WHAT MOST OF THE WORLD THINKS [about Israel]

It is the terror. Stop it and Israeli peace camp will be able to remove Sharon.

The Israeli peace bloc's primary organization and its web site :

http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/

What came first? The Occupation or suicide bombers?
Answer: The Occupation.
Logical conclusion: The Occupation, which is state-sponsored terrorism, must stop first.
Israel IS the offending country.

Gush-shalom is one of many peace groups, but it's stretching things a bit to call them the primary one. They are certainly the one farthest to the left, if that's what you mean. If you had to pick the largest and best-known one, with the longest history, you'd probably be better naming http://www.peacenow.org. There's also http://www.yesh-gvul.org.

@%<

thankyou for the info. My bad.

Why stop with bashing Jews? Niggers and queers deserve it too, don't they? The liberals seem very choosy. Or they don't stick to principles at all.

Why stop with bashing Jews? Niggers and queers deserve it too, don't they? The liberals seem very choosy. Or they don't stick to principles at all.

TROLL ALERT

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.

Funny how when you liars are confronted with something you go into "troll alert" spam mode.

can you confront the question? Are you liberals the biggest racists around? or are you just going to be a chimp and pull that lever again? Don't forget there may be a few liberal converts around. Your reaction might influence their decision.

Homer: "We played trolls online for three hours! Then I got disconnected."

Bart: "Listen to yourself, man: you're hangin' with nerds."

Homer: "You take that back!"

Marge: "Homer, please! These boys sound very nice, but they're clearly nerds."

Homer: "Really? But nerds are my mortal enemy!"

Lisa: "Dad, nerds are nothing to fear. In fact, they've done some pretty memorable things. Some nerds of note include... popcorn magnate Orville Redenbacher, rock star David Byrne, and Supreme Court justice David Souter."

Homer: (gasp) "Oh, not Souter! Oh, no!!"

That's very comical. You'll be the next Jerry Lewis. Here's a free ticket to France. They need more Klansmen.

"What came first? The Occupation or suicide bombers?"

What came first? The 1967 war (launched by Egypt, Jordan and Syria) or the Occupation?

wacky freepgeeks. Maybe a rabies shot would do ya some good.

Could any of you fatass Greenpeace liberals send us some food? That would do us some good. Or would you rather side with Mugawe?

You liberals with your big talk are useless as a human can get. You do nothing for the betterment of the world. Hypocrite bastards

you're starving in Africa OK sure mr. Lame-O-Matic. Be a good little doggie now and go play your dungeons and dragons Trollnerd boy.

grrrrrrr you .. you .. errr... uhm ... nasty ... uhm ... bananas!!!! poop! pee! doo-doo! grrrrrrrrrrr

You're all trolls,
You're all under occupation,
You're all colonialists,
You're all guilty of war crimes,
You're all victims,
You're all Nazis,
You're all Marxists,
You're all in pain,
You're all causing pain,
You're all thugs,
You're all trolls

Even hard-core Zionists will tell you that Israel "pre-empted" the war.... in case you don't know, that means STARTED THE 1967 WAR.

Required reading: "The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict" written by The Jews for Justice in the Middle East at http://www.cactus48.com.

By the Israel wiped out Egypt's airforce before any Egyptian planes moved even one inch. Kim, we are much too educated here on Indymedia to believe your allegation. Or are they deliberate lies? The usual Zionist attempt to obfuscate the truth? You are defending genocide and ethnic cleansing, that is obvious.

"Even hard-core Zionists will tell you that Israel "pre-empted" the war.... in case you don't know, that means STARTED THE 1967 WAR. By the Israel wiped out Egypt's airforce before any Egyptian planes moved even one inch."

We have the historic records where Egypt planned it. Ramal Abdel Nasar ordered the U.N. troops out of the way. We have the mobilization of Syrian forces moving toward Israel. All of that‘s the truth. You can't ignore that and be honest about it. Israel did the right thing and struck first.

Everyone must read "Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict" by the Jews for Justice in the Middle East at http://www.cactus48.com if you want to begin to learn about all the mistruths the Zionist Jews constantly, consistently put out there to confuse everyone. Don't buy it! Don't be lazy! Do your OWN homework! Don't just take their word or even my word---- do your homework! If you care about truth and justice you will.

Not only did Israel start the 1967 so-called Six Day War, against all its neighboring countries, during this brief war, Israel also bombed the USS Liberty, a US spy ship, that was clearly marked, because Israel did not want any witnesses to the war it started! If you care at all about the truth, then check out http://www.ussliberty.com and read about it.
Israel is a killer, liar, and stealer, and still covets its neighbors' assets and land. The US must cut all aid to Israel, until justice is achieved for the Palestinians, and Israel is transformed from a racist, apartheid state to a secular multi-cultural democracy with equal rights for all its citizens regardless of race, religion or sex. All 4 million Palestinian refugees must be allowed to return to their ancestral homeland as is their right according to UN Resolutions and International Law.

Signed by a 4th generation Christian American.

I remembered that Syria and I believe Jordan had ammased troops along the border and that Egypt was in the Sinai, but I had forgotten that Nasar had orderd the UN troops to move. Thanks for the reminder.

After a period of relative calm, border incidents between Israel and Syria, Egypt, and Jordan increased during the early 1960s, with Palestinian guerrilla groups actively supported by Syria. In May, 1967, President Nasser, his prestige much eroded through his inaction in the face of Israeli raids, requested the withdrawal of UN forces from Egyptian territory, mobilized units in the Sinai, and closed the Gulf of Aqaba to Israel. Israel (which had no UN forces stationed on its territory) responded by mobilizing.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/ArabIsra_The1967War(TheSix-DayWar).asp

By the spring of 1967, the situation had become extremely intense. On May 16, Nasser shocked the world by asking the United Nations to withdraw its forces from Sinai. To the surprise of many, his request was honored two days later. Moreover, the Egyptian president closed the Straits of Tiran on May 22.

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_periods3.html

On November 16th 1956. 6000 United Nations troops arrived in the Sinai to keep both Israel and Egypt apart. The United Nations troops came from Finland, Canada, Yugoslavia, Denmark, Norway, Brazil, India and Columbia. They carried only light weapons and were ordered only to use them in self-defence. The UNEF remained in the Sinai as a buffer until told to leave by Nasser in 1967. During the time they were there, 89 UNEF troops had been killed. The mission also cost the United Nations over $200 million.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/united_nations_middle_east.htm

He precipitated the third war with Israel, when he in 1967 both expelled United Nations peace keeping forces from the Gaza Strip and blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba for traffic on Israel's port Eilat.

http://i-cias.com/e.o/nasser.htm

Need more proof? The net is yours.

http://web.media.mit.edu/~nitin/mideast/chomsky_qa.html
http://web.media.mit.edu/~nitin/mideast/chomsky.html

New Questioner, #5:
I just felt that there were a few facts that you didn’t mention and I wonder why. For instance, if I go back to the ’67 war, it’s a fact that Israel was attacked. It was a self defense war and it wasn’t mentioned. If we are talking about the Lebanon war, I mean, the life of the Israelis who lived in the Galilee were hell for years, attacks and children in shelters, children murdered at schools, you didn’t mention it. And recent things, like the killing in Gaza, which I am against violence and I don’t justify any kind of violence, but the Gaza event in Netzarim, you didn’t mention and it happened one month ago, the school bus of Israeli children who went to school that was bombed by Palestinians, and this creates the reaction. You didn’t also mention what happened after the parade. I think it is a mistake to bring so many policemen to where people go out from the Mosque, but what really started it, and I read it in the newspaper because I live here right now, it was when the Arabs finished praying, they just threw stones at the Jews who were praying downstairs on the Western Wall. I mean, you didn’t even mention it. You know, I don’t think that violence is justified but I think that also the Jews in Israel have the right not to be murdered and not to live in shelters and not to live - I remember myself in shelters for so many years. I mean, all of these events not mentioned by you, even a hint, and this is what bothers me.

