The Generous Peace Offer that was Never Offered: The Israeli Cabinet Resolution of June 19, 1967

Nine days after the victory in the Six Day War the Israeli cabinet adopted a resolution which seemingly offered Egypt and Syria the territories they had just lost in exchange for contractual peace. In public and academic discourse the resolution has been presented as a ‘generous peace offer’ which was transmitted to Cairo and Damascus through the United States and was immediately rejected. The article demonstrates that the ‘generous peace offer’ was never offered to the Arabs. The cabinet resolution was mainly a diplomatic manoeuver whose aim was to gain American political support against a Soviet move at the United Nations for immediate and unconditional Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied in the war. The article argues that Abba Eban, Israel’s foreign minister at the time, created the myth of the ‘generous peace offer’ and that it has been turned into an accepted wisdom by dozens of writers and scholars who have recycled Eban’s story unchallenged.

• © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
  

http://dh.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/1/85.abstract

All for the truth rather than propaganda

Correct and of course it was the Israeli government that started the six day war. They have freely admitted this repeatedly.

I suggest you look up resolution 242

Also a defensive preemptive strike

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_relating_to_the_Six-Day_War

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I suggest you look up resolution 242

Also a defensive preemptive strike

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_relating_to_the_Six-Day_War

I suggest you read the statements from the Israeli military and the government.

“I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”
Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin - 28 February 1968,

“The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”
Mordecai Bentov, Member of the wartime national government. -14 April 1971

“We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six Days War, and we had never thought of such a possibility.”
General Haim Bar-Lev - 4 April 1972,

“There was never any danger of annihilation. This hypothesis has never been considered in any serious meeting.”
General Ezer Weizmann, Chief of Operations - 4 April 1972,


“The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war.”
General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command - May 1972,

“Israel was never in real danger and there was no evidence that Egypt had any intention of attacking Israel “Israeli intelligence knew that Egypt was not prepared for war.”
General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command - May 1972

“There was no danger of annihilation. Neither Israeli headquarters nor the Pentagon – as the memoirs of President Johnson proved – believed in this danger.”
General Chaim Herzog (former Director of Military Intelligence

“All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, have never been considered in our calculations. While we proceeded towards the full mobilisation of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our ‘defence’ against the Egyptian threat. This force was to crush once and for all the Egyptians at the military level and their Soviet masters at the political level. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel’s existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analysing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army.”
General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command - 3 June 1972

And of course....
“In June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us, We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
Begin - the Prime Minister of Israel

I suggest you read all of that statement and again, the conflict is classified except by the weak willed lefty as a pre-emptive strike


So it does not matter what has been said, what does matter is that Israel had a legitimate reason for the pre-emptive strike which has been accepted by nmany

However, Israel also maintains that its attacks were justified by the Egyptian closure of the Straits of Tiran, an international waterway, the closure of which constituted a casus belli under customary international law later codified in 1958 Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea. However, since the UAR and its Arab allies were not signatories to the 1958 Geneva Conventions, they argued that since the Gulf of Aqaba was not a waterway connecting two regions of open sea, it was not technically a strait, and therefore that it was not covered by the 1949 ICJ decision ruling that a country is required to allow passage through a strait. Moreover, the UAR disputed Israel's legal right to Eilat, which had been captured after the 1949 armistice imposed by the Security Council. However, the United States and the Western European nations agreed with the Israeli interpretation that Israeli vessels had a right of passage through the Straits of Tiran. On the other hand, Egypt's position was supported by much of the third world

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I suggest you read all of that statement and again, the conflict is classified except by the weak willed lefty as a pre-emptive strike


So it does not matter what has been said, what does matter is that Israel had a legitimate reason for the pre-emptive strike which has been accepted by nmany

Soi they were all lying then? And here come the insults - didn't take long did it?

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I suggest you read all of that statement and again, the conflict is classified except by the weak willed lefty as a pre-emptive strike


So it does not matter what has been said, what does matter is that Israel had a legitimate reason for the pre-emptive strike which has been accepted by nmany

Soi they were all lying then? And here come the insults - didn't take long did it?

