Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
abu-afak

The 1967 War

43 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

abu-afak
May 14, 1967: Egypt's President Gamal Nasser demands the withdrawal of United Nations force--established in 1957 as an international "guarantee" of safety for Israel--from the Sinai peninsula. The UN meekly obeys; the United States and Britain fail to rouse the Security Council to take action.

(abu note: Strange move for someone playing defense and not itself planning attack)

May 15: Three Egyptian army divisions and 600 tanks roll into the Sinai. World community does nothing.

May 17: Cairo Radio's Voice of the Arabs: "All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel."

May 18: Voice of the Arabs announces: "As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

May 18: Nasser announces blockade of Straits of Tiran in the Red Sea, severing Israel's southern maritime link to the outside world. Israel considers the closure an act of war.

(US President Lyndon Johnson later says: "If a single act of folly was more Responsible for this explosion than any other it was the arbitrary and Dangerous announced decision that the Straits of Tiran would be closed.")

May 20: Syria's defence minister (ex-president) Hafez el-Assad says: "Our forces are now ready not only to repulse the aggression but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united ..."

May 27: Nasser: "Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

May 30: Nasser : "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel."

May 30: Jordan's King Hussein signs a five-year mutual defence pact with Egypt and the two set up a joint command, making clear its stance in any future conflict.

My 31: Egyptian newspaper Al Akhbar reports: "Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery, co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria, is in a position to cut Israel in two ..."

May 31: Iraqi President Rahman Aref announces: "This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map."

June 4: Iraq joins Nasser's military alliance against Israel.

June 5: Six Day War begins: Israeli Airforce attacks airfields in Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq.

Excerpted from the more complete:

http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/sixdaywar.html

The above is a Coherent, Chronological sequence. Unlike expandmymind's Disjointed, UNsourced quotes...Probably from some Oxymoron site like 'palestineremmbered'.

expands are the usual Uncontexted bunch of junk including War room speculation.

expandmymind:

First' date=' the war was not defensive, as some of the highest authorities regarding the situation have already documented:

US president Johnson told Eban that even after instructing his 'experts to assume all the facts that the Israelis had given them to be true', 'it was still their unanimous view that there is no Egyptian intention to make an imminent attack' - a conclusion, according to Eban, also reached by the Israeli intelligence.

#

new york times on the eve of the assault, James Reston confirmed Egypt 'does not want war and is certainly not ready for war'.

#

Mossad Chief Meir Amit 'Egypt was not ready for war;and Nasser did not want war' 35

#

Rikhye who toured the Egyptian front, confirms that Egyptian troops were not poised for an offensive.

#

Rabin after the victory said he 'did not believe that Nasser wanted a war'.'the two divisions he sent to Sanai on may 14' the chief of staff surmised 'would not have been enough to unleash an offensive. he knew it and we knew it.

#

Israeli compiled middle east record states that most observers agree' that Nasser did not intend to launch an attack 'and his pledges to U Thant and to the Great Powers not to start shooting should, therefore, be accepted at face value'.

#

[b']Menachem Begin member of National Unity government conceded many years Kater that 'we had a choice'.[/b] 'the Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches', he cautioned, do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.

#

Told by U Thant of Nasser's promise not to attack Israel, Eban recalls that he 'found this assurance convincing', quipping, 'Nasser did not want war; he wanted victory without war'.

So the defensive argument doesn't even hold up.

Begin and others, despite these Snippets above.. went on to say absolutely that the 1967 War was defensive.

The Internet is Filled with Fake, and Misleading "zionist quotes".

ie,

Begin continued:

In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.

This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.

We did not do this for lack of an alternative. We could have gone on waiting. We could have sent the army home. Who knows if there would have been an attack against us? There is no proof of it. There are several arguments to the contrary. While it is indeed true that the closing of the Straits of Tiran was an act of aggression, a causus belli, there is always room for a great deal of consideration as to whether it is necessary to make a causus into a bellum.

And so there were three wars with no alternative - the War of Independence, the War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War - and it is our misfortunate that our wars have been so. If in the two other wars, the wars of choice - the Sinai Campaign and the Six Day War - we had losses like those in the no alternative wars, we would have been left today with few of our best youth, without the strength to withstand the Arab world..."

