Camp David anyone?

[HemlockGrey]

Heh. Wong 'lied' about Camp David? Well, you 'lied' about the Six Days War.

[Nixon]

I was lying about the Six Day War? Israel was most certainly acting in it's self-defense. Rather than go on ad nauseam on this forum, I'll post what matus1976 said about this war:

".....in the six day war isreal was acting in self defense of its nation and its people. It was a pre-emptive strike against an enemy who daily reported that would attack irsael, continually provoked isreal, and was building up forces in a manner that suggested an attack, and even Sadat stated they would be attacking. What aspect of this was NOT in selfdefense? Should you actually wait for your neighbors death squad he is ammasing to actually start shooting at you before you can morally claim to be acting in self defense? With your logic, any country can just simply amass all of its troops and launch a massive aggression on any neighboring country without that target country having any moral claim to defend itself until the massive invasion is actually launched. Your concept of moral justification in war is as simple as a two year olds, which is what I would expect from someone who has no ethical principles."

And:

"PLease define your ethical principles which state that Isreal's attack in the six day war was not in self defense? Was it because they 'shot first'? Does that then mean that the only criteria for 'self defense' is who 'shoots first'? What if an armed thug is running at me, swinging a sword around wildly, acting in a threating manner, yelling "Im gonna kill you!" Do I have to actually wait for him to cut my head off before I act in self defense and shoot him? By your implied ethical principle, my actions of shooting first before him actually impaling me could not be considered self defense. So lets hear what your moral criteria for a 'self defense' justification is, anyway. "

Perhaps Israel attacked first, but to attack does not mean it is not in self-defense. As matus rightly points out, you don't have to wait for someone rattling his sword at you, threatening to kill you, getting together a gang of thugs, and telling you, "We will come kill you" before you can act in self-defense to strike first. This is the same policy of the United States, and it is the same policy of your local police department. But I guess you guys have a myopic view of what self-defense is.

[Nixon]

Nixon wrote:
It was not a smear but a statement of fact. Darth Wong lied. And you can't argue with that since he admited to it.


Really? From error to intentional lie now? What a slippery little turd you are.

What are you talking about? When did I say the camp david remark by Darth Wong alone discounted everything he said?

7 pages dedicated to deconstructing your bullshit has already been done. You posted IIRC twice and didn't come back, only to attempt to post a new thread trumpeting a nitpick. You're pathetic.

I posted a new thread after Darth Wong's FIRST RESPONSE TO MY INITIAL POST was that I was an idiot and ignored my arguments. If you want to pick and choose what I said, fabricate arguments I never made, and then label me pathetic, you might want to look at yourself in the mirror buddy.

[Nixon]

Ok, I just wanted to point out that I'm in a specially good mood right now. Today has been a really great day, and I have had a lot of fun tonight. So, nothing can even hint that I'm angry, not at all, in fact I'm the friggin' Avatar of Happiness.

You, Mr. Nixon, are a complete, fucking, retarded idiot.

See? One doesn't have to be angry to call you a fucking idiot. I'm calling you a fucking idiot and smiling at the same time.

Well hey as long as your happy. I like to take the high road and not call people idiot, and moron.

As everyone else has pointed out already, you are a fucking idiot.

And as I pointed out, you guys can't read.

Oops, I mean, as everyone has pointed out already, your entire "argument" and "attacks against Wongs' credibility" are nothing but nitpicks about a completely secondary point, written in PARENTHESES (which means that they can be safely removed without altering at all the original paragraph) and being disproven or not make absofuckinglutely no difference.

My entire arguement was several arguments and criticisms. I pointed out Darth Wong's lied about Camp David, and not just a mistake mind you, but a very careless one considering the vicious tone he took saying it:

"The so-called "land for peace" deal, also known as the Camp David accords (nice tweak of the nose to the Arabs; naming the camp after a Biblical character who massacred huge numbers of Arab women and children). "

Maybe you don't find that remark inflammatory. But I do. However, I did not remark this alone made the entire essay false, I also pointed out the misrepresntation of the facts on his essay, and his failure to prove assertions that Israel was not acting in self-defense, and his failure to establish why capturing land can not be in self-defense. I also pointed out the moral relativism of his claims that Israel killing civilians in self-defense is the same as the PLO and Yasser Arafat orchestrating homicide bombing attacks. But you guys don't take in everything I say, you single out one or two comments here and there, call me an idiot, and extrapolate entire arguments I never made.



