Remembering Six Days in 1967

The anniversary of Israel's Six-Day War is a reminder why it cannot return to armistice borders.

BY MICHAEL OREN | JUNE 6, 2011

"We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants," declared Palestine Liberation Organization leader Ahmad al-Shuqayri. "As for the survivors -- if there are any -- the boats are ready to deport them." A half-million Arab soldiers and more than 5,000 tanks converged on Israel from every direction, including the West Bank, then part of Jordan. Their plans called for obliterating Israel's army, conquering the country, and killing large numbers of civilians. Iraqi President Abdul Rahman Arif said the Arab goal was to wipe Israel off the map: "We shall, God willing, meet in Tel Aviv and Haifa."

This was the fate awaiting Israel on June 4, 1967. Many Israelis feverishly dug trenches and filled sandbags, while others secretly dug 10,000 graves for the presumed victims. Some 14,000 hospital beds were arranged and gas masks distributed to the civilian population. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) prepared to launch a pre-emptive strike to neutralize Egypt, the most powerful Arab state, but the threat of invasion by other Arab armies remained.

Israel's borders at the time were demarcated by the armistice lines established at the end of Israel's war of independence 18 years earlier. These lines left Israel a mere 9 miles wide at its most populous area. Israelis faced mountains to the east and the sea to their backs and, in West Jerusalem, were virtually surrounded by hostile forces. In 1948, Arab troops nearly cut the country in half at its narrow waist and laid siege to Jerusalem, depriving 100,000 Jews of food and water.

The Arabs readied to strike -- but Israel did not wait. "We will suffer many losses, but we have no other choice," explained IDF Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin. The next morning, on June 5, Israeli jets and tanks launched a surprise attack against Egypt, destroying 204 of its planes in the first half-hour. By the end of the first morning of fighting, the Israeli Air Force had destroyed 286 of Egypt's 420 combat aircraft, 13 air bases, and 23 radar stations and anti-aircraft sites. It was the most successful single operation in aerial military history.

But, as feared, other Arab forces attacked. Enemy planes struck Israeli cities along the narrow waist, including Hadera, Netanya, Kfar Saba, and the northern suburbs of Tel Aviv; and thousands of artillery shells fired from the West Bank pummeled greater Tel Aviv and West Jerusalem. Ground forces, meanwhile, moved to encircle Jerusalem's Jewish neighborhoods as they did in 1948.

In six days, Israel repelled these incursions and established secure boundaries. It drove the Egyptians from the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula, and the Syrians, who had also opened fire, from the Golan Heights. Most significantly, Israel replaced the indefensible armistice lines by reuniting Jerusalem and capturing the West Bank from Jordan.

The Six-Day War furnished Israel with the territory and permanence necessary for achieving peace with Egypt and Jordan. It transformed Jerusalem from a divided backwater into a thriving capital, free for the first time to adherents of all faiths. It reconnected the Jewish people to our ancestral homeland in Judea and Samaria, inspiring many thousands to move there. But it also made us aware that another people -- the Palestinians -- inhabited that land and that we would have to share it.

As early as the summer of 1967, Israel proposed autonomy for the Palestinians in the West Bank and later, in 2000 and 2008, full statehood. Unfortunately, Palestinian leaders rejected these offers. In 2005, Israel uprooted all 8,000 of its citizens living in Gaza, giving the Palestinians the opportunity for self-determination. Instead, they turned Gaza into a Hamas-run terrorist state that has launched thousands of rockets into Israel. Now, the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank intends to unilaterally declare statehood at the United Nations without making peace. It has also united with Gaza's Hamas regime, which demands Israel's destruction.

In spite of the Palestinians' record of rejection and violence, Israel remains committed to the vision of two states living side by side in peace. But peace is predicated on security and on our ability to defend ourselves if the peace breaks down. Such provisions are crucial in the Middle East, where the governments of Israel's neighbors might change tomorrow. As such, we seek the demilitarization of the Palestinian state as well as a long-term IDF presence along the Jordan River to prevent rocket smuggling, as has occurred in Gaza. Moreover, we need defensible borders to ensure that Israel will never again pose an attractive target for attack.

