The 1967 War

Mika-El · May 30, 2011

Che you have to get serious. Your attempt to pretend the Straits were not blockaded is quite something but should be of no surprise to anyone.

It remains a fact that on the night of May 22, 1967, once the last of the UN Emergency Forces were forced out of Sharm el Sheik, Nasser declared the Gulf of Aqaba closed to Israeli shipping or any ships headed to Israel.

Nasser’s intent for the above action was not a secret. On May 22 in a speech to air force officers at the Bir Gifgafa base in the Sinai he stated which is now public record and speaks for itself:

‘We are now on the verge of a confrontation with Israel. Unlike 1956, when Britain and France stood squarely behind Israel, Israel today hasn’t the support of even a single European country. And, while it is possible that the United States will stand by Israel, its
support will be limited to political backing and supplying Israel with weapons and military equipment. Thus Egypt’s return to Sharm el Sheik, was ‘proof of our sovereignty over the straits of Aqaba. The Straits of Tiran lie in our territorial waters and under no circumstances will we allow an Israeli flag to sail through the Straits’. ‘If the Jews
threaten us war? I say to them “Welcome”, we are ready for war!’

The closing of the Straits did not happen in isolation as Che you are trying to infer by removing it from its actual time line and sequence and then revising to suit your unreferenced new version of history.

In fact it coincided with his decision to mass forces in the Sinai, and expel the UNEF from Egyptian territory, and was combined with a non stop flurry of speeches calling on Israel to be wiped out, all public record.

What Nasser’s above speech indicates though was he felt the West other than the U.S. had abandoned Israel. He would also have at the time of this speech been reassured by then Soviet Prime Minister Aleksie Kosygin of Soviet support. As the Straits remained closed long after you said they were opened Che, the Soviet Union championed Egypt’s right to keep them closed.

It is a fact that the United Kingdom and Canada tried on May 29 to get the Straits open with a compromise resolution created by then Sec. Gen. of the UN, U-Thant but it was the Soviets who vetoed this resolution.

So for you to attempt to suggest the Egyptians never closed the Straits means the Egyptians engaged in the above for what reason?

Your attempt to suggest Israel fabricated the closure of the Straits as a pretext for war with due respect makes no sense.

It infers there were no other incidents leading up to the war.

Let's refresh your socialist mind about the Union of Soviet Socialistic Republic's actions leading up to the closure of the Straits shall we? Egypt became an ally of the Soviet Union in 1960, at which time the Soviets send them MIG-19’s and then followed up in May 1962 with MIG-21s’s so that by the end of 1964 Egypt had 50 MIG-21s not to mention the Soviets also sent them mid range Tupolev-16 and short range Ilyushin-28 bombers.

Or how about Che the fact that in June 1963 Egypt entered into a $500 mil. agreement with the Soviets and then another $300 mil. one in 1965 to obtain among other things SA2 ground to air missles and T-54B tanks and so by June 1967, Egypt had 1,200 tanls and 120 MIG 21’s. At the same time the Soviets equipped the Syrians.

The Soviets turned Syria and Egypt into proxy states and so the US depended not just on its Saudi Arabian and Iranian allies at the time but of course Israel to counter the Soviet moves while Britain and France played both sides of the fence as De Gaulles was openly anti Israel and Harold Wilson felt King Hussein and Saudi Arabia were vital allies not to mention Kuwait which at the time was openly anti-Israel.

By the way Che on May 26 as the Straits remained closed Nasser addressed Labour unions in his country making a famous speech in which he said Egypt would “at long last wipe Israel of the face of the earth.” He also stated there would be a war over Aqaba’s closing.

So are you calling Nasser a liar? Are you suggesting he never closed the Straits and lied as to the above?

Now Che you can ignore huge chunks of history and try revise all you want but the facts speak for themselves as to Nasser’s intentions as evidenced in his speeches and comments to US and many other diplomats now all part of the public archives.

Jeezy · May 30, 2011

Demon of Light said:
A little advice: if I warn you that an argument is not going to work you really should not make the argument. First, I should note that my source clearly demonstrates this was a very recent development involving authorization for an actual operation not a contingency plan in place for years

No, it doesn't --- at all. That excerpt only shows that Rabin demanded war and Eshkol said no. In no way does it specify when plans were brought to the table and for what reason. The only thing it says is "Rabin wanted war." You can note as many things as you want, but your quote demonstrates absolutely nothing. You're clearly citing a book you haven't actually read.

Demon of Light said:
Second, you will see by looking down just a few paragraphs that Rabin and Eshkol both made public statements that, in effect, made the intention for major attacks on Syria clear yet leaving their exact nature and scope unclear. Finally, about that claim concerning attacks from Syria, here is another part of the book you should consider:

Mhm. Yeah I looked a few paragraphs down. I see three things.

1) Eshkol reprimanding Rabin for wanting to attack.
2) Eshkol saying that Israel "may well" have to act.
3) Eshkol saying there will be no immunity for states that sponsor terrorism and sabotage against Israel.

My, what naked unprovoked aggression. :roll:

And what do you know...if you read on to the next page, you'll see Hugh H. Smythe (who was then US ambassador to Syria) telling Ibrahim Malkhous to rein in the guerrillas -- a chief source of Israel's ire. Malkhous utterly refuses that demand and calls the Palestinian efforts "a sacred cause that will never die." Gee. What a dastardly response on Israel's part. I mean imagine, being hostile towards a state that harbors terrorists who want to see your state destroyed? Reprimanding that state and saying they should not be immune for their actions? Totally unreasonable. Jingoism, I say! Jingoistic imperialism!