Again it has nothing to do with what they said but if they was valid reasons to commit to a pre-emptive strike, based on the closure of the water ways and the facts the Russians had been stirring.

Again its what is seen as valid to be seen justified in a pre-emptive strike and Israel was seen as such for the 6 day war

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I suggest you read all of that statement and again, the conflict is classified except by the weak willed lefty as a pre-emptive strike


So it does not matter what has been said, what does matter is that Israel had a legitimate reason for the pre-emptive strike which has been accepted by nmany

Soi they were all lying then? And here come the insults - didn't take long did it?

Again it has nothing to do with what they said but if they was valid reasons to commit to a pre-emptive strike, based on the closure of the water ways and the facts the Russians had been stirring.

Again its what is seen as valid to be seen justified in a pre-emptive strike and Israel was seen as such for the 6 day war

Nothing to do with what they said - really! oh deary me that's a classic even for you

Which shows you cannot understand the reasons why it is deemed a pre-emptive strike, when you ignore those reasons.
Are you saying the western experts are all liars?

Oren, has acknowledged that both US and Israeli intelligence indicated that troop movements in Egypt, taken by themselves, had only defensive, not offensive, purposes. However, he notes that the deployed Egyptian troops in the Sinai would move against Israel in the event that Israel undertook an invasion of Syria toward Damascus in response to repeated provocations by Syrian materiel and raids by fedayeen operating in Syrian territory.^[14] This fact was mentioned by Israeli PM Menachem Begin, who, in order to argue for an Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the 80s, reminded the Israeli Knesset that preemptive strikes were already part of Israel's history and that waiting for her enemies to choose the time of coordinated warfare is a losing policy, remarking in regards to the 1967 war that, "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. (...) We decided to attack him". But, he added in that speech, the 1967 war was not an act of aggression, but of response to multiple acts of aggression designed to debilitate Israel step by step as a preliminary to outright war


Thought I would add the vital part Irn left out

There is no disputing these statements some by the Israeli military including General Matetiyahu Peled who has since admiited it and was an active campaigner about the injustices of the Palestinian's. His son is the same and campaigns all over the world.

All facts...

“I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”
Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin - 28 February 1968,

“The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”
Mordecai Bentov, Member of the wartime national government. -14 April 1971

“We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six Days War, and we had never thought of such a possibility.”
General Haim Bar-Lev - 4 April 1972,

“There was never any danger of annihilation. This hypothesis has never been considered in any serious meeting.”
General Ezer Weizmann, Chief of Operations - 4 April 1972,


“The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war.”
General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command - May 1972,

“Israel was never in real danger and there was no evidence that Egypt had any intention of attacking Israel “Israeli intelligence knew that Egypt was not prepared for war.”
General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command - May 1972

“There was no danger of annihilation. Neither Israeli headquarters nor the Pentagon – as the memoirs of President Johnson proved – believed in this danger.”
General Chaim Herzog (former Director of Military Intelligence

“All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, have never been considered in our calculations. While we proceeded towards the full mobilisation of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our ‘defence’ against the Egyptian threat. This force was to crush once and for all the Egyptians at the military level and their Soviet masters at the political level. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel’s existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analysing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army.”
General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command - 3 June 1972

And of course....
“In June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us, We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
Begin - the Prime Minister of Israel

Just accept it and admit Didge. These statements speak for themself.



“I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”
Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin - 28 February 1968,

“The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”
Mordecai Bentov, Member of the wartime national government. -14 April 1971

“We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six Days War, and we had never thought of such a possibility.”
General Haim Bar-Lev - 4 April 1972,

“There was never any danger of annihilation. This hypothesis has never been considered in any serious meeting.”
General Ezer Weizmann, Chief of Operations - 4 April 1972,


“The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war.”
General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command - May 1972,

“Israel was never in real danger and there was no evidence that Egypt had any intention of attacking Israel “Israeli intelligence knew that Egypt was not prepared for war.”
General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command - May 1972

“There was no danger of annihilation. Neither Israeli headquarters nor the Pentagon – as the memoirs of President Johnson proved – believed in this danger.”
General Chaim Herzog (former Director of Military Intelligence