Quote:

Quote:
An ad hominem is only a fallacy when it is the entirety of the argument.

Not always the case. Ad hominem attacks can take on various forms, such as attacking your opponent with an insult.

Wrong: Ad Hominem only exists when you attack the opponent but FAIL to attack your opponent's argument.

Uh huh, and what do you call Darth Wong's first reponse to my initial post on his essay? He called me an idiot, and offered no refutations to many of my arguments and criticisms.

[quoteI'm merely insulting you at the same time, deservedly or not, it doesn't matter. [/quote]

I think it matters. You guys started the uncivility. It's unnecessary, and distracts from the issue. And as I pointed out above, I WAS a victim of ad hominem attack.

Grow up.


Grow a beard. Or a personality.

Uh, yeah.

So I guess I have to instantaneously respond to all responses attacking my post? Can I get a litte time here? I realize you may have more free time than me, but I have a life outside of this forum.

If your life inside the forum is any indication of your life outside the forum, then we can feel nothing but pity and contempt against you.

I feel the same for you.

I did all three. Darth Wong's initial attack was to call me an idiot. And I responded. And as far as subsequent posts, I don't have the time to instantaneously respond to dozens of participants siding with Darth Wong.

Call you an idiot and then explain to you why you're an idiot. You say it's Ad Hominem. I call it constructive criticism.

I call it ad hominem, (read above) and unnecessary. I was never uncivil to anyone.

[beyond hope]

Has anyone checked Matus1976, Nixon, and Moff Jerjerrod to make sure they're not using the same IP?

[Vympel]

They all came here together, but they're different people.

[HemlockGrey]

I say again: So Wong 'lied' about Camp David? Well you 'lied' about the Six Days War.

Arabs attacked first! Heh! That was good for a laugh...

[Vympel]

I was lying about the Six Day War? Israel was most certainly acting in it's self-defense. Rather than go on ad nauseam on this forum, I'll post what matus1976 said about this war:

".....in the six day war isreal was acting in self defense of its nation and its people. It was a pre-emptive strike against an enemy who daily reported that would attack irsael, continually provoked isreal, and was building up forces in a manner that suggested an attack, and even Sadat stated they would be attacking. What aspect of this was NOT in selfdefense? Should you actually wait for your neighbors death squad he is ammasing to actually start shooting at you before you can morally claim to be acting in self defense? With your logic, any country can just simply amass all of its troops and launch a massive aggression on any neighboring country without that target country having any moral claim to defend itself until the massive invasion is actually launched. Your concept of moral justification in war is as simple as a two year olds, which is what I would expect from someone who has no ethical principles."

And:

"PLease define your ethical principles which state that Isreal's attack in the six day war was not in self defense? Was it because they 'shot first'? Does that then mean that the only criteria for 'self defense' is who 'shoots first'? What if an armed thug is running at me, swinging a sword around wildly, acting in a threating manner, yelling "Im gonna kill you!" Do I have to actually wait for him to cut my head off before I act in self defense and shoot him? By your implied ethical principle, my actions of shooting first before him actually impaling me could not be considered self defense. So lets hear what your moral criteria for a 'self defense' justification is, anyway. "

Perhaps Israel attacked first, but to attack does not mean it is not in self-defense. As matus rightly points out, you don't have to wait for someone rattling his sword at you, threatening to kill you, getting together a gang of thugs, and telling you, "We will come kill you" before you can act in self-defense to strike first. This is the same policy of the United States, and it is the same policy of your local police department. But I guess you guys have a myopic view of what self-defense is.

What a fucking retard. Now they're referencing each other on a historical debate!

"Who's your source?"

"Matus, on another thread, his repetition of the bullshit 1967 annihilation myth is clearly authoratative!"

[Nixon]

say again: So Wong 'lied' about Camp David? Well you 'lied' about the Six Days War.

Arabs attacked first! Heh! That was good for a laugh...