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1982-1984/55%20Address%20by%20Prime%20Minister%20Begin%20at%20the%20National

Busted Utterly.

Yes... The above is the Expandmymind technique.

Truncated, uncontexted, UNSOURCED/Unlinked quotes.

The High School work of a Rank Amateur copier of Arab and Anti-Israel websites.

-

Edited by abu-afak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyMonkey

abu-afak,

Great post.

The chronological sequence clearly illustrates the atmosphere of the time.

The Arab world made it quite clear that they intended to invade Israel.

Anyone calling the Israelis the "Aggressors" of the 67' War are only half right, in a sense.

Many in the military point to the 1967 Arab-Israeli War as an example of using a "Defense through Offense" strategy.

In street terms, it's like a group of guys surrounding a guy and telling him they are going to kill him. The alone guy lashes out first and beats them all up.

Either way, violence is a perfectly understandable reaction when one's life is threatened.

Edited by SkyMonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
abu-afak

Thank you SkyMonkey.

Many anti-Israelers try and use these Uncontexted "zionist quotes".

Many are 'war room speculation'... and almost all Out of Context.

Some complete Frauds.

The internet is filled with Fake or misleading 'zionist quotes'.

That's why these supposed quotes should be Linked by expandmymind et al; embarrassing as that may be.

Note the Menachim Begin Example of expandmymind I destroyed above.

Probably from some oxymoron site like 'palestineremembered'.

A poster on Shiachat' posted 10 at me... the First three were completely Fraudulent.. I didn't bother with the rest.

They are on Hundreds of websites used by anti-Israelers. Some regularly make their way to careless mainstream media.

-

Edited by abu-afak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyMonkey

Abu-afak wrote;

"Many anti-Israelers try and use these Uncontexted "zionist quotes".

Many are 'war room speculation'... and almost all Out of Context.

Some complete Frauds.

The internet is filled with Fake or misleading 'zionist quotes'."

Oh yes. I'm familiar with these types.

They ignore half of history and cut and splice the rest to suit their rant du jour.

As you can see I'm new to this forum, but have spent some time in others.

When "Discussing" the blockade of Gaza I had a vehement anti-Israeli guy tell me once that he; felt wilderness camping was far more terrifying than getting attacked by mortars.

Just goes to show, people will type/say anything when trying to convince others of utter nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

Actually I don't get my info from 'oxymoron site', but largely from books and newspaper articles.

The quotes I used speak for themselves. Nasser had no intention of invading Israel - for the Arabs knew they would be destroyed.

This was clearly not a defensive war. Even the Golon Heights could not be claimed to be defensive as the only reason Syria were attacking the Israelis there in the years leading up the the June war was because they could literally see the Israelis populating the disputed area while they watched from the hills. Populating the area in grave violation of the agreement from both parties, and agreement the Syrians held strong to.

You could probably say that many elements within Israel believed it to be a defensive war but here is an example to put it into context: it would be like an American saying out (hypothetical) bombing of China was defensive, in case they decided to attack us in the future.

So, yeah, in that respect, most wars throughout history are defensive.

The fact remains, Israel were not about to be attacked.

Edited by expandmymind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Actually I don't get my info from 'oxymoron site', but largely from books and newspaper articles.

The quotes I used speak for themselves. Nasser had no intention of invading Israel - for the Arabs knew they would be destroyed.

This was clearly not a defensive war. Even the Golon Heights could not be claimed to be defensive as the only reason Syria were attacking the Israelis there in the years leading up the the June war was because they could literally see the Israelis populating the disputed area while they watched from the hills. Populating the area in grave violation of the agreement from both parties, and agreement the Syrians held strong to.

You could probably say that many elements within Israel believed it to be a defensive war but here is an example to put it into context: it would be like an American saying out (hypothetical) bombing of China was defensive, in case they decided to attack us in the future.

So, yeah, in that respect, most wars throughout history are defensive.

The fact remains, Israel were not about to be attacked.

no it would be like the usa bombing china after they parked 3 battlegroups and an invasion force off the coast of taiwain. if your going to use things use them right.

besides i showed on another thread that the arabs started the war by planting mines and two isreali soldiers getting blown up.

Edited by danielost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

no it would be like the usa bombing china after they parked 3 battlegroups and an invasion force off the coast of taiwain. if your going to use things use them right.

besides i showed on another thread that the arabs started the war by planting mines and two isreali soldiers getting blown up.

