put it here. Then I will continue arguing with him even though I am sick of arguing with him too.

[sharonbn]

I am prepared to go along with the claim that the Soviet Russians concocted the whole crisis.

Thank you. We can now agree why the conflict started.

So what? Once the crisis occurred, I contend that the Arabs DID intend to use it to eliminate Israel. What is my evidence? Simple: The Arabs own words at the time. I challange anyone, curlyg, sharonbn or anyone else to show me evidence that I am wrong.

That's the tricky part. That's b/c analysis and review of historical events is tricky. Its tricky b/c of two factors:
1) We will probably never have the full facts laid before us, as Arab sources, like gov't archives, will forever remain closed.
2) From the sources we do have access to, one can find evidence to support whatever claim one wishes to prove. its all a matter of interpretation. I have read several writings on the subject (actual, paper based, thick books) by reputable Scholars such as Benny Morris, Meron Benvenisti, Michael Bar-Zohar and Yoav Gelber. With the exception of Morris, all of them are deep rooted within the mainstream Zionist narrative.

The dominant assessment today of the 1867 war states that
1) neither party wished for it nor planned it. The war was the crashing of a giant snowball that rolled downhill for almost six months, gaining speed until it was impossible to stop.
2) that the Soviets, to serve their own interests in the region, through deliberate misinformation, tipped the snowball into motion, and now and then gave it a push, not fully considering (or caring for) all possible ramifications of their actions.
3) Among the factors that helped increase the snowball's speed were poor risk management and crisis management abilities of the leaders of both parties, coupled with inflated ego on the Arab side and demonic fear on the Israeli side (both unfounded).

[Reffo]

sharonbn

Just for the record, this is what set me off ...

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

You must admit, this does not sound anything like your summary above.

[sharonbn]

to my ears it sounds remarkably similar. and I maintain that the Arab states promised Israel's destruction to the Pals only in 1947, and anyway certainly not constantly over 60 years period. That's just misleading propaganda

[Reffo]

to my ears it sounds remarkably similar. and I maintain that the Arab states promised Israel's destruction to the Pals only in 1947, and anyway certainly not constantly over 60 years period. That's just misleading propaganda

And with this statement of yours we are back to square one. I disagree with it vehemently because there are numerous statements by Arab leaders on public record, in which they openly promised to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Many of those statements were made by abdul Nasser himself. Certainly in 1967 and many other times between 1947 and 1967.

But you know what? As I said, I am sick of this argument. And I will leave it to others to give relevant quotes to back up what I am saying, if they want to.

[sharonbn]

We are not back at square one, for these reasons:
1) regardless of some public statements from Arab leaders, the general assessment of historians today is that they did not intend to destroy Israel. Perhaps they intended to scare it? I don't know. I accept the view of scholars who know more than I do. Like I said, you can of course present contradicting evidence and scholar opinion. That's what good and bad about historical debate.
2) regardless of what were the intentions of the Arab states in 1967, the original statement of Firewire's article is still incorrect. grossly incorrect.