IF tommorow the Palestinian people peacably protested in the street+did so for month

[Ned]

I'm going off of memory. But, even the Arab sites say that they agreed to a cease fire to avoid their capitals being taken.

[Edan]

As for the second quote: sensing war is likely does not make out who the aggressor is. I could say right now: sensing war between Iraq and the US to be likely, I did X: that does not speak to who's fault it is. As you said, by May 30'th Israel's reserves were already mobilized, which is a very big hint that something is coming.

That hadn't been my point. My point (nicely marked by the bold lettering) was that Jordan had placed it's troops under the command of the Egyptian general - effectively making them a part of the Egyptian forces.

A simmilar mutual-defence pact had been signed between Egypt and Syria the previous year.

And on the issue of alliences and the aftermath. Once Israel had Egypt down, full scale assults to take ground, as occured aganist Syria and jordan were not vital to winning the war.

True. By that point the war had all but been decided - that doesn't mean you stop fighting. You stop fighting when the war is over. Now, you can argue that Israel might have been able to sue for peace^H^H^H^H^H ceasefire (although that would have needed the cooperationb of the other side - a ceasefire is worthless if only one side wants it). You could make the case that it wasn't in Israel's interest to do so, and that Israel captured the Golan Heights rather than hold their ground until Syria capitulated when they had the power to take over that strategic area (certainly something unusual in warfare, no? ). Certainly, the prospect of returning to the status quo of continual bombardments, continued tension and a possible return to war is less appealing than taking over the Golan heights, effectively stopping those bombardments, having something to bargain for peace with and showing the Syrians that they're bellicose actions had consequences. However, if you think Israel was just out for a land grab by that point in the game, rather than security issues, why would Israel be concerned about a relitively small area like the golan heights, and why would they offer it back (in exchange for a comprehensive peace) right after the war?

but I also think they knew they could ahndle such a situation and that the way in which the battle developed went beyond self-defense and pre-emption and turned into a way of remaking the map once the oppurtunity was there.

Do you think America's role in WW2 was defensive? Because that statement seems to apply to that war (except for the "pre-emption" part) as well as many other wars.

[Edan]

In fact, this is what lead to the attack on the Liberty.

I wasn't aware conspiracy theories have come back in style... I hear there are plenty of such theories dealing with the JFK assassination, alien abductions and 9/11 which should keep you entertained for weeks.

[Ned]

Edan, If you ever visit some of the left wing sites on the web, you will find a lot of "conspiracy" theory thinking. Everything Bush or the US or for that matter Israel does has some underlying "evil" purpose. This is why the Six Day War has become a war of agression by Israel.

Of course, if Israel were the ally of the USSR and the Arabs were protected by the US, you would hear an entirely different view of history from these folks.

[gsmoove23]

Oh c'mon, I'm not willing to sign on to any conspiracy theories but 'accidently' bombing a US intelligence gathering ship while the land grab was in full swing should ring bells in the thickest of minds. I question actions like these with a healthy amount of skepticism.

[Az]

1973 gives the lie to the idea that 1967, even if it was an all out invasion of Israel, would have destroyed the country.

In 1973 the Arab states were far stronger, and they achieved complete surprise. Israel was totally unprepared for war, unlike 1967. Even if Egypt attacked, Israel would have handed them their asses on a platter.

did you forget the fact that Israel had much better defensive positions, far away from the population centers of Israel, in contrast to 67'? If the egyptians would have attacked in 67' there was a very strong possibility that they could take be'er-sheva, and cut the entire negev off.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Edan


I wasn't aware conspiracy theories have come back in style...

Don't tell me that you actually believe that the attack was an accident regardless of the motive theorized?

[Az]

there is no MOTIVE thus, it was an accident.

states are not people. They do things for a reason.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Azazel
there is no MOTIVE thus, it was an accident.

The facts argue against it being an accident, Azazel.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Edan
I wasn't aware conspiracy theories have come back in style.

Right, because it was really a complete mistake that Israel bombed an American ship that looked nothing lik the ship they claimed they were attack, that was several times larger than the ship they claimed they were attacking, and that was flying a giant American flag. That somehow, despite the fact that they reconoitered it several times before attacking it, they, and every subsequent pilot couldn't figure out it was an American ship and not an Egyptian horse carrier.

It is a far bigger leap of logic to assume the official story than to believe it was attacked deliberately. It was attacked before the invasion of Syria, when the US and the UN were putting pressure on Israel to accept a cease-fire.

Edan, you are nothing but a mouthpiece for the "Israel is always innocent" crowd.

[Az]

so what was the motive?


look, we can go around this all day. WTF would Israel put it's relationship with its' only (not so strong an ally as now but still, there was no support from France at that point) superpower ally, for nothing? THAT implies something REALLY big. The goddamn story about the slaughtering of hundreds of thousands of Egyptian POWs makes more sense. ( the only problem, is that the thousands of egyptian POWs actually returned, and no mass graves were uncovered for the 20 years egypt is in control of the land )

[gsmoove23]

Azazel, it doesn't imply it was anything really big. The US needed Israel, they weren't allies for the hell of it. If there was a sufficient cover story they could assume the US would drop it for a greater cause. Plus there is no reason to assume it was an act undertaken by the Israeli government in its entirety and if it came down to the wire Israel could easily sacrifice some scapegoats,

As for motive, an information gathering ship? While Israel was doing something big brother might not approve of? That being said I haven't swallowed this story hook line and sinker, but there are simply too many ?????s to dismiss it

[Az]

So the US needed Israel, not enough to allow it to win the war, but enough to let it sink it's own ship?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Azazel
So the US needed Israel, not enough to allow it to win the war, but enough to let it sink it's own ship?

it was really a complete mistake that Israel bombed an American ship that looked nothing lik the ship they claimed they were attack, that was several times larger than the ship they claimed they were attacking, and that was flying a giant American flag. That somehow, despite the fact that they reconoitered it several times before attacking it, they, and every subsequent pilot couldn't figure out it was an American ship and not an Egyptian horse carrier.

Sigh

[Ned]

I assume from what I have read that the attack on the Liberty was deliberate. This means that Israel was sending us a message?

At the time, I believe we had withdrawn the Sixth Fleet and were permitting the USSR to be very aggressive. They had plans to invade Israel.

We, I believe, also imposed an arms embargo on Israel.

Check to see whether we became tougher on the USSR after the Liberty was hit.