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

[GePap]

Continuing to arm means little: what types of weapons were being given is what matters. The soviets did not give Egypt or Syria any new capabilities. Fine, they sold tanks, jets, artillery and small arms, but not siginificant new techonologies, not until after 1967 with the delivery of SA-2's and anti-tank missiles (who's effect were seen in 1973)

The French helped Israel develop nuclear weapons at diamona, and soon aftre 1967 the US gave Israel long range strike aricraft (F-4) that could deliver them.

In 1967 Israel had, just as in 1956, the strongest army in the ME, and everyone, including Israels leaders, knew it. That the public didn't does not matter. It was this obvious superiority that made Nasser think he had to detter a possible Israeli attack on Syria, since another defeat at Israeli hands (like 1956) would greatly tarnish his leadership of the Arab wolrd versus the Saudis and Iraqis, specially if the victim was Syria, a troublesome ally but ally nonetheless. [as I said earlier, the Eyptian leadership believed that Israel was on the eve of an attack on Syria].

[Edan]

The French helped Israel develop nuclear weapons at diamona

I was unaware that Israel's nuclear weapons served any purpose in the 1967 war. It certainly didn't deter the other side, and as far as I can tell, Israel didn't nuke Cairo.

and soon after 1967 the US gave Israel long range strike aricraft (F-4) that could deliver them.

I think that speaks for itself.

In 1967 Israel had, just as in 1956, the strongest army in the ME, and everyone, including Israels leaders, knew it. That the public didn't does not matter

Even if you can claim it was stronger than each of the other countries (and I find that claim debatable), that isn't the same thing as fighting against the combined forces of 3 countries (and troops from other countries, such as Iraq and others) on three fronts on the defensive. The war woud have been entirely different.

[as I said earlier, the Eyptian leadership believed that Israel was on the eve of an attack on Syria].

And as I said earlier, he sent a general to look at the conditions of the border, and then ignored him when it didn't serve his purpose.

[Az]

Let me get this straight:

Nasser knows that Israel has the strongest army in the ME.

Nasser: I'll move my forces to threaten my strong ass-whooping neighbour, who's also a known bully, and is known to lash out at every given opportunity against it's foes, so that it won't attack my ally.

hmmm, makes great sense.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Azazel

Never? not even in 73'?

Well, in 1973, Israel did have the superior army, AFAIK, thanks to the aid that the US was giving her...

And yet, Egypt and Syria were winning that war (at the start, anyway) despite that superior army. Egypts big mistake in that war was overextending itself past protective fire too quickly (pushed into doing it by Syria and the Soviets)

[Az]

Israel DID NOT have a superior army in 73'. The Egyptians and the Syrians had Soviet "Advisors" by the thousands, working as SAM operators, and fighter pilots, this btw being one of the reasons for heavy IAF losses in that war. The Soviets armed both Egypt and Syria with top notch equipment, that was at the time superior to the US-made armament ( T-62s, SAMs, ATGMs). US did airlift lots of ammo here, but it didn't have it's own soldiers defending Israel , while it's a well-known fact that the USSR bailed the egyptians out in the end of the war, threatening to send 7 airborne divisions here, that would break the streched IDF as a house of cards.

[Spiffor]

I have a question for the Israelis here (actually, several) :

What is the stance of the big parties on :
- the Palestinian State ?
- the shape of Palestinian State (i.e cut by roads or not ?)
- the colonies (i.e should they be completely dismantled, partly dismantled, maintained, should they progress ?) ?
- the religiosity of Israel (whether Israel should be more or less religious oriented)
- their racism, if any, against the Arabs or the Palestinians in general.

I'd be very glad if you could give me this info, it'll probably help me understand what do people think

[Edan]

The Soviets armed both Egypt and Syria with top notch equipment, that was at the time superior to the US-made armament ( T-62s, SAMs, ATGMs).

Wasn't aware that it was superior. Thanks for the info.

while it's a well-known fact that the USSR bailed the egyptians out in the end of the war, threatening to send 7 airborne divisions here, that would break the streched IDF as a house of cards.

Yes, but didn't they back down due to threats by the US?

IIRC, the soviet pilots (with painted over aircraft) had participated in the abortive Syrian attack on Jordan during Black September. And IIRC, the Soviets had a nuclear sub in the area during '67 war.

[Az]

Yes, but didn't they back down due to threats by the US?

no they didn't . The US never threatened the USSR, they didn't want Israel winning a stunning victory, because it would harm their various interests in the region.

