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

[Ned]

Che, Your spin ties together to a point. The problem is that Nasser stated, publicly, that he intended to destroy Israel on the same day he dismissed the UN force in the Sinai. He then moved force into the Sinai and actually gave the order to attack - at least according to Eden.

None of this is consistent with "posturing" to defend Syria if Israel attacked Syria.

However, GePap makes a good point that large UAR forces were tied down in Yemen. It would seem to me that Nasser would have wanted everything he had before beginning a war with Israel.

What I think may have happened is that the USSR urged the UAR to act after the threat to Syria, and guaranteed victory. However, after Johnson said he would intervene if Israel were attacked, the USSR called Nasser off. Only, Israel didn't know this even if they did know the attack did not go off as scheduled.

[gsmoove23]

Ned, its not a problem if he didn't have the power to follow through. He knew that if that were his goal and if it seemed possible the US would certainly intervene as it would later in the Yom Kippur War. It is obvious chest-thumping aimed more at his citizens. Whether it was wise is another question.

[GePap]

Ned:

Nasser never gave orders to attack israel/. Nowehre have I ever seen such a claim, in any of the books I have seen. After all, even at full strength he, and the Israelis, both new Egypt would loose such a war.

I see the lead-up to the 1967 war a a tragicomedy of errors, mainly on Nasser's part, with his aim NOT being the destruction of Israel, but an imporvement of his stature among the Arab world.

[Az]

Closing the Gulf of Aqaba is a thin casus belli, Israel did the lion's share of its trade with the West

Israel has previously stated that would see such a move as a declaration of war. I think there is no more need of proof that war was exactly what Nasser wanted.
Che:Plus, not any attack has to be a sneak attack. your point is that there is no way that egypt would have attacked, because everyone saw it was attacking.

And lets not forget Israel's attack on the USS Liberty, a electronic listening ship. They knew what the ship was, they knew to whom it belonged. They needed it disabled, to prevent the US from knowing about Israeli plans to continue the war against Syria, after both Egypt and Jordan had been defeated

oh, a new version of why the evil Israelis needed that ship to be eliminated. last time it was the need to slaughter POWs. ( not your version, but still )

oh, and let us all not forget that there was no Aura of a strong army behind Israel like there is now.

all in all, I would like to point out that I am not saying that I think it was a clearly defensive war by Israel. but to victimise the arab nations in this side would be rather unrealistic.

[gsmoove23]

I certainly don't think history has victimized the arab nations. The myth of a defensive war is one of the biggest whoppers in Israeli history. I am at least saying that it was more of a WWI scenario or Dr. Strangelove possibly.

Israel has previously stated that would see such a move as a declaration of war. I think there is no more need of proof that war was exactly what Nasser wanted.

If this were true then Nasser probably thought it was another whopper like him saying he was going to erase Israel. The reasons that Israel couldn't consider this an act of war were pretty well stated by Che. Official government statements cannot be taken at face value, world leaders are continually playing a game of call my bluff.

[Az]

If this were true then Nasser probably thought it was another whopper like him saying he was going to erase Israel. The reasons that Israel couldn't consider this an act of war were pretty well stated by Che. Official government statements cannot be taken at face value, world leaders are continually playing a game of call my bluff.

definetly true. But, I'd say that Nasser lost, wouldn't you? Israel was not bluffing, and it was Nasser's fault for trying to call it.

[Az]

oh and :

Azazel, within three days of the conquest of the West Bank, more than ten thousand Palestinians had been evicted and their homes demolished.

I Don't know if this is true, but it still doesn't mean that the settlers moved instead of them. There was plenty of land in the west bank, esp. on hill tops.

[Edan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara As for the Straits of Tiran, they lie completely within Egyptian territory. Just as Turkey is within its rights to say only a certain number of oil tankers may go through the Sea of Marmara, Egypt was fully within its rights to close the Straights of Tiran to whomever it wished. They were Egyptian national waters.

The UN seems to disagree with you:

Releevant portion:

4. There shall be no suspension of the innocent passage of foreign ships through straits which are used for international navigation between one part of the high seas and another part of the high seas or the territorial sea of a foreign State.

Furthermore, Israel hadn't even sent or received a ship through there in the two years leading up to the closure. Israel didn't use the Gulf of Aqaba, it was not threatened or harmed by the closure. It was just another pretext.