Hmm..ad hominem tu quoque?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... uoque.html


I chose the wrong language, I concede that, but why do you ignore what I said in my recent post stating why the Six Day War was in self-defense?

Notice, I can concede when I'm wrong. If Darth Wong, after doing the same, could then try to rectify the problem by removing the sentence out of his essay, then he would have fixed a wrong. As I am trying to get him to do, (I'm sure he's busy, I'm confident, based on his stance on Science, Morality, and Logic, he'll do the right thing and remove it) and offered to drop the issue of camp david and ask others to do the same if he does.

[Vympel]

but why do you ignore what I said in my recent post stating why the Six Day War was in self-defense?

It wasn't in self-defense. Get it? Repeating it again and again in the face of contrary evidence will not make it true. There are leading Israeli personalities at the time and men in authority (including the Chief of Staff during the war) denying the mythical magnitude of the 'threat', as well as a wealth of information for anyone who can be bothered to look on the true background of the situation. Go to the library goddammit.

[Nixon]

What a fucking retard. Now they're referencing each other on a historical debate!

"Who's your source?"

It's easily verifiable. Try picking up an encyclopedia.
Besides, where are your sources? Darth Wong's essay?

[beyond hope]

That's why I asked a Mod to check their IPs: I've seen people in chat before using two different screen names and posting under both so it looked like there were two seperate people agreeing with each other. Considering how many names Bozman has shown up under, nothing would surprise me. What's especially sad is that, with Nixon's argument in the other thread gutted by many many people, he has to start a seperate thread on one tiny nitpick in hopes of creating an OJ Simpson defense-style "unreasonable reasonable doubt" about the rest of the essay.

[Vympel]

It's easily verifiable. Try picking up an encyclopedia.
Besides, where are your sources? Darth Wong's essay?

Unbelievable. He thinks good history comes from an encyclopedia.

And no, not Darth Wong's essay

I have posted a source on the matus debate thread, and elsewhere. If you don't like it, refute it. Until then, STFU.

[Nixon]

It wasn't in self-defense. Get it?

No, it was, Get it?

Repeating it again and again in the face of contrary evidence will not make it true.

You've done no such thing, and whatever repitition of mine you see is purely because you keep repeating yourself.

There are leading Israeli personalities at the time and men in authority (including the Chief of Staff during the war) denying the mythical magnitude of the 'threat', as well as a wealth of information for anyone who can be bothered to look on the true background of the situation. Go to the library goddammit.

Yeah, go to the library and read Noam Chomsky? Apparently you didn't read matus's post closely enough, the quote

"We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation."

And in that same speech

"The terrorists did not threaten the existence of the state of Israel; they 'only' threatened the lives of Israel's citizens and members of the Jewish people"

Also, whatever the Chief of Staff said does not mean it was not in self defense. From the article matus posted, that obviously you did not read, states:

"...the Soviets warned the Egyptians, erroneously, that Israel was massing its army for an invasion of Syria. Fatefully, Nasser took the Soviet warning seriously....By now, the crisis fed on itself. Egypt's fire-breathing move into Sinai thrilled Arab opinion everywhere. Lionised by the masses, feeling himself on a roll, Nasser followed up by demanding, as was his right, the withdrawal of the UN forces deployed on his border with Israel. He then closed the Strait of Tiran to Israeli shipping. "The Jews threaten war," he roared. "We tell them: you are welcome, we are ready."

Also, maybe you forgot, the Six Day War included more than just Israel and Egypt.

[HemlockGrey]

No, it was, Get it?

How so? The quotes and numbers disprove it.

You've done no such thing, and whatever repitition of mine you see is purely because you keep repeating yourself.

Right, because you have so much evidence it takes a fleet of trucks to cart it aroud.

"We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation."

Exactly- the Israelis knew they would be able to get the international community off their backs by claiming it was in self defense, when there was really no threat.

"...the Soviets warned the Egyptians, erroneously, that Israel was massing its army for an invasion of Syria. Fatefully, Nasser took the Soviet warning seriously....By now, the crisis fed on itself. Egypt's fire-breathing move into Sinai thrilled Arab opinion everywhere. Lionised by the masses, feeling himself on a roll, Nasser followed up by demanding, as was his right, the withdrawal of the UN forces deployed on his border with Israel. He then closed the Strait of Tiran to Israeli shipping. "The Jews threaten war," he roared. "We tell them: you are welcome, we are ready."