Noam Chomsky:
Okay, well you are absolutely right, I didn’t mention the atrocities committed against Jews and I didn’t mention the vastly worse atrocities committed against Arabs. For example, in discussing this kind of Intifada, I said absolutely nothing about the atrocities. So, you’re right. I didn’t mention the few cases in which atrocities were committed against Jews, or the many cases in which atrocities were committed against Arabs. And the same in the past. I barely mentioned them, because I was talking about other things. However, we could, but then we will balance it. I mean, for example, it is simply not a fact that the Palestinians coming out of the Mosques started throwing stones down below, and if you read Ha'aretz, you’ll see that it’s not a fact. That happened after the border guards were shooting.

Same Questioner, #5:
Was the killing of the children who went to school, is that a true fact or not?

Noam Chomsky:
Yes, it was. That is a true fact as was -

Same Questioner, #5:
Why did you choose among these true facts, just to mention the fact that people were killed by the American helicopters– and you didn’t mention the children who were murdered on their way to school -

Noam Chomsky:
For a simple reason, because the overwhelming mass of the atrocities are by Israel and the United States. I am talking about the United States and our supply of military helicopters. If we were providing guns to the Palestinians to kill Israelis and the Palestinians were carrying out 90 percent of the atrocities, I’d talk about that. But I’m talking about our providing military helicopters to the Israelis to carry out 90 percent of the atrocities. That is why I mentioned it, but barely.
(Same Questioner, #5, but inaudible)
May I continue?
Let’s go back to 1967 and 1982. In 1967, Israel was not attacked and nobody even pretends that. I mean, back at the time, Abba Eban, it was his job at the UN to claim that Israel was attacked. He knew it was a lie, and what he was saying were total lies. And you can’t even get this in Israeli –

Same Questioner, #5:
And about the attack in ’73, ’72?

Noam Chomsky:
You want to go back to that? Let’s take a look at ’67. I’ll come then next to ’73. In 1967, Israel launched the war. Now you could say it was a legitimate pre-emptive strike if you like, but there is just no question that Israel attacked. Okay? That is not even a matter of debate. As for 1973, no, Israel was not attacked. What was attacked was Israeli occupied territory. Egypt attacked Egyptian territory that was held by Israel under the conditions that I described, after Israel refused a peace treaty. The fact of the matter is, there is not one case in which Israel was attacked.

In 1982 - you’ve got your dates mixed up.
There was a time when people were hiding in the Galilee but not in 1981. 1981 was an extremely peaceful year, there were no attacks from the North to the South, zero.

Same Questioner, #5:
I lived in the – in the 80’s children lived in shelters every weekend-

Noam Chomsky:
In the 80’s, that is after, right? May I continue?

Same Questioner, #5:
Also the - university - and all the media, the CNN, are in the territories, and you get all the information through the media, and you say there was no university, no media, no attacks on Israelis. I mean, we were in the shelters and you stand here and said that there were no shelters.

Noam Chomsky:
No, I didn’t say that. I said in 1981, up until the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, there were no attacks from the North. There were plenty of attacks from the South. Israel was regularly bombing Lebanon, trying to elicit some kind of PLO response, which would be a justification for the planned invasion. And they were bombing fishing boats, they were attacking villages, they were killing all sorts of people and there was nothing in response. Israel attacked in 1982 (and they were pretty frank about it) because they were afraid of PLO moderation. They were afraid that the PLO was abandoning terrorism and was moving toward a political settlement, and that is what Israel does not want. They made it pretty clear. Like, if you were there at the time, and you were reading the papers, you would have read it. For example, a couple of weeks after the,- right after the invasion - you heard of Yehoshua Porath – who is, as I’m sure you know, the leading Israeli academic expert on the Palestinians, a pretty conservative guy incidentally, wrote an article in Ha'aretz, in which he pointed out that we had to invade Lebanon because what was happening was what he called a veritable catastrophe. The PLO was refusing to carry out terrorist acts. They were becoming a kind of a moderate force. For Israel this is impossible, we want them to go back to terrorism, and Israel tried to elicit terrorism. Now take a look at what happened after that. I mean, if you want, I’ll direct you to Israeli sources, but right after that period, Israel was regularly provoking attacks inside Lebanon, and when they would bomb somewhere in Lebanon, there would be a response in which Kiryat Shemona would get a Katyusha attack. That was happening consistently, and in fact, it mostly happened after 1982.

Same Questioner, #5:
Why would they attack now when Israeli already withdrew? It’s not true. In the 1980’s, we were in the shelters.

Noam Chomsky:
May I continue?

Same Questioner, #5:
You read only the articles that serve your point.

Noam Chomsky:
No, I don’t. So we agree, I presume, that everything you have said so far is false. Now, lets look to the present. Let’s take a look at the present case. Finally Israel withdrew after 22 years of illegal occupation in which it killed about 45,000 people, kind of trivial, right?

Same Questioner, #5 Nobody of course from the Israeli –

Noam Chomsky:
A few dozen were killed in Israel. Count it up. And almost every case was retaliation for an Israeli attack in Lebanon. There was a standard cycle, what happened over and over. It’s very well documented. The Israeli forces in southern Lebanon, the occupying forces in southern Lebanon or their mercenary army, the SLA, would be attacked by the resistance, Hizbollah, and then Israel would retaliate by bombing Beirut or some refugee camp and so on, and then Hizbollah would send rockets to northern Israel. That was the regular cycle, almost invariant. And, in fact, that cycle began in an interesting way. It began in 1992. From 1981 right through 1992, there was almost nothing except Israeli attacks in Lebanon of which there were numerous ones, like Shimon Peres’ 1985 iron fist operations right in the middle of Lebanon were murderous and it was well reported in the Israeli press. There was almost no retaliation. In 1992, something changed, and it was described very accurately, for example, by Moshe Arens, nice, right-wing Minister of Defense, you know, you don’t have to worry about his politics. He explained that in 1992, the rules of the game changed. How did they change? Well, Israel had carried out an assassination of a Shi'ite cleric, and they killed him and his wife and child and then bombed an ambulance that was trying to come and pick them up. And you say, well okay, that changed the rules of the game. From now on, after this period in fact, what happened is what I just described, the cycle that after Hizbollah attacks on Israeli forces or their mercenary army, Israel would respond farther north, killing people, and then after 1992, Hizbollah would also attack northern Israel. Now if you go back to the early 70’s, what you are describing is at least partially true. But after that, it’s simply not true.

Same Questioner, #5:
The Lebanon War -

(inaudible voices of others)

Noam Chomsky:
It’s a very important question. If you like, I would be glad to give you the highest level Israel sources which discuss and describe the Lebanon War. What you are hearing is probably propaganda that you learned in Elementary School. Nobody believes this in the Israeli academic system. And the Lebanon war was a straight attack. Nothing had been happening except attacks from Israel to Lebanon for over a year.

http://web.media.mit.edu/~nitin/mideast/chomsky_qa.html
http://web.media.mit.edu/~nitin/mideast/chomsky.html

add your comments

History of the Conflict in the Middle East
by Cut through the deliberate obfuscation • Thursday August 22, 2002 at 10:25 PM

For anyone interested in a serious analysis of the Middle East conflict, please see Noam Chomsky's "Fateful Triangle" and "Pirates and Emperors."

Both cut through the web of lies that inculcates us all.

If we were living in a truly decent world, Noam Chomsky would have won the Nobel Peace Prize by now.

Instead, we have winners like Shimon Peres and Menachem Begin both of whom are outright terrorists. (Begin led the Irgun into Deir Yassin killing 250 unarmed villagers in 1948 and Peres ordered the attack on a Palestinian refugee camp in Qana, Lebanon which killed 96 civilians -- this was in response to an attack by the Lebanese resistance against Israeli soldiers who were laying mines within Lebanon).

--- Israel did the right thing and struck first.---

The question at hand is not whether or not Israel started the war. I have said as much above. The question is why did they do so. Why were Syrian and Jordanian forces amassing along the border? Why did Nasser order the UN troops out of the way? Why was he amassng his tanks and other artillary in Sinai? In other words, it's up the writer's above to prove that if Egypt, Syria, and Jordan had not amassed troops that Israel would have started the 1967 War anyway.

most of the time, countries under fear of imminent attack will mass forces along their border. Are you saying they should have just allowed Israel to launch a surprise attack without defending themselves?

