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

[gsmoove23]

[CyberGnu]

Ned, I'm reposting this from earlier in the thread, since it seems to have been buried. (And from your responses, you must have missed it).

In a 1976 interview, Moshe Dayan,
who was the defense minister in 1967, explained what led, then, to
the decision to attack Syria. In the collective Israeli consciousness
of the period, Syria was conceived as a serious threat to the security
of Israel, and a constant initiator of aggression towards the residents
of northern Israel. But according to Dayan, this is "bull-****" -
Syria was not a threat to Israel before 67: "Just drop it. . .I know
how at least 80% of all the incidents with Syria started. We were
sending a tractor to the demilitarized zone and we knew that the
Syrians would shoot." According to Dayan (who at a time of the
interview confessed some regrets), what led Israel to provoke Syria
this way was the greediness for the land - the idea that it is possible
"to grab a piece of land and keep it, until the enemy will get tired
and give it to us" (Yediot Aharonot, April 27 1997)


Now, if you are going to continue arguing that Arafat is the source of all evils, you have to come up with a better source than the Israeli Defense minister...

[CyberGnu]

I should also add that I haven't written the part in italics. It is all from the Yediot Aharonot article.

[CyberGnu]

BTW, you really should know better regarding Sharons visit to the Temple Mount. Sure, it was the spark that set the second intifada off, but even without Sharon it would have started sooner or later. The oppression of the Palestinian people was the reason for both Intifadas, no single acts.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Azazel
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.

Nasser certainly did lose, quite decisively, the question is can you in retrospect say that no one on the Arab side could have forsaw the outcome? that Nasser wanted a war? that the blame for war lies on the arabs alone? I don't think so.

[Az]

CyberGnu: you have any credible sources for that interview?

gsmoove: well, of course the Israeli government could simply wait and see, and take a chance and be 100% sure. But they have no reason to take that chance. At worst, they knew they could further their positions ( as all governments want to), and have a damn good reason to act the way they did.

oh, and

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Azazel
At worst, they knew they could further their positions ( as all governments want to), and have a damn good reason to act the way they did.

oh, and

Well, I would agree with this, but for some fine points. They knew they would be furthering their position by a sneak attack of course, and the closure could be argued as a technical casus belli, though reason for a sneak attack? Plus, they had happily participated in the escalation leading up to those actions.

CyberGnu's quote is also cited in Avi Shlaim's "the Iron Wall." Roll your eyes at me will you!

[Az]

oh, but AFAIK he doesn't agree with his own work anymore. . I guess he has seen that lying to further feelings of guilt in the Israeli society didn't help to bring peace to the region, because the ones that really don't want peace are the palestinians. . Actually, you could see lots of left-wingers having the same breakdown after camp-david. seriously.

another thing. Israel didn't sneak attack. how could you sneak attack when you mobilize 2 weeks prior to that?

[Ozz]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
BTW, you really should know better regarding Sharons visit to the Temple Mount. Sure, it was the spark that set the second intifada off, but even without Sharon it would have started sooner or later. The oppression of the Palestinian people was the reason for both Intifadas, no single acts.

It's a holy war for a sizable minority on both sides, it's not just about land, it's also about controlling "holy" ground. That was'nt a spark, it was lighting the fuse.

[Edan]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


The straits had been closed in the 50s as well, a lead to the Sinai campaign.

Until the mid-50s, when the right of access had been guarenteed. By the 60s, it was being used. I checked and there were 500 ships that had used the port of Eilat during the 2 years before the closure, not 0 as has been mentoned here.

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'.

Again, why should Israel accept having to pay presumably higher prices when it was within their rights to purchase it from Iran and have it delivered through the straits? Would the US accept Russia blockading all of Alaska, even though we have other alternative (and more costly) methods of transporting things to/from Alaka?

As I said before, a nation unwilling to protect it's rights will lose them.

[Ned]

CyberGnu, I recall there was also an issue about Syria disrupting water supplies from the Golan Heights. (I believe there is a similar issue even now with Lebanon.) So, I will grant you this. Israel may have provoked Syria into a war solely to take the Golan from it in order to get rid of the artillery and to secure the water supplies. However, this does not make Syria completely pure in this matter. They were the ones with artillery shelling Israel. They were the ones monkeying with the water supplies. Both can be considered acts of war.

