Why History Matters: The 1967 Six-Day War

First topic message reminder :

Mention the word "history" and it can trigger a roll of the eyes.Add "Middle East" to the equation and folks might start running for the hills, unwilling to get caught up in the seemingly bottomless pit of details and disputes. But without an understanding of what happened, it's impossible to grasp where we are -- and where we are has profound relevance for the region and the world. Forty-eight years ago this week, the Six-Day War broke out. While some wars fade into obscurity, this one remains as relevant today as in 1967. Many of its core issues remain unresolved and in the news.Politicians, diplomats, and journalists continue to grapple with the consequences of that war, but rarely provide context. Yet without context, some critically important things may not make sense.

First, in June 1967, there was no state of Palestine. It didn't exist and never had. Its creation, proposed by the UN in 1947, was rejected by the Arab world because it also meant the establishment of a Jewish state alongside.

Second, the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem were in Jordanian hands. Violating solemn agreements, Jordan denied Jews access to their holiest places in eastern Jerusalem. To make matters still worse, they desecrated and destroyed many of those sites.Meanwhile, the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian control, with harsh military rule imposed on local residents. And the Golan Heights, which were regularly used to shell Israeli communities far below, belonged to Syria.

Third, the Arab world could have created a Palestinian state in the West Bank, eastern Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip any day of the week. They didn't. There wasn't even discussion about it. And Arab leaders, who today profess such attachment to eastern Jerusalem, rarely, if ever, visited. It was viewed as an Arab backwater.

Fourth, the 1967 boundary at the time of the war, so much in the news these days, was nothing more than an armistice line dating back to 1949 -- familiarly known as the Green Line. That's after five Arab armies attacked Israel in 1948 with the aim of destroying the embryonic Jewish state. They failed. Armistice lines were drawn, but they weren't formal borders. They couldn't be. The Arab world, even in defeat, refused to recognize Israel's very right to exist.

Fifth, the PLO, which supported the war effort, was established in 1964, three years before the conflict erupted. That's important because it was created with the goal of obliterating Israel. Remember that in 1964 the only "settlements" were Israel itself.

Sixth, in the weeks leading up to the Six-Day War, Egyptian and Syrian leaders repeatedly declared that war was coming and their objective was to wipe Israel off the map. There was no ambiguity. Twenty-two years after the Holocaust, another enemy spoke about the extermination of Jews. The record is well-documented.
The record is equally well-documented that Israel, in the days leading up to the war, passed word to Jordan, via the UN and United States, urging Amman to stay out of any pending conflict. Jordan's King Hussein ignored the Israeli plea and tied his fate to Egypt and Syria. His forces were defeated by Israel, and he lost control of the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. He later acknowledged that he had made a terrible error in entering the war.

Seventh, Egypt's President Gamal Abdel Nasser demanded that UN peacekeeping forces in the area, in place for the previous decade to prevent conflict, be removed. Shamefully, without even the courtesy of consulting Israel, the UN complied. That left no buffer between Arab armies being mobilized and deployed and Israeli forces in a country one-fiftieth the size of Egypt -- and just nine miles wide at its narrowest point.

Eighth, Egypt blocked Israeli shipping lanes in the Red Sea, Israel's only maritime access to trading routes with Asia and Africa. This step was understandably regarded as an act of war by Jerusalem. The United States spoke about joining with other countries to break the blockade, but, in the end, did not act.

Ninth, France, which had been Israel's principal arms supplier, announced a ban on the sale of weapons on the eve of the June war. That left Israel in potentially grave danger if a war were to drag on and require the resupply of arms. It was not until the next year that the U.S. stepped into the breach and sold vital weapons systems to Israel.

And finally, after winning the war of self-defense, Israel hoped that its newly-acquired territories, seized from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, would be the basis for a land-for-peace accord. Feelers were sent out. The formal response came on September 1, 1967, when the Arab Summit Conference famously declared in Khartoum: "No peace, no recognition, no negotiations" with Israel.

Today, there are those who wish to rewrite history.



They want the world to believe there was once a Palestinian state. There was not.