--countries under fear of imminent attack will mass forces along their border. Are you saying they should have just allowed Israel to launch a surprise attack without defending themselves?--

Now you have two things to prove:

1) It's up the writer's above to prove that if Egypt, Syria, and Jordan had not amassed troops that Israel would have started the 1967 War anyway.

2) Prove that Israel was planning a surprise attack on Egypt, Syria, and/or Jordan which would cause these countries to conclude they needed to mass their forces along the border.

"1) It's up the writer's above to prove that if Egypt, Syria, and Jordan had not amassed troops that Israel would have started the 1967 War anyway."

that is a speculative assertion you are making (if they had not readied their forces no attack would have come). Therefore you must prove your case before they have to disprove it. What you're doing here is called reverse onus.

"2) Prove that Israel was planning a surprise attack on Egypt, Syria, and/or Jordan which would cause these countries to conclude they needed to mass their forces along the border."

they attacked, by surprise. Common knowledge. If you really need proof, I suggest you research it yourself. Here is a short BBC article which describes the first act of war, a surprise attack by Israel on Egyptian airbases which caught the planes on the ground. Pretty hard to do that without surprise, isn't it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2001/israel_and_palestinians/timeline/1967.stm

You are dodging the question at hand, that being:

Why did Syria line their border with troops? Why did Jordan line their border with troops? Why did Nasser order the UN out of Sinai? Why did Egypt amass troops in Sinai?

The assertion was made that "countries under fear of imminent attack will mass forces along their border." It is implied by this that Syria, Jordan and Egypt "mass(ed) forces along their border" with Israel "under fear of imminent attack".

It is up to you and any others who would wish to try and prove that Israel was planning to attack these countries and that caused them to find it necessary to amass troops on their common borders.

--they attacked, by surprise--

But you did not "prove that Israel was planning a surprise attack on Egypt, Syria, and/or Jordan which would cause these countries to conclude they needed to mass their forces along the border." You only proved that Israel, upon seeing Egypt, Syria, and Jordan amassing troops along the border, stuck first. Common knowledge.

So far, you have them amassing troops along the borders without any evidence they were subject to an "imminent attack" from Israel. You need to document that these countries believed themselves to be "under fear of imminent attack" which caused them to amass troops along the border.

Either Israel was planning to attack Egypt, Syria, and Jordan prior to them amassing troops along the border or they were not? If they were planning to attack Egypt, Syria, and Jordan prior to them amassing troops along the border, document it. If Israel was not planning to attack Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, then these countries amassed their troops along the border "under (the) fear of (an) imminent attack" that was never coming.

I believe your going to have a hard time finding documented evidence showing that Israel had pre-planned to attack Egypt, Syria, and Jordan and that they "under fear of imminent attack" "mass(ed) forces along their border". So far you've only dodged the questions.

The documented evidence that Israel had planned to attack Egypt, Syria, and Jordan before these counties began amassing troops along the borders and before Nasser ordered the UN troops out of Sinai is either there or it's not. Find it. Present it. We're all waiting.

"I believe your going to have a hard time finding documented evidence showing that Israel had pre-planned to attack Egypt, Syria, and Jordan "

Yes, I will. Israel made sure of that. The only qualified observer in the area at the time was the USS Liberty which was viciously assaulted at the same time by the Israeli air force to prevent the world from knowing what was happening. The ship was destroyed; 37 Americans were killed and over 120 others became casualties.

http://ussliberty.org/

Thus we are only left with the knowledge that in modern warfare, all attacks are planned. Israel striking first, by surprise, was nothing spontaneous. It is common knowledge that imports to Israel had been blocked for some time by Egypt's blockade of the Suez, and this was certainly the reason for Israel's assault. Certainly they had made numerous threats over this issue. In light of these threats, the neighbouring countries prepared to defend themselves and began to "talk tough" in an effort to discourage any attack. Removing UN forces was part of this bluff, intended to intimidate Israel into thinking twice. The bluff was called of course. Israel had studied the situation extensively and was well aware of their superior tactical situation, else they would not have launched any surprise attack. That it was an act of bold heroism which won the day is a myth. You cannot conduct such an attack in this day and age without a massive amount of intelligence and planning beforehand. To even suggest it was a spontaneous event is preposterous.

I asked this before elsewhere, but this question was ignored.

It really makes no sense for Israel to have "started" the war in 1967 against three neighbors who had her surrounded.

It makes no sense to any tacticition.

Otto Bismarck, the chancellor of Germany a couple centuries ago, was very effective in helping to build a strong German state, through a mix of power deals and plays. Why? Well you see, Bismarck had a nightmare that kept him up late. His nightmare was that Germany would be fighting a two front war; Russia to the East, France at the West. Caught in between these two other powers, he saw that his state would suffer a greal deal in a two-front war. He spent his career trying to prevent that from happening.

Of course, in the next generation, Napoleon III pretty much did the opposite of what Bismarck wanted. And the same happened in WWII; by fighting a double front, Germany was defeated.

Why was this? Because if you're fighting a war, its easy to mass your troops on one boarder, but when you have to split them between two (or more) fronts, it becomes far more dangerous. No sane country would do that.

Heck, even in the Peloponnesian war, one of the reasons for Athens' defeat was in their stupid, failed attempt to conquer Sicily, which left them with both the Sicilians AND the Spartans as enemies.

So why on God's Green Earth would Israel CHOOSE to attack THREE DIFFERENT COUNTRIES at the SAME TIME?

The idea that they did this because they just wanted to conquer territory is bullshit. If they wanted to conquer territory, they'd just fight one war at a time, on one front. You don't start a three front war of conquest unless your suicidal.

The reason they attacked was because they knew those nations were ready to attack them. And they could wait for it, or they could preempt it and have a better chance of survival.

It's amazing how Israel has been attacked so many times by nations desiring to destroy it, murder its population... and yet, it gets flack for successfully defending itself, and is told to give back the territory, so its murderers will have a better shot next time. Ridiculous.

"Yes, I will. Israel made sure of that."

Prove it.

"The documented evidence that Israel had planned to attack Egypt, Syria, and Jordan before these counties began amassing troops along the borders and before Nasser ordered the UN troops out of Sinai is either there or it's not. Find it. Present it. We're all waiting."

And we're still waiting.

-------------------------------------

"It is common knowledge that imports to Israel had been blocked for some time by Egypt's blockade of the Suez, and this was certainly the reason for Israel's assault."

Prove the blockade of the Suez (actually it was the Gulf of Aqaba) was the REASON for Israel's attack.

"Certainly they had made numerous threats over this issue."

Document it.

"In light of these threats, the neighbouring countries prepared to defend themselves and began to "talk tough" in an effort to discourage any attack. Removing UN forces was part of this bluff, intended to intimidate Israel into thinking twice."

Document it was a bluff.

---------------------------------------------

"most of the time, countries under fear of imminent attack will mass forces along their border. Are you saying they should have just allowed Israel to launch a surprise attack without defending themselves?" - ahem

"You cannot conduct such an attack in this day and age without a massive amount of intelligence and planning beforehand. To even suggest it was a spontaneous event is preposterous." - X2


"surprise attack" - "spontaneous event". You two need to talk this out.

------------------------

"The ship (USS Liberty) was destroyed;"

The ship sailed on its own to drydock for repairs. What is your definition of "destroyed"?

"37 Americans were killed"

The web site says 34.

"and over 120 others became casualties."

The web site says 172 were wounded. 'Casuality' means zonked, i.e. dead. Where do you get 120 casulaties? Maybe they were killed by those Israeli 'submarines' we all heard about that weren't there either.

In it's military sense, the word means:

One injured, killed, captured, or missing in action through engagement with an enemy. Often used in the plural: Battlefield casualties were high.



See: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=casualty&r=2

"The documented evidence that Israel had planned to attack Egypt, Syria, and Jordan before these counties began amassing troops along the borders and before Nasser ordered the UN troops out of Sinai is either there or it's not. Find it. Present it. We're all waiting."

Still waiting.

It just so happens, unfortunately for you, that intercepts of Israeli communications at the beggining of the war have just been released. Here is your documentation.