Demon of Light said:
These demilitarized zones were areas Syria had control of at the end of the war of independence in 1949 and, under the armistice agreements, were supposed to have their status determined in a final peace settlement. Israel's actions were actively seeking to change that situation. Several violations are mentioned involving Israeli military boats frequently violating some of the waters included in the demilitarized zone. Another important point raised is that incidents were exploited to justify attacks on Syria. Of course, it does not tell the whole story even then:

Ah yes, the DMZs! Clearly Israel was asserting it's authority exclusively over land within the DMZs that clearly did not belong to i---oh wait. Again, from Oren's book:

At the epicenter of these tensions was the Sea of Galilee itself, which was wholly within Israeli sovereignty, but just barely. A 10-meter strip along the lake's northeastern bank technically belonged to Israel, but, falling directly under the Syrian guns, was virtually impossible to defend. Syrian snipers regularly fired at Israeli fishing boats while Israeli patrol craft just as frequently violated a 250-meter demilitarized zone extending from the eastern shore into the lake itself.The two issues, land and water, were inextricably linked in the Israeli mind. By affirming their sovereignty over the DZ's, the Israelis sought to deter the Syrians from diverting the Jordan.

Let's see...I'm living in a desert climate where water is necessary for survival, and the state on my border is diverting a RIVER away from me. Yeah. I should totally just let that slide. Your point is that Israel was the exclusive provocateur in the situation, without pretext or cause. The book itself suggests that (at their most sinister) Israel was merely exploiting perfectly legitimate provocations that were provided by the Arabs themselves in order to advance their goals. The question is not "were there DMZ incursions?" The question is why did they happen, and do they represent a one-sided attempt by Israel to goad the opposition into war? Clearly, if the Israelis were pressing their claims to a spuriously drawn DMZ, the Syrians were also firing upon legally owned Israeli land, diverting the Jordan river away, AND openly harboring terrorists. Doesn't sound like the Israelis needed to manufacture much of a threat. You should probably stop giving history the black and white treatment.

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 plow some area 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.

Hmm... I see what you did there. After citing one book that you haven't read, you decided to cite a second book that you haven't read, namely Avi Shlaim's The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World. Kind of funny that you switched horses after being unable to make headway. Anywho, that's a quote from Moshe Dayan I won't dispute. But since you seem to give Michael Oren's side of the story so much weight (citing his book several times and all), perhaps we should take a look at what Michael Oren said regarding that particular Dayan statement, hmm?

There is an element of truth to Dayan's claim, but it is important to note that Israel regarded the de-militarized zones in the north as part of their sovereign territory and reserved the right to cultivate them—a right that the Syrians consistently resisted with force. Syria also worked to benefit from the Jordan river before it flowed into Israel, aiming to get use of it as a water source; Syria also actively supported Palestinian resistance movements against Israel. Israel occasionally exploited incidents in the de-militarized zones to strike at the Syrian water diversion project and to punish the Syrians for their support of the Palestinian resistance. Dayan's remarks must also be taken in context of the fact that he was a member of the opposition at the time. His attitude toward the Syrians changed dramatically once he became defense minister. Indeed, on June 8, 1967, Dayan bypassed both the Prime Minister and the Chief of Staff in ordering the Israeli army to attack and capture the Golan."

As I've been saying, the DMZ provocations were, in themselves, a response to Syrian provocations. Even if Dayan's quote is to be taken at face value, your argument that the Israelis were the only side that baited a war ignores the situation on the ground. If anyone here is cherry-picking it's you. You're citing books you haven't read and picking out paragraphs that support your opinion. I wasn't the one who brought these sources into the conversation -- you were. I am merely qualifying all of them, since you seem unable (or unwilling) to present them in a complete context. Then, when someone gives a response, you dismissively reply with "AH-HA! YOU'RE MERELY CHERRY PICKING NOW THAT I HAVE DESTROYED YOUR ARGUMENT. I WIN, YOU LOSE, YAHTZEE!" If you want to debate, let's debate. But don't snidely assume that you're merely reiterating a contention you already won. Especially since you haven't won it at all.

Demon of Light · May 30, 2011

Jeezy said:
No, it doesn't --- at all. That excerpt only shows that Rabin demanded war and Eshkol said no. In no way does it specify when plans were brought to the table and for what reason. The only thing it says is "Rabin wanted war." You can note as many things as you want, but your quote demonstrates absolutely nothing. You're clearly citing a book you haven't actually read.

Mhm. Yeah I looked a few paragraphs down. I see three things.

1) Eshkol reprimanding Rabin for wanting to attack.
2) Eshkol saying that Israel "may well" have to act.
3) Eshkol saying there will be no immunity for states that sponsor terrorism and sabotage against Israel.

My, what naked unprovoked aggression. :roll:

And what do you know...if you read on to the next page, you'll see Hugh H. Smythe (who was then US ambassador to Syria) telling Ibrahim Malkhous to rein in the guerrillas -- a chief source of Israel's ire. Malkhous utterly refuses that demand and calls the Palestinian efforts "a sacred cause that will never die." Gee. What a dastardly response on Israel's part. I mean imagine, being hostile towards a state that harbors terrorists who want to see your state destroyed? Reprimanding that state and saying they should not be immune for their actions? Totally unreasonable. Jingoism, I say! Jingoistic imperialism!

Ah yes, the DMZs! Clearly Israel was asserting it's authority exclusively over land within the DMZs that clearly did not belong to i---oh wait. Again, from Oren's book:

Let's see...I'm living in a desert climate where water is necessary for survival, and the state on my border is diverting a RIVER away from me. Yeah. I should totally just let that slide. Your point is that Israel was the exclusive provocateur in the situation, without pretext or cause. The book itself suggests that (at their most sinister) Israel was merely exploiting perfectly legitimate provocations that were provided by the Arabs themselves in order to advance their goals. The question is not "were there DMZ incursions?" The question is why did they happen, and do they represent a one-sided attempt by Israel to goad the opposition into war? Clearly, if the Israelis were pressing their claims to a spuriously drawn DMZ, the Syrians were also firing upon legally owned Israeli land, diverting the Jordan river away, AND openly harboring terrorists. Doesn't sound like the Israelis needed to manufacture much of a threat. You should probably stop giving history the black and white treatment.