They want the world to believe there were fixed borders between that state and Israel. There was only an armistice line between Israel and the Jordanian-controlled West Bank and eastern Jerusalem.

They want the world to believe the 1967 war was a bellicose act by Israel. It was an act of self-defense in the face of blood-curdling threats to vanquish the Jewish state, not to mention the maritime blockade of the Straits of Tiran, the abrupt withdrawal of UN peacekeeping forces, and the redeployment of Egyptian and Syrian troops. All wars have consequences. This one was no exception. But the Arab aggressors have utterly failed to take responsibility for the actions they instigated.


They want the world to believe post-1967 Israeli settlement-building is the key obstacle to Arab-Israeli peacemaking. The Six-Day War is proof positive that the core issue is, and always has been, whether the Arab world accepts the Jewish people's right to a state of their own. If so, all other contentious issues, however difficult, have possible solutions. But, alas, if not, all bets are off.

And they want the world to believe the Arab world had nothing against Jews per se, only Israel, yet trampled with abandon on sites of sacred meaning to the Jewish people.


In other words, when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, dismissing the past as if it were a minor irritant at best, irrelevant at worst, won't work.

Can history move forward? Absolutely. Israel's peace treaties with Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994 prove the point. At the same time, though, the lessons of the Six-Day War illustrate just how tough and tortuous the path can be.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-harris/why-history-matters-the-1_b_7523188.html


Brilliant article which shows up the sham history being invented by the likes of the BDS movement. He also left out one vital bit of information of the 1964 PLO charter, one that did not call for the creation of Gaza and the West Bank into a Palestinian state, even though they were occupied by the Jordanians and Egyptians.

Belatucadros wrote:He made the decision to preempt again being attacked.Both you and Irn ignore all the words from everyone else but take his words on one speech, how ironic. Your whole argument hinges on this one speech, yet ignores all others and shows how irrational that is. It means you both choose what you want to believe. You ignore how not once but twice Israel has been attacked by this nations and with the vow to wipe them out and with also never accepting their existence. It is the worst kind of apologist bullshit you will find from two lefties who ignore all history

Did Begin say it was a pre-emptive attack?

risingsun wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:He made the decision to preempt again being attacked.Both you and Irn ignore all the words from everyone else but take his words on one speech, how ironic. Your whole argument hinges on this one speech, yet ignores all others and shows how irrational that is. It means you both choose what you want to believe. You ignore how not once but twice Israel has been attacked by this nations and with the vow to wipe them out and with also never accepting their existence. It is the worst kind of apologist bullshit you will find from two lefties who ignore all history

Did Begin say it was a pre-emptive attack?

Again is your defense the words of one person, ignoring all others and actual events that happened?

Belatucadros wrote:

risingsun wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:He made the decision to preempt again being attacked.Both you and Irn ignore all the words from everyone else but take his words on one speech, how ironic. Your whole argument hinges on this one speech, yet ignores all others and shows how irrational that is. It means you both choose what you want to believe. You ignore how not once but twice Israel has been attacked by this nations and with the vow to wipe them out and with also never accepting their existence. It is the worst kind of apologist bullshit you will find from two lefties who ignore all history

Did Begin say it was a pre-emptive attack?

Again is your defense the words of one person, ignoring all others and actual events that happened?

This one person was only the prime minister of Israel

Irn Bru wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Again is your defense the words of one person, ignoring all others and actual events that happened?

This one person was only the prime minister of Israel

So again would you like me to bring up speeches about other leaders where they have claimed things Irn?

Belatucadros wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:


Again is your defense the words of one person, ignoring all others and actual events that happened?

This one person was only the prime minister of Israel

So again would you like me to bring up speeches about other leaders where they have claimed things Irn?

Bring up all the stuuf you want that you can google from the internet but it won't change a thing about the prime minister of Israel clearly stating that there was no threat fron Egypt at the the start of the six day war - the subject of this debate.

Harris was wrong. I was right

Belatucadros wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

This one person was only the prime minister of Israel

So again would you like me to bring up speeches about other leaders where they have claimed things Irn?