OK so maybe the correct example would have been China's reasons for bombing the US... seeing as the US already has them surrounded! :lol:

And I told you Daniel there were far more factors - both Israel and the Arabs instigated small battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyMonkey

The fact remains, Israel were not about to be attacked.

Really?

Are you sure about that?

Massed troop and equipment build-ups combined with a series of public statements by many Arab states show otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

Really?

Are you sure about that?

Massed troop and equipment build-ups combined with a series of public statements by many Arab states show otherwise.

The only people who thought they were going to attack were, through media hysteria, the citizens of Israel.

The public statements were nothing but beating of the chest and Nasser was only forced to do this because, after signing a defence treaty, he had already watched Israel crap all over Syria and had to save face in the eyes of the Arab world.

Western intelligence knew they would not be attacked, Mossad knew they would not be attacked, President Johnson knew they would not be attacked, the US military knew they would not be attacked, your own high ranking politicians knew they would not be attacked, the UN knew they would not be attacked, critical journalists knew they would not be attacked... The only reason it was even claimed that it was a defensive war was so that, because Israel obviously thought this was a reasonable excuse, you could keep the territory 'as we were fighting a defensive war', but this was instantly dismissed because it is illegal to acquire land through any kind of war.

Remember, Israel already tried to swipe Gaza once, a decade before, in a clearly aggressive war, and Eisenhower threatened to withhold aid until they rightly left the territory. They obviously thought they could get away with it a second time, and guess what they have. Even the 'Gaza' that they 'left' in 2005 has miraculously shrunk to about half the land mass...

Troop concentrations are nothing more than troop concentrations, inside their own border.

Like I said:

gorilla_beating_chest.gif

There was no imminent attack.

Edited by expandmymind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

Busted Utterly.

Yes... The above is the Expandmymind technique.

Truncated, uncontexted, UNSOURCED/Unlinked quotes.

The High School work of a Rank Amateur copier of Arab and Anti-Israel websites.

-

The quote I provided is quite clearly not taken out of context. Sure, he went on to give his opinion about what he considers to be self-defence, but that is simply all it is, his opinion. And he happens to be wrong anyways. And he still clearly states that Egypt were not about to attack. There is no clouding this fact.

Here:

Article 51

of the Charter of the United Nations

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain inter- national peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/bt-un51.htm

No armed attack occurred, therefore there is no case for self-defence. International law is very clear on this matter.

There wasn't even a planned attack. This is also known because, as I'm sure you with your own wonderful sources must be aware, one of the reasons the Arabs were defeated so easily is due to Israel's ability to listen in to all their transmissions. Obviously, if those same transmissions had stated that Nasser planned to attack, then the Israeli Mossad, along with other intelligence communities (and indeed the government), would have used this as evidence - instead even they stated that he was not about to attack.

So, nice try.

I should also add that I did indeed get all of those quotes from books, not the internet (not even pdf format, actual books so it took me a while to type them and others out - and after having a quick look at them you can see that clearly... I even messed up the quotation marks in some! Definitely NOT a copy/paste job). You can check them all if you want. The fact that you only 'BUSTED' one of them, when clearly, in actuality, you did not, while going on to tar the others with the same, incorrect brush, shows how weak your case is.

A good find I just came across that will clear up your uninformed idea of what self-defence actually is:

The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense

http://www.asil.org/taskforce/oconnell.pdf

Edited by expandmymind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

In street terms, it's like a group of guys surrounding a guy and telling him they are going to kill him. The alone guy lashes out first and beats them all up.

By this reasoning then, I guess you feel Iran would be entirely justified in attacking the US? After all, the US has repeatedly said they would attack Iran, and they have Iran surrounded after already invading other countries in the region. One could say that attack is imminent.

Your logic doesn't hold up, at all.

I had a vehement anti-Israeli guy tell me once that he; felt wilderness camping was far more terrifying than getting attacked by mortars.

Just goes to show, people will type/say anything when trying to convince others of utter nonsense.