Here is an except from this link.
http://www.golan.org.il/water.html#3

· “The Banias and the Dan- presently flow through sovereign Israeli territory. Syria formerly controlled the sources of the Banias, while the sources of the Dan were right on the border. These waters were the cause of continuous Syrian aggression.
This danger became a real threat in the early Sixties, when the Syrians made an effort to divert the three river beds to a new water carrier, to divert the Banias to the Golan Heights and from there to the Yarmuk basin.
Syria, with plenty of water, would have gained no civilian advantage from this plan, except for the political objective of destroying Israel without having to go to war or employing military means.
Israel frustrated this plan from the outset by a combination of diplomatic efforts and military pressure, at the cost of many casualties and severe damage to front line settlements.
The struggle for the water continued for years and constituted one of the principal causes of the Six Day War. It should be stressed that most of the tributary streams flowing into the Jordan and the Kinneret originate on the Golan slopes.”

[CyberGnu]

Ned, the water situation was more complicated than that. Israel started building the National Water Carrier Project (essentially using every single drop it could get its hands on) at the same time as the populations in Jordan and Lebanon were trying to modernize their agriculture.

There were attempts of forming a compromise, but Israel refused. Your source is absolutely right about water being one of the principal causes of the war. The questions is again what parts are left out of the recollection... Such as Syrias motives for dropping the waterflow.

[CyberGnu]

Azazel, you don't trust your own newspapers?

I think Tanya Reinhart has brought it up as well. Can't remember where, however.

[Sirotnikov]

Cyber - I assume you didn't get this from reading Yediot.


While I will try to find this in Yediot, I want to know where you got this quote from.


Anyway, since when are you so trusting in anything Jewish papers say?

[CyberGnu]

Your assumption is correct (since I don't read Hebrew). Don't actually remember where I copied it from, because it is mentioned in several published works... I think I copied it from a 1997 article in the Washington Post (May 12 1997; Page A16), but I'm not sure.

Do a google search for "Moshe Dayan Yediot" and you;ll find hundreds of hits.

About trusting Israeli papers: It is always a question of what kind of information is presented. Why would a pro-Israeli newspaper invent information that is detrimental for palestine?

Is this subjective? Of course it is. Doesn;t matter, though.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Edan
Until the mid-50s, when the right of access had been guarenteed. By the 60s, it was being used. I checked and there were 500 ships that had used the port of Eilat during the 2 years before the closure, not 0 as has been mentoned here.

The straits were closed in 56 and could easily be closed again. The closure didn't pose an immediate threat to Israel and Israel could have responded by a similar escalation as opposed to war. Can you post a source or was your research done telepathicly?

Originally posted by Edan
Again, why should Israel accept having to pay presumably higher prices when it was within their rights to purchase it from Iran and have it delivered through the straits? Would the US accept Russia blockading all of Alaska, even though we have other alternative (and more costly) methods of transporting things to/from Alaka?

Whether Israel was right to be angry about the closure is another question. There were other diplomatic channels open to her besides war and the closure of the straits of Tiran hardly justifies the occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights for 30+ years.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Azazel
oh, but AFAIK he doesn't agree with his own work anymore. . I guess he has seen that lying to further feelings of guilt in the Israeli society didn't help to bring peace to the region, because the ones that really don't want peace are the palestinians. . Actually, you could see lots of left-wingers having the same breakdown after camp-david. seriously.

another thing. Israel didn't sneak attack. how could you sneak attack when you mobilize 2 weeks prior to that?

What does AFAIK mean? I never figured that out.

I had gotten the impression that he made the statement in opposition to someone who was suggesting that Israel was in a weak position in 67. He took issue with the myth that Israel had a miraculous victory and wanted to set the record straight. I could be wrong though.

I'm sorry, would you prefer pre-emptive attack? Same difference . Mobilization and attack are 2 different things. Starting a war unannounced is generally called a sneak attack.

[Az]

Israel was in no weak position, due to the organizational capabilities of the IDF, and the fact that our intelligence was at least two levels above the one the arabs have. This has nothing to do with the discussion. My point is that Israel was right to attack in 67' because egypt gave it good reasons to do that. Why put yourself in jeopardy ( and a fatal one ), when you can be on the offensive, and make a killing? (literally ) Do you think that the right thing to do was to try and appease the Egyptians, "peace at all costs" ?

[Edan]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


The straits were closed in 56 and could easily be closed again. The closure didn't pose an immediate threat to Israel and Israel could have responded by a similar escalation as opposed to war. Can you post a source or was your research done telepathicly?

