The 1967 War

GI Joe said:

Wrong!!!!

“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. The right of innocent, maritime passage must be preserved for all nations" - US President Lyndon Johnson June 19th 1967

Click to expand...

Are you saying the United States unambiguously backed the Israeli government!? Stop the presses!

Oy now talk about a spin. Here goes demon as he states:

"... you are being disingenuous by not noting that Nasser's response was in fact to get the operation scrubbed."

How is it disingenuous? He got caught red-handed. The facts speak for themselves. There is nothing diingenuous about saying Israel exposed Operation Dawn. That is exactly what happened. What did you want Nasser to do after he got caught, continue with the operation now that it was exposed? LOL.

Oh but I love this one:

"Nasser's actual knowledge of the operation is also debatable with arguments that he had no knowledge of said operation before the Soviets informed him...."

Now that is absurd let alone the worst attempt to spin I have ever heard. He had to find out from the Soviets about an attack he planned? Lol. Right he had no idea his own armed forces was planning an invasion of Israel. He never led his armed forces. Just happened behind his back.

Oh but wait....

" of it or that he did not have enough political backing to put an end to it."

Ooopsy let's just spin it both ways so that if he did know about it he couldn't stop it. Right Nasser was helpless. His armed forces just ignored him. He was a peaceful man surrounded by an armed forces that would not listen to him.

Oh but wait...

"Either way (you go both ways evidently), the plan was stopped and there were no plans to attack Israel when Israel attacked Egypt."

Duh. Thanks for letting me and others know. He didn't continue with an attack that was exposed. Gee.

But this one I really like:

"The reality is that the Egyptians were talking to the United States about a diplomatic settlement to the situation and Israel attacked two days before an Egyptian Vice-President was going to visit D.C. to discuss such diplomatic moves."

Reality? Lol. Yah the reality where Nasser has no idea his armed forces are going to attack Israel. The reality where if he did know, he had no power to stop them.

Dee Demon in your absurd attempts to revise with your spins read the above. If he had no power to stop the armed forces from invading Israel as you stated, why would he go to the US and put up the charade that he was there to engage in peace? Are you saying he was a liar? Um uh um uh. See Demon those spins get so absurd they make no sense but please continue.

Oh but wait..

"Honestly, that sort of anti-diplomatic measure is typical of Israel."

Honestly? You use the word honestly? Lol.

Yer funny. Spin some more. More!

justabubba said:

that's not what i said
what i pointed out is the reality that israel was the party to the conflict which lit the fuse of war
a fact you write your volumes around in an attempt to avoid acknowledging

Click to expand...

No you stated and I again repeat:

"israel initiated the hostilities"

then you went on to state:

"to say anything different is to lie about the actual history of the event ".

According to you to raise any of the acts, actions and statements of the Eyptians, Syrians, Iraqis, Jordanians, prior to Israel's actual attack according to you is a lie.

What's it going to be JustaBubba?

Lol.

I think you and Demon should quit while you are ahead.

You want to conveniently ignore everything Nasser and Syria and the Arab League and Al Fatah did including their massing on Israel's border and getting caught red handed trying to invade Israel is one thing-to say everything but your revision of history is a lie, is even more hilarious.

But please continue to advise moi how you have a monopoly on truth and I am a liar.

Lol.

Operation Dawn is a lie.

The speeches from Nasser, a lie.

The attacks by Syria, a lie.

The blockade, a lie.

The expulsion of the UN peacekeepers, a lie.

The massing on Israel's border, a lie.

All a lie. Israel started it. The Arab League was doing nothing.They were just minding their own business when pow out of the blue a bunch of crazed Zionists and that sob with the one eye Moishe Dayan attacked them.

Mouhamad Fawzi, the Egyptian chief of staff, pursuant to Syrian complaints about the concentration of Israeli forces on the border with Syrua, went to Damascus. He then returned to Nasser and reported Fawzi reported directly to Nasser informing him that there was no build up by Israel.

Because of this fact which is now public domain because Fawzi's report was released to the public it clearly shows Nasser knew Israel was not planning to attack Israel and this farse of trying to revise history to suggest Nasser sent his army into the Sinai only in response to Israeli provocations was exposed long ago. The spinners on this forum though rely on you not to be aware of the actual evidence out there when they spin. Poof begone with that reality. Its a lie according to JustaBubba and wait for it Demon will be back with the response..." um yah I knew about that but Fawzi's comments were taken out of context-look for the dots.......".