Hmm... I see what you did there. After citing one book that you haven't read, you decided to cite a second book that you haven't read, namely Avi Shlaim's The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World. Kind of funny that you switched horses after being unable to make headway. Anywho, that's a quote from Moshe Dayan I won't dispute. But since you seem to give Michael Oren's side of the story so much weight (citing his book several times and all), perhaps we should take a look at what Michael Oren said regarding that particular Dayan statement, hmm?

As I've been saying, the DMZ provocations were, in themselves, a response to Syrian provocations. Even if Dayan's quote is to be taken at face value, your argument that the Israelis were the only side that baited a war ignores the situation on the ground. If anyone here is cherry-picking it's you. You're citing books you haven't read and picking out paragraphs that support your opinion. I wasn't the one who brought these sources into the conversation -- you were. I am merely qualifying all of them, since you seem unable (or unwilling) to present them in a complete context. Then, when someone gives a response, you dismissively reply with "AH-HA! YOU'RE MERELY CHERRY PICKING NOW THAT I HAVE DESTROYED YOUR ARGUMENT. I WIN, YOU LOSE, YAHTZEE!" If you want to debate, let's debate. But don't snidely assume that you're merely reiterating a contention you already won. Especially since you haven't won it at all.

I am thinking you are not catching on to exactly how things played out.

1. After the 1949 war Syria voluntarily withdrew its military from the territory of the Demilitarized zones on the condition that their status be left up to a future peace settlement with Israel. Syrian civilians, as well as Israelis, were allowed to settle in the disputed territories.
2. Commissions were set up for the purpose of monitoring the terms of the armistice.
3. Israel rejected the very terms of the armistice by withdrawing from said commissions almost immediately and seeking to change the facts on the ground concerning the Demilitarized zones.
4. Israel implemented water diversion plans a decade before Syrian water diversion plans, which were in fact a response to said Israeli plans.

Why do you think Syria would back militant infiltrations? In fact, the first target of Fatah militants in Israel was the water diversion project Israel had built.

Understand that Michael Oren is a former Israeli government official, which is why I used him as a source. You cannot reasonably describe him as biased against Israel. So there is ultimately little basis for you to dispute what I said about the plans for a major attack on Syria (here the term "limited" is of dubious usage) being a matter of recent events. It says clearly that this major attack on Syria was authorized that very month before the various actions Egypt took in response.

Oh, and I already told you that I had other sources to dispute anything you come up with. My use of another source is just me demonstrating that my opinion is fully informed of the circumstances. You are not going to be able to maneuver your way out of this discussion successfully by making such meaningless attacks.

mbig · May 30, 2011

Demon of Light said:
\

Really having to cherry-pick now that I have completely destroyed your accusations huh? He asserts that it is their right to do so as a defense of their actions, not as a rationale. The rationale he gives is very clear: Israel threatened war.

LOL.
You quoted two 5 line Cherries.
I quoted a contexted 20 CONSECUTIVE ones, most of one of Your links!
(that as usual, you tried to pass off as backing you when the opposite is the case)

And now you've been reduced to two lines of your own that are:
1. The 'Big Lie'- accusing someone of what you did. (Cherry picking)
2. Just remaking an assertion that's been busted.

This after:
3. Impeaching Yourself with a Wiki Link. ("limited military action" Not "major attack")

And
4. Your last response to Jeezy has Necessarily gone completely afield as you try to Divert from your Lost argument on the reason Egypt closed the Straits, to one of pure Israel/Syria issues.

Demon of Light · May 30, 2011

mbig said:
And
4. Your last response to Jeezy has Necessarily gone completely afield as you try to Divert from your Lost argument on the reason Egypt closed the Straits, to one of pure Israel/Syria issues.

Egypt made clear its actions were prompted by Israeli threats against Syria and so Israel/Syria issues are of pivotal relevance to the argument.

Jeezy · May 30, 2011

Demon of Light said:
1. After the 1949 war Syria voluntarily withdrew its military from the territory of the Demilitarized zones on the condition that their status be left up to a future peace settlement with Israel. Syrian civilians, as well as Israelis, were allowed to settle in the disputed territories.

Mhm.

Demon of Light said:
2. Commissions were set up for the purpose of monitoring the terms of the armistice.

Mhm.

Demon of Light said:
3. Israel rejected the very terms of the armistice by withdrawing from said commissions almost immediately and seeking to change the facts on the ground concerning the Demilitarized zones.

Well it's not like they withdrew for no reason. They withdrew because they believed Syria's constant harping on the DMZ borders represented an effort to subvert the General Armistice, which superseded the Israeli-Syria Armistice, in an effort to give themselves a ruling presence there --- their primary objection being that Syria's demands on the docket did not correspond to their general welfare. In other words, Syria failed to demonstrate how they were being negatively affected by the current DMZs, yet were constantly bringing them up anyway. And this is before the diversion projects or any of that. You make it sound like Israel withdrew with malicious intent when, in fact, they withdrew because they suspected malicious intent on the part of Syria.

Demon of Light said:
4. Israel implemented water diversion plans a decade before Syrian water diversion plans, which were in fact a response to said Israeli plans.

It's a question of due process and proportion. Israel did indeed propose a diversion program in 1953. The response was prompt sanctions from the United States and a reprimand from the United Nations. Israel was forced to move the water intake out of the DMZ and within their own borders, after which the United Nations ruled that the program did not constitute a major threat to Syria and ratified it. The Syrians claimed that the diversion would render something like 49 square kilometers of land useless.So what do they do? They begin a program that not only dams the Jordan, but Lebanese rivers and tributaries as well -- a program that would have purposely spiked the salinity of the Sea of Galilee and reduced water supply in the ENTIRE nation of Israel by 11%. Israel is 22,000 square kilometers. The surface area of the Sea of Galilee is 166 square kilometers.