Spiffor: most of the sites are all busy with the upcoming primary elections, ( the lists of candidates to the Knesset ), but I'll give you the party for which I am voting, personally. ( polls give it 10-12 seats in the upcoming elections, from 120.)

http://www.shinui.org.il/english.html

here's another party, Meretz, the second social democrats ( in contrast to Avoda, the party that founded the country, but has lost all of it's socialist credibility IMO )

http://www.meretz.org.il/English/HomePage.htm

these parties should be the 3rd, and the 4th, respectively. I'll try to dig up some more.

oh, and racism is illegal in politics, one party even got banned , "Kach" ( they were just a bunch of nutjobs, cannot describe them differently)

Besides the parties with the links there are :

the Likud party- supposed to get around 40 seats in the upcoming elections,
the Labor party-supposed to get around 20 seats in the upcoming elections.

couldn't find english links, but I'll try.

[Az]

ok, this is the platform of the world likud, but it should be similar.

http://www.thelikud.org/Our%20Platform.htm

[Edan]

no they didn't . The US never threatened the USSR, they didn't want Israel winning a stunning victory, because it would harm their various interests in the region.

They lowered from Defcon 4 to Defcon 3. Seems threatening to me.

[Az]

"and if you dare send those paratroopers, we'll..... probably watch them on TV"

[Edan]

Here's an interview with Kissinger on the situation.

(Why else did the soviets not follow through on their threats?)

[Az]

because the Israelis have stopped?

[Edan]

Originally posted by Azazel
because the Israelis have stopped?

Yes, but I don't think that would have stopped them, especially since they were the one's pushing Sadat to war. (IIRC, Sadat threw out a number of the russian "advisors" due to that pressure).

The Russians were worried about drawing in the US, IMO.

[Az]

du-h. if the US wouldn't exist the USSR would have rolled over the world, and vice versa (like it does now ). but there was no specific threat from the US on this issue.

[GePap]

My reply to all the different claims:

1. On the issue of Soviet weapons: As I have said before, soviet arm shipments until after 1967 did not give the Arab states better capabilities overall. Israel had a much better arms procurement schedule and plan. It did so after 1967 as well, even with the much increased Soviet support to the Arab states. The 1973 war does show the difference in Arab abilities, at least, in a very short campaign of limited obvectives. Yet even at this point, israel had better equipment as well as its ususal superiority in training and organization.

2. Israel's army was stronger than the combined forces of its foes in 1967 and 1973, as Israel can count on its superior reserves and short lines of internal movement within a short time of the start of war, the Israeli army swells in size, and it has a much easier time of moving troops from one side of itself to the other. Add to this the fact that the Arab armies usually were not acting in coordination (as theyc ertainly were not in 1967) and it shows that Israel has alway been able to put the most force on those spots that mattered quickly. Again, the only break form this tradition was 1973, which is why that war, while eventually a total israeli victory, was so costly.

3. Nasser never meant to wage war against Israel in 1967: He did what he did to deter a possible Israeli attack on Syria (his assesment based on pooor or false Soviet intelligence). The fact that his whole third army was in Yemen at the time should make it clear that he was not planniong a war. And yes, this is exaclty whgat the Egyptians woul do from a possition of weakness. They knew that if Israel attacked Syria, Israel would win, and once a war started ther was little Egypt could do, so better threaten a two front war to have Israel giv it a second thought than to let the war start. Nasser's sins were the terrible way he handled his detterment policy, escalating the rhetoric too quickly while sill being utterly unprepared.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
My reply to all the different claims:

3. Nasser never meant to wage war against Israel in 1967: He did what he did to deter a possible Israeli attack on Syria (his assesment based on pooor or false Soviet intelligence). The fact that his whole third army was in Yemen at the time should make it clear that he was not planniong a war. And yes, this is exaclty whgat the Egyptians woul do from a possition of weakness. They knew that if Israel attacked Syria, Israel would win, and once a war started ther was little Egypt could do, so better threaten a two front war to have Israel giv it a second thought than to let the war start. Nasser's sins were the terrible way he handled his detterment policy, escalating the rhetoric too quickly while sill being utterly unprepared.

GePap, Blocking Israel shipping through the Straights of Tiran is not consistent with simply deterring Israel. I would also argue that statements such as "We intend to destroy Israel," are also not consistent. I would have expected Nasser to actually say something about Israel's planned aggression against Syria coupled with threats to close the Straight if they did no desist. However, nothing like this happened. What did happen is very much consistent with a planned attack on Israel. Edan has said that Nasser actually gave the order, citing sources. Do you think that Edan’s sources are lying?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Do you think that Edan’s sources are lying?