Well, actually, moon (there's another moon here I debate this subject with BTW), statistically speaking a Brit is more likely to die when horse-riding than an Israeli is through rocket fire from Gaza - [roughly] 30 people a year die in Britain while horse riding. In contrast, 28 Israelis have died in the whole ten years since the rockets started - so in that respect, the person you debated was clearly correct.. especially if the person was camping in the Rockies.

So far, over 70 Palestinian civilians have been killed this year, with over 300 civilians killed in the year leading up to the Gaza slaughter. Just to shine some more perspective on your extremely flawed opinion.

Edited by expandmymind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
abu-afak

Please note, and as always, expandmymind was UNABLE to post a real response to my coherent timeline and compelling events.

Rather going for some decontexted snippets; the typical false or misleading 'zionist quotes' I debunked.

And incredibly not even providing a source for those quotes despite my showing the M Begin quote was complete BS.

In fact, and DIShonestly, he repeats the Unsourced, UNLINKED sequence in the 'Who Created the 1948 Refugees' string.. despite the above.

More later.

So sorry expand.. not going away.

Edited by abu-afak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl
Well, actually, moon (there's another moon here I debate this subject with BTW), statistically speaking a Brit is more likely to die when horse-riding than an Israeli is through rocket fire from Gaza - [roughly] 30 people a year die in Britain while horse riding. In contrast, 28 Israelis have died in the whole ten years since the rockets started - so in that respect, the person you debated was clearly correct.. especially if the person was camping in the Rockies.

Yes and I'm sure that when the person falls off the horse, and entire city is developing PTSD during contineous decade of people falling off horses :wacko: .

Your logic is completely screwed, I'm afraid. But then again, in a few days, you'll deny saying that as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl
This was clearly not a defensive war. Even the Golon Heights could not be claimed to be defensive as the only reason Syria were attacking the Israelis there in the years leading up the the June war was because they could literally see the Israelis populating the disputed area while they watched from the hills. Populating the area in grave violation of the agreement from both parties, and agreement the Syrians held strong to.

OMG! :wacko: clearly, Jews populating a country which the Syrians (and you, it seems) do not recognize it's right to exist, is a grave violation and a provocation for the average pan-Arabist.

To what lenght are you intend to go in order to spread your nonsense, mate?

I mean come on, you can't obviously believe half of your own writings. If you do, then perhaps western civilization is doomed :P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl

As a hint to the ground in international law for why Israel wasn't the agressor in the Six Days war, I refer Ex and other anti-Sem... oops, anti-Zionists/Israelis/Colonialists/blah blah... to check the dictionary for Casus Belli. Then check the maritime laws. Good luck refuting international law. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stardrive

Troop concentrations are nothing more than troop concentrations, inside their own border.

Like I said:

gorilla_beating_chest.gif

There was no imminent attack.

I guess the lesson here is, don't let your mouth write checks your butt can't cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

As a hint to the ground in international law for why Israel wasn't the agressor in the Six Days war, I refer Ex and other anti-Sem... oops, anti-Zionists/Israelis/Colonialists/blah blah... to check the dictionary for Casus Belli. Then check the maritime laws. Good luck refuting international law. :tu:

Again, erik. If you had bothered to read the evidence I provided in the thread instead of going down the road of 'I'm right because I say I am!', then you would see clearly that Israel were the aggressors.

The link I provided explains in some detail as to why the claim of someone who attacks first acting in self defence is just plain silly. International law is explicitly clear on this matter.

Yes and I'm sure that when the person falls off the horse, and entire city is developing PTSD during contineous decade of people falling off horses :wacko: .

Your logic is completely screwed, I'm afraid. But then again, in a few days, you'll deny saying that as well.

My point was that it's not very deadly. I point I believe I made well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl
My point was that it's not very deadly. I point I believe I made well.

Since when terrorism is meant to be deadly? Terrorism first and most important objective is .... well to terrorize. For example, when a suicide bomber explodes with 20 kg of C4 explosives filled with sharpnails, he may kill 10-20 people. But the act of terror, the fact that suddenly the entire street is silent, that people can't be safe anywhere - that's their achievment. Ofcourse more people will die and do die in bus accidents, plane crash and mud slides. But these are less terrifying.