Who decided to go to war - Begin

Who gave his reasons for going to war - Begin

Were they the reason you said he went to war - No

Who is more likely to know what was going on in Begin's head, you or Begin

ANSWER - BEGIN.

risingsun wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

This one person was only the prime minister of Israel

So again would you like me to bring up speeches about other leaders where they have claimed things Irn?

Who decided to go to war - Begin

Who gave his reasons for going to war - Begin

Were they the reason you said he went to war - No

Who is more likely to know what was going on in Begin's head, you or Begin

ANSWER - BEGIN.

Spot on. The historical record shows that to be true.

risingsun wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:



So again would you like me to bring up speeches about other leaders where they have claimed things Irn?

Who decided to go to war - Begin

Who gave his reasons for going to war - Begin

Were they the reason you said he went to war - No

Who is more likely to know what was going on in Begin's head, you or Begin

ANSWER - BEGIN.

Incorrect again, Israel was about to be attacked
Israel had been attacked before and was again by the same nations, none of which had recgnised their right to exists.
Leftish apologists are the worst who deny haters out to try and wipe out Israel

Belatucadros wrote:

risingsun wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:



So again would you like me to bring up speeches about other leaders where they have claimed things Irn?

Who decided to go to war - Begin

Who gave his reasons for going to war - Begin

Were they the reason you said he went to war - No

Who is more likely to know what was going on in Begin's head, you or Begin

ANSWER - BEGIN.

Incorrect again, Israel was about to be attacked
Israel had been attacked before and was again by the same nations, none of which had recgnised their right to exists.
Leftish apologists are the worst who deny haters out to try and wipe out Israel

No they were not about to be attacked. Begin has made that very clear.

Your in denial.

Belatucadros wrote:

risingsun wrote:

Who decided to go to war - Begin

Who gave his reasons for going to war - Begin

Were they the reason you said he went to war - No

Who is more likely to know what was going on in Begin's head, you or Begin

ANSWER - BEGIN.

Incorrect again, Israel was about to be attacked
Israel had been attacked before and was again by the same nations, none of which had recgnised their right to exists.
Leftish apologists are the worst who deny haters out to try and wipe out Israel

Laughing so much here. Yet again Didge knows more than the man who made the decision, honestly, how egotistical is that! Chuckling, brilliant.

risingsun wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:



Incorrect again, Israel was about to be attacked
Israel had been attacked before and was again by the same nations, none of which had recgnised their right to exists.
Leftish apologists are the worst who deny haters out to try and wipe out Israel

Laughing so much here.  Yet again Didge knows more than the man who made the decision, honestly, how egotistical is that!  Chuckling, brilliant

That is because you are a jew hater sassy and know very little about history as seen.

A combination of bellicose Arab rhetoric, threatening behavior and, ultimately, an act of war left Israel no choice but preemptive action. To do this successfully, Israel needed the element of surprise. Had it waited for an Arab invasion, Israel would have been at a potentially catastrophic disadvantage.
In addition to Nasser’s verbal threats, Israel was under actual attack from Arab terrorists. In 1965, 35 raids were conducted against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched.⁵
Meanwhile, Syria’s attacks on Israeli kibbutzim from the Golan Heights provoked a retaliatory strike on April 7, 1967, during which Israeli planes shot down six Syrian MiGs. Shortly thereafter, the Soviet Union—which had been providing military and economic aid to both Syria and Egypt—gave Damascus information alleging a massive Israeli military buildup in preparation for an attack. Despite Israeli denials, Syria decided to invoke its defense treaty with Egypt.
On May 15, Israel’s Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai and massing near the Israeli border. By May 18, Syrian troops were prepared for battle along the Golan Heights.
Nasser ordered the UN Emergency Force, stationed in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw on May 16. Without bringing the matter to the attention of the General Assembly, as his predecessor had promised, Secretary-General U Thant complied with the demand. After the withdrawal of the UNEF, the Voice of the Arabs proclaimed (May 18, 1967):

As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence. ⁶

An enthusiastic echo was heard on May 20 from Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad:

Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united. . . . I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation. ⁷