Fawzi's report was kept secret and Nasser sent his troops into Sinai knowing there was no Israeli build up based on his own General's report but justified their entering the sinai AFTER Fawzi's report, saying the Soviet's had told them the Israelis were building up troops on Syria's border.

Nasser made a bold faced like using the Soviet report as his cover. He know there was no build up against Syria. He had also been told prior to that announcement by the UN that they had sent their observers to the border and found zero evidence of any build up. They also knew when the Soviet ambassador to Israel was offered to be taken to the border where he claimed the Israeli troops were, the amvassador refused.

But hey, according to JustaBubba that all just goes poof. Its a lie. Poof go away.

In the world of Demon and JustaBubba on May 18, 1967 as Nasser ordered the massing of a total of three infantry divisions and one armoured division and 70– 80,000 soldiers, supported by 600 tanks, as well as supporting artillery and air force units into the Sinai Peninsula, stationed 20 kilometres from the Israeli border, that is not a sign of beligerence according to Demon and its a lie to suggest it gave Israel reason to fear for its existence according to JustaBubba.

By the way between May 24 and June 4, 1967 when in direct response to Nasser's request Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Lebanon moved their armies to the Israeli border-well that's not beligerence according to Demon-just conveniently ignore that and of course according to JustaBubba to even mention it is a lie.

Right. That gun pointed at my head fully loaded oh just ignore it. My reaction to the gun by knocking it out of your hand, well duh, it is unprovoked. How dare I knock that gun away. It was uncalled for.

Lol. Pooof begone with any evidence of anything to do with the gun. POOOOOOOOF I say!

Mika-El said:

Mouhamad Fawzi, the Egyptian chief of staff, pursuant to Syrian complaints about the concentration of Israeli forces on the border with Syrua, went to Damascus. He then returned to Nasser and reported Fawzi reported directly to Nasser informing him that there was no build up by Israel.

Because of this fact which is now public domain because Fawzi's report was released to the public it clearly shows Nasser knew Israel was not planning to attack Israel and this farse of trying to revise history to suggest Nasser sent his army into the Sinai only in response to Israeli provocations was exposed long ago. The spinners on this forum though rely on you not to be aware of the actual evidence out there when they spin. Poof begone with that reality. Its a lie according to JustaBubba and wait for it Demon will be back with the response..." um yah I knew about that but Fawzi's comments were taken out of context-look for the dots.......".

Fawzi's report was kept secret and Nasser sent his troops into Sinai knowing there was no Israeli build up based on his own General's report but justified their entering the sinai AFTER Fawzi's report, saying the Soviet's had told them the Israelis were building up troops on Syria's border.

Nasser made a bold faced like using the Soviet report as his cover. He know there was no build up against Syria. He had also been told prior to that announcement by the UN that they had sent their observers to the border and found zero evidence of any build up. They also knew when the Soviet ambassador to Israel was offered to be taken to the border where he claimed the Israeli troops were, the amvassador refused.

But hey, according to JustaBubba that all just goes poof. Its a lie. Poof go away.

Click to expand...

what is found a lie is the attempts to pretend israel did not start the six-day war

justabubba said:

what is found a lie is the attempts to pretend israel did not start the six-day war

Click to expand...

Yes I know. Never mind you pointed a loaded gun at my head resting on my temple* before I knocked it out of your hand. . any version of history other then the one that is limited to saying for no reason I wacked your hand is a lie.

Lol yes Bubba I get your selective memory.:2wave:


*temple.....that was a play on words

justabubba said:

what is found a lie is the attempts to pretend israel did not start the six-day war

Click to expand...

Egypt started the war, when they forced Israel to defend herself.

apdst said:

Egypt started the war, when they forced Israel to defend herself.

Click to expand...

Oh no no. It works like this.... if I point a loaded gun in your unarmed face and say I will kill you must shut up and let me kill you because if you defend yourself and knock the gun out of my hand you are victimizing me by not letting me murder you.

The reality is this: Israel has never been in danger from any combination of Arab forces. It just suits the Israeli hawks to present the other idea as it justifies pre-emptive attacks, which in turn lead to land grabs. Which is what it's all about - "Greater Israel" and all that.