"Most significant, `Liberty's' intercepts may have shown that Israel seized upon sharply rising Arab-Israeli tensions in May-June 1967 to launch a long- planned war to invade and annex the West Bank, Jerusalem, Golan and Sinai."

http://www.coldwar.org/articles/60s/uss_liberty.php3
http://www.bigeye.com/042901.htm

"Why did Israel try to sink a naval vessel of its benefactor and ally? Most likely because 'Liberty's' intercepts flatly contradicted Israel's claim, made at the war's beginning on 5 June, that Egypt had attacked Israel, and that Israel's massive air assault on three Arab nations was in retaliation. In fact, Israel began the war by a devastating, Pearl- Harbor style surprise attack that caught the Arabs in bed and destroyed their entire air forces.

Israel was also preparing to attack Syria to seize its strategic Golan Heights. Washington warned Israel not to invade Syria, which had remained inactive while Israel fought Egypt. Bamford says Israel's offensive against Syria was abruptly postponed when 'Liberty' appeared off Sinai, then launched once it was knocked out of action. Israel's claim that Syria had attacked it could have been disproved by 'Liberty.'"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/margolis12.html

"The Countdown to the Six-Day War

The countdown to the Six-Day War began in November 1966, when a terrorist attack by Fatah against three Israeli soldiers prompted an Israeli reprisal. A large Israeli force entered the Jordanian-occupied West Bank village of Samua, and encountered a battalion of Jordanian soldiers, leading to a firefight that left 15 Jordanian soldiers dead.

Arabs in the West Bank and Jordan reacted violently, demanding that Jordan's King Hussein make greater efforts to protect his people. Hussein, in turn, made scathing remarks about Gamal Abd al-Nasser, Egypt's president, suggesting that he needed to do more to "liberate Palestine" and that he was hiding behind the UN, which had stationed troops in the Sinai Peninsula (between Israel and Egypt) since the 1956 Arab-Israeli war.

Thus, Nasser needed a pretext to eject the UN peacekeepers from Sinai and save face. His pretext came on May 12, 1967, when the USSR misinformed the Egyptians that Israeli forces were massed on Israel's northern border, ready to destroy Syria. With the threat of war looming, Nasser, evicted the peacekeepers from Sinai, closed the Straits of Tiran, thereby blocking Israel's oil imports."
http://www.meforum.org/article/210/

Thus as you can see in Eric Margolis' article, something was picked up by US Intelligence and will be forthcoming in the next short while.

Also you can see the reason for expelling the UN peacekeepers was due to misinformation from the USSR.

Since 1948, Syrians have used the Golan Heights to snipe at Jewish farmers and Israelis in the valley below.

For 19 years, Israel asked the UN to do something about the Syrian Jew sniping.

For 19 years, the UN didn't lift a finger.

So Israel took the Heights in 1967.

More power to them.

If Syria wanted to keep it, they shouldn't had been using it to play games of target practice with the Jews below.

yes, I agree that this was poor form on the Syrians' part. There can't be any excuse for that sort of thing.
However, what form of intervention did Israel request?

Both Yitzak Rabin and Menachem Begin were to contradict the common belief that the 1967 war was a defensive attack on the part of Israel. Both claimed publicly that Israel knew Nasser was not planning to attack. His troop movements were the pretext for a long planned Israeli move to gain more territory. Rabin was quoted in Le Monde, February 29, 1968, as saying, "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai in May [1967] would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." On August 8, 1982, Prime Minister Begin made a speech saying, "In June, 1967, we again had a choice. the Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" (New York Times, August 21, 1982).

"The documented evidence that Israel had planned to attack Egypt, Syria, and Jordan before these counties began amassing troops along the borders and before Nasser ordered the UN troops out of Sinai is either there or it's not. Find it. Present it. We're all waiting."

And I'm still waiting.

I ask for documentation, and you give me the OPINION of Ted Thorton of the Religious Studies Dept. at Northfield Mount Hermon School and the OPINION of Eric Margolis of the Toronto Sun? I'm not interested in someone's OPINION of what took place.

Let me spell out for you the documentation required.

1) From the Israeli Government, you need to provide the documentation that they were planning on attacking Egypt, Syria, and/or Jordan prior to these countries amassing troops on the borders,

and

2) From the Egyptian, Syrian and/or Jordanian Government(s), you must provide documentation showing that the troops advancing in the Sinai and on the borders of Israel were being placed there only as a defensive tactic because they had evidence that Israel was planning on attacking them.

The documentation you provide must be from one of the official sources listed below:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/home.asp
http://www.presidency.gov.eg/
http://www.parliament.gov.eg/
http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/government.html
http://www.parliament.gov.jo/
http://www.nic.gov.jo/nis2.html
http://www.moi-syria.com/

Anything less than this is not official documentation and is unacceptable.

believes "official" documentation from either side in about any war?

Truth is always the first casualty.

"What kind of fool believes 'official' documentation from either side in about any war?"

The same fool who would use it to their advantage IF they could find it.

Worse yet, what kind of fool documents events using written OPINIONS?

Both Yitzak Rabin and Menachem Begin were to contradict the common belief that the 1967 war was a defensive attack on the part of Israel. Both claimed publicly that Israel knew Nasser was not planning to attack. His troop movements were the pretext for a long planned Israeli move to gain more territory. Rabin was quoted in Le Monde, February 29, 1968, as saying, "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai in May [1967] would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." On August 8, 1982, Prime Minister Begin made a speech saying, "In June, 1967, we again had a choice. the Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" (New York Times, August 21, 1982).

http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/1967_third_arab.htm

Rabin (February 29, 1968) - "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai in May [1967] would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."

"I do not think Nasser wanted war."

Rabin's opinion. How does he know for sure? Is he Nasser?

"The two divisions he sent to the Sinai in May [1967] would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."

Rabin's opinion. Rabin can't speak for Nasser. Again, how can he say for sure that Nasser didn't believe he had enough to wage war? Document where Nasser said he knew he didn't have enough military to wage war.


Prime Minister Begin (August 8, 1982) "In June, 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

Begin's opinion. Conversely, the Egyptian army being in the Sinai didn't prove that Nasser WASN'T going to attack either. Why did Egypt make alliances with Syria and Jordan? Why amass troops if not for an attack or to fend off an attack? Iraq's concentrations of their army along the border of Kuwait did not prove that Saddam was really about to attack in 1991. But if someone's amassing troops along the border of another country, especially if those two or three or four countries don't see eye to eye, what does that generally mean? Israel wasn't amassing troops. Egypt, Syria, and Jordan were.

Again, let me spell out for you the documentation required.

1) From the Israeli Government, you need to provide the documentation that they were planning on attacking Egypt, Syria, and/or Jordan prior to these countries amassing troops on the borders,

and

2) From the Egyptian, Syrian and/or Jordanian Government(s), you must provide documentation showing that the troops advancing in the Sinai and on the borders of Israel were being placed there only as a defensive tactic because they had evidence that Israel was planning on attacking them.

The documentation you provide must be from one of the official sources listed below:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/home.asp
http://www.presidency.gov.eg/
http://www.parliament.gov.eg/
http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/government.html
http://www.parliament.gov.jo/
http://www.nic.gov.jo/nis2.html
http://www.moi-syria.com/

Anything less than this is not official documentation and is unacceptable.

I reject your attempt to define acceptable documentation. Its absurd. If you can reject the testimony of former heads of state as to the intentions of that state during the time in question you are completely and utterly ridiculous. You have lost any credibility with me. So far you can't prove that it WASN'T what everyone claims either. Until you can, I'm not going to bother playing your silly reverse-onus, define your own sources crapola.

I would too if I were trying to defend the notion that Egypt, Syria and Jordan lined the borders and inhabited the Sinai because they believed Israel was going to attack THEM.

"facts" your OPINION is contradicted by former heads of state of Israel. Sorry buddy. Onus on you now.

You still haven't answered my question why Israel would "choose" to "start" a three-front war, when that's a potentially disasterous move for any nation.

See my post above.

you haven't clarified what sort of intervention Israel requested from the UN. See my post above.
As to choosing to start a three-front war, well, this has numerous precedents. Particularly when surprise is concerned. Certainly Germany would be one such example, opening up eastern, western, and meditteranean fronts. Japan would be another, with Chinese, SE Asian, Indies, and Pacific theatres. Thats 4 fronts. When victory is seen as possible, this is seen as an option. I think Israel was fairly secure in the superiority of its military; after all this was only a seven day war. The assault must have been overwhelming.

