David Irving Would Be Proud of Them ...

[Reffo]

I would accept that for the last couple of decades or so, maybe a bit more but certainly not in 1967, many Arabs have come to accept that they cannot destroy Israel in the short term. Therefore, they plotted longer term and more subtle strategies. I would describe that as biding their time. For example, they resorted to political pressure to force Israel to accept large numbers of Arab refugees who would ultimately destroy Israel from within. Also, they keep on trying to isolate Israel internationally with the view to force it to it's knees in the same way that the white South African regime was forced to capitulate. Etc...

But back in 1967, prior to the 6 day war, they were more blatant. They openly declared, indeed boasted that Israel would be destroyed soon. And they believed it too because they outmanned and outgunned Israel. They put their 1948 defeat by Israel down to the fact that the Arab armies were disorganised, over confident and lacked coordination. Nasser believed that with the help of the Soviets and his own abilities, he modernised the Egyptian army. And he certainly believed that they were well positioned to defeat Israel in 1967.

[Aliyah1995]

Curlyg-

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.

I already acknowledged that, Curly. See my post #13 to Sharon.

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.

Closing the straight was LEGALLY by most people considered an act of war. Starting a war does not necessarily have to be by firing the first bullet.

[Pleepleus]

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.

When was that? What were the exact terms by Arafat or Abbas that Israel turned down? The entire reason there is no peace today is due to continued Palestinian racism and intransigence. They have turned down every deal offered them and keep raising their demands.

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...)

So, Israel by supplying jobs to Palestinians is enslaving them? Wow, you are really out there, sharonbn.

My point being that your argument that the Soviets and Nasser just wanted to defeat Israel, not destroy it is nonsense. Had they been successful in 1967 another Holocaust would have occurred. I posted all sorts of quotes that Nasser was screaming that he was going to do just that which you and your historians ignore.

Your hatred for Israel drips off your posts. Why are you posting on a pro-Israel forum instead of with the other Israel haters on the Huffington Post or +972?

[Aliyah1995]

Your hatred for Israel drips off your posts. Why are you posting on a pro-Israel forum instead of with the other Israel haters on the Huffington Post or +972?

Pleepleus, I have my disagreements with Sharon, but your above statement is unfair. I have posted on +972 and Sharon is not even close to those posters regarding his views on Israel. Sharon used to be a moderator on this forum (before there was a mess with the database and many people's accounts were deleted) and he is very committed and concerned about Israel.

[sharonbn]

When was that? What were the exact terms by Arafat or Abbas that Israel turned down? The entire reason there is no peace today is due to continued Palestinian racism and intransigence. They have turned down every deal offered them and keep raising their demands.

yes, what you say is true. However, Israel did not negotiate only with the Palestinians.

1) in 1971, UN special envoy, Gunnar Jarring held indirect negotiations between the Israeli gov't and the new Egyptian president, Saddat. During these negotiations, Egypt offered peace in exchange for the return of the Sinai. Israel rejected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarring_Mission

2) in 1987, Shimon Peres, then Israeli foreign affairs minister secretly met with king Hussein in London. They signed the London agreement, in which Jordan was to take control over the west bank in exchange for peace. The agreement was rejected by the Israeli gov't, largely due to internal politics (it was unity gov't)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peres%E...ndon_Agreement

So, Israel by supplying jobs to Palestinians is enslaving them? Wow, you are really out there, sharonbn.

the terms by which the Palestinians work in Israel is little different than modern slavery. For instance, they have very little worker rights and no union protection (you can imagine how employers exploit that fact)

Your hatred for Israel drips off your posts. Why are you posting on a pro-Israel forum instead of with the other Israel haters on the Huffington Post or +972?

why don't you go to some white supremacy website, drip your venom there.

[Pleepleus]

Pleepleus, I have my disagreements with Sharon, but your above statement is unfair. I have posted on +972 and Sharon is not even close to those posters regarding his views on Israel. Sharon used to be a moderator on this forum (before there was a mess with the database and many people's accounts were deleted) and he is very committed and concerned about Israel.

If you say so, Aliyah. I haven't seen it. Anyway, he just accused me of being a white supremacist (which is bull ****) so we're even.

[dayag]

A friendly reminder to all. Please feel free to disagree with others as vehemently as you want, but DO NOT GET PERSONAL.

from the rules of the road:

Everyone has the right to express his/her opinion, regardless of how vehemently some may disagree with their views. However, common courtesy is required.

Personal attacks are not allowed.

source: http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=11

Thanks.

[Reffo]

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?

This sounds to be a flimsy explanation and without evidence at that. Can you be a bit more specific about what your historians have said? Who are they? And what evidence they offer for their conclusions?

Without such evidence, I am inclined to believe my own eyes and ears. If a convicted axe murderer tries to break down the door of my house while shouting threats that he is going to kill me, I would come to the conclusion that he means it. Nasser was the equivalent of an axe murderer. He used poison Gas against his enemies in Yemen. And he was a ruthless dictator. So when he said he wanted to destroy Israel, most of us believe that there was no reason to doubt what he was saying.