"On May 22, Egypt close 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 Complete Idiot's Guide to the Middle East Conflict

"Through it's Red Sea terminus, Israel had established commercial footholds in Asia and Africa ... and had imported oil from the Shah of Iramn, Nasser's personal rival. In the previous two years alone, some 54,000 tons of cargo had entered the port, and 207,000 had exited; over 500 ships had docked."
-Six Days of War, June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East.

As well as interviews in the documentary I've previously posted about.

And simply because the straits weren't bital in 1956 doesn't mean they weren't in 1967. Israel had invesed in them after guarantees by the main powers that it would remain open and with Egypts signing of the 1958 agreement I posted a link to earlier.

Whether Israel was right to be angry about the closure is another question. There were other diplomatic channels open to her besides war

That Israel had attempted to do in the preceding weeks. Although I would argue that the war started when Nasser closed the blockade (in violation of the agreeement he had signed) Either way, Israel couldn't remain fully mobilized indefinatly, waiting for Egypt to make the first move, given the cost of maintaing the reserves and having the equivalent of an oil embargo. Remember, back then, Egypt was a soviet client state, while Israel was recieving about the same aid from the US that Jordan was recieving. It couldn't afford to wait forever (and the longer Israel waited, the less it could claim that those "straits" were vital. If Israel could afford to wait 2 months, than why couldn't see afford to wait years?)

and the closure of the straits of Tiran hardly justifies the occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights for 30+ years.

That's a seperate issue entirely.

[Edan]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


What does AFAIK mean? I never figured that out.

As Far As I Know.

I had gotten the impression that he made the statement in opposition to someone who was suggesting that Israel was in a weak position in 67. He took issue with the myth that Israel had a miraculous victory and wanted to set the record straight. I could be wrong though.

Well, it wasn't a miracle since Israel managed to knock out the other side's air force early on. At that point, it was probably predictable that Israel would win.

I'm sorry, would you prefer pre-emptive attack? Same difference . Mobilization and attack are 2 different things. Starting a war unannounced is generally called a sneak attack.

And blockading a strait is generally know as an Act of War

[Edan]

Originally posted by Azazel
Israel was in no weak position, due to the organizational capabilities of the IDF, and the fact that our intelligence was at least two levels above the one the arabs have.

The lack of good communication (and trustworthyness) between the Arab countries probably helped as well. IIRC, Egypt told Jordan falsely that it had destroyed Israel's air force (as opposed to the other way around, as happened to be the case), which was one of the reasons Jordan didn't cease it's bombardment of Israel when Israel warned it to stop.

[gsmoove23]

As for Israel's strength having nothing to do with our discussion I would disagree. It is claimed too much as a defense that 67 was a fight for Israel's survival and it wasn't. Israel had more then organizational capabilities and intelligence on its side, but I don't argue with your main statement. Israel made a cost-analysis decision and came to the conclusion that an attack at that point would have the most benefit with the straits and statements by Nasser at the time making it possible for Israel's action to be painted in a good light.

The appeasement arguement doesn't work since Israel wasn't exactly an innocent victim. Peace certainly was an option at that point, for the most part the war was created by tensions with Syria, which Israel was at least partly to blame for. Cooling down that border would have cooled down the Egyptian-Israeli border.

I only really have an issue with people who say 67 was a defensive war Israel didn't want. Certainly many Israelis didnt want the war in 67 but there was a strong war camp that not only wanted conflict after the straits were closed but in the months and years leading up to 67.

[Edan]

Originally posted by gsmoove23 Certainly many Israelis didnt want the war in 67 but there was a strong war camp that not only wanted conflict after the straits were closed but in the months and years leading up to 67.

I'd argue less that they "wanted war" and more that they realized it would eventually be inevitable and wanted to be ready for it (and have the upper hand) - as no doubt other leaders have done in the past. A country surrounded by foes, with belligerant leaders like Nasser and Assad shooting off their mouthes about destroying Israel as neighbors, it was, imo, predictable that the tensions would reach the point of war - especially as there hadn't been peace - Israel and it's neighbors were still technically at war that had simply been postponed by a cease fire agreement. Lots of wars were predictable (like, say, the world wars), and this was just one more.

[Edan]

Originally posted by gsmoove23 Israel had more then organizational capabilities and intelligence on its side, but I don't argue with your main statement.

What else did Israel have on it's side (except maybe training)? Egypt, alone, had a larger air and naval force than Israel had. The arab states combined had almost 3 times as many tanks as Israel. Egypt and Syria were being funded and armed by the Soviet Union. Intelligence (and lack of organization/communication on the arab side) is almost certainly what kept this what kept this war from being a longer and uglier war.