Well, I do recall that Hitler did invade Russia while already engaged in war with France. And this was probably one of the stupidest military maneuvers in the 20th century.

And from what I've read, Israel was hardly "confident" of victory in the six day war. I think the reason they won is because the panic of potential extermination kept their eyes fixed to reality, whereas the Arab nations had their heads in the clouds with visions of finally crushing the Jews in glorious battle.

As for the Golan Heights...

Israel repeatedly and unsuccessfully protested the Syrian bombardments to the UN Mixed Armistice Commision, which was charged with policing the cease-fire. For example, Israel went to the UN in October 1966 to demand a halt to the Fatah attacks. The response from Damascus was defiant. "It is not our duty to stop them, but to encourage and strengthen them," the Syrian ambassador responded. Nothing was done to stop Syria's aggression. A mild Security Council resolution expressing "regret" for such incidents was vetoed by the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, Israel was condemned by the UN when it retaliated. "As far as the Security Council was officially concerned," historian Netanel Lorch wrote, "there was an open season for killing Israelis on their own territory."

For the rest of the story, see http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Peace/golan_hts.html

In a part of the world where water is worth more than blood, the good artillery positions up there are merely a perq.

It is also no coincidence that the aquifer under the so-called "West Bank" is vital to the future of Israel's economy.

"Well, I do recall that Hitler did invade Russia while already engaged in war with France."

well, no. France surrendered on June 22, 1940, but the surprise attack on Russia did not occur until exactly one year later - June 22, 1941. The strategic mistake was that Britain had not been dealt with yet and in fact was opening an aerial front in the West and a naval/land front in the eastern Meditteranean.
But there were, before France's surrender, fronts in both France and Norway (the latter costing them their surface fleet) simultaneously.

Whether it was a mistake or not to open up the Russian front is debatable. The Russian army was caught unprepared but was certainly a threat given time to mobilize. At the time, Britian was ignored. An invasion of Britain would have eliminated the Western Front but there was no way victory could have been achieved; the RAF was strong in bombers, the British still had a sizable surface fleet, and Churchill was planning to defend the beaches with flame traps, poison gas and anthrax, which Britain had weaponized for just such a purpose before the war even began.

I may be rusty on my history of the World War II fronts. But I think its still safe to assume that starting a war on too many opposing fronts is a bad move.

It was always the nightmare of Bismarck. And like you said, Hitler did end up having to fight Russia on the East and Britain on the West.

I find it hard to believe that Israel would just suddenly decide to launch a three front offensive, considering the kind of vulnerabilities she's in.

However when attacked, I have no doubt she would have to fight anyone who was a threat, and would go after those strategic vulnerabilities. I mean... if she was trying to fight a war of conquest, why not push on to conquer Egypt, Jordan and Syria?

Anyhow, more importantly, I showed you some of the info on the Golan Heights.

"However when attacked, I have no doubt she would have to fight anyone who was a threat, and would go after those strategic vulnerabilities. I mean... if she was trying to fight a war of conquest, why not push on to conquer Egypt, Jordan and Syria?"

well ok (a) she would have to be attacked first - pre-emptive attacks are not legal - and (b) there are limits to expansion (its called overstretch) and a wise conqueror respects those limits. I think Israel is having enough trouble controlled the populations it has conquered, without adding dozens of millions more.

"The documented evidence that Israel had planned to attack Egypt, Syria, and Jordan before these counties began amassing troops along the borders and before Nasser ordered the UN troops out of Sinai is either there or it's not. Find it. Present it. We're all waiting."

First of all I'd like to say HI from all of us involved in the activist movement in South Florida.

The focus of those who are discussing this with you is not properly focused. Egypt, Jordan, and Syria placed troops along the border of Israel in order to attack them. There's no disputing that. I'm not sure the point of why others are trying to say that they placed troops in order to defend themselves against Israel attacking them. Of course these countries made an alliance to attack Israel. It was only when they placed these troops on the border that Israel went on the offensive.

The focus should be on WHY they had determined to attack Israel. These three countries had the right to go to war to defeat the state of Israel, a country that stole land from their Arab brothers and were treating them like they were dogs. Would that these countries had been successful, then we wouldn't have the problems in the Middle East we have today.

what activist movement? the KKK?
don't try and interject your racist propaganda into a legitimate discussion. Your distortions are obvious and infantile.

I am an anarchist. Not sure exactly what you are given your response. FYI, I find neonazis and all racists to be vile and disgusting. From what I'm reading at this indymedia site, it looks like COINTELPRO agents are doing there best to disrupt. Are you one of them?

yeah you're an anarchist, sure ... an anarchist who thinks state warfare is just terrific ... OK sure pal

so i caught yah did I? Not very good at this are you?

X2, it seems you and this Robinson guy have at base one of the same philosophies.

Robinson says the Jews shouldn't be allowed to have a homeland in their birthplace, so the Arab states are justified in trying to kill them all.

You say a pre-emptive strike is illegal (really, I doubt that) and Israel should have sat still and waited until she was attacked before retaliating.

When you think how that could have been waiting for a massacre, I think its kind of unrealistic. I know we're taught in all those Karate Kid movies to wait for the other guy to throw the first punch, but sometimes that's not the best way to get out alive. Sometimes to ensure survival, you have to strike first.

I personally believe the Jews do have a right to live, a right to their own country, a right to be safe from anti-Semitism, and a right to fight those who want to wipe them off the face of the Earth. That puts me at odds with Robinson, no doubt. I hope it doesn't put me at odds with you.

And for God sake's Robinson, do a little research on the early days of Zionism that isn't from an extremist Palestinian perspective, and you might learn something.

"Jim Robertson" sounds like a pro-Israeli posing as a pro-Palestinian to me.

Actually, it's nessie, addicted to bringing up COINTELPRO.

"You say a pre-emptive strike is illegal (really, I doubt that)"

now I had generally considered you to be an intelligent person, so just think about that for a moment objectively. Essentially, if pre-emptive strikes were legal, one state could invade another - legally - at any time a threat were apparent. This would mean the moment that, say, Israel first acquired a cruise missile, anyone within range would be within their rights to attack (and apparently, according to your Golan Heights logics, occupy indefinately). If the missile could reach China or Russia, they would be allowed to attack.
No, the military law is quite specific that an act of aggression must have taken place for there to be a formal declaration of war. Now you're probably thinking well, what about all the little American wars, right? OK. The Americans haven't officially declared war since WW2. Under declaration of war, the nation comes under martial law and normal civilian gov't functions differently. Essentially a limited duration dictatorship comes into effect. This has not happenned in the West since WW2; there is a loophole called "police actions" or "use of military force" which has enabled various 'wars' to take place. Gulf War, Vietnam War, Korean War: all police actions. Incidentally, this is what Japan used to attack China in 1931, and why the League of Nations was able to hem and haw about it instead of doing anything.
1967 was never legally presented as anything but a war (not a police action) and no violation of Israeli boundaries - no single incident - precipitated the attack. Israel could have conducted a police action in the Golan Heights, but you cannot occupy the territory in question after a police action.
A pre-emptive strike is illegal for many good reasons.

The exact documents are Article 2 Sections 3 and 4 ( http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ )

To some extent these are debatable. In any case, Israel never did really demonstrate the case that 2 infantry divisions were an overwhelming threat. This is what is needed to even consider a pre-emptive strike.

Now as to Mr. Robinson and myself, you must misunderstand me. I have no desire for any person currently living in Israel to be killed or evicted; I don't see this as necessary at all. This is a fight between two elites and their violent followers, not one between the people of the region. Its the elites - the state apparatus and the fundamentalist apparatus - that need to go.

--"Jim Robertson" sounds like a pro-Israeli posing as a pro-Palestinian to me.--

RE: the 9-11 bumper sticker:

9/11
by Jim Robertson • Wednesday September 18, 2002 at 05:58 AM

You can expect people to be sensitive about 9/11 on the anniversary. But I believe anything that can be done to get out the word about the current corporate plutocracy regime is a good thing.