“All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, have never been considered in our calculations. While we proceeded towards the full mobilisation of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our ‘defence’ against the Egyptian threat. This force was to crush once and for all the Egyptians at the military level and their Soviet masters at the political level. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel’s existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analysing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army.”
General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command - 3 June 1972

And of course....
“In June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us, We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
Begin - the Prime Minister of Israel

Which proves you fail to understand what a pre-emptive strie is.
Not only that, but you wer caught out intsntionally misleading posters by not inculding everything said in the speech
Of which macks up my view, that you have no understanding of conflicts



ren, has acknowledged that both US and Israeli intelligence indicated that troop movements in Egypt, taken by themselves, had only defensive, not offensive, purposes. However, he notes that the deployed Egyptian troops in the Sinai would move against Israel in the event that Israel undertook an invasion of Syria toward Damascus in response to repeated provocations by Syrian materiel and raids by fedayeen operating in Syrian territory.^[14] This fact was mentioned by Israeli PM Menachem Begin, who, in order to argue for an Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the 80s, reminded the Israeli Knesset that preemptive strikes were already part of Israel's history and that waiting for her enemies to choose the time of coordinated warfare is a losing policy, remarking in regards to the 1967 war that, "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. (...) We decided to attack him". But, he added in that speech, the 1967 war was not an act of aggression, but of response to multiple acts of aggression designed to debilitate Israel step by step as a preliminary to outright war

Pre-emptive - that's where you THINK someone might do something, so you get in first and murder them.  Sounds about right.

Israel incorporates preemptive war in its strategic doctrine due to its lack of strategic depth.^[20] The Six-Day War, which began when Israel launched a successful attack on Egypt on June 5, 1967, has been widely described as a preemptive war^{[21][22][23][24]} and is, according to the United States State Department, "perhaps the most cited example [of preemption]".^[25] Others have alternatively referred to it as a preventive war.^[26] Some have referred to the war as an act of "interceptive self-defense."^[27] According to this view, though no single Egyptian step may have qualified as an armed attack, Egypt’s collective actions made clear that she was bent on armed attack against Israel. One academic has claimed that Israel's attack was not permissible under the Caroline test, arguing that there was no overwhelming threat to Israel's survival.^[28]

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Israel incorporates preemptive war in its strategic doctrine due to its lack of strategic depth.^[20] The Six-Day War, which began when Israel launched a successful attack on Egypt on June 5, 1967, has been widely described as a preemptive war^{[21][22][23][24]} and is, according to the United States State Department, "perhaps the most cited example [of preemption]".^[25] Others have alternatively referred to it as a preventive war.^[26] Some have referred to the war as an act of "interceptive self-defense."^[27] According to this view, though no single Egyptian step may have qualified as an armed attack, Egypt’s collective actions made clear that she was bent on armed attack against Israel. One academic has claimed that Israel's attack was not permissible under the Caroline test, arguing that there was no overwhelming threat to Israel's survival.^[28]

Who said that? Was it any of the people I quoted?

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Israel incorporates preemptive war in its strategic doctrine due to its lack of strategic depth.^[20] The Six-Day War, which began when Israel launched a successful attack on Egypt on June 5, 1967, has been widely described as a preemptive war^{[21][22][23][24]} and is, according to the United States State Department, "perhaps the most cited example [of preemption]".^[25] Others have alternatively referred to it as a preventive war.^[26] Some have referred to the war as an act of "interceptive self-defense."^[27] According to this view, though no single Egyptian step may have qualified as an armed attack, Egypt’s collective actions made clear that she was bent on armed attack against Israel. One academic has claimed that Israel's attack was not permissible under the Caroline test, arguing that there was no overwhelming threat to Israel's survival.^[28]

Who said that? Was it any of the people I quoted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war

The paragraph finishes with:

Some authors have claimed that when a presumed adversary first appears to be beginning confirmable preparations for a possible future attack, but has not yet actually attacked, that the attack has in fact 'already begun', however this opinion has not been upheld by the UN

Seems Irn is annoyed he has been caught out, oimitring everything said
Ignores it is seen by many as A PRE-EMPTIVE stike.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war

Too late, already found it, plus what the UN thinks of it.