Alan Hart, an English journalist with over 30 years experience reporting on the conflict, including exclusive access to the likes of Yasser Arafat and Golda Meir, and who was the first Western journalist to reach the Suez with the advancing Israelis in this war, says:

'One of my sources, and actually my mentor in Israel, was (then retired) Major General Chaim Herzog, a former Director of Military Intelligence and one of the founding fathers of that agency. On day two of the war, he said to me: “If Nasser had not been stupid enough to give us a pretext to go to war, we would have invented one in a year to 18 months.” '

In the same article he also provides many other quotes from various Israeli military and intelligence officers showing that Nasser's actions were never seriously considered a threat.

Even more significant is the publication Israel's Sacred Terrorism, a study based on Moshe Sharett's personal diary, by Livia Rokach, daughter of Israel Rokach, Minister of the Interior in the government of Moshe Sharett. Sharett was Israel's first Foreign Minister and Israel's second Prime Minister, after David Ben-Gurion resigned in the wake of the Lavon Affair scandal. His diary shows his frustration at Ben-Gurion's fondness for using brute force in achieving his goals, and the scheming and conniving of his sidekick, Moshe Dayan.

From the introduction:

"The Israeli political /military establishment never seriously believed in an Arab threat to the existence of Israel... The occupation by Israel of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 has been described, and is still widely understood today, as an Israeli defensive action in the face of Arab threats. Sharett's Diary offers unequivocable [sic] evidence that the occupation of Gaza and also of the West Bank was part of lsrael's plans since the early fifties. American Zionist leaders were informed about these plans in 1954..."

shanners said:

The reality is this: Israel has never been in danger from any combination of Arab forces. It just suits the Israeli hawks to present the other idea as it justifies pre-emptive attacks, which in turn lead to land grabs. Which is what it's all about - "Greater Israel" and all that.

Alan Hart, an English journalist with over 30 years experience reporting on the conflict, including exclusive access to the likes of Yasser Arafat and Golda Meir, and who was the first Western journalist to reach the Suez with the advancing Israelis in this war, says:

'One of my sources, and actually my mentor in Israel, was (then retired) Major General Chaim Herzog, a former Director of Military Intelligence and one of the founding fathers of that agency. On day two of the war, he said to me: “If Nasser had not been stupid enough to give us a pretext to go to war, we would have invented one in a year to 18 months.” '

In the same article he also provides many other quotes from various Israeli military and intelligence officers showing that Nasser's actions were never seriously considered a threat.

Even more significant is the publication Israel's Sacred Terrorism, a study based on Moshe Sharett's personal diary, by Livia Rokach, daughter of Israel Rokach, Minister of the Interior in the government of Moshe Sharett. Sharett was Israel's first Foreign Minister and Israel's second Prime Minister, after David Ben-Gurion resigned in the wake of the Lavon Affair scandal. His diary shows his frustration at Ben-Gurion's fondness for using brute force in achieving his goals, and the scheming and conniving of his sidekick, Moshe Dayan.

From the introduction:

"The Israeli political /military establishment never seriously believed in an Arab threat to the existence of Israel... The occupation by Israel of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 has been described, and is still widely understood today, as an Israeli defensive action in the face of Arab threats. Sharett's Diary offers unequivocable [sic] evidence that the occupation of Gaza and also of the West Bank was part of lsrael's plans since the early fifties. American Zionist leaders were informed about these plans in 1954..."

Click to expand...

I was under the impression it was the soviets at the time, through Syria, pushing Nasser to do what he did, he, Nasser, not really wanting a confrontation with Israel, yet they were accusing him ofd basically not being seriouse in his leadership, chicken in a way, iif you can beelive that type of insunuation would be done at this lever, like a dareing one , if they don't do this or that..and then when the sioviets saw what happened, threatening all types of reactions if the Israeli's didn't ceast and desist..

It was as much as a dissing and a possible come down on USA influence in the area , Middle east, as it was a Arab, Israli situation that they , Soviets, were looking for..that bit them in the butt. From what I thought I understood of the actions there..

This issue has come up again in at least one more string.
Lets make it a coherent/unfragmented/On Topic discussion.

Mika-El said:

In the world of Demon and JustaBubba on May 18, 1967 as Nasser ordered the massing of a total of three infantry divisions and one armoured division and 70– 80,000 soldiers, supported by 600 tanks, as well as supporting artillery and air force units into the Sinai Peninsula, stationed 20 kilometres from the Israeli border, that is not a sign of beligerence according to Demon and its a lie to suggest it gave Israel reason to fear for its existence according to JustaBubba.