Yeah, ole Jim sounds like a real pro-Israeli capitalist pig to me!!

"Egypt, Jordan, and Syria placed troops along the border of Israel in order to attack them. There's no disputing that."

Thank you, Jim. I disagee with your conclusion, but at least someone has the guts to admit the truth.

I had a simple request for the following:

"The documented evidence that Israel had planned to attack Egypt, Syria, and Jordan before these counties began amassing troops along the borders and before Nasser ordered the UN troops out of Sinai is either there or it's not. Find it. Present it. We're all waiting."

I got:

Rabin (February 29, 1968) - "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai in May [1967] would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."

Where in that statement does it say that Israel had a plan to attack Egypt, Syria and Jordan prior to these countries amassing troops along their borders and in Sinai?

Prime Minister Begin (August 8, 1982) "In June, 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

Where in that statement does it say that Israel had a plan to attack Egypt, Syria and Jordan prior to these countries amassing troops along their borders and in Sinai?

I have never, ever heard anyone claim that Egypt, Syria and Jordan were placing their troops along the borders in order to defend themselves from a planned attack from Israel, much less try to defend it. First of all, defending it is impossible as you can plainly see from those who have tried. All the official government documents and all the historical information points to the same thing, they wanted to defeat Israel in battle and return the land to the Palestinians. Those who try to make the case are amusing at first, but by their own inability to document their claims they have hung themselves, and will again and again.

Sorry if I'm not as eloquent as I used to be, X2. I've been pretty agitated lately, and the fact that nothing seems to change here... nay, that it gets even worse, with ever more vicious Anti-Semitic postings (with an ever-increasing number of morons blaming even this "on the Jews") I haven't been as forthright as I should have been. I've been wanting to quit looking at Indybay for some time, but I keep looking at it, the way you look at a car accident on 101.

Trust me, when I saw this 'cartoon' someone made, claiming the Holocaust was a myth... what the hell am I supposed to think in the face of such contemptable ignorance and bigotry? Aside from "Thank God for Israel."

Anyhow, back to 1967...

The environment was growing increasingly hostile, with an increase in terrorist attacks, and Nasser giving more and more speeches threatening war.

On May 16th, Nasser withdrew the UN Emergency force. After they complied, the Voice of the Arabs proclaimined on May 18th:

"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."

Syria echoed these sentiments two days later.

On May 22nd, Egypt closed off the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping, blocking it from all trade with Asia.

President Johnson tried to get this blockade labelled illegal, but failed to get international backing.

Almost daily, Nasser challenged Israel to fight On May 27th he said "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

King Hussein then signed a defense treaty with Egypt.

And then the troops mobilized... 250,000 troops, (about half in the Sinai) 2000 tanks, and 700 airplanes ringed Israel.

Israel, which had been on alert for three weeks, finally delivered its preliminary strike.

But you know that if Israel waited, she would have been attacked, and would have had a catastrophic disadvantage.

In that case, what else can a country do, but protect itself from annihalation? I don't think Israel needs to get wiped out just to prove a point, or not break the "illegality" of preemptive strikes, especially in the face of such aggressive behavior.

For more information on the six day war:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf6.html

With regards to anti-semitic posts all I can say is that IMC is under attack from neo-Nazi spammers. This is a free publishing forum meaning any whacko can post a comment. What any anonymous whacko cannot do, however, is have his article moved beyond "breaking news" and into the local or global news sections. Therefore, since these are all reviewed by *actual* IMC members, you won't find any of that trash there. Further, if you'd really like to get to know the IMC community and its opinions, you could join the chat. Few trolls are willing to go there as it is very easy to track IPs there. Last night we had a great discussion about whether or not Star Trek was frothing with subconscious racism in particular whether the Ferengi were some sort of twisted anti-semitic caricature in a subconcscious prejudice sort of way. Its not a formal discussion there by any means but its a good way to get a sense of the real community, sans trolls. I'm not sure if you were aware of the problems of open publishing or not, but you are now, so in the future any stated assumptions that the IMC community itself is posting this garbage would be knowingly misleading.

Now you raise some very good points in reference to 1967. But, you have to remember this: if that army (whose numbers may impress the average reader, but really, given technology etc versus Israel are falling rather short of the word 'mighty') could not, entrenched on higher ground, mobilized for war, defend itself against the Israeli army .... how on earth would it be able to attack a fortified, dug-in, defending Israeli army on its own turf?

In armed conflict, a defender always has a decisive advantage. He controls the environment, he can prepare the battlefield. The conflict is conducted on his terms. If he has an inferior force, he may still lose, but he will not lose so much as if he had been the aggressor. Therefore I find it hard to believe that this army, commanding the superior tactical positions of the Sinai and the Golan heights, which was utterly and completely routed and annihilated in a mere 6 days - one of the shortest conflicts in history - can really, credibly, be named as a viable threat.

Israel's planning in fact clearly showed that they expected to be countering a defensive force, not an aggressive one, and they were right:

"General Tal's thrust across the Sinai was the main attack. Israel expected the Egyptians to follow the Russian "sword and shield" doctrine for mechanized defense against this thrust, with mobile armored reserves holding back to counter-attack any forces penetrating the defensive shield. Anticipating this, Israeli formations, under General Yoffe, infiltrated between General Tal's thrust in the north and General Sharon's seizure of the Abu Ageila strongpoint in the
south, intercepting the armored counterattack and completely breaking the cohesion of the Egyptian tactical plan. This allowed General Tal's formations to rush to the Suez after breaking Egyptian defenses, and precipitated the headlong retreat of Egyptian forces back to the west. While a significant percentage of the physical elements of the Egyptian force remained to be destroyed by the Israeli Air Force as they retreated through the Sinai passes, they were effectively defeated by Yoffe's maneuver."

http://sac.saic.com/docs/Fight.pdf

we know who the real Nazi's are. they're the knee-jerk Jew bashers, the new best friends of the skinheads. they are all in the same bed now, keeping Hitler's vision alive. and as an extra added attraction they kill the niggers too, by starving them. the leftist skinheads know what's best for the happy darkies in Africa.

skinheads or liberals-is there a difference? didn't think so.

your commentary and artful picture - Intelligent and terse -- it should be used as a model of civilized speech and diplomatic prose, intelligent commentary. Have you considered a job with a major media outlet?

I've applied at CNN and the Guardian.

By the way, aren't you going to confuse the newbies if you don't stick with one name, nessie?

did nessie do your girlfriend or something? you seem kinda worked up. Why don't you tell us about it.

X2, it sounds like you're using hindsight a bit too much. Of course we know NOW that the Arab armies of 1967 were more like a plastic giant balloon that pops from a single needle.

But it was hard to know then.

Anyway, two reasons Israel may also have taken the offensive.

A) In spite of having the native terrain, the Golan Heights and West Bank are still some very high evelations charging down into some of the lowest spots on Earth, and are hard to defend. Which is still why Israel is loathe to give them up, especially to potentially hostile states.

B) Israel spent weeks on full alert, waiting for the attack. This mobilization was putting a heavy strain on its economy. It's not as rich as the United States, which could probably mobilize for years without doing anything. Had the Arabs simply kept their position and hostilities for a little longer, they might have watched Israel go bankrupt without firing a shot... if Israel continued to wait.

And really... what do you think the Arabs were doing with all that mobilization, and shutting down the straits? A vacation? Sometimes the best defense is a good offense (yeah,a cliche) but I think Israel had a pretty darn good idea that the attack was coming. And shutting down the straits was interpreted as an Act of War.

OK, shutting down a canal in your own sovereign territory cannot be construed as an act of war. Its nasty, its unfair, its cheap and mean-spirited, but it isn't an act of war.

I don't think the Israeli army really was all that worried about the Arab mobilization. The Israeli citizens, OK, but the government had intelligence, I'm sure. The Israeli intelligence community is one of the best in the world. I'd bet alot of money that the generals knew the locations and relative strengths of all Arab positions.