It wouldn't surprise me, given how much BS the pro-Israel side spews out. Granted, the pro-Arab side spews just as many lies, if not more. Heck, that's politics for you. However, we intellectual types have a duty to go beyong the self-serving pronouncements of countries and their fan boys and look at what was actually the case.

What is actually the case is that both Israel and the Arab states are the bad guys, and that the Palesintinian are being used by all sides to further their own agendas. Israel is an aggressive, thuggish state. So are its neighbors. There are no good guys, but the Palestinians are being victimized by all sides, so they get my sympathy most.

[Edan]

2. Israel's army was stronger than the combined forces of its foes in 1967 and 1973, as Israel can count on its superior reserves and short lines of internal movement within a short time of the start of war, the Israeli army swells in size, and it has a much easier time of moving troops from one side of itself to the other.

Israel has a small army and a large list of reserves that are drawn from the general society. Calling up the reseres isn't some instantanious act and it can do serious damage to Israel's economy (as usually ahppens when a sizeable portion of the work force is no longer available) - this was even more true in 1967. And given Israel's size, as you point out, during that time an offensive that splits the country down the middle will cripple Israel. Which is why, when it views agressive acts that appear to be leading towards war, it calls up the reserves early to protect Israel before it reaches that point. The reserves had been activates for three weeks before Israel launched it's attack in 1967. If Israel was trying to fight on the offensive, why wait that long?

And the other three sides only had to fight on on front, not on three, as Israel did.

[GePap]

I don't think Edan's sources are lying: simply that I have never seen in any of my sources (and I try to stay away from any that can't documane their statements) anythign that would show Egypt actually being ready for a war. As for blocking the Straits: I don't see it as an act of war, I see it as a clumsy act of detterence. After all, Nasser also stated that Egypt would start to mine the straits of Tiran, yet when Israeli forces reached the straits, they could find no evidence of even the preparations for the act of mining the straits. Which is why Nasser saying he would destroy israel when he still had his entire third army stuck in Yemen does not convince me of anything.

[chequita guevara]

1973 gives the lie to the idea that 1967, even if it was an all out invasion of Israel, would have destroyed the country.

In 1973 the Arab states were far stronger, and they achieved complete surprise. Israel was totally unprepared for war, unlike 1967. Even if Egypt attacked, Israel would have handed them their asses on a platter.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


Israel has a small army and a large list of reserves that are drawn from the general society. Calling up the reseres isn't some instantanious act and it can do serious damage to Israel's economy (as usually ahppens when a sizeable portion of the work force is no longer available) - this was even more true in 1967. And given Israel's size, as you point out, during that time an offensive that splits the country down the middle will cripple Israel. Which is why, when it views agressive acts that appear to be leading towards war, it calls up the reserves early to protect Israel before it reaches that point. The reserves had been activates for three weeks before Israel launched it's attack in 1967. If Israel was trying to fight on the offensive, why wait that long?

And the other three sides only had to fight on on front, not on three, as Israel did.

Well, you said yourself that it takes time to get the army up to full strength, so If Israel is planning a campaign aganist all its neighbors, would it not need the totality of its forces ready? Notice the series of events: the first strikes are aganist Egypt (which can be argued as an act fo self-defense due to nassers action and statements). then you hasve the offfensive turn to Jordan (which started shelling Israel aftre it invaded Egypt), and finally, and attack aganist Syria. If the Arabs were on the cusp of a combined attack (and only with jordan in a war could an offensive split Israel), then what the hell were the Jordania and syrian armies doing those first few days as Israel moved inot the sinai. Did either Jordan or Syria launch offensives into Israeli lands? Shelling is one thing, invading quite another.

If Israel had the reserves in call-up for so many weeks its because the crisis lasted a few months. But again, where is the evidence that Jodan or Syria were planning anything along-side egypt, that would in some way validate Israel subsequent invasions on jordan and Syria after egypt (We say much about Nasser, but what about the Syrians or King Hussein?)

[Vesayen]

All I need to do is say "Israel and Palestine" and the board goes to war LOL!

I would continue on this discusion but I am seriously way outclassed, it seems like most of the people here know much more on the history of the region then I do(I dont know all the details you know....)

[DaShi]

Not necessarily.

[GePap]

Feel free to join our little discussion on 1956-1967.

Personally, I like the way things went, as arguing history does get less heated than arguing current politics, while still being totally relevant to today.