Yep. Egypt was preparing to defend itself from Israeli aggression(the Soviet warning turned out to be true, eh?) Blockading is no grounds for war. Egypt did nothing to provoke the attack- or is moving your own troops into your own territory an act of war?

Also, maybe you forgot, the Six Day War included more than just Israel and Egypt.

Of course. Israel also annexed the Golan Heights and took over parts of Jordan.

[Vympel]

You've done no such thing, and whatever repitition of mine you see is purely because you keep repeating yourself.

Keep living in la la land.

Yeah, go to the library and read Noam Chomsky? Apparently you didn't read matus's post closely enough, the quote

Nope, but I do go to the library, which is more than I can say for you.

"We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation."

And in that same speech

"The terrorists did not threaten the existence of the state of Israel; they 'only' threatened the lives of Israel's citizens and members of the Jewish people"

Load of wank. Nasser moved a measly two divisions into the Sinai to up his prestige as a gesture to the Israelis to not attack Syria. The Israelis launched a pre-emptive strike, tripled their territory, and started colonizing. Defensive? Only in your delusional mind.

Also, whatever the Chief of Staff said does not mean it was not in self defense. From the article matus posted, that obviously you did not read, states:

"...the Soviets warned the Egyptians, erroneously, that Israel was massing its army for an invasion of Syria. Fatefully, Nasser took the Soviet warning seriously....By now, the crisis fed on itself. Egypt's fire-breathing move into Sinai thrilled Arab opinion everywhere. Lionised by the masses, feeling himself on a roll, Nasser followed up by demanding, as was his right, the withdrawal of the UN forces deployed on his border with Israel. He then closed the Strait of Tiran to Israeli shipping. "The Jews threaten war," he roared. "We tell them: you are welcome, we are ready."

Also, maybe you forgot, the Six Day War included more than just Israel and Egypt.

Thnaks for proving my point. Please explain how two divisions could've been a viable offensive force, you military ignoramus. It was a symobilic, political move, and this was the Israeli opinion at the time at the highest levels. As for the Strait of Tiran, the source I posted on the matus debate thread also deals with that issue. I am tired of posting it, but I guess I must post it here so you have no excuse for not reading it.

Diplomacy

In mid-November 1966, Israel embarked on its largest military action since the Suez war. An armored brigade of nearly 4,000 men attacked the West Bank town of Samu in the Hebron hills, methodically destroying 125 homes, a clinic, a school and a workshop, and killing eighteen Jordanian soldiers as well (one Israeli soldier was killed). This raid was strongly condemned by US ambassador Arthur Goldberg.

The ostensible purpose of the Israeli attack was to punish King Hussein for, and force him to curb, Palestinian infiltration. Guerrillas operating from Jordanian territory had killed three Israelis in October and early November. Odd Bull, Chief of Staff of UN forces in the ME at the time, recalled ”…the Jordanian authorities did all they possibly could to stop infiltration”. A UN military observer on the Israel-Jordan border noted even more emphatically that ”…Jordan’s efforts to curb infiltrators reached the total capabilities of the country”. Indeed, until the June 1967 war, more Palestinians were killed by Jordanian soldiers attempting to enter Israel than by the Israelis themselves. And, only a few months before the Samu attack, King Hussein had taken the extraordinary step of arresting most of the PLO staff in Amman and closing its offices.

The effect of the raid had provoked rifts among the Arab nations, radicalized opinion, and set its lamentably weak and hopelessly quarrelsome neighbors lurching amid mutual plots and accusations. In particular, Radio Jordan taunted Nasser for his empty rhetoric in not rising to the Kingdom’s defense and for using the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) stationed in the Sinai and Gaza as a pretext for not confronting Israel.