Now you do raise a good point about mobilization, and the fact that the Arab countries could probably take turns and sit there and disrupt the Israeli economy. But why war? Why not a police action? By its definition a police action would have involved UN settlement of the dispute in the end, and the Golan Heights would probably today be a UN-patrolled DMZ. Frankly I can't see any problem for Israeli security there. It's not as if there would be any threat from the obviously and proven inferior Arabic armies; it couldn't be used to snipe; the whole problem of the occupation would be a non-issue. No, the answer is quite clear: a war was chosen, deliberately, on the pretext of security. And then settlement. Settlement that the Israeli government bribes the people into by locating housing projects there, in unsafe territory. Proof of the Israeli government's lack of concern for the safety of its citizens. Settling your people in a disputed territory, a low-intensity area of conflict ... thats abuse. If any other government in the world were to do that, it would be called anti-semitic relocation, and I for one would agree with the assessment.

By the way - I guess now you can see the troll, who has done a pretty good job of outlining the problems of open publishing in a rather obscene manner. I take exception to his light usage of Hitler; turning him into some kind of comical figure really downplays the true evils that occurred and shows callous disregard for the tragedies of the time.

Someone,

I appreciate your insight, but you're discussing this with someone who already has a predisposed view of Israel. They cannot provide you with any official government documentation showing that Israel had a plan to attack Egypt, Syria and Jordan prior to these countries amassing troops along their borders and in Sinai. All your going to get is:

"Therefore I find it hard to believe..."
"I don't think the Israeli army..."
"...I'm sure."
"I'd bet alot of money..."
"Frankly I can't see any problem for Israeli security there."

Not something you can hang your hat on.

Israel should consider itself fortunate not to have someone like this planning policy and military strategy.

and you can't provide any official documentation proving that the concentrations at the border were planning to violate the border, either.

and you can't provide any official documentation proving that the concentrations at the border were planning to violate the border, either.

All your statement shows is that I am capable of qualifying my statements when they are opinions. I suggest to you that a lack of this ability would indicate rhetoric.

You need to review. I'm not the one that claimed Israel had a plan to attack Egypt, Syria and Jordan prior to these countries amassing troops along their borders and in Sinai.

I freely admitted that Israel struck first. That was never in question. The question has always been, Why?, and the necessity of the opposition to prove that Israel had a plan to strike anyway even if Egypt, Syria, and Jordan had not amassed troops .

This started when the statement was made that "most of the time, countries under fear of imminent attack will mass forces along their border." In other words, Egypt, Syria and Jordan had placed troops along the border "under fear of imminent attack." That would mean that IF they were "under fear of imminent attack" from Israel, and because of this "fear of imminent attack" they positioned troops, they must have based it upon something.

I didn't make the claim, someone else made the claim. Thus, my asking for someone to prove it.

There are two avenues to document this having been the case. Official Israeli government documents showing they were planning an attack prior to Egypt, Syria and Jordan amassing troops, or official Egyptian, Syrian, and/or Jordanian government documentation showing they lined the borders because they believed themselves to be under "imminent attack" from Israel. If you can get the two to compliment each other, even better.

Rabin was quoted in Le Monde, February 29, 1968, as saying, "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai in May [1967] would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." On August 8, 1982, Prime Minister Begin made a speech saying, "In June, 1967, we again had a choice. the Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" (New York Times, August 21, 1982).

That's heads of state. Until 2017 when documents are declassified, that's the best possible documentation, barring unforeseen releases by third party intelligence, or leaks. I have already provided you with credible evidence.

Actually, if all you want is proof that the Arab forces were amassed in fear of an imminent attack, the IDF freely admits as much:

"... It was the Soviets who spread the false report in 1967 that Israel had concentrated large forces on the border with Syria in preparation to attack..."

http://www.idf.il/english/history/sixday.stm

“Either Israel was planning to attack Egypt, Syria, and Jordan prior to them amassing troops along the border or they were not? If they were planning to attack Egypt, Syria, and Jordan prior to them amassing troops along the border, document it. If Israel was not planning to attack Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, then these countries amassed their troops along the border "under (the) fear of (an) imminent attack" that was never coming.”

Above is a repost of an earlier statement I made.

“... It was the Soviets who spread the false report in 1967 that Israel had concentrated large forces on the border with Syria in preparation to attack..."

So if Syria amassed troops along it’s border based upon _false information_ supplied by the Soviets, then Syria “amassed their troops along the border "under (the) fear of (an) imminent attack" that was never coming.

So Syria amassed troops for no reason. Israel was not amassing troops nor did they have plans to attack. The amassing of troops by Syria and the threat they perceived was coming from Israel was established upon baseless information supplied by the Soviets.

On the other hand, why did Nasser order the UN out of Sinai? Why did Egypt, Syria and Jordan form an alliance to attack Israel? Why did Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Algeria send troops and arms to assist them?


Statement by President Nasser, 26 May 1967:

“We were waiting for the day when we would be fully prepared and confident of being able to adopt strong measures if we were to enter the battle with Israel. I say nothing aimlessly. One day two years ago, I stood up to say that we had no plan to liberate Palestine and that revolutionary action was our only course to liberate Palestine. I spoke at the summit conferences. The summit conferences were meant to prepare the Arab States to defend themselves.”

“Recently we felt we are strong enough, that if we were to enter a battle with Israel, with God's help, we could triumph. On this basis, we decided to take actual steps.”

“A great deal has been said in the past about the UN Emergency Force (UNEF). Many people blamed us for UNEF's presence. We were not strong enough. Should we have listened to them, or rather built and trained our army while UNEF still existed? I said once that we could tell UNEF to leave within half an hour. Once we were fully prepared we could ask UNEF to leave. And this is what actually happened.”

“The same thing happened with regard to Sharm el-Sheikh. We were attacked on this score by some Arabs. Taking Sharm el-Sheikh meant confrontation with Israel. Taking such action also meant that we were ready to enter a general war with Israel. It was not a separate operation. Therefore, we had to take this fact into consideration when moving to Sharm el-Sheikh. The present operation was mounted on this basis.”

“The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel.”

"So Syria amassed troops for no reason."

No, that's a false statement. Sure the attack never came. Sure it was misinformation. But hindsight is 20/20. By the same logic, you could easily say the Israeli army was superior, had nothing to fear from the mobilization as they could wipe it out easily, and therefore attacked for no reason. Hindsight is great.

also, you're quoting heads of state as evidence, and if you want to get into that, shall we see what some of the Israeli heads of state said about 1967?

"So Syria amassed troops for no reason."

This statement alone is not true. In the full context of my statement, it is true. Syria amassed troops for no reason for it was based upon false information.

I copied the Nasser speech from the Egyptian Governments file of Official Documents, a speech he made as Head of State on May 26, 1967.

Nasser had been itching to regain his status in the Arab world since his defeat in 1956 by the British, French and Israel. A careful study by anyone will show that Nasser had been preparing for the day he could retaliate and wage war with Israel.

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. 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."

After 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."

Also, 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."

Those who care to take the time to study this information will discover the same. Israel had no pre-plans to attack Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Rather, it was they and a host of other countries poised to wage war and indeed, "wipe Israel off the map."

http://www.activistsandiego.org/wwwboard/messages/1798.html

The Arabs started all the wars: 1967

Myth

Since the establishment of Israel there have been five major wars between Arabs and the Israelis. These wars occured in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982. Israel claims that the Arabs started all the wars. Although there has been low-intensity conflict in the intervening years and major conflagrations during the "War of Attrition" in 1969-1970 and the 1978 invasion of Lebanon, massive civil disobedience during the Uprising of 1988, and in 2000-2001 during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, it is these five wars Israel refers to when it makes its claims, creating the impression that Israel has only acted "in self-defence".

Israel claims that its attack against Egypt in June 1967 was a defensive measure to prevent Gamal Abdel Nasser from attacking.


Facts
Israel began planning the re-conquest of the Sinai soon after its forced withdrawal in 1956. In 1967, as in 1956, Israel waited for favorable circumstances to put its plan into action.

In 1967, however, Israel had a greater appreciation of the necessity and utility of a sophisticated publicity campaign, waged through the international media, to convince Western opinion that any Israeli military actions could only be construed as acts of self-defense. This publicity campaign was two-pronged: stressing that the Arabs attacked Israel and that Israel was in danger of annihilation. Both presuppositions were patently false.