On May 22, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping and all ships bound for Eilat. This blockade cut off Israel’s only supply route with Asia and stopped the flow of oil from its main supplier, Iran. The following day, President Johnson declared the blockade illegal and tried, unsuccessfully, to organize an international flotilla to test it.
Nasser was fully aware of the pressure he was exerting to force Israel’s hand. The day after the blockade was set up, he said defiantly: “The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war.”⁸
Nasser challenged Israel to fight almost daily. “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight,” he said on May 27.⁹ The following day, he added: “We will not accept any . . . ​coexistence with Israel . . . ​Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel. . . . The war with Israel is in effect since 1948.” ¹⁰
King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30. Nasser then announced:

The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel . . . ​to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations. ¹¹

President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined in the war of words: “The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear—to wipe Israel off the map.”¹² On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
The Arab rhetoric was matched by the mobilization of Arab forces. Approximately 250,000 troops (nearly half in Sinai), more than 2,000 tanks and 700 aircraft ringed Israel. ¹³
By this time, Israeli forces had been on alert for three weeks. The country could not remain fully mobilized indefinitely, nor could it allow its sea lane through the Gulf of Aqaba to be interdicted. Israel’s best option was to strike first. On June 5, 1967, the order was given to attack Egypt.




So Irn's very weak claim Eygpt was not a threat to Israel is easily demolished all he has is some weak claim on words: Prime Minister Begin  is honest to say they could not be sure Egypt was not about to attack, which Irn claims there was no threat is false because Egypt certainly reacted to false Soviet intelligence and made aggressive moves. Prime Minister Begin  even states it was a war of self-defense which would be at odds with starting an aggressive war. Irn does not read the words and goes off thinking there was no aggressive intent from both Syria and Egypt. The act was to drive back the aggressive forces on Israel's border. Considering Israel had been attacked before, fighting for its very existence and would be again, this makes strategic sense. All of which Irn ignores of course. There is no way of knowing if Egypt would have attacked, but all the points to the fact they certainly were prepared to do so and time is not luxury to have when you have enemy forces sitting ready to strike on your border. To claim Egypt was not a threat, after closing the straights and sending away peace keeping forces are all acts of aggressions. It is easy to claim by Irn the left wing scum apologist for terrorism against Israel, but as seen his arguments are weak and feeble based of the views Prime Minister Begin being unsure himself. He had to act as the threats daily as seen were very clear and being as Israel had been attacked for its very survival and again would be, it leaves little doubt that the evidence to enact a defensive war was very justified. All this could have been prevented of course if the Soviets had not given false information, but Irn is not concerned about his true comrades that helped create this tense situation in the first place, why would he when he was a signed up member to the Russian communist party. Irn lacks any understanding of strategy and his views are one of Chamberlain, waiting until its too late and you are attacked. There is no way Irn can prove Egypt would not have attacked and to claim there was not a threat is idiotic at best, being  as all the evidence points to the contrary. As can be seen from the words expressed by the enemies of Israel the rhetoric was very clear. The fact is Israel had been attacked before with the sole intention of them being wiped out and it would happen again and Irn faced in this situation with armies on his border would have waved some white flag no doubt until Israel had then been over run but Irn wants to deny this and his sole evidence is the views of Prime Minister Begin made later in hindsight who makes no such claim they were not a threat, as all he states is he does not know for sure if they would have been attacked. That is in no way an admission they were not under threat. That is all Irn the feeble son of a coal miner, paid up member of the Russian communist party has to go on. So I would love Irn to explain how having two massed armies on your borders is not a threat? As to sassy, well she is yapping away at his heels waiting to be patted on the head and to be given a nice treat by Irn, because lets face it she knows next to nothing of the threats Israel has faced since its existence.


Its funny how Irn also misses out the important part:


And so there were three wars with no alternative - the War of Independence, the War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War - and it is our misfortunate that our wars have been so. If in the two other wars, the wars of choice - the Sinai Campaign and the Six Day War - we had losses like those in the no alternative wars, we would have been left today with few of our best youth, without the strength to withstand the Arab world.