For this reason, Israel appreciates U.S. President Barack Obama's opposition to unilaterally declared Palestinian statehood and negotiations with Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel, uphold previous peace agreements, and disavow terrorism. Similarly, we support the president's call for the nonmilitarization of any future Palestinian state that must be capable of assuming "security responsibility." In his recent address to a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu affirmed the president's statement that the negotiated border will be "different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967."

Forty-four years after Arab forces sought to exploit the vulnerable armistice lines, it remains clear that Israel cannot return to those lines. And 44 years after the United Nations, through Resolution 242, indicated that Israel would not have to forfeit all of the captured territories and must achieve "secure and recognized boundaries," the unsecure and unrecognized armistice lines must not be revived. Israel's insistence on defensible borders is a prerequisite for peace and a safeguard against a return to the Arab illusions and Israeli fears of June 1967.

David Rubinger/GPO via Getty Images

 

Michael Oren is Israel's ambassador to the United States and author of Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East.

VERONICAHERNADEZ

7:51 PM ET

June 6, 2011

Wasted

While the Palestinians & the Arab world commemorate the anniversary of another war that they lost against Israel... Maybe they should sit back and reflect about why they keep on losing wars.
The crux is that Allah wants Israel to exist and stay strong - which is why Israel will never lose a war.
The Qur'an relates the words by which Moses ordered the Israelites to conquer the Land:"And [remember] when Moses said to his people karmaloop codes: 'O my people, call in remembrance the favour of God unto you, when he produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave to you what He had not given to any other among the peoples.

 

MUTT3003

11:47 AM ET

June 7, 2011

As far as I go.......

This is as far as I could read before the crap - o - meter pegged. Israels arbitrary borders drawn up, with the rest of the middle east, after WWII should be erased. This country gives nothing to the world. Palestine will be another made up country. All countries should revert to pre-war borders. Why don't we go back 1000 years or 2 thousand years. What were the borders back in 1 BC?

 

SAM FROM CALIFORNIA

8:11 PM ET

June 6, 2011

So basically ...

... to stay "Safe", the Israelis have a right to make unequal demands of the Palestinians that make *them* unsafe:

(1) No military-ok, well the IDF has the world's most powerful military for a country of its size. It's ridiculous to expect the Palestinians not to have an army with such a well-armed neighbor. And considering it is Israel which has occupied the Palestinians and settled on Palestinian land, if anything Israel should be made to accept demilitarization.

(2) No '67 borders-this is a ridiculous demand for Israel to make, considering their expansion beyond the '67 borders goes against the fundamental sovereign rights of the Palestinians to determine the political and social development in their territory.

(3) Israel won't be safe with 1967 borders-this is a contradictory argument, considering Israel quite handily defeated Jordan and Egypt in '67. If the 1967 borders were suicidal for Israel, it never would have been able to expand beyond said borders in the first place. Instead of stealing land from the Palestinians as a "buffer zone", Israel can build fortifications and border defenses if it is still so concerned about invasion.

(4) IDF occupation of the Jordan River-this is ridiculous too. What nation wants an army which has been occupying them for over 40 years to continue occupying their territory? What if the USSR demanded that unified Germany keep its soldiers in its territory since Germany invaded it in 1941?

(5) Why the heck should Palestinians respect either the "Jewish state" or the rights of settlers in the West Bank when Israel has done nothing at all to deal with the problem of Palestinian refugees?

This, of course, is totally unfair. Netenyahu must either not give two shekels about peace, or he is a huge idiot who actually thinks the Palestinians would accept such an unequal deal.

 

SAM FROM CALIFORNIA

8:13 PM ET

June 6, 2011

just to sum up

it seems like Israel's foreign policy is based on the assumption that the West Bank will be able to raise massive tank divisions and invade Israel at the drop of a hat. This is a ridiculous assumption on many levels, and the Palestinian right to statehood transcends the paranoia of these likudnik fanatics.