By the way between May 24 and June 4, 1967 when in direct response to Nasser's request Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Lebanon moved their armies to the Israeli border-well that's not beligerence according to Demon-just conveniently ignore that and of course according to JustaBubba to even mention it is a lie.

Right. That gun pointed at my head fully loaded oh just ignore it. My reaction to the gun by knocking it out of your hand, well duh, it is unprovoked. How dare I knock that gun away. It was uncalled for.

Lol. Pooof begone with any evidence of anything to do with the gun. POOOOOOOOF I say!

Click to expand...

Saudi Arabia did NOT move its army anywhere.. Saudi Arabia's troops were busy in Yemen fighting on the side of the Royalists in the Yemeni civil war..

Saudi Arabia did not participate in the 1967 war at all, Mika-el.

sharon said:

Saudi Arabia did NOT move its army anywhere.. Saudi Arabia's troops were busy in Yemen fighting on the side of the Royalists in the Yemeni civil war..

Saudi Arabia did not participate in the 1967 war at all, Mika-el.

Click to expand...

So it was only Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq.

That makes a huge difference.

Thanks for clarifying.

CJ 2.0 said:

So it was only Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq.

That makes a huge difference.

Thanks for clarifying.

Click to expand...

Well, once Israel bombed Egypt's airforce lined up on the Tarmac.. it pretty much became a free for all... and the end results REALLY cost the US.

sharon said:

Well, once Israel bombed Egypt's airforce lined up on the Tarmac.. it pretty much became a free for all... and the end results REALLY cost the US.

Click to expand...

Egypt moved its troops into demilitarized Sinai and deployed them along the Israeli border before the airstrike. Now I'm not sure how that makes it "free for all".
Jordan bombed West Jerusalem before Israel attacked it, Syria launched a tank assault on a village near the sea of Galilee before Israel attacked it.

CJ 2.0 said:

So it was only Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq.

That makes a huge difference.

Thanks for clarifying.

Click to expand...

Just for the record, Lebanon supported the 6-day war but did not participate.

ido_ said:

Egypt moved its troops into demilitarized Sinai and deployed them along the Israeli border before the airstrike. Now I'm not sure how that makes it "free for all".
Jordan bombed West Jerusalem before Israel attacked it, Syria launched a tank assault on a village near the sea of Galilee before Israel attacked it.

Click to expand...

let me make sure i understand what you are telling us

are you asserting that the bombing by jordan and the syrian assault occurred PRIOR to the pre-emptive attack by israel, which ignited the '67 war?

Mira said:

Just for the record, Lebanon supported the 6-day war but did not participate.

Click to expand...

Good catch.. Saudi Arabia was involved either inspite of Mika-el's claim.

justabubba said:

let me make sure i understand what you are telling us

are you asserting that the bombing by jordan and the syrian assault occurred PRIOR to the pre-emptive attack by israel, which ignited the '67 war?

Click to expand...

A bit misleading, don't you think?

sharon said:

Well, once Israel bombed Egypt's airforce lined up on the Tarmac.. it pretty much became a free for all... and the end results REALLY cost the US.

Click to expand...

yah, on the tarmac of their forward bases, where they had all been moved up to in an offensive posture.

CJ 2.0 said:

yah, on the tarmac of their forward bases, where they had all been moved up to in an offensive posture.

Click to expand...

What was the name and location of that "forward base"?

justabubba said:

let me make sure i understand what you are telling us

are you asserting that the bombing by jordan and the syrian assault occurred PRIOR to the pre-emptive attack by israel, which ignited the '67 war?

Click to expand...

Israel launched an offensive against Egypt not against Jordan and Syria this is what I'm saying.

sharon said:

What was the name and location of that "forward base"?

Click to expand...

sorry, and that matters how?

Since the Sinai had been demilitarized until May, and most of Sgypt's aircraft were destroyed there, I'm sure you can figure out their names on your own.

CJ 2.0 said:

sorry, and that matters how?

Since the Sinai had been demilitarized until May, and most of Sgypt's aircraft were destroyed there, I'm sure you can figure out their names on your own.

Click to expand...

My question was genuine.. I have never seen a map or location or any mention of forward bases.