By the way, one historian, at least, Michael Oren, seems to be saying what I am saying. He says that Nasser's intention WAS to destroy Israel. See an earlier post of mine on this thread in which I provided a quote and a link.

[Reffo]

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

According to Michael Oren, the Arabs, "had planned the conquest of Israel and the expulsion or murder of much of it Jewish inhabitants in 1967 Many of the so-called 'revisionist historians' today are claiming that the Arabs never had aggressive intentions toward the Jewish state and that Israel precipitated the Six-Day War in order to expand territorially. The documentary evidence refutes this claim unequivocally."[8] He further notes that with hundreds of thousands of Arab soldiers gathered on its borders, Israel could not respond to even a minor Palestinian guerilla attack without precipitating a general Arab assault and that pre-emption was Israel’s only option

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 ...

[Reffo]

After reviewing these discussions, this is how I see it ...

sharonbn has agreed with me that the majority of Arabs to this day, let alone in 1967, harbour a desire to see Israel eradicated. Where sharonbn and I disagree regarding 1967 is that according to sharonbn, by 1967, Nasser did not see any hope of being able to destroy Israel and therefore, according to sharonbn, Nasser didn't even want to give it a try. According to him, the 1967 crisis erupted as a result of mischief by the Soviet Union who spread misinformation to spark the conflict. Sharonbn agreed with me that Israel had no choice but to launch a preemptive strike.

That's my understanding of sharonbn's position. Please correct me if I misrepresented you sharonbn. If I understand you correctly then I now realize that our differences are academic only. It is academic because we both agree that war in 1967 was inevitable. And given his position, had the Arabs won that war decisively, I would like to think that sharonbn would agree with me about what that would have meant for Israel, irrespective of what Nasser's intentions were. It would have meant Israel's destruction.

What say you sharonbn? Do you agree with my above summary And conclusion or not?

[sharonbn]

This sounds to be a flimsy explanation and without evidence at that. Can you be a bit more specific about what your historians have said? Who are they? And what evidence they offer for their conclusions?

already answered -

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.

Without such evidence, I am inclined to believe my own eyes and ears. If a convicted axe murderer tries to break down the door of my house while shouting threats that he is going to kill me, I would come to the conclusion that he means it. Nasser was the equivalent of an axe murderer. He used poison Gas against his enemies in Yemen. And he was a ruthless dictator. So when he said he wanted to destroy Israel, most of us believe that there was no reason to doubt what he was saying.

That is why I justify Israel's attack which started the six days war. The Israeli gov't of the time did not have access to the knowledge we have today regarding the soviet plan, nor did they know just how far is the quality gap between the Israeli and Arab armies. there was a genuine existential fear in the Israeli public that projected to the gov't and army generals.
during the "waiting period" before the war, army chief of staff Rabin met secretly with Ben Gurion, (who held no official position at the time but was highly regarded by all Israelis). Rabin asked Ben Gurion if Israel should go for a preemptive attack against Egypt (something that Rabin was in favor). Ben Gurion was vehemently opposed initiating any attack and said so to Rabin. He told Rabin that if Israel will do that, it will force a Soviet intervention, which will force American intervention and it could lead to WW3 and that will spell the destruction of Israel. Ben Gurion further told Rabin that if all that will happen, Rabin cannot say hw wasn't warned and that the fate of the entire nation rests upon his shoulders. Rabin was so shaken by Ben Gurion that he suffered a nervous breakdown and was (secretly) hospitalized. He recovered just days before the war broke out.

However, we do have the benefits of historical point of view as well as knowledge of the influence of the super powers. that is the basis on which historians today have their assessments of Nasser's intentions.

[sharonbn]

After reviewing these discussions, this is how I see it ...

sharonbn has agreed with me that the majority of Arabs to this day, let alone in 1967, harbour a desire to see Israel eradicated. Where sharonbn and I disagree regarding 1967 is that according to sharonbn, by 1967, Nasser did not see any hope of being able to destroy Israel and therefore, according to sharonbn, Nasser didn't even want to give it a try. According to him, the 1967 crisis erupted as a result of mischief by the Soviet Union who spread misinformation to spark the conflict. Sharonbn agreed with me that Israel had no choice but to launch a preemptive strike.

That's my understanding of sharonbn's position. Please correct me if I misrepresented you sharonbn. If I understand you correctly then I now realize that our differences are academic only. It is academic because we both agree that war in 1967 was inevitable. And given his position, had the Arabs won that war decisively, I would like to think that sharonbn would agree with me about what that would have meant for Israel, irrespective of what Nasser's intentions were. It would have meant Israel's destruction.

What say you sharonbn? Do you agree with my above summary And conclusion or not?

although I would describe it a little different, I agree with the essence of your statement.