Now you tell me...is that tit for tat? The Syrians and the Lebanese weren't merely planning on getting even. They upped the drainage ante on a massive scale that threatened Israeli survival in general, not just in the contested areas. Bear in mind, both programs are now legal because the intakes are not in the DMZ. Are the Syrians still justified?

Demon of Light said:
Understand that Michael Oren is a former Israeli government official, which is why I used him as a source. You cannot reasonably describe him as biased against Israel. So there is ultimately little basis for you to dispute what I said about the plans for a major attack on Syria (here the term "limited" is of dubious usage) being a matter of recent events. It says clearly that this major attack on Syria was authorized that very month before the various actions Egypt took in response.

Look: We are NOT debating when Rabin personally called for war. We are NOT debating when Eshkelon called for war. We are debating whether or not Israel had contingency plans against Damascus that predated the the six-day-war, as part of a general, benign policy of deterrence, or whether the entire invasion was concocted as a response to a crisis they created. The excerpt you keep throwing at me doesn't does not discuss that subject at ALL. No matter how much you rub my nose in it, the facts you are referring to are nonexistent within your source. I expanded your citation by clarifying and explaining the entire paragraph in context, to which you stubbornly replied, "THE FACTS ARE CLEARLY THERE AND UNDENIABLE" In fact:

Six days of war: June 1967 and the ... - Google Books

There. That's the page. If anyone wants to look through there as I have done, and find what Demon of Light is talking about, you are welcome to do so. Mbig, if you can find it, I'll be happy to have you call me a liar. But I'm telling you, it does not appear on that page, the preceding page, or the subsequent page. So please STOP waving that damn thing at me like it's the 10 Commandments and you've just come down from Sinai.

Demon of Light said:
Oh, and I already told you that I had other sources to dispute anything you come up with. My use of another source is just me demonstrating that my opinion is fully informed of the circumstances. You are not going to be able to maneuver your way out of this discussion successfully by making such meaningless attacks.

Dude...like...seriously? Get off your high horse. You aren't half as intellectually intimidating as you think you are. I'm not going to stop having this discussion, which I began quite reasonably by clarifying a paragraph you took out of context, and to which you responded, "...YEAH, BUT THIS IS WHAT I SAID AND DON'T YOU DARE REPLY BECAUSE I HAVE SOURCES. SO MANY SOURCES. HUNDREDS OF SOURCES. SOURCE YOU COULD NEVER IMAGINE. MAGICAL SOURCES. SOURCES WITH ENORMOUS PENISES THAT WILL MAKE LOVE TO YOUR MIND." In reality, all you've done is cite half-quotes at me, which I again proceeded to clarify, to which you AGAIN responded, "YEAH BUT YOU DON'T GET IT, AND ONCE MORE, PLEASE DON'T REPLY BECAUSE OF MY SOURCES."

If you want to have a discussion, fine, but don't snidely dismiss completely rational disagreement because you think you've already won...especially since you haven't.

Time Lord · May 31, 2011

Che said:
The 6 day war started by Israel.People can try and twist it all they want but the fact is that they attacked first therefore starting the war and they are still occupying land illegally from that war according to all the international community.

This is just factually and historically incorrect, first of all Egypt attacked Israel hundreds of times through Palestinian Fedayeen proxies which were trained, funded, and armed by the Egyptian military and intelligence services? Want to know how I know this? Because Nasser himself admitted as such:

"Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of Pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the land of Palestine....There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death." -- President Nasser on 31 August 1955

There is other evidence as well:

"According to Martin Gilbert, towards the end of 1954, the Egyptian government supervised the formal establishment of fedayeen groups in Gaza and the northeastern Sinai.[27] Lela Gilbert in The Jerusalem Post writes that General Mustafa Hafez, appointed by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser (1918–1970) to command Egyptian army intelligence, was the one who founded the Palestinian fedayeen units in Egypt "to launch terrorist raids across Israel's southern border."[28]

Furthermore; the illegal naval blockade of the Straights of Tiran was a direct military attack on the economy of Israel and recognized as an act of war under international law, you can continue to ignore these facts and keep peddling the false Arab propaganda but as they say facts are stubborn things.

The Routledge atlas of the Arab ... - Google Books

An 'infidel' in Israel | In depth | Jerusalem Post

Time Lord · May 31, 2011

Demon of Light said:
Egypt's act of closing the Straits of Tiran was in response to Israeli preparations for a major attack on Syria,

And what were these preparations? Closing the Straights of Tiran was an illegal miiltary strike against the economy of Israel, there was no justification for it, it was not retaliatory in any way, Israel had not attacked or threatened to attack Syria.

of which some in the Israeli government said should seek the removal of the government and occupation of Damascus.

Who were they and what exactly did they say? Source? Quotes?

If you look carefully at the rhetoric often cited from Nasser and Assad, they were threatening massive retaliation to an offensive operation,

Then why were their armies mobilized at the borders rather than set up in a defensive posture?

donsutherland1 · May 31, 2011

The chronology of events in the opening message of this thread makes clear that the 1967 war was not Israeli aggression. Moreover, the chronology is superior to revisionist accounts, as the chronology comes from news articles that were published in The New York Times at the time events were unfolding. Hence, it is clear of the bias found in revisionist texts that seek to reinvent what happened. Israel's preemptive attack was a lawful response to acts of aggression carried out against it and the imminent threat of an invasion that loomed.

Grim17 · May 31, 2011

Demon of Light said:
The toughest threat was reported by the news agency United Press International (UPI) on 12 May: 'A high Israeli source said today that Israel would take limited military action designed to topple the Damascus army regime if Syrian terrorists continue sabotage raids inside Israel.

Click to expand...

Aiming to topple a government is pretty major in my opinion and here are the parts you left out:

You were correct when you said that aiming to topple a government is a pretty major deal, but there's a little more to it than that. It has to do with the part you left out... or rather, the part you failed to recognize or chose to ignore when you formulating your response. It's the part of the quote which stated that Israel would take limited military action if the regime didn't stop the terrorist sabotage raids.