Also

The conclusion - both on the basis of the relations between states and on the basis of our national experience - is that there is no divine mandate to go to war only if there is no alternative. There is no moral imperative that a nation must, or is entitled to, fight only when its back is to the sea, or to the abyss. Such a war may avert tragedy, if not a Holocaust, for any nation; but it causes it terrible loss of life.

Quite the opposite. A free, sovereign nation, which hates war and loves peace, and which is concerned about its security, must create the conditions under which war, if there is a need for it, will not be for lack of alternative. The conditions much be such - and their creation depends upon man's reason and his actions - that the price of victory will be few casualties, not many.


Maybe its best to read the full speech and not go off your terrorist loving websites Irn, you scummy little communist terrorist loving traitor.

Do unto others as they would do to you,



Only do it first!

nicko wrote:Do unto others as they would do to you,



Only do it first!

Well said Nicko, but the terrorist lovers will no doubt howl and shriek over that.




Israel clearly had plenty to fear and these newly released documents clearly show that:



One of Israel’s most worrisome concerns in the days preceding the 1967 Six Day War was that the Egyptian Air Force would attack the nuclear reactor in Dimona. This was revealed in the newly released and declassified secret documents of the IDF archives, to mark the 48th anniversary of that war, which began June 5.

The war broke out with the Israel Air Force’s surprise preemptive strike, which within three hours destroyed the entire Egyptian Air Force, sitting like ducks on the tarmacs of its airfields.

On June 2, the government’s security cabinet convened for a tense and dramatic meeting with the IDF General Staff. It was the first session to include Moshe Dayan as the new defense minister, appointed only a day before, after prime minister Levi Eshkol was forced due to public pressure to relinquish the defense post.

Eshkol’s decision to step down as defense minister was a result of a confusing speech that he delivered during a live radio broadcast in which he stuttered. The impression on the Israeli public, already under tremendous fear of another Holocaust, was overwhelming.

The times were of extreme emotions and tension, referred to as the “waiting period.” Roughly two weeks earlier the Egyptian Army broke the international agreement with Israel, signed a decade earlier after the 1956 Sinai Campaign, and entered the demilitarized Sinai Peninsula. A few days later, the Egyptians expelled the UN peacekeeping force, and closed the Straits of Tiran, blocking Israeli and international ships from reaching the port of Eilat.

Israel mobilized its military reserves, partially paralyzing its economy. The meeting of the cabinet ministers and the military echelon would later become known as the “generals’ putsch,” as some of these senior officers demanded of Eshkol and the cabinet to make an immediate decision to launch a preemptive strike.

The meeting opened with a briefing by then Military Intelligence chief Maj.- Gen. Aharon Yariv, who said that one of the battle scenarios was that the Egyptian air force would launch “a strike to destroy Dimona and airfields.”

Construction of the Dimona nuclear reactor began in 1958 and ended in 1961. According to foreign reports, by the eve of the Six Day War, Israel had already managed to assemble one nuclear weapon.

Israel Air Force commander Maj.- Gen. Mordechai Hod revealed that Egyptian warplanes had managed to infiltrate Israel’s air space on reconnaissance missions at least four times, photographing the port of Eilat on the Red sea and another site – that was censored.

It can be assumed that their target was to take images of the nuclear reactor at Dimona.

Later, Yariv explained that efforts that the US or an international force would lift the Egyptian blockade had failed.

“We believe that the US doesn’t consider taking a strong and serious action to lift the naval blockade and solve the crisis,” he said, adding, “We believe that the US understands that we have to act” and that “American experts estimate that Israel can win the battle.”

He stressed that “there are people in important places in the US who see an Israeli action as an easy solution for the US to get out of this entanglement.”

This remark by the chief of Military Intelligence can be interpreted as an Israeli understanding that the US administration was signaling Israel to launch the war.

Then IDF chief of staff Lt.-Gen. Yitzhak Rabin – who had just returned to work after a nervous breakdown, hidden from the public and explained as “nicotine poisoning” – warned, “As time passes and Israel doesn’t act, Arab confidence is growing and our mission will be harder.”

Rabin added, “I feel that the military and diplomatic ring to strangle us is tightening.”