In early April, a border incident between Israel and Syria climaxed in a major aerial engagement. Six Syrian planes were shot down, one over Damascus. In the second week of May, Israeli officials threatened to launch a full-scale attack on Syria. General (later PM) Yitzhak Rabin, Chief of Staff, announced on Israeli radio that ‘the moment is coming when we will march on Damascus to overthrow the Syrian government’. The Israeli chief of military intelligence menacingly warned of a ‘military action of great size and strength’ against Syria. Prime Minister Levi Eshkol declared that Israel ‘may have to teach Syria a sharper lesson’ than that of early April. The New York Times and the Jerusalem Post reported that ‘a major military clash with Syria seemed inevitable’. Secretary General U Thant observed that ”…in recent weeks, reports emanating from Israel have attributed to some high officials in that State statements so threatening as to be particularly inflammatory to the sense that they could only heighten emotions and thereby increase tensions on the other side of the lines.”. U Thant later recalled that ”…rumors of an impending blow against Syria were current throughout Israel. They reached Cairo and other Arab capitals, where they generated the belief that Israel was about to mount a massive attack on Syria….bellicose statements by Israeli leaders created panic in the Arab world.” The US State Department ‘cautioned’ Israel against the ‘unsettling effects’ of its ‘threatening statements’, and the US charge d’affaires in Cairo advised Egypt’s Foreign Minister that the Israeli threats should be taken most seriously.

Michael Brecher states flatly in his authoritative study that Israel’s Cabinet had decided in early May that if noncoercive methods of persuasion against Syria faild, it would launch a limited attack against Syria.

Coming fast on the heels of the Samu raid and the aerial battle over Syria, the Israeli threats against the Damascus regime compelled Nasser to act. Egypt had entered into a military pact with Syria the previous November. Syria was now calling on its ally to respond with more than fiery rhetoric. Radio Jordan was again mocking Nasser’s pretensions, daring the Egyptian leader to close the gulf of Aqaba.

On 14 May, Nasser moved Egyptian troops into the Sinai and subsequently requested the complete withdrawal of UNEF from Sinai, the Gaza and Sharm-el-Shayk overlooking the straits of Tiran. Nasser then announced that the Straits would be closed to Israeli shipping. Nasser wanted only that UNEF readjust its deployment in the Sinai but did not desire a UNEF withdrawal, especially from Sharm-al-Shayk. Confronted with an all-or-nothing ultimatum from UN Secretary General U Thant that left him with no ‘face saving’ device, Nasser opted for a complete withdrawal.

Moshe Dayan declared afterwards:

”…the nature and scale of our reprisal actions against Syria and Jordan had left Nasser with no choice but to defend his image and prestige in his own country and throughout the Arab world, thereby setting off a train of escalation in the entire Arab region…”

Acknowledging its legality, U Thant nonetheless expressed ‘deep misgivings’ about Nasser’s decision to terminate the UNEF mission, especially in light of ‘the prevailing tensions and dangers throughout the area’. The Secretary-General did not, however, reserve criticism for Egypt alone. First, he recalled that the Egyptian-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission (EIMAC), established as part of the agreements that ended the 1948 war, had been requested by Egypt as a viable mechanism to undertake UNEF’s responsibilities. The Israeli Cabinet in late May officially rebuffed any and all such proposals. U Thant also proposed that Israel allow the UNEF to be repositioned on its side of the border. Indeed, the Secretary General pointedly recalled that the original February 1957 General Assembly resolution mandating deployment of the UNEF envisaged that it would be stationed on both sides of the Egyptian-Israeli armistice demarcation line. Egypt had acceded to the General Assemhly request, Israel had not. Israel dismissed as entirely unacceptable U Thant’s suggestion that UNEF redeploy on the Israeli side of the line. Repeated entreaties by the US, Great Britain and Canada fell on deaf ears. Even an alternative proposal at the end of May to reactivate UNEF on both sides of the Egyptian-Israeli frontier and along the Gaza Strip was peremptorily dismissed by Israel.

In late May, the UN Secretary-General journeyed to Cairo personally to mediate the crisis. His minimum aim was to get both parties to agree to a ‘breathing spell’ which would allow tension to subside and give the Security Council time to deal with the underlying causes and seek solutions. In this spirit, U Thant presented Nasser with a proposal reportedly backed by the United States. Essentially, it called for a two-week moratorium in the Straits of Tiran similar to the one that U Thant had arranged during the Cuban missile crisis – Israel would refrain from sending and Egypt from inspecting ships – and a renewed effort at diplomay. A special UN representative would be appointed for the area. Egypt assented, Israel did not.

Brian Urquhart, senior UN official and WWII veteran, concluded in his memoir that:

”…Israel, no doubt having decided on military action, turned down U Thant’s ideas…”

The United States also tried its hand at mediation. Robert Anderson (former Treasury Secretary), and Charles Yost (retired ambassador), met with Egyptian officials in late May and early June. A ‘breakthrough in the crisis’ – in Neff’s words – was apparently reached. Nasser indicated that he was open to World Court arbitration of the dispute over the Straits of Tiran, and to easing the blockade that would allow for the passage of oil pending the Court’s decision. Crucially, the Egyptian leader agreed to send his vice-president to Washington by week’s end to explore a diplomatic settlement.

The Washington meeting never happened, Israel struck two days before the meeting was to take place.

Dean Rusk, then Secretary of State writes in his memoirs:

”…we were shocked…and angry as hell when the Israelis launched the surprise offensive. They attacked on a Monday, knowing that on Wednesday the Egyptian vice-president would arrive in Washington to talk about re-opening the Strait of Tiran.”

Deception

The central rationale Israel adduced for preemptively attacking Egypt was that it faced imminent destruction, lets examine the facts. Aba Eban (Israel’s Ambassador to the UN) enumerates three threats to Israel’s “National Existance” on the eve of the June war: 1) Syrian based terrorism 2) Egyptian troop concentrations in the Sinai after the departure of UNEF 3) The blockade of the Straits of Tiran.

Syrian based terrorism

Syrian terrorism assumed two forms, bombardment of northern settlements and terrorist raids. The combined effect of these attacks was purportedly to render the ‘security predicament’ of Israel ‘acute’. Syrian shelling from the Golan Heights of Israel’s northern settlements had its provenance in the Israeli-Syrian armistice agreement that ended the 1948 war. The accord established demilitarized zones (DMZs) between the two countries. According to Odd Bull:

”…The situation deteriorated as the Israelis gradually took control over that part of the demilitarized zones which lay inside the former national boundaries of Palestine in blatant violation of the UN-brokered accord. Arab villagers residing in the DMZs were evicted and their dwellings demolished, as the status quo was all the time being altered by Israel I her favor.”

The Security Council called on Israel to let the villagers return, but Israel held fast.

”…In the course of time all the Arab villages disappeared in wide swaths of the DMZ…”

Major-General Carl Von Horn, who served as chief of staff of the UN forces before Bull, similarly recalled that, inside the Syrian-Israeli DMZs;

”…property changed hands, invariably in one direction…” so that before long ”…Israel was claiming the right to exploit all the land. Gradually, beneath the glowering eyes of the Syrians, who held the high ground overlooking the zone, the area had become a network of Israeli canals and irrigation channels edging up against and always encroaching on Arab-owned property. This deliberate poaching was bitterly resented by the Syrians. Israel’s premeditated policy was to get all the Arabs out of the way by fair means or foul.”

US consular cables from Jerusalem told much the same story. On from July 1964 stated that ”…Arabs concerned themselves basicallywith preservation situation envisioned in the UN armistice agreements while Israel consistently sought gain full control. Israel was emerging victorious largely because UN never able oppose aggressive and armed Israeli occupation and assertion actual control over such areas, and Arab neighbors not really prepared for required fighting.” The cable concluded that UN observers generally credited Syria for ”…restraint over long period in face Israel seizure control in DMZs by force or constant threat using it.”

Syrian backed Palestinian commando raids against Israel began in earnest after a radical coup in Damascus in February 1966. Incendiary rhetoric emanating from Syria – fueled by inter-Arab rivalries – urged that a “people’s war” be mounted to liberate Palestine. Yet, the basic motive behind Syrian support of the Palestinian guerrillas seems to have been rather more prosaic – the Israeli incursions in the DMZs. UNEF head Rikhye reports that the intensification of Palestinian attacks on Israel ”…resulted from the controversy over cultivation rights in the DMZs between Israel and Syria.”. Indeed, General Aharon Yaariv, head of Israeli military intelligence, frankly acknowledged a few weeks before the June war that Syria

”…uses this weapon of guerilla activity because we are bent upon establishing…certain facts along the border..”