That part of the quote provides vital information that you obviously chose not to consider in your response. Information like the following:

It revealed that Israel didn't consider the plans implementation inevitable, but rather a conditional, last resort should Syria fail to put an end to the terrorist raids. It revealed that the planned attack if implemented, would not have been an example of military aggression, but of civil defense. It showed how Israel's top priorities are finding peaceful resolutions first, and only using their military if they have to, or as a means of self defense for the preservation of their people. It informed us that even back then, Israel was was being attacked and threatened by terrorists...

And finally, this question...

Why do you think Egypt and others in the region took that UPI story so seriously, and immediately positioned their military troops for war?

Demon of Light · May 31, 2011

Grim17 said:
You were correct when you said that aiming to topple a government is a pretty major deal, but there's a little more to it than that. It has to do with the part you left out... or rather, the part you failed to recognize or chose to ignore when you formulating your response. It's the part of the quote which stated that Israel would take limited military action if the regime didn't stop the terrorist sabotage raids.

That part of the quote provides vital information that you obviously chose not to consider in your response. Information like the following:

It revealed that Israel didn't consider the plans implementation inevitable, but rather a conditional, last resort should Syria fail to put an end to the terrorist raids. It revealed that the planned attack if implemented, would not have been an example of military aggression, but of civil defense. It showed how Israel's top priorities are finding peaceful resolutions first, and only using their military if they have to, or as a means of self defense for the preservation of their people. It informed us that even back then, Israel was was being attacked and threatened by terrorists...

And finally, this question...

Why do you think Egypt and others in the region took that UPI story so seriously, and immediately positioned their military troops for war?

The reality is that militant raids, labeling them terrorist acts is questionable, were not even remotely a serious threat to Israel, generally were launched from the West Bank, and were only receiving support from Syria in response to Israel's actions in diverting water and Israeli violations in the demilitarized zones that aimed to establish its control over those territories disputed with Syria. Like I said, Fatah's first target was the National Water Carrier in Israel.

Grim17 · Jun 1, 2011

Demon of Light said:
The reality is that militant raids, labeling them terrorist acts is questionable, were not even remotely a serious threat to Israel...

So it's ok to attack Israel and kill their people because it's not an over-all threat to the nation as a whole?

In other words, it's ok to murder innocent people and destroy property in Israel, and Israel has no right to do anything about it as long as it's Arabs from a neighboring country doing it. You'd think the Jews would have learned the rules by now, but they keep breaking them by shamelessly defending themselves.

btw, do you know the answer to my question?

Time Lord · Jun 1, 2011

Demon of Light said:
The reality is that militant raids, labeling them terrorist acts is questionable, were not even remotely a serious threat to Israel,

They were direct attacks murdering Israeli civilians by peoples trained, armed, directed, and funded by the Egyptian government, now on this planet that is an undisputable act of war...hundreds to be precise.

generally were launched from the West Bank,

lolz they were primarily launched from the Egyptian side of Israel.

and were only receiving support from Syria in response to Israel's actions in diverting water and Israeli violations in the demilitarized zones that aimed to establish its control over those territories disputed with Syria. Like I said, Fatah's first target was the National Water Carrier in Israel.

On what planet do you live on that Israel controlled the West Bank and the Jordan river prior to 1967? Strange planet that.

Demon of Light · Jun 2, 2011

Grim17 said:
So it's ok to attack Israel and kill their people because it's not an over-all threat to the nation as a whole?

In other words, it's ok to murder innocent people and destroy property in Israel, and Israel has no right to do anything about it as long as it's Arabs from a neighboring country doing it. You'd think the Jews would have learned the rules by now, but they keep breaking them by shamelessly defending themselves.

There is a difference between responding against the people responsible for an attack should the country they attack from not be willing to do so and massacring villages every time some Arab jumps the border to stab a few Jewish people. If we adopted that approach on our border then Mexico would be a parking lot.

btw, do you know the answer to my question?

They had every reason to believe Israel would do just what the article claimed.

Time Lord said:
They were direct attacks murdering Israeli civilians by peoples trained, armed, directed, and funded by the Egyptian government, now on this planet that is an undisputable act of war...hundreds to be precise.

lolz they were primarily launched from the Egyptian side of Israel.

You are mistaken. Egypt initially did take efforts to stop the fedayeen infiltrations, though the terms of the armistice impeded them in this effort, but after numerous raids by Israel that inflicted massive casualties and the Lavon Affair where Israel directly engaged in terrorism against Egypt changed. Indeed, up to that point it was mostly out of the West Bank that such attacks were launched. After the Suez War it went back to the situation where most attacks were launched out of the West Bank. As Israel became increasingly aggressive against Syria then some attacks began to be launched out of Syrian territory, most still coming out of Jordanian territory just with some now aided by Syria.

On what planet do you live on that Israel controlled the West Bank and the Jordan river prior to 1967? Strange planet that.

They controlled the main tributaries that flowed into the Jordan.

Time Lord · Jun 2, 2011

Demon of Light said:
You are mistaken. Egypt initially did take efforts to stop the fedayeen infiltrations,

What complete and utter made up nonsense, you just completely pulled that claim out of thin air, the complete opposite is the case.

The Palestinian Fedayeen proxies were trained, funded, and armed by the Egyptian military and intelligence services. Want to know how I know this? Because Nasser himself admitted as such:

"Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of Pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the land of Palestine....There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death." -- President Nasser on 31 August 1955

There is other evidence as well:

"According to Martin Gilbert, towards the end of 1954, the Egyptian government supervised the formal establishment of fedayeen groups in Gaza and the northeastern Sinai.[27] Lela Gilbert in The Jerusalem Post writes that General Mustafa Hafez, appointed by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser (1918–1970) to command Egyptian army intelligence, was the one who founded the Palestinian fedayeen units in Egypt "to launch terrorist raids across Israel's southern border."[28]

The Routledge atlas of the Arab ... - Google Books

http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380626879&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

though the terms of the armistice impeded them in this effort,

Really the armistice from 1956 caused Nasser to claim that the Palestinian Fedayeen were his proxies in 1955? Egypt invented the time machine? Sweet. :roll:

but after numerous raids by Israel that inflicted massive casualties

Source?

and the Lavon Affair where Israel directly engaged in terrorism against Egypt changed.