This is False. Israel's main supplier of oil in 1967 was Iran. How do you think it was getting to Israel - around Africa?


And, ultimately, if Israel hadn't attacked Egypt could have just sat back and waited. With a major oil shortage, and the maintaining the (expensive) call up of reserves in order to protect against a potential invasion, Egypt could have waited until Israel's economy was crippled and then attacked.

And, irregardless, any nation that faces a blockade will do what it can to stop that blockade. Do you think America would standby if Russia decided to blockade some tiny port in alaska? If you don't defend your rights, even if you don't use them, you lose them.

From what I've read of Nasser, he certainly wanted a war with Israel, even if he didn't think it was the right time for it, and was pressured into provoking it early by Syria and his own rhetoric.

[Edan]

Official government statements cannot be taken at face value, world leaders are continually playing a game of call my bluff.

"It is our experience that political leaders do not always mean the opposite of what they say"
- Abba Eban

[Edan]

Originally posted by Azazel
oh and :

I Don't know if this is true, but it still doesn't mean that the settlers moved instead of them. There was plenty of land in the west bank, esp. on hill tops.

I just checked. After the war, three villages were destroyed along the strategic Latrun corridor (villages that had been accused of assisting Jordan's bombardments and Egyptian commandos during the war), but chegitz is overestimating the number by a factor of 10x, and those that were evicted were offered compensation.

[Ned]

The above discussion I think makes clear that tensions built in '67 primarily due to terrorist attacks into Israel led by Arafat. He then was not at all interested in forming a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, then occuppied by Arab powers. He was interested in provoking a war that would destroy Israel.

He got that war, only Israel won.

Arafat's reward was promotion to the leadership of the PLO.

We all know he lead then a reign of terror against the World. He provoked the Lebanese War in '82 by continued attacks against Israel launched from Lebanon.

So, in the 1990's, Arafat now suddenly becomes a man of peace and awarded the Nobel prize. But when Sharon visits the Temple Mount, Arafat begins an intifada that is filled with terror attacks. Somehow we are to believe that this man, who life has been devoted to terror is not responsible for the current terrorism?

I believe it is abundantly clear that the main obstacle to peace in the Middle East is one man. If he leaves, peace is possible. If he stays, it is not.

That man is not Ariel Sharon. It is the hideous, bloodsoaked barbarian, Arafat.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Ned
But when Sharon visits the Temple Mount, Arafat begins an intifada that is filled with terror attacks.

Correction. The violence was initiated before Sharon visited the Temple Mount. For example:

Sharon Visits the Temple Mount on Sept 28, 2000

Bombings on Sept 27, 2000

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Edan
This is False. Israel's main supplier of oil in 1967 was Iran. How do you think it was getting to Israel - around Africa?

And, ultimately, if Israel hadn't attacked Egypt could have just sat back and waited. With a major oil shortage, and the maintaining the (expensive) call up of reserves in order to protect against a potential invasion, Egypt could have waited until Israel's economy was crippled and then attacked.

And, irregardless, any nation that faces a blockade will do what it can to stop that blockade. Do you think America would standby if Russia decided to blockade some tiny port in alaska? If you don't defend your rights, even if you don't use them, you lose them.

From what I've read of Nasser, he certainly wanted a war with Israel, even if he didn't think it was the right time for it, and was pressured into provoking it early by Syria and his own rhetoric.

The straits had been closed in the 50s as well, a lead to the Sinai campaign. Israel knew better then to rely heavily on Eilat, so I highly doubt that oft heard, rarely referenced claim. There were certainly alternatives to whatever oil Israel may or may not have been receiving from Iran and they could have been received in any number of Mediterranean(damn I never know how to spell that) ports that were not 'blockaded'.

I'm sure America would be highly perplexed if Russia decided to blockade some tiny port in Alaska. Perhaps we would humour them and blockade some tiny port in Kamchatka(?).

As for what you've heard of Nasser I'm sure you're right. Look up the 67 war on Google and it seems you only find Israeli views. I looked up Straits of Tiran and I found a couple of Israel slanted websites and a dozen scuba diving(??) websites.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Edan


Correction. The violence was initiated before Sharon visited the Temple Mount. For example:

Sharon Visits the Temple Mount on Sept 28, 2000

Bombings on Sept 27, 2000

You're kidding! There was a bombing in Gaza? Damn that Yassir. I happen to know the day before that there was a shooting in the Bronx.

[Az]