[GePap]

Everyone in the Middle East knew (Arabs and Israelis, and the great Superpowers) that the IDF was superior to all the neighboring Arab armies, and givent he fact that all the neighboring Arab armies were not very coordinated in 1967, and the the Egyptian, specially were unready for any war, I find the noton that the Israeli leadership (who launched the war) had for even a second worried about its survival.

I think the notion of why Egypt closed the straits and claimed to be mining it (a claim later found to be false) has as much validity to the discussion as whether they did or not.

I don't see why anyone would think that the Arabs would not have as much reason to fear israeli aggression as the other way around: after all, who invaded who in 1956? Hint: Israel invaded Egypt, in collusion with France and Britian. This to me is the great forgotten war: what kind of effect does anyone here think that war had on the Egyptians and Arabs in general? Here is Israel, armed and supported by the West, invading Egypt to give France and Britian a pretext to invade Egypt as wel, to "defend important interests", and to top it off, it took heavy US pressure to get israel to give up the Sinai and the Gaza strip, which Israel had not intended to give up (Israel had been drawing up ways to expel the population of Gaza but they were dropped). If Israel had 1948 as the example of how Arabs would behave towards it, Arabs had 1956 as the example of what Israel's (and the west's) true aims were towards fully independent Arab states.

[Az]

I must agree . 56' was a wrong war, and Israel basically played a part of the mercenary for foreign powers.

But ignoring the help that the soviets gave the Egyptians and Syrians?

[GePap]

THe Soviets never gave the Egyptians or Syrians the kind of support Israel got from France and then the US, specially when it came to help in aquiring new capabilities. This is spacially true in the run-up to 1956. THe French sold/gave Israel modern fighters to fight bombers the soviets never delivered. The fact is that by 1956 Israel ahd a modern, well equiped force, and none of its Arab neighbors did, which is why Israel undertook the 1956 campaign: they knew it would be easy.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
THe Soviets never gave the Egyptians or Syrians the kind of support Israel got from France and then the US, specially when it came to help in aquiring new capabilities.

Not in 1967. As was already noted before by someone else, France had embargoed the region in 1967 while the Soviets continued to arm the Arabs.

And US aid only became noteworthy after the 1967 war, when Johnson saw that Israel was able to hold it's own.

[Az]

As for Israel's strength having nothing to do with our discussion I would disagree. It is claimed too much as a defense that 67 was a fight for Israel's survival and it wasn't. Israel had more then organizational capabilities and intelligence on its side, but I don't argue with your main statement. Israel made a cost-analysis decision and came to the conclusion that an attack at that point would have the most benefit with the straits and statements by Nasser at the time making it possible for Israel's action to be painted in a good light.

The appeasement arguement doesn't work since Israel wasn't exactly an innocent victim. Peace certainly was an option at that point, for the most part the war was created by tensions with Syria, which Israel was at least partly to blame for. Cooling down that border would have cooled down the Egyptian-Israeli border.

I only really have an issue with people who say 67 was a defensive war Israel didn't want. Certainly many Israelis didnt want the war in 67 but there was a strong war camp that not only wanted conflict after the straits were closed but in the months and years leading up to 67.

PEACE was not an option. you could claim that the status quo was an option, but PEACE? nope. also , you'd have to bring up more that your position on that 'war camp'. Your position that the government in Israel was supposedly a bunch of clear-cut evil war-mongerers while Nasser was a cute charismatic Idiot is .. just that, your position. The government protocols show a rather different version of things in the Israeli cabinet.

THe Soviets never gave the Egyptians or Syrians the kind of support Israel got from France and then the US, specially when it came to help in aquiring new capabilities. This is spacially true in the run-up to 1956. THe French sold/gave Israel modern fighters to fight bombers the soviets never delivered. The fact is that by 1956 Israel ahd a modern, well equiped force, and none of its Arab neighbors did, which is why Israel undertook the 1956 campaign: they knew it would be easy.

Never? not even in 73'?

[Edan]

Originally posted by Azazel
I must agree . 56' was a wrong war, and Israel basically played a part of the mercenary for foreign powers.

YEah, I would place more of the blame on England and, especially, France, who had, IIRC, come up with the idea and plan. Israel went along with it cause it would put an end to the skirmishes and attacks along Egypts border, putting an end to the Egyptian blockade, and would put them in positive light by two European powers (who ended up being pretty poor allies 10 years later ). Of course the European powers had their own reasons.