How many people were killed in the Lavon Affair? 0? Ya thought so.

Indeed, up to that point it was mostly out of the West Bank that such attacks were launched. After the Suez War it went back to the situation where most attacks were launched out of the West Bank.

Source? Didn't think so, because the Fedayeen in the West Bank and in Jordan didn't begin to really form until the late 1960s after the six day war.

As Israel became increasingly aggressive against Syria then some attacks began to be launched out of Syrian territory, most still coming out of Jordanian territory just with some now aided by Syria.

The Palestinian Fedayeen were armed, funded, and trained by the Egyptian military and intelligence apparatus as Nasser readily admits.

They controlled the main tributaries that flowed into the Jordan.

Just pulling out made up facts out of the ether again eh? The Jordan river has 4 main tributaries, The Hasbani still in Lebanon, The Banias which is in the Golan Heights which at the time was controlled by Syria until the 1967 war, The Iyon still in Lebanon, and the river Dan which was the only tributary located in Israel, but hey I guess 1 out of 4 aint bad. :roll:

Grim17 · Jun 2, 2011

Demon of Light said:
There is a difference between responding against the people responsible for an attack should the country they attack from not be willing to do so and massacring villages every time some Arab jumps the border to stab a few Jewish people. If we adopted that approach on our border then Mexico would be a parking lot.

Not only do you downplay the acts of violence against Israel and exaggerate about their responses to that violence, you also overlooked or side stepped my original point completely.

Israel wasn't then, nor is it to this very day, the aggressor in this never ending conflict. Is has always been the Arab states and their deep seeded hatred for Jews, who have initiated the violence and bloodshed. They have every right in the world to defend themselves, and if you don't like it, then why don't you and the other Arab sympathizers out there, stop complaining and do something to get those people to stop attacking them in the first place? If they stop attacking, Israel won't have to retaliate and the violence will come to a complete stop. It amazes me how people like yourself can carry the water for people that display such a disregard for human life, such hatred for Jews and non-Muslims, and treat women and homosexuals the way they do.. Just amazing.

They had every reason to believe Israel would do just what the article claimed.

But why?

Since I know you will never figure it out, I'll tell you... Israel said that they would have to attack Syria, if they didn't stop the terrorist attacks against them. Egypt knew that there was no way in hell that Syria would ever stop the terrorism against Israel, therefore the possible Israeli attack that was mentioned in that article, was inevitable in their eyes.

It is the same story today, as it was back in 1967... Israel says "Stop the violence and bloodshed or you will force us to take military action against you"... The Arabs ignore their warnings and attack Israel every chance they get... Israel eventually gets fed up with those attacks and retalliates... Then people like you condemn Israel for defending themselves and pretend that the Arab attackers are the poor, innocent victims of Israeli aggression.

Even if I live to be 150 years old, I will never understand how anyone in the civilized world could possibly defend such a violent and intolerant society of people.

ido_ · Jun 2, 2011

Demon of Light said:
They controlled the main tributaries that flowed into the Jordan.

In addition to what TL wrote, the Yarmouk river is the largest tributary of the Jordan river, at the time was controled by Syria, and it was Syria who tried to divert its water in order to damage Israel's water supply.

Time Lord · Jun 2, 2011

ido_ said:
In addition to what TL wrote, the Yarmouk river is the largest tributary of the Jordan river, at the time was controled by Syria, and it was Syria who tried to divert its water in order to damage Israel's water supply.

And I missed the 2nd largest tributary as well IE the Zarqa River in Jordan so 1 out of 6 tributaries were controlled by Israel, I tell you these people have absolutely no qualms about just posting total fabrications, they literally just make things up as they go along, it's laughable.

Demon of Light · Jun 2, 2011

Time Lord said:
What complete and utter made up nonsense, you just completely pulled that claim out of thin air, the complete opposite is the case.

The Palestinian Fedayeen proxies were trained, funded, and armed by the Egyptian military and intelligence services. Want to know how I know this? Because Nasser himself admitted as such:

"Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of Pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the land of Palestine....There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death." -- President Nasser on 31 August 1955

There is other evidence as well:

"According to Martin Gilbert, towards the end of 1954, the Egyptian government supervised the formal establishment of fedayeen groups in Gaza and the northeastern Sinai.[27] Lela Gilbert in The Jerusalem Post writes that General Mustafa Hafez, appointed by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser (1918–1970) to command Egyptian army intelligence, was the one who founded the Palestinian fedayeen units in Egypt "to launch terrorist raids across Israel's southern border."[28]

The Routledge atlas of the Arab ... - Google Books

An 'infidel' in Israel | In depth | Jerusalem Post

Really the armistice from 1956 caused Nasser to claim that the Palestinian Fedayeen were his proxies in 1955? Egypt invented the time machine? Sweet. :roll:

I was referring to the 1949 armistice and both of the quotes you gave are from after the Lavon Affair. So, you have not proved anything I said wrong.

Source?

Here:

45. The Egyptian controlled area known as the "Gaza Strip" is about 4 kilometres wide and 50 kilometres long. It has a population of approximately 250,000 of which 200,000 are Palestine refugees. The majority of Israel complaints in connexion with that area refer to infiltration into Israel. Water pipes, pumps, cattle and crops have been stolen from the Israel settlements in the Negeb. The Israelis have retaliated by shooting at Arabs seen crossing the demarcation line. They have also sent motor patrols along the line, and shot at Arabs working on their lands in Egyptian controlled territory. This has, however, decreased somewhat in recent months. There have been also night raids against Arab villages, during which people have been shot and houses blown up. After every serious shooting incident, Arabs have usually retaliated by laying mines on roads and tracks in Israel territory. The blowing up of an Israel vehicle by a mine results in retaliatory action and the cycle of reprisals repeats itself.