As for the magnitude of the threat itself, in a notably sober analysis soon after the June war, former chief of Israeli military intelligence Yehoshaphat Harkabi concluded that:

’…the operational achievements in the thirty months from its debut to the Six-Day war, are not impressive by any standard, and certainly pose no danger to Israel’s national life.”

He reports that there were all of 14 Israeli casualties, 4 civilians, 4 policemen and 6 soldiers for the entire two and a half year period. Indeed, in that same time span there were more than 800 Israeli fatalities in auto accidents. Conceding – with inimitable hyperbole – that the guerrilla attacks did not affect thousands of lives or bring about a collapse of national life. Even Aba Eban goes on to acknowledge that it would be absurd to imagine that they could have endangered anything as solid as the State of Israel.

Egyptian troops in the Sinai

In the midst of its June offensive Israel informed the Security Council that it had ‘documentary proof’ that Egypt ‘had prepared the assault on Israel in all its military details’. Yet, all the available evidence at the time pointed to the conclusion that Egypt did not intend to attack. In late May, Rabin (then Chief of Staff, later Prime Minister), told the Israeli Cabinet that the Egyptian forces in the Sinai were still in a defensive posture. An exhaustive US intelligence review at the end of the month could find no evidence that Egypt was planning to attack. US President Johnson told Eban that even after instructing his ”…experts to assume all the facts that the Israelis had biven them to be true, it was still their unanimous view that there is no Egyptian intention to make an imminent attack” - a conclusion, also according to Eban, also reached by Israeli intelligence. Rikhye, who toured the Egyptian front, confirms that Egyptian troops were not poised for an offensive. Reporting from Cairo for the New York Times on the eve of Israel’s assault, James Reston observed that Egypt ”…does not want war and it is certainly not ready for war…”. Reston’s assessment was so widely held that it was echoed by Mossad chief Meir Amit in almost identical terms:

’…Egypt was not ready for a war, and Nasser did not want war.”

”…I did not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive. He knew it and we knew it.”

- Yitshak Rabin.

“…we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

- Menachem Begin

Blockade of the Straits of Tiran


One of the central claims is that Egypt’s blockade of the Straits of Tiran, preventing access to the port of Eilat was an attempt at strangulation. Israel tried to pry open the Straits in the course of the 1956 invasion when it occupied Sinai and Sharm-el-Shaykh. However, it was compelled to terminate the occupation withouth international sanction of its right of passage. Then UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold could not ’…condone a change of the status juris resulting from military action contrary to the provisions of the Charter”. Indeed, president Eisenhower had delivered perhaps the most impassioned defense of the principle that Israel’s withdrawal must be without conditions, asking rhetorically if:

”…a nation which attacks and occupies a foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval should be allowed to impose conditions on its withdrawal?”

Israel claimed that it had come to be mortally dependent on trade through Eilat. In a Knesset speech on the morrow of Nasser’s announcement, Prime Minister Eshkol pointed to Eilat as the port of ‘hundreds of sailing ships under dozens of flags’ and the hub of ‘a far flung network of commerce and transport’. Israel’s UN ambassador, Gideon Rafael, described Eilat as a ‘thriving port and industrial center’ with ‘considerable trade passing through this essential maritime route’. Without free passage through the Straits, Eban asserted, Israel would be ‘stunted and humiliated’. In a yet more vivid image, Eban charged that Israel was being ‘strangled’ by Nasser’s blockade as it was condemned to ‘breathe with a single lung’. ‘The choice for Israel’, Eban perorated, ‘was drastic – slow strangulation or rapid, solitary death’.

In the real world, the picture was rather less forbidding, The official terms of the blockade barred all Israeli-flagged vessels, and non-Israeli-flagged vessels carrying strategic cargo, form passing through the Straits. Yet, according to the UN Secretariat, not a single Israeli-flagged vessel had used the port of Eilat in the previous two and a half years. Indeed, a mere 5% of Israel’s trade passed through Eilat. The only significant commodity formally affected by the blockade was oil from Iran, which could have been re-routed through Haifa.

Israel faced no significant threat, let alone mortal danger, in June 1967. Furthermore, diplomacy seemed – despite Israel – to be working.