In the early hours of 5 June 1967, Israel announced to a credulous Western world that the Egyptian Air Force had initiated hostile actions. In fact, it was the Israelis who had attacked the Egyptians and destroyed virtually the entire Egyptian Air Force while its fleet was still on the ground.

General Matityahu Peled, one of the architects of the Israeli conquest, committed what the Israeli public considered blasphemy when he admitted the true thinking of the Israeli leadership:

"The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war" (Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972).

Israeli Air Force General Ezer Weizmann declared bluntly that "there was never any danger of extermination" (Ma'ariv, 19 April 1972). Mordechai Bentov, a former Israeli cabinet minister, also dismissed the myth of Israel's imminent annihilation: "All this story about the danger of extermination has been a complete invention and has been blown up a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territories" (Al Hamishmar, 14 April 1972).

After the 1967 war Israel, claimed it invaded because of imminent Arab attack. It claimed that Nasser's closing of the Straits of Tiran constituted an act of war. It also cited Syrian shelling on the demilitarized zone of the Syrian-Israeli border. The claim that the Arabs were going to invade appears particularly ludicrous when one recalls that a third of Egypt's army was in Yemen and therefore quite unprepared to launch a war. On the Syrian front, Israel was engaging in threats and provocations that evidenced many similarities to its behavior in the lead up to the Gaza raid of 1955.

The demilitarized zone on the Syrian-Israeli border was established by agreement on 20 July 1949. Israeli provocations were incessant and enabled Israel to increase and extend its sovereignty by encroachment over the entire Arab area. According to one UN Chief of Staff, Arab villagers were evicted and their homes destroyed (E.L.M. Burns, Between Arab and Israeli, Ivan Obolensky, 1962, pp. 113-114). Another Chief of Staff described how the Israelis ploughed up Arab land and "advanced the 'frontier' to their own advantage" (Carl von Horn, Soldiering for Peace, Cassell, 1966, p. 79).

Israel attempted to evict the Arabs living on the Golan and annex the demilitarized zone. When the Syrians inevitably responded, Israel claimed that "peaceful" Israeli farmers were being shelled by the Syrians. Unmentioned was the fact that the "farmers" were armed and using tractors and farm equipment to encroach on the demilitarized zone (David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: the Roots of Violence in the Middle East, Faber and Faber, 1984, pp. 213-15). This was part of a "premeditated Israeli policy [..] to get all the Arabs out of the way by fair means or foul."

Shortly after the Syrian response on 7 April 1967, the Israeli Air Force attacked Syria, shooting down six planes, hitting thirty fortified positions and killing about 100 people (Hirst, op. cit., p. 214). It was unlikely that any Syrian guns would have been fired if not for Israel's provocation.

Israel's need for water also played a role in the 1967 attack. The invasion completed Israel's encirclement of the headwaters of the Upper Jordan River, its capture of the West Bank and the two aquifers arising there, which currently supply all the groundwater for northern and central Israel.

The Israelis followed-up their massive retaliation with stern warnings. On 11 May 1967, General Yitzhak Rabin said on Israeli radio: "The moment is coming when we will march on Damascus to overthrow the Syrian Government" (Godfrey Jansen, "New Light on the 1967 War", Daily Star, London, 15, 22, 26 November 1973). Syria sought Egypt's assistance under their Mutual Defense Pact of November 1966. Nasser could not afford to stand idly by. He ordered the removal of the small UN force stationed in Sinai and closed the Straits of Tiran. This action provided the casus belli that Israel soon invoked.

Nasser's move was a gesture of solidarity with Syria and no threat to Israel's economy or its security. The closure of the Straits did not force Israel into war. Claims of economic strangulation were absurd since only 5 percent of Israel's trade depended on free movement through the Straits of Tiran. No Israeli merchant vessel had passed through the Straits during the previous two years (Michael Howard and Robert Hunter, Israel and the Arab World: the Crisis of 1967, Adelphi Papers 41, Institute for Strategic Studies, 1967, p. 24).

In sum, the threat to Israel's survival in 1967 was non-existent. According to the British newspaper The Observer, Nasser's purpose was clearly "to deter Israel rather than provoke it to a fight" (The Observer, London, 4 June 1967). New York Times columnist James Reston reported that "Egypt does not war [...] certainly is not ready for war" (New York Times, 4 and 5 June 1967).

The Israelis themselves were perfectly aware of this, given their sophisticated military intelligence capabilities. Later, in the first few days of the war, they were so concerned that their plans for attacking Syria would be discovered that they deliberately attacked the USS Liberty, killing 33 American sailors, in an attempt to prevent it from monitoring war preparations.

A few months after the war, Yitzhak Rabin remarked: "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai on 14 May would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it" (Le Monde, 29 February 1968).

Israeli General Peled was even more frank: "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to the Zahal [Israeli army]" (Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972).

Finally, in 1982, the Israelis admitted that they had started the war (although official Zionist propaganda in the United States still does not acknowledge this fact). Prime Minister Menachem Begin, in a speech delivered at the Israeli National Defense College, clearly stated that: "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" (Jerusalem Post, 20 August 1982).

Israel's Arab neighbor's want to run them into the sea.

I'm a stubborn son of a gun, so flame me not, it won't help! So, since the truth upsets you, please go take a nice warm bath and get all cozy and warm and forget about it. But, I also know, some half wit must still respond ... Go Figure!

"I'm a stubborn son of a gun, so flame me not, it won't help! So, since the truth upsets you, please go take a nice warm bath and get all cozy and warm and forget about it. But, I also know, some half wit must still respond ... Go Figure!"

No not stubborn, I think I would call you simple. You lack the ability to respond to arguement instead you just say the same thing over and over even when its challenged. You are too simple to see the challenge. You are one of those people who just starts to talk loud in an arguement because you have nothing left to say, you lost, and you are too damned proud to realize that. But we all know you just lost your arguement facts, you just got your ass handed over to you and had nothing to say. Now you serve another purpose, you are no longer a pro-Israeli activist, you are the comic relief for all of us here. Thank you for the laughs.

you're doing something wrong.

"I'm a stubborn son of a gun, so flame me not, it won't help! So, since the truth upsets you, please go take a nice warm bath and get all cozy and warm and forget about it. But, I also know, some half wit must still respond ... Go Figure!"

Dang, man! You just sorta took all the fun outta anyone who would write behind you. I gotta remember that one.

Psychological Problems

#49 The Last Word

For some strange reason, Flame Wars often drag on because everyone wants to have the last word. This is probably a mistake, as once boredom and apathy has set in, quality can only go down. So your Last Word is left hanging, to wither on the vine. The idiots must have the last word .

#49-1 Spanking

What could be SAD enough to follow The Last Word? "Spanking", that's what. Those who fail to understand Rule 49 take an ADOLESCENT PRIDE IN THEIR STUPIDITY; they boast about their 'Victory' - being the last one left when everyone else has died of boredom, they have, therefore 'Spanked' their opponents.

-------------------------------

The following people are guilty of believing that The Last Word means they win:

nessie (and any alter-egos - which might be mentioned, even in this list)
X2
Mr. T
matthew willis
rene
debate coach
history buff
just wondering
Sheepdog
cp
...............
and any other left-wing, liberal or anarchist voice that may appear in this forum and finds it necessary to be the last to post.

Therefore, this statement applies to them:

The idiots must have the last word .

Actually, you were confirming what I had said earlier. The inability to respond to an argument, means that you have lost. What people do here on indymedia is that they basically repeat themselves ad infinitum until we all become bored as shit. Just because this 'facts' guy refuses to respond to valid points and restates nonsense shows us that his/her arguement went to pot, there was nothing there to respond with. It shows a lack of depth.

Second, I am not X2, I am not rene, I am not the debate coach, I am me Mr T, I always sign my name the same and I always write in the same style. I am sorry if this is flaming you.

There are a variety of quotes that can be found on different internet sites where leaders of the Arab world were making statements that Israel must be destroyed. This should be ignored at all costs for it is all Zionist propaghanda and should be ignored. Given the track record of Israel, the only sites to be believed about the Middle East are those by pro-Palestinain organizations.

I would once again like to thank the dim-wit who keeps posting in my name, eric is that you again?