46. One of the latest and gravest incidents in the Gaza Strip has been the attack upon several houses and huts in the Arab refugee camp of Bureij on the night of 28 August. That camp, organized and administered by United Nations Relief and Works Agency, is situated about 2 kilometres west of the demarcation line. Bombs were thrown through the windows of huts in which refugees were sleeping and, as they fled, they were attacked by small arms and automatic weapons. The casualties were twenty killed, twenty-seven seriously wounded and thirty-five less seriously wounded. The Mixed Armistice Commission, in an emergency meeting, adopted by a majority vote a resolution according to which the attack was made by a group of armed Israelis. A likely explanation is that it was a ruthless reprisal raid. This seems probable in view of the fact that a quarter of the Israel complaints during the preceding four weeks referred to infiltration in this area.

Source: S/PV.630 of 27 October 1953

How many people were killed in the Lavon Affair? 0? Ya thought so.

Because Israel would never respond to attacks that involved no deaths with massive military responses creating large numbers of casualties. Israel engaged directly in terrorist attacks against Egypt. Why should Egypt be condemned for its response, when Israel does the same thing to much applause by your side?

Source? Didn't think so, because the Fedayeen in the West Bank and in Jordan didn't begin to really form until the late 1960s after the six day war.

Uh no, most of the attacks before 1954 and after 1956 came from the West Bank. There was not an organized group at the time, though. They were mainly just random bands of armed and unarmed infiltrators.

Just pulling out made up facts out of the ether again eh? The Jordan river has 4 main tributaries, The Hasbani still in Lebanon, The Banias which is in the Golan Heights which at the time was controlled by Syria until the 1967 war, The Iyon still in Lebanon, and the river Dan which was the only tributary located in Israel, but hey I guess 1 out of 4 aint bad. :roll:

Certainly those rivers start out in other countries, but from what I can tell they all passed through Israeli territory.

Grim17 said:
Not only do you downplay the acts of violence against Israel and exaggerate about their responses to that violence, you also overlooked or side stepped my original point completely.

I was using colorful verbiage to illustrate a point. That Israel launched brutal and excessive retaliatory raids is undeniable. It is also undeniable that most infiltrations by fedayeen were non-violent and those that were are usually indistinguishable from border crimes in countless other areas, where such crimes do not lead to indiscriminate attacks on civilians. Another undeniable fact is that until Egypt started backing them after Israel's various actions in Gaza and the Lavon Affair, deaths from these infiltrations were rare. After 1956 it was once more very rare.

But why?

Since I know you will never figure it out, I'll tell you... Israel said that they would have to attack Syria, if they didn't stop the terrorist attacks against them. Egypt knew that there was no way in hell that Syria would ever stop the terrorism against Israel, therefore the possible Israeli attack that was mentioned in that article, was inevitable in their eyes.

It is the same story today, as it was back in 1967... Israel says "Stop the violence and bloodshed or you will force us to take military action against you"... The Arabs ignore their warnings and attack Israel every chance they get... Israel eventually gets fed up with those attacks and retalliates... Then people like you condemn Israel for defending themselves and pretend that the Arab attackers are the poor, innocent victims of Israeli aggression.

Even if I live to be 150 years old, I will never understand how anyone in the civilized world could possibly defend such a violent and intolerant society of people.

I figured that would be your spin on it. The problem is that for Syria it was basically like Israel saying "stop attacking us and we won't attack you more than we already are" because Israel had no intention of making concessions on the demilitarized zones.

Time Lord · Jun 2, 2011

Demon of Light said:
I was referring to the 1949 armistice and both of the quotes you gave are from after the Lavon Affair. So, you have not proved anything I said wrong.

Again how many people were killed in the Lavon Affair? Regardless the Fedayeen attacks started before the Lavon affair.

Here:

Source: S/PV.630 of 27 October 1953

The source clearly states that they were retaliatory in nature.

Because Israel would never respond to attacks that involved no deaths with massive military responses creating large numbers of casualties. Israel engaged directly in terrorist attacks against Egypt. Why should Egypt be condemned for its response, when Israel does the same thing to much applause by your side?

It was Israel which was responding, the Fedayeen proxy attacks and raids started before the Lavon affair.

Uh no, most of the attacks before 1954 and after 1956 came from the West Bank.

Completely false, I don't suppose you have a source to back up this assertion?

There was not an organized group at the time, though. They were mainly just random bands of armed and unarmed infiltrators.

Once again they were trained, armed, and financed by the Egyptian government.

Certainly those rivers start out in other countries, but from what I can tell they all passed through Israeli territory.

Map? Source? Only 1 out of 6 of the Jordan river tributaries were controlled by Israel and your assertion that it was Israel who was attempting to divert the tributaries is a bold faced lie and the exact opposite is true it was the Arab states who rejected the water sharing agreement and began diversion projects.

ElCid · Jun 2, 2011

The Arabs should've learned not to mess about with Israel by now. Their leaders should read T.E. Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom. Indeed, they should Lawrence's poignant portrait of themselves, and make necessary changes therein.

Demon of Light · Jun 3, 2011

Time Lord said:
Again how many people were killed in the Lavon Affair? Regardless the Fedayeen attacks started before the Lavon affair.

Not from Egypt or Gaza.

The source clearly states that they were retaliatory in nature.

I knew you would make that claim, but this is where we begin to see your argument falter:

The majority of Israel complaints in connexion with that area refer to infiltration into Israel. Water pipes, pumps, cattle and crops have been stolen from the Israel settlements in the Negeb. The Israelis have retaliated by shooting at Arabs seen crossing the demarcation line.

So apparently for Israel some random people crossing the border to kidnap a cow justifies massacring villagers, but said massacre and deliberately engaging in terrorism against another country does not justify that country responding with any military force at all.