Btw, since one's man terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and people on this board walk around freely accusing democracies of the same form of terror used by Islamic Jihadists, I offer my own definition of who's a terrorist. Tell me if you agree:

A terrorist is a non-combatant who's main targets are civilians, not combatants. However, if the attack was pointed at a combatant who delibertly hide among civilians, and some civilians die while trying to target those combatants, then it's not terrorism, but "freedom fighting". Also, an attack on a military target of an occupying force, is "freedom fighting", not terrorism.

What's your opinion?

Again, erik. If you had bothered to read the evidence I provided in the thread instead of going down the road of 'I'm right because I say I am!', then you would see clearly that Israel were the aggressors.

The link I provided explains in some detail as to why the claim of someone who attacks first acting in self defence is just plain silly. International law is explicitly clear on this matter.

Blah blah, blah blah?

You didn't even tackled the issue I raised. Do you know Casus belli means? Every country, that signs a cease fire agreement or a treaty with another country, has a list of casus bellis - that is, in which situation the treaty becomes null and a war is declared as a result of the actions of the other party.

For example, a known casus belli, is entering someone's air space without the country's persmission. Or, sending spies. Or, entering a country's territorial waters without permit.

When Egypt and Israel signed a cease fire agreement in 1956, under UNEF supervision, one of the noted Casus Belli on Israel's side was a blockade of the Tiran, which was the only way goods could be transferred to Israel's southern sea port in Eilat. Most of our oil came through there as well.

Now, let's see what was the situation:

Nasser giving inflamatory speeches on how he's about to throw the Jews into the sea, intelligence on assemblings of Arab armies near our borders, a military alliance between Egypt, Syria and Jordan against Israel, continuos incidents on our borders, and then Nasser expelling the UN peacekeeping force of the Sinai peninsula, and declaring a blockade on the straits of Tiran. Errmm... I wonder what does that mean... hmmm... let's think.... now think harder..... I think you are smart enough to figure it out by yourself :lol::tu: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

It's strange that you have to search high and low to find a lawyer who agrees with the stance that Israel's actions in the war were self defence. erik has figured it all out on his own. Well done

In international law, it is VERY clear (you still haven't looked at the evidence I provided, how can I be expected to stay civil when you behave in this manner?), it can only be considered self defence if you are repelling an armed attack. This is an inescapable fact. And no amount of 'lawyering' can change this.

On a side note, for anyone who is interested in the 'ins and outs' of this situation as a whole.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bWEV__6BYPgC&dq=Zeev+Maoz,+Defending+the+Holy+Land&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=EXWpTM_ECdO4jAfs2OzxDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page 80. Read the full chapter. In fact, read the full book if you can get your hands on it - it's the most comprehensive study to date of Israel's wars.

Edited by expandmymind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl
It's strange that you have to search high and low to find a lawyer who agrees with the stance that Israel's actions in the war were self defence. erik has figured it all out on his own. Well done

LOL! don't make your minority, fringe opinion, to be the mainstream view. The mainstream opinion and fact is that the Six Days war was self-defense. You failed to answer the arguments I raised here. How would yoU think Scotland would have behave in a similar situation, eh?

Only in the completely twisted mind and revisionst historian, was the Six Days War be considered to be an expansionist, colonialist war as you try to portray it.

As for your "sources" - I have read tons of pro-Palestinian propaganda. Believe me, I have other, better things to read than your trash. When you'll start answering the difficult questions, and start to think for yourself and not just throw up whatever it is your fellow revisionist historians or radical left-wingers tell you, I'll start taking you seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

LOL! don't make your minority, fringe opinion, to be the mainstream view. The mainstream opinion and fact is that the Six Days war was self-defense. You failed to answer the arguments I raised here. How would yoU think Scotland would have behave in a similar situation, eh?

Only in the completely twisted mind and revisionst historian, was the Six Days War be considered to be an expansionist, colonialist war as you try to portray it.

As for your "sources" - I have read tons of pro-Palestinian propaganda. Believe me, I have other, better things to read than your trash. When you'll start answering the difficult questions, and start to think for yourself and not just throw up whatever it is your fellow revisionist historians or radical left-wingers tell you, I'll start taking you seriously.

Again, how sad that I have to once again present material in a thread that I have already presented. You would save yourself some trouble and embarrassment if you just read the evidence I provide. Post 10. There is no mainstream view of that war as being 'self-defence'. Possibly in Israel but if you would just read the link I provided below (and before) then you would already know this. My God this has become impossible. YOU REFUSE TO EVEN READ ANYTHING. Yet you maintain with your constant non-replies. I hope you know that to anyone actually reading these posts, yuo come across as foolish at best.