Well it does not matter what the Islamic funded UN think sassy, what is important is international law and the nations who back this pre-emptive strike based on
As seen the Un is not going to investigate any foreign claims to war crimes in Syria in aire strikes
They are not a group fit for purpose and by this hold Israel to a higher standard, where Israel in fact warns of strikes and yet many of the foreign nations have not.
So what the Un thinks does not matterf

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Seems Irn is annoyed he has been caught out, oimitring everything said
Ignores it is seen by many as A PRE-EMPTIVE stike.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war

Who's words are these Didge? I think you are the one getting annoyed running around and landing on wiki when statements by the Israeli military and government are ready to hand.

Read 'em again Didge. Are they lying?

I suggest you read the whole speech which you fail to do and are you saying the vast majority of experts are lying who back this as and easily backup its a pre-emptive strike?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I suggest you read the whole speech which you fail to do and are you saying the vast majority of experts are lying who back this as and easily backup its a pre-emptive strike?

I prefer statements not spin Didge.

You mean the major statement you left out with your attempt to spin?

Again not only that most experts agree with me and because you ignore the reasoning as to why

But the ISRAELIS agree with Irn and their statements show it

And we are obviously back playing The Waltons again lol

sassy wrote:But the ISRAELIS agree with Irn and their statements show it

True

Which proves neither of you have read the full speech

No they do not agree with Irn, which again shows you do not see the full views of people,.

You are doing what you7 claim of the far right, selective in things said

Selective?  The Chief of Staff, The Chief of Operations, The Prime Minister!!!!

Oren, has acknowledged that both US and Israeli intelligence indicated that troop movements in Egypt, taken by themselves, had only defensive, not offensive, purposes. However, he notes that the deployed Egyptian troops in the Sinai would move against Israel in the event that Israel undertook an invasion of Syria toward Damascus in response to repeated provocations by Syrian materiel and raids by fedayeen operating in Syrian territory.^[14] This fact was mentioned by Israeli PM Menachem Begin, who, in order to argue for an Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the 80s, reminded the Israeli Knesset that preemptive strikes were already part of Israel's history and that waiting for her enemies to choose the time of coordinated warfare is a losing policy, remarking in regards to the 1967 war that, "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. (...) We decided to attack him". But, he added in that speech, the 1967 war was not an act of aggression, but of response to multiple acts of aggression designed to debilitate Israel step by step as a preliminary to outright war

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Oren, has acknowledged that both US and Israeli intelligence indicated that troop movements in Egypt, taken by themselves, had only defensive, not offensive, purposes. However, he notes that the deployed Egyptian troops in the Sinai would move against Israel in the event that Israel undertook an invasion of Syria toward Damascus in response to repeated provocations by Syrian materiel and raids by fedayeen operating in Syrian territory.^[14] This fact was mentioned by Israeli PM Menachem Begin, who, in order to argue for an Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the 80s, reminded the Israeli Knesset that preemptive strikes were already part of Israel's history and that waiting for her enemies to choose the time of coordinated warfare is a losing policy, remarking in regards to the 1967 war that, "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. (...) We decided to attack him". But, he added in that speech, the 1967 war was not an act of aggression, but of response to multiple acts of aggression designed to debilitate Israel step by step as a preliminary to outright war

The Israeli miltary and the Israeli government say otherwise.

And go and read the book by Miko Pelod - The General's Son. Says it all.

Most of the western world agrees Irn in it being a pre-emptive strike

I suggest you actually learn about military matters, as its evident you fail to understand

Them

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Most of the western world agrees Irn in it being a pre-emptive strike

I suggest you actually learn about military matters, as its evident you fail to understand

Them

Oh I can assure you that I do understand them Didge. The Israeli government and the military statements tells it like it was.If you dispute that then you are calling them all liars.

Well as seen you clearly do not based omn the conflict with Hamas last year and now this, a non-pre-emptike widely recognised.

Anyway its getting very wierd your obession with me,

On that note good night

I hope Ben deals with this as its getting a joke