Nevertheless, he assured the meeting that “We can do it [win the war – YM], especially if the initiative is in our hands.”

Yet most ministers were not convinced.

They expressed concern that the Soviet Union might intervene if Israel launched a military campaign and asked questions about the defense capabilities of the IDF, and especially the air force, to protect cities from Egyptian air raids and bombs. Eshkol remained hesitant, which drove then Maj.-Gen. Ariel Sharon to use harsh words bordering on contempt for the government – a style that characterized him in years to come.

“Because of hesitations and our time wasting, we lost our main deterring factor – this is the Arab states’ fear of our army. We destroy it day by day.

The loss of our deterrence is the most important factor,” Sharon said.

Moshe Dayan is given the floor for the first time. He said that, although there is no guarantee, the IDF can defeat the Egyptian Army in six days – exactly the same time it took to do it in the Sinai Campaign in 1956, when Dayan was chief of staff.

He added that maybe extra days would be required to complete the task and conquer Sharm e-Sheikh, which overlooks the Straits.

“What are we waiting for?” Dayan asked, and his words were echoed by Maj.-Gen. Mattityahu Peled, who after the war became one of the first promoters of the notion to grant the Palestinians in the West bank and Gaza a state of their own.

Eshkol tried his best to calm the hot blooded attitude of Dayan and the generals. He turned to Sharon and said, “I was disgusted by what you said.”

The prime minister continued to express concern that, despite the comforting words of Rabin that the Soviet Union most likely would not interfere in the war, he still did not know how the Soviets would react.

Eshkol explained that the waiting period was still important, because it helped to “engrave in [US president Lyndon] Johnson’s ears that we didn’t cheat him.

”I truly hope that we will not need him in the middle of the war.” Eshkol concluded.

The meeting dispersed after twoand- a-half hours with no decision. Two days later, Eshkol and the cabinet gave the IDF the order to launch Red Sheet, the code word for the preemptive strike against Egypt and a war that changed the course of Israel’s history.


http://www.matthewaid.com/post/120773670721/newly-released-documents-show-that-in-1967-israeli

Belatucadros wrote:

risingsun wrote:

Laughing so much here.  Yet again Didge knows more than the man who made the decision, honestly, how egotistical is that!  Chuckling, brilliant

That is because you are a jew hater sassy and know very little about history as seen.

Yes she is , but she's also a liar nobody can have Jewish blood and hate Jews so much . Why would you hate yourself ?

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

Belatucadros wrote:



That is because you are a jew hater sassy and know very little about history as seen.

Yes she is , but she's also a liar nobody can have Jewish blood and hate Jews so much . Why would you hate yourself ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hating_Jew

Belatucadros wrote:A combination of bellicose Arab rhetoric, threatening behavior and, ultimately, an act of war left Israel no choice but preemptive action. To do this successfully, Israel needed the element of surprise. Had it waited for an Arab invasion, Israel would have been at a potentially catastrophic disadvantage.
In addition to Nasser’s verbal threats, Israel was under actual attack from Arab terrorists. In 1965, 35 raids were conducted against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched.⁵
Meanwhile, Syria’s attacks on Israeli kibbutzim from the Golan Heights provoked a retaliatory strike on April 7, 1967, during which Israeli planes shot down six Syrian MiGs. Shortly thereafter, the Soviet Union—which had been providing military and economic aid to both Syria and Egypt—gave Damascus information alleging a massive Israeli military buildup in preparation for an attack. Despite Israeli denials, Syria decided to invoke its defense treaty with Egypt.
On May 15, Israel’s Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai and massing near the Israeli border. By May 18, Syrian troops were prepared for battle along the Golan Heights.
Nasser ordered the UN Emergency Force, stationed in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw on May 16. Without bringing the matter to the attention of the General Assembly, as his predecessor had promised, Secretary-General U Thant complied with the demand. After the withdrawal of the UNEF, the Voice of the Arabs proclaimed (May 18, 1967):

As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence. ⁶

An enthusiastic echo was heard on May 20 from Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad:

Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united. . . . I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation. ⁷