It was Israel which was responding, the Fedayeen proxy attacks and raids started before the Lavon affair.

From the West Bank there were attacks. From Gaza there was sporadic theft.

Completely false, I don't suppose you have a source to back up this assertion?

Look it up, it won't be that hard. You will find it just about anywhere that discusses this issue.

Once again they were trained, armed, and financed by the Egyptian government.

After the Lavon Affair and brutal raids into Gaza.

Map? Source? Only 1 out of 6 of the Jordan river tributaries were controlled by Israel and your assertion that it was Israel who was attempting to divert the tributaries is a bold faced lie and the exact opposite is true it was the Arab states who rejected the water sharing agreement and began diversion projects.

The Headwater Diversion Plan was a response to Israel's efforts in diverting water. Honestly, this is accepted history dude.

Jeezy · Jun 3, 2011

Demon of Light said:
The Headwater Diversion Plan was a response to Israel's efforts in diverting water. Honestly, this is accepted history dude.

Oh look, he's rehashing the failed arguments that he used against me.:roll:

Time Lord · Jun 5, 2011

Demon of Light said:
Not from Egypt or Gaza.

The entirety of the Fedayeen on both sides of Israel were trained by Egyptian intelligence.

I knew you would make that claim, but this is where we begin to see your argument falter:

So apparently for Israel some random people crossing the border to kidnap a cow justifies massacring villagers, but said massacre and deliberately engaging in terrorism against another country does not justify that country responding with any military force at all.

lolz, there was no massacre on the part of the Israeli's, on the part of the Egyptian proxies however, is another matter altogether.

* March 17 – Ma'ale Akrabim massacre: Armed Palestinian Arab militants ambush and board an Israeli civilian passenger bus traveling from Eilat to Tel Aviv. Eleven Israelis on the bus are brutally killed by the militants. Four passengers survived, two of whom are wounded by the militants.
* June 27 – Armed Palestinian Arab militants, who infiltrated to Israel from Jordan, kill an elderly Israeli farmer on the outskirts of Ra'anana.

1954 in Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Between June 1949 and the end of 1952, a total of 57 Israelis, mostly civilians, were killed by infiltrators from Jordan, and the Israeli death toll for the first 9 months of 1953 was 32.

Major Arab Terrorist Attacks against Israelis Prior to the 1967 Six-Day War

Jan 1, 1952 - Seven armed terrorists attacked and killed a nineteen year-old girl in her home, in the neighborhood of Beit Yisrael, in Jerusalem.

Apr 14, 1953 - Terrorists tried for the first time to infiltrate Israel by sea, but were unsuccessful. One of the boats was intercepted and the other boat escaped.

June 7, 1953 - A youngster was killed and three others were wounded, in shooting attacks on residential areas in southern Jerusalem.

June 9, 1953 - Terrorists attacked a farming community near Lod, and killed one of the residents. The terrorists threw hand grenades and sprayed gunfire in all directions. On the same night, another group of terrorists attacked a house in the town of Hadera. This occurred a day after Israel and Jordan signed an agreement, with UN mediation, in which Jordan undertook to prevent terrorists from crossing into Israel from Jordanian territory.

June 10, 1953 - Terrorists infiltrating from Jordan destroyed a house in the farming village of Mishmar Ayalon.

June 11, 1953 - Terrorists attacked a young couple in their home in Kfar Hess, and shot them to death.

Sept 2, 1953 - Terrorists infiltrated from Jordan, and reached the neighborhood of Katamon, in the heart of Jerusalem. They threw hand grenades in all directions. Miraculously, no one was hurt.

Mar 17, 1954 - Terrorists ambushed a bus traveling from Eilat to Tel Aviv, and opened fire at short range when the bus reached the area of Maale Akrabim in the northern Negev. In the initial ambush, the terrorists killed the driver and wounded most of the passengers. The terrorists then boarded the bus, and shot each passenger, one by one. Eleven passengers were murdered. Survivors recounted how the murderers spat on the bodies and abused them. The terrorists could clearly be traced back to the Jordanian border, some 20 km from the site of the terrorist attack.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism...h Came First- Terrorism or Occupation - Major

From the West Bank there were attacks. From Gaza there was sporadic theft.

The Fedayeen were armed, trained and funded by Egyptian intelligence both in Gaza and the West Bank so this argument is quite pointless.

Look it up, it won't be that hard. You will find it just about anywhere that discusses this issue.

So no source? Typical.

After the Lavon Affair and brutal raids into Gaza.

Completely false, the last time I checked March is before July, but hey you aren't to keen on historical facts are you Mr. "Israel controlled the tributaries to the Jordan."

The Headwater Diversion Plan was a response to Israel's efforts in diverting water. Honestly, this is accepted history dude.

Yes we know all about your "accepted history", Israel was in control of 1 out of 6 tributaries to the Jordan, care to post a source to this supposed diversion plan of the Dan river? No? Thought not.

ludahai · Jun 6, 2011

Che said:
The 6 day war started by Israel.People can try and twist it all they want but the fact is that they attacked first therefore starting the war and they are still occupying land illegally from that war according to all the international community.

Yeah, they should have waited for Egypt to completely tighten the noose around Israel. Egypt committed the first act of war by illegally closing down international waters to Israeli shipping. Then, they were massing forces in the Sinai with the clear intent to invade. This is known to be a FACT. Israel isn't like China which could give up loads of territory like it did when fighting the Japanese in WWII. Israel simply doesn't have that luxury. Egypt started the war through its illegal actions in the Tiran Strait. Israel's response was appropriate and necessary...

The 1967 War

Bohemian Revolutionary

onomatopoeic

Bohemian Revolutionary

Member

Member

Battle Ready

Bohemian Revolutionary

Battle Ready

Member

Bohemian Revolutionary

Member

Battle Ready

Member

Bohemian Revolutionary

Member

Bohemian Revolutionary

Member

Defender of the Faith