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

[Ned]

The article also cites the fact that Nasser had actually ordered an attacked in late May, but that the Soviets had dissuaded Nasser in response to the US passing on to the Soviets its information on Nasser's plan that it had received in turn from Aba Eban, the Israeli foreign minister.

In a different article, there is a note that the attack on Syria was authorized only when the Soviets did nothing to help Egypt despite their pledges of assistance. I had always thought that the attack was delayed only because Israel wanted to defeat one enemy at a time and concentrate its forces, particularly, its air force. This thinking appears to be wrong.

[GePap]

I think we will have to wait for Egyptian achives to be opened to know what the Egyptians were up to. But overall, I thnk it is vital to realize that there were no innocents in 1967: no one side is the devil and the other an angel, plus of course, what happened in the aftermath of June 1967 is in some ways seperate. Eve if the war begun because "evil" arabs were about to destroy israel, what happened afterwards has little to do with it.

[Az]

I wonder what's the defreezing period there.

[gsmoove23]

The thinking of the article appears to be heavily swayed, most tellingly on its attack of the New Revisionists seeming to suggest that their work hadn't shed any light on Israeli history. Again it says alot about Arab and foreign intentions and Israeli dealings with foreign powers but has little to say about the internal divisions within the Israeli government. It skirts over the water issue making the claim that attempts were repeatedly made by the US to mediate the issue, of course the arabs were obstinate so the Israelis continued. The same argument that can be used against the revisionists; selective reading of history gives you a hypothesis based on fact but far from truth.

[GePap]

It would be nice to see similarly documented article from the other side. still, issues of slant aside, it always imporves the debate to infuse it with some less ranting works. I say that the tenor of debate on this thread came about cause simple ranting and raving left a long time ago.

Until the end of the Mubarak regime, i can't see Egypt making its files open, as plenty of people around then are still around the political hall of power in Egypt and sicne it is no democracy, they don't want mistakes or lies exposed.

[Az]

well, GePap, all I see here, is that Israel tried to avoid war, don't you think? Egypt? I guess we'll never know.

[GePap]

I agree that israel did not want war: that israel did not take advantage of the situation once war begun to fulfill certain aims is a different thing.

[Az]

Oh, I know that. It's great that' we've reached an agreement on this.


( Must be cold in hell, an apolyton ME discussion driven to an agreement Words cannot describe the joy I am feeling right now, the tens of hours saved from useless, impactless discussion over cyberspace. Praise the lord! )

[gsmoove23]

Well, I'm just disgusted with all the agreement. Avoided war? Helped escalate it with Syria. A war that didn't have to happen but for stupid hawks on both sides and of course an overly bellicose Nasser.

[Az]

A war that didn't have to happen but for stupid hawks on both sides

you didn't read the entire aritcle. ( That was sourced very well, btw )

[gsmoove23]

They're all sourced very well Azazel. The best propaganda is at least, on either side. It was a very intelligently written article that skimmed over the parts the author considered unpleasant. Avi Shlaim is also well sourced in his arguments but the author vilifies him and others in the beginning of his article with the exact same attack. I don't tend to waste my time with stupid philosophical statements but there is no truth or maybe I am just severely disillusioned at the moment.

[Az]

OMG, he criticized Avi Shlaim! burn him! BURN HIM !!!!

[Az]

actually, after reading the article again, he DIDN'T say "vilify" Avi shlaim, as you've said, but simply pointed out that some of the "new historians" have a certain agenda. Then he provided examples of "new historians". He didn't even say that Avi Shlaim has an agenda. ( though one could clearly see that from Avi's statements) but simply pointed them out. Then he gave out the facts, as they're known to him. This paper has lots of example of debates from protocols of the Israeli cabinet, but I guess that doesn't give you an insight of the Israeli internal divisions.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Azazel
actually, after reading the article again, he DIDN'T say "vilify" Avi shlaim, as you've said, but simply pointed out that some of the "new historians" have a certain agenda. Then he provided examples of "new historians". He didn't even say that Avi Shlaim has an agenda. ( though one could clearly see that from Avi's statements) but simply pointed them out. Then he gave out the facts, as they're known to him. This paper has lots of example of debates from protocols of the Israeli cabinet, but I guess that doesn't give you an insight of the Israeli internal divisions.

I'm not burning the guy for criticizing Avi Shlaim, jeez. I'm saying that, while Avi Shlaim certainly does have an agenda so does the author of that article, as can also clearly be seen from his statements. I mentioned my reasons above. Of course, I'm not the only one who has made such statements about M.Oren. Big surprise.

[Az]

where does he exactly show his agenda?

for example, Avi Shlaim in his work always uses to give adjectives to the sides : "Pragmatic" "Flexible" to arab leaders ( ) and "stubborn" "rigid" to the Israeli leadership.

where does this guy show his bias, except , perhaps, in his view against his opponents on the debate. ( lack of proffecionalism )