On May 22, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping and all ships bound for Eilat. This blockade cut off Israel’s only supply route with Asia and stopped the flow of oil from its main supplier, Iran. The following day, President Johnson declared the blockade illegal and tried, unsuccessfully, to organize an international flotilla to test it.
Nasser was fully aware of the pressure he was exerting to force Israel’s hand. The day after the blockade was set up, he said defiantly: “The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war.”⁸
Nasser challenged Israel to fight almost daily. “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight,” he said on May 27.⁹ The following day, he added: “We will not accept any . . . ​coexistence with Israel . . . ​Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel. . . . The war with Israel is in effect since 1948.” ¹⁰
King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30. Nasser then announced:

The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel . . . ​to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations. ¹¹

President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined in the war of words: “The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear—to wipe Israel off the map.”¹² On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
The Arab rhetoric was matched by the mobilization of Arab forces. Approximately 250,000 troops (nearly half in Sinai), more than 2,000 tanks and 700 aircraft ringed Israel. ¹³
By this time, Israeli forces had been on alert for three weeks. The country could not remain fully mobilized indefinitely, nor could it allow its sea lane through the Gulf of Aqaba to be interdicted. Israel’s best option was to strike first. On June 5, 1967, the order was given to attack Egypt.




So Irn's very weak claim Eygpt was not a threat to Israel is easily demolished all he has is some weak claim on words: Prime Minister Begin  is honest to say they could not be sure Egypt was not about to attack, which Irn claims there was no threat is false because Egypt certainly reacted to false Soviet intelligence and made aggressive moves. Prime Minister Begin  even states it was a war of self-defense which would be at odds with starting an aggressive war. Irn does not read the words and goes off thinking there was no aggressive intent from both Syria and Egypt. The act was to drive back the aggressive forces on Israel's border. Considering Israel had been attacked before, fighting for its very existence and would be again, this makes strategic sense. All of which Irn ignores of course. There is no way of knowing if Egypt would have attacked, but all the points to the fact they certainly were prepared to do so and time is not luxury to have when you have enemy forces sitting ready to strike on your border. To claim Egypt was not a threat, after closing the straights and sending away peace keeping forces are all acts of aggressions. It is easy to claim by Irn the left wing scum apologist for terrorism against Israel, but as seen his arguments are weak and feeble based of the views Prime Minister Begin being unsure himself. He had to act as the threats daily as seen were very clear and being as Israel had been attacked for its very survival and again would be, it leaves little doubt that the evidence to enact a defensive war was very justified. All this could have been prevented of course if the Soviets had not given false information, but Irn is not concerned about his true comrades that helped create this tense situation in the first place, why would he when he was a signed up member to the Russian communist party. Irn lacks any understanding of strategy and his views are one of Chamberlain, waiting until its too late and you are attacked. There is no way Irn can prove Egypt would not have attacked and to claim there was not a threat is idiotic at best, being  as all the evidence points to the contrary. As can be seen from the words expressed by the enemies of Israel the rhetoric was very clear. The fact is Israel had been attacked before with the sole intention of them being wiped out and it would happen again and Irn faced in this situation with armies on his border would have waved some white flag no doubt until Israel had then been over run but Irn wants to deny this and his sole evidence is the views of Prime Minister Begin made later in hindsight who makes no such claim they were not a threat, as all he states is he does not know for sure if they would have been attacked. That is in no way an admission they were not under threat. That is all Irn the feeble son of a coal miner, paid up member of the Russian communist party has to go on. So I would love Irn to explain how having two massed armies on your borders is not a threat? As to sassy, well she is yapping away at his heels waiting to be patted on the head and to be given a nice treat by Irn, because lets face it she knows next to nothing of the threats Israel has faced since its existence.


Its funny how Irn also misses out the important part:


And so there were three wars with no alternative - the War of Independence, the War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War - and it is our misfortunate that our wars have been so. If in the two other wars, the wars of choice - the Sinai Campaign and the Six Day War - we had losses like those in the no alternative wars, we would have been left today with few of our best youth, without the strength to withstand the Arab world.