And as for being outclassed, a few minutes looking up different sites helps. If you want a good view, go to sites, even if they are biased aganist your position. This way you get a wider view, but make sure they documented their claims in some way or another, so you know they just didn't make it up.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap


Well, you said yourself that it takes time to get the army up to full strength, so If Israel is planning a campaign aganist all its neighbors, would it not need the totality of its forces ready?

I said it's not instantaneous, I didn't say it takes three weeks. More like a day or two. Which could be devestating if Israel waits until after the other side has begun to attack.

Notice the series of events: the first strikes are aganist Egypt (which can be argued as an act fo self-defense due to nassers action and statements). then you hasve the offfensive turn to Jordan (which started shelling Israel aftre it invaded Egypt), and finally, and attack aganist Syria.

Actually, Israel struck both the Egyptian and later Syrian airfields early, greatly deminishing their threats to Israel.

If the Arabs were on the cusp of a combined attack (and only with jordan in a war could an offensive split Israel),

If Egypt had gone through the Negev?

then what the hell were the Jordania and syrian armies doing those first few days as Israel moved inot the sinai.

Well, Syrian's ability to wage war was impaired by the loss of a good portion of it's airforce. And Israel warned Jordan to stop his attacks - he chose not to. King Husein later said it was the biggest mistake he had made, and regretted it.

Did either Jordan or Syria launch offensives into Israeli lands? Shelling is one thing, invading quite another.

Egypt, Syria and Jordan were in a military alliance together (although in the case of Jordan, the King was largely duped into signing it). And during the middle of a war, you don't stop attacking someone that's attacking you simply because they are no longer a serious threat to your existence

But again, where is the evidence that Jodan or Syria were planning anything along-side egypt, that would in some way validate Israel subsequent invasions on jordan and Syria after egypt (We say much about Nasser, but what about the Syrians or King Hussein?)

Syria had moved up it's armies to the border as well, IIRC. Oh, and there was that military alliance between Syria, Jordan and Egypt.


Oh, and while I generally dislike online sources, I find this one ironic:

"The outbidding and rivalry of radical Arab parties allowed Israel to launch a surprise attack on June 5, 1967, virtually eliminating the Egyptian air force in a single blow.14 At that point, the outcome of the war was decided. In response to the Israeli attack, Jordanian forces launched an offensive into Israel, but were soon driven back as the Israeli forces counterattacked into the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem. "

From the webpage of the Jordanian government

[Edan]

Also on that page (meant to post it before):

"Sensing that war was now likely, King Hussein aligned Jordan firmly with Egypt, suggesting an Egyptian-Jordanian Mutual Defense Treaty. Nasser immediately accepted the idea, and the treaty was signed on May 30. The treaty stipulated that Jordan’s forces were to be placed under the command of Egyptian General Abdul Moneim Riad."

[GePap]

First, thanks for the links.

As for Jordan: yes, Hussein was under a lot of presure by Egypt to join a unite front against Israel at that time, and I don't think he could have said no, given his position in the Arab world, since Jordan had always had a way of working with Israel under the table.

As for the second quote: sensing war is likely does not make out who the aggressor is. I could say right now: sensing war between Iraq and the US to be likely, I did X: that does not speak to who's fault it is. As you said, by May 30'th Israel's reserves were already mobilized, which is a very big hint that something is coming.

Take the quote from the Jordanians: It speaks to Arab disunity as a problem, which it was, and will always be, as the Arab states have little reason to trust each other anyway.

And on the issue of alliences and the aftermath. Once Israel had Egypt down, full scale assults to take ground, as occured aganist Syria and jordan were not vital to winning the war. The question we are essentially arguing is: Was the 1967 war a purely defensive war on Israel's part, fearing a specific uncoming Arab attack, or was the 1967 attack aprty motivated by unease and fear of a coming attack migled with plans for offensive Israel actions going beyond what sel-defense would call for, or a purely offensive Israeli attacked aimed at gaining land.

I do think the Israeli leadership had reasons to worry about a possible Arab attack, given the words and actions of Nasser and others: but I also think they knew they could ahndle such a situation and that the way in which the battle developed went beyond self-defense and pre-emption and turned into a way of remaking the map once the oppurtunity was there. Which means that both sides have things to attone for with what happend in 1967 and right afterm going until 1973.

[Ned]

I'm sorry GePap, but the war went on until the Arabs agreed to a cease fire. I don't recall it being the other way around.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
I'm sorry GePap, but the war went on until the Arabs agreed to a cease fire. I don't recall it being the other way around.

In 1967? Nope, otherway around. Israel refused to agree to any ceasefire until it had achieved all its territorial aims. In fact, this is what lead to the attack on the Liberty.