In fact, here:

The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense

http://www.asil.org/taskforce/oconnell.pdf

Labeling all my sources as pro Palestinian? What an awful tactic! As I have mentioned many times now, how awesome it would be to have the ultimate get-out clause when anything that you don't agree with is presented. This is not debating sonny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl

Ex, as I said before, you come out as childish. Let the board see that none of your sources are mainstream sources, but specific articles or editorial articles at best.

When you do bring here some sound sources, you selectively quote them. You rely on the fact that the majority here can't read the entire article as a result of lack of time, so you summerize it for them, giving it your own flavour.

I actually took the time and read this article you linked here. It has nothing but half a paragraph regarding the Six Days War. It mostly come accross to criticise and delegetimize American preemptive attacks. Let's quote the entire half paragraph regarding the Six Days War:

Professor Dinstein argues, for example, that the United States could clearly have attacked the

Japanese fleet during World War II while the Japanese were en route to Pearl Harbor. His

case is persuasive, if the further requirement is added that the United States had clear and

convincing intelligence that the Japanese fleet was under orders to attack. Commentators

have defended Israel’s attack on Egypt in 1967 on the same logic. Israel stated that it had

convincing intelligence that Egypt would attack and that Egyptian preparations were

underway. We now know that the Israel acted on less than convincing evidence. Thus, the

1967 Arab-Israeli war does not provide an actual example of lawful anticipatory self-defense.

Wow. Yes. Very convincing. How do we know that Israel acted on less than convincing evidence? convincing to who? the entire article screams "radical left wing academics" out of it. This sentence, which needs to hold your entire argument, or atleast act as a reason to link or refer to this article, says nothing, but the writer's own opinions that they are not convinced that Israel had sufficent evidence.

I described the atmosphere of the time. Egypt kicked out UNEF from the Sinai peninsula, without any Israeli provocation. It's dictator, Nasser, continued to give inflamatory speeches on how he's gonna throw the Jews to the sea. Then Egypt put on a blockade on Israel's main oil source - the Tiran Straits. Egypt signed military alliances with Syria and Jordan. Multiple incidents of Fedayeen (pre-PLO Palestinian terrorists) attacks accross the Israeli borders with Syria, Jordan and Egypt. If that's not Casus Belli for you, then I don't know what is. Yet you continue to ignore from the historical facts, throwing articles that as shown here, rarely say anything or are even remotely on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

Ex, as I said before, you come out as childish. Let the board see that none of your sources are mainstream sources, but specific articles or editorial articles at best.

When you do bring here some sound sources, you selectively quote them. You rely on the fact that the majority here can't read the entire article as a result of lack of time, so you summerize it for them, giving it your own flavour.

I actually took the time and read this article you linked here. It has nothing but half a paragraph regarding the Six Days War. It mostly come accross to criticise and delegetimize American preemptive attacks. Let's quote the entire half paragraph regarding the Six Days War:

Professor Dinstein argues, for example, that the United States could clearly have attacked the

Japanese fleet during World War II while the Japanese were en route to Pearl Harbor. His

case is persuasive, if the further requirement is added that the United States had clear and

convincing intelligence that the Japanese fleet was under orders to attack. Commentators

have defended Israel’s attack on Egypt in 1967 on the same logic. Israel stated that it had

convincing intelligence that Egypt would attack and that Egyptian preparations were

underway. We now know that the Israel acted on less than convincing evidence. Thus, the

1967 Arab-Israeli war does not provide an actual example of lawful anticipatory self-defense.

Wow. Yes. Very convincing. How do we know that Israel acted on less than convincing evidence? convincing to who? the entire article screams "radical left wing academics" out of it. This sentence, which needs to hold your entire argument, or atleast act as a reason to link or refer to this article, says nothing, but the writer's own opinions that they are not convinced that Israel had sufficent evidence.

I described the atmosphere of the time. Egypt kicked out UNEF from the Sinai peninsula, without any Israeli provocation. It's dictator, Nasser, continued to give inflamatory speeches on how he's gonna throw the Jews to the sea. Then Egypt put on a blockade on Israel's main oil source - the Tiran Straits. Egypt signed military alliances with Syria and Jordan. Multiple incidents of Fedayeen (pre-PLO Palestinian terrorists) attacks accross the Israeli borders with Syria, Jordan and Egypt. If that's not Casus Belli for you, then I don't know what is. Yet you continue to ignore from the historical facts, throwing articles that as shown here, rarely say anything or are even remotely on topic.

1. All of the sources I post are mainstream.

2. I clearly do not selectively quote anything, as I have shown anyone who has accused me of doing so.

3. I don't rely on any fact that 'majority can't read' the material or whatever you said above. When I take the time to research and post something, I expect anyone who is interested to read it before commenting. This is nonsense from you.

4. I didn't link you the article for you to read about the 6 day war... Jesus, I read it for you to learn a bit about what self defence in international law actually means. What it comes down to, is that you have to be under armed attack for it to be considered self-defence. Israel were not. It is VERY simple. But you are persistent with your blind denials. Here's a tid-bit for you, Israel actually tried to claim, because, yes, they are fully aware of the law (they just ignore it), that Egypt's air force actually attacked them. Of course it wasn't long before they had to retract this... because it was a straight up lie.

5. It is less than convincing evidence, simply because Egypt did not attack them (after Israel originally claimed that they had done). This is fairly simple to comprehend.

6.You described the atmosphere, BUT, I provided a link to a book, the most comprehensive study on Israel's wars to date, where you can clearly see and read for yourself all the ins and outs of the situation. It makes clear that this was not the story you have set out.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bWEV__6BYPgC&dq=Zeev+Maoz,+Defending+the+Holy+Land&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=EXWpTM_ECdO4jAfs2OzxDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page 80 - everyone can read the full thing. I suggest anyone who believes erik's one sided events should read it.

Edited by expandmymind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl

Ex, I read the chapter you linked to here. The first two pages describe exactly what I wrote. It is also stated to the current, conventional wisdom. The writer then says he's gonna offer alternative explaination. That's his own opinion and he mentions so.

As for Israel claiming that Egyptian airplanes attacked first - that's absurd, as Israeli radio was reporting about two hours after the attack occured that it was Israeli airforces who attacked Egyptian air bases. I want to see honest, objective truth of this claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

Ex, I read the chapter you linked to here. The first two pages describe exactly what I wrote. It is also stated to the current, conventional wisdom. The writer then says he's gonna offer alternative explaination. That's his own opinion and he mentions so.

As for Israel claiming that Egyptian airplanes attacked first - that's absurd, as Israeli radio was reporting about two hours after the attack occured that it was Israeli airforces who attacked Egyptian air bases. I want to see honest, objective truth of this claim.

In a speech to the Security Council following the preemptive strike Eban maintained:

on the morning of 5 June, when Egyptian forces engaged us by air and land, bombarding the villages of Kissutim, Nahal-Oz and Ein Hashelosha, we knew that our limit of safety had been reached, and perhaps passed. In accordance with its inherent right of self-defense as formulated in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, Israel responded defensively in full strength.

Security Council Official Records, Twenty Second Session, 5 June 1967, 1347th meeting.

And a week later:

They opened the hostilities. Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, one after the other, moved against Israel. They were repelled, and were driven back to their territory

Security Council Official Records, Twenty Second Session, 11th June 1967, 1356th meeting.

And I could also quote his autobiography if you wish?

The fact is, that Israel knew they did not act in self defence in accordance with the Charter, which is why Eban lied, I assume. But as time moved on and it became impossible to deny, they tried to adopt the approach of 'preemptive is defensive'. Which obviously doesn't fly as I have clearly shown.

It can only be considered self defence if you are actually attacked first.

And just for the record, nowhere in any of these threads have I portrayed the Arabs as being innocent victims in all this. As the chapter linked above shows, all sides had a part to play, but if you read on, it becomes clear that Israel, with regards to their actions with Syria, bear the heaviest brunt of the blame.

Dayan: I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plough someplace where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was.

That's from Wiki, but you can find more of the conversation in the chapter linked above but I'm not typing the whole thing out.

None of what happened beforehand though, can dismiss the fact that it was Israel who attacked first, therefore the claim of self-defence doesn't hold up. It simply cannot.

Edited by expandmymind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.