Also

The conclusion - both on the basis of the relations between states and on the basis of our national experience - is that there is no divine mandate to go to war only if there is no alternative. There is no moral imperative that a nation must, or is entitled to, fight only when its back is to the sea, or to the abyss. Such a war may avert tragedy, if not a Holocaust, for any nation; but it causes it terrible loss of life.

Quite the opposite. A free, sovereign nation, which hates war and loves peace, and which is concerned about its security, must create the conditions under which war, if there is a need for it, will not be for lack of alternative. The conditions much be such - and their creation depends upon man's reason and his actions - that the price of victory will be few casualties, not many.


Maybe its best to read the full speech and not go off your terrorist loving websites Irn, you scummy little communist terrorist loving traitor.

I see you have landed on the meeting of the 2 June 1967 which was dubbed ' The General's Coup' because that's what it was. The hawks railroaded the government into attacking Egypt when there was no threat. Look it up Didge.

You also found the link on the MFA quoting Begin's speech which was the one you didn't know about until I told you. I gave you the part that dealt with Begin clearly stating that there was no threat from Egypt.

Here's some more quotes for you...

“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



Read what General Matetiyahu Peled says about it long since then and you will be convinced.

Sorry to spoil all that effort you made but that's the way the cookie crumbles in'it?.

I love how all your quotes are in hindsight and not from the time, hilarious and again I do not discount them, unlike you with the others. have studied this conflict with great interest Irn where again you are ignoring all the facts and trying now to lie to people yet again because you are a pathetic Islamic terrorist extremism sympathizer  who ignores the facts. You are trying to say two massed armies on borders are not a threat, when the country has been attacked by both these nations with the intent to wipe out Israel from existence. You have not addressed this issue or can claim tot he contrary that it is not a threat to have two nations mass their troops on the border and who are constantly threatening to wipe Israel out, hence why such a traitor like you would sell out democracy to theocracy and would sell out the Israeli's Jews and allow another holocaust. Your whole argument hinged on some words which you did not even read through, all you did was Google up some hate site which showed some words you did not read fully in context and shows why you are the worst kind of history revisionist.

You have ignored all points and have not argued over whether troops massed on borders is a threat. The removal of peacekeeping troops. A build up of terrorist attacks in Israel. The closure of the straights a direct threat to the economy and survival of Israel. The constant threats of annihilation of Israel. All you have is some words, where as I have hard evidence and back those who intended to wipe out Israel and did for many years, of which today most of the antisemitism is found within these Arab countries, taught from their very youth in Schools and all because they have never accepted the state of Israel. So when you start addressing the points and look at the real evidence all caused mainly by the Soviets this whole conflict, then come back and attempt to counter, because at the moment you are looking a complete amateur idiot. Even after this Israel would again be attacked and at this time Israel warned Jordan not to get involved and it did and regretted its actions. Both the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza were under Jordanian and Egyptian control with the PLO in its 1964 charter not calling for them to become a Palestinian state, they called for Israel to be eradicated.

This is why I so enjoy watching poor history revisionist like yourself make a complete idiot of yourself ignoring the facts. Poland, then Russia later to their own cost allowed the Germans to mass troops on their own borders to their own cost, are you going to tell me such situations are not a threat to a country, they you have no clue what you are talking about. The Soviets and Syrians lied to Egypt which instigated this whole situation which left Israel in an untenable situation, even more so after the straights had been closed and faced with massed troops on their borders and all enemies who had vowed to destroy them, they were left with little choice but to carry out a self defensive strike on its enemies. Of course a Israeli Jew hater like yourself would argue otherwise. All you have is some choice words later said and then with not reading the whole speech. I love showing up how badly you understanding history. So If Poland and the USSR had attacked Germany in a per-emptive strike, would you be saying the same of these nations? What you cannot do is place yourself in the position of Israel at the time and why do you do this, because you really do not believe in the existence of Israel and that is what this really boils down and that you are too gutless to admit that, you would rather it was ruled as a theocracy as one nation as Palestine, a nation which has never existed.

So clearly you need a history lesson and not the garbled Islamic apologist shit that you read.