 

CLIFFBCALIF

3:18 AM ET

June 8, 2011

Amazing Arab Logic

There has never been a Palestinian Arab State in the West Bank or anywhere. Directly pre-1967 the area was ruled by the Jordanians who conquered it in 1948 when their Army was led by British Officers and equipped by dear old England. In 1948 and before, back to 1917 or so it was a British Colony. For centuries before that it was a Turkish Colony.

Since 1948 there has only been armistice lines between the parties. Those are not the same as borders. A few more Arab attacks on Israel and their eastern border will be in the Persian (oops Arabian) Gulf area.

In fact, historically there is no such people as the Palestinians. It is a term from the word the Romans used for the area--renaming it from Provincia Judea (or the like) after to many Jewish revolts.

As to why Israel will not allow the Palestinians to have a military and are concerned about such a small area, haven't you noticed what happened when the Israelis pulled out of Gaza. As the saying more or less goes, fool me once, its on you, fool me twice and .....

You must be part of the UC Irvine left wing intellectual club or ....

 

MZYK

1:27 PM ET

June 8, 2011

No

Having a demilitarized Palestine isn't about a future Palestine being a threat to Israel's existence, it's about it being a threat to Israel's civilian population. Only an idiot would want to hand the Palestinians, who have shown time and time again that they're incapable of ruling themselves and fully rejecting "resistance" (terrorism), so to replace their Qassams and small mortars with serious artillary, ballistic missiles and combat vehicles... Idiocy at its finest. Then there's the potential for a militarized Palestinian state to be a major headache should the ME once again descend into conflict.

They don't need a military. At best they need a security force to stop the outbound terrorism which is fully responsible for their only threat which is Israeli retaliations to terror attacks.

 

IDIOTPRAYER84

8:37 PM ET

June 6, 2011

The issue of the '67 boarders is just hot air

I don't know if Amb. Orin and people who have made similar arguments are either deaf or stupid.The parameters for a peace deal in recent years has called for the '67 boarders to be the starting point for negotiations with mutually agreed upon land swaps. Arabs would love for Israel to go back to its '67 boarders, but reasonable people know that's not going to happen. What Pres. Obama called for was the same things that previous administrations had called for.

PM Ariel Sharon didn't pull out of Gaza just to be a nice guy. He pulled out because he was going to build the security wall. The settlers that were pulled out were going to be on the other side of the fence. Secondly, the building of the security wall was a unilateral land grab that incorporated Palestinian land. Now, an Israeli official now complains of the Palestinians are unilaterally abandoning negotiations and going to the UN for recognition. What other choice do the Palestinians have when PM Netanyahu makes demand that are unprecedented, but complains when Palestinian's make one small demand about settlements. The whole point of negotiations is to work these issues out, not to ask one party to give in completely as a condition to negotiate.

Also, Yasser Arafat was a fool for not accepting Ehud Barak's peace offer, but Arafat is six feet under. Israel is dealing with Mahmud Abbas now who is a lot smarter than Arafat. Israel has always claimed that they want someone they can work with and when they have one, Israel finds another excuse not to negotiate.

 

MYSTIKIEL

9:19 PM ET

June 6, 2011

Todays borders are no more or less defensible than those of 1967

Mr Oren makes the point that in 1967, Israel was only a few miles wide at its narrowest point. Israel is still only nine miles wide at its narrowest point near Qaqaliyah, and the only two sincere offers Israel made for peace did not propose retaining any extra land in this area. The simple reason for this is that large numbers of Arabs live there and Israel does not want them as citizens.

The problem with this "defensible borders" argument is that its difficult to see how retaining Ariel or Maale Adumim increases security for those in West Jerusalem. The Palestinians have already indicated that they would allow the Israelis to keep most of what they have taken in East Jerusalem, except for Har Homa. They have also agreed that their state would be demilitarised, an extraordinary concession for any sovereign state to make.

Ultimately this is just another smoke and mirrors from a government that is fundamentally unwilling to make peace with the Palestinians.

 

XZMA65@GMAIL.COM

4:16 AM ET

June 7, 2011

Israel cannot give Palestinians their rights because .....