I would like to add a statement regarding the original reason for this debate -
The essential difference between 1948 and 1967 was not the Arabs' desire to see Israel destroyed.
In 1948, the Arab armies invaded Israel with the declared intention to destroy it and mass murder all of its Jewish inhabitants.
In 1967, neither side wanted war. 1967 started as "cold war" between Egypt and Israel, which escalated out of the control of both parties largely due to Soviet manipulations. Nasser's rhetoric was a psychological warfare part of that "cold war" and it had ramifications far beyond what Nasser intended.

last note:
I agree that the Israeli strike of 1967 was inevitable. However, right after the war ended, Israeli gov't told president Johnson that it held the occupied territories as bargaining chip for peace. that policy changed very quickly. As I mentioned earlier here, Israel had a chance to get peace in exchange for occupied lands, but by missing these chances it showed it didn't really want to do that.

[Reffo]

although I would describe it a little different, I agree with the essence of your statement.

I would like to add a statement regarding the original reason for this debate -
The essential difference between 1948 and 1967 was not the Arabs' desire to see Israel destroyed.
In 1948, the Arab armies invaded Israel with the declared intention to destroy it and mass murder all of its Jewish inhabitants.
In 1967, neither side wanted war. 1967 started as "cold war" between Egypt and Israel, which escalated out of the control of both parties largely due to Soviet manipulations. Nasser's rhetoric was a psychological warfare part of that "cold war" and it had ramifications far beyond what Nasser intended.

You know what sharonbn? After this many years, it doesn't matter to me whether the Soviets triggered the war and whether Nasser went into it reluctantly or enthusiastically. What matters to me is the knowledge that once war was inevitable, I have no doubt that if the Arabs would have been victorious, they would have destroyed Israel. There would have been mass murder of Jews and mass expulsions.

And that brings us back to the origin of our discussion. It tells me that Israel was as much under threat from the Arabs in 1967 as they were in 1947. Ok I accept that in 1967, Israel was much stronger militarily. Yes, let's say that as a result, maybe the Arabs were more reluctant to spark an all out war by 1967. But their aims and desires have not changed one iota so Israel had to be on guard just as much otherwise they would have been gonners. And that's why I don't think that Firewire's article was exaggerated.

[curlyg]

Oren's book is replete with examples of Egypt and other Arab states trying actively to reduce tensions with Israel before the war 'behind the scenes' while keeping up their hostile rhetoric to shore up their domestic image. Here are a few examples from a quick search on Google books, they're far from exhaustive and I remember being struck by the fact that nobody really wanted this war when I originally read Oren's book in full. In any case, some examples:


Page 19:

Having noted the other Arab states had no desire for war (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc) he goes on to discuss Egypt's response: '[Nasser] responded with a dramatic idea: a summit meeting of all Arab states. "Palestine supersedes all differences of opinion", Egypt's president declared... Behind this bombast lay Nasser's reluctance to cede Syria the initiative on Palestine, and behind that, his need to avert a war from which Egypt would be unable to abstain or emerge victorious. He explained as much in a speech in Port Said a week before the summit...'


Page 47:

Following a shelling of northern Israel: 'In a quick face-saving move, Nasser dispatched both his prime minister... and airforce commander... to Damascus... [There they] engaged in much rhetoric, denouncing the usual bugbears of Zionism, American imperialism and Arab reaction. Behind the scenes, through, the Egyptians laboured to persuade their hosts to desist from further support of al-Fatah. If it persisted and precipitated war, they warned, Syria would stand alone'



The common narrative of the war, of 'they tried to destroy us but we got them first' has a grain of truth to it - but no more than a grain. As one would expect of a one line summary, it's rather too simplistic, and bound up with Israel's national mythology. I really enjoyed Oren's book precisely because it gives a very nuanced understanding of what each of the actors involved was trying to achieve and how the situation got out of control, against the will of all the regional players at the time.

[curlyg]

You know what sharonbn? After this many years, it doesn't matter to me whether the Soviets triggered the war and whether Nasser went into it reluctantly or enthusiastically. What matters to me is the knowledge that once war was inevitable, I have no doubt that if the Arabs would have been victorious, they would have destroyed Israel. There would have been mass murder of Jews and mass expulsions.

And that brings us back to the origin of our discussion. It tells me that Israel was as much under threat from the Arabs in 1967 as they were in 1947. Ok I accept that in 1967, Israel was much stronger militarily. Yes, let's say that as a result, maybe the Arabs were more reluctant to spark an all out war by 1967. But their aims and desires have not changed one iota so Israel had to be on guard just as much otherwise they would have been gonners. And that's why I don't think that Firewire's article was exaggerated.

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. But I don't agree with what you've added here. 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? Perhaps I still hold to too romanticised a view of the war of independence, but I don't consider the situations to be comparable in the slightest. 1948 was a genuinely existential war, that Israel won against the odds. In all the wars that have followed 1948, I don't think we can honestly say that Israel's very continued existence was threatened. Speculatively we might say that, in an alternative universe where the Arab armies were clearly superior, and they had won, Israel would have been destroyed -- but in our world I don't think there was any actual danger of this when one considers the balance of forces post 1948.