I cannot help but notice that no Israelis has put together any plausible way to achieve freedom and independence for Palestinian. What they seem to want is a bout 6 million slaves cleaning their yards and 6 million others sending money to their relatives so they can have some dignity.

This article like all others, shows that Israelies have no respect to other humans. Nor they care about the fact that every man has the right to be free. I think that Mr. Oren like all Israeli leadership explaining why Israel has to keep Palestinian land and continue to enslave Palestinians. Furthermore, he makes a dangerous subtle point that Israel has the right to further expand to ensure sufficient buffer.

I think it is time that Israelies realize that no matter how long it takes, Palestinians will get their dignity and freedom back.

 

REPSTONES

4:30 AM ET

June 7, 2011

What Amb Oren doesn't say

First off this from Oren is quite telling -

'These lines left Israel a mere 9 miles wide at its most populous area.'

So he admits a consideration of the size of israel was one of the motivating factors for going to war in 1967.

He mentions the rhetoric coming from various Arab figures, but makes no mention of the threats Israeli leaders where issuing against Syria.

One of the things many apologists claim is that Nasser created a casus belli by closing the straits of Tiran, so therefore Israel was justified in attacking Egypt. Several things need pointed out here. First that only 5% of Israel trade was at risk from this so called clo
sure (even the record demonstrates the Egyptians rarely enforced it). The major issue for Israel was oil from Iran (believe or not) and that could easily be sequestered through Haifa. Furthermore the navigable channel of the straits is only a mile from Egypt's shore, well within its territorial waters, and no state has ever been deemed to be enforcing a blockade of foreign shipping in its own territorial waters. Also as Egypt and Israel had been in a state of war since 1948, Egypt was well within its rights to prevent shipping to a belligerent state. Not that it had much effect, because as we've seen rarely did israel use the straits and infact in the previous two years no Israeli flagged vessel used the port of Eliat. Furthermore the vast majority of Israel's commercial trade used Mediterranean ports. Now Egypt had refused to sign the 1958 Geneva Conventions on the Territorial Sea and Conitguous Zone because it didn't agree with the defitnion of 'strait'. Therefore Egypt was not a signatory, because as commonly understood only a passage between two areas of high seas is a strait, whereas the straits of tiran lead into the Gulf of Aqaba. The US secretary of State at that time John Foster Dulles agreed on the "plausibilty from the standpoint of international law" with regard to Egypt's stance. Arthur Dean, who headed the US delegation at the Geneva Conference admitted that this was a new interpretation directly aimed at the Straits of Tiran. Therefore the general view was that the convention did not reflect customary law. Even if it was agreed that Israel had a right to use the straits (even though some authorities agreed and others did not), it did not have the right to an armed attack to reslove the issue when there was still peaceful avenues to exhaust. That Israel chose not to pursue these peaceful avenues demonstrates that its attack on Egypt was not defensive and was indeed illegal.

Another issue which the iraeli apologists regularly trot out is Nasser's throwing out of the UNEF observers from his side of the frontier. However, those observers were only there with Egypt's consent in the first place. Israel had refused to allow any observers on its side of the frontier. The fact that Nasser permitted them, demonstrates his own sense of restraint. Would you care to elaborate beamkiss why Israel refused to allow any observers on its side?
Also it was not a full removal which Nasser demanded, he allowed the observers to remain at Sharm Al-Shaikh, situated at the gulf of Aqaba, which would allow the observers a view on any Israeli ships. However this offer was rejected by the UN secretary general U Thant, who insisted all or none.
Nasser's hand was forced to remove all of the observers (which brought Egypt into line with Israel – who refused any at all) as the chief of staff of the UN forces Odd Bull recalls in his memoir –

'(Nasser) was obliged to act if his reputation in the Arab world was not to suffer, because he had been subjected to a lot of criticism on the ground that he was sheltering behind UNEF'

Also U Thant acknowledged that Nasser wanted to restart the Egyptin-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission(EIMAC) which was established as part of the agreements ending the 1948 war. Yet this became dead in the water after Israel unilaterally withdrew during the Suez, and whilst Nasser demonstrated willingness to reconvene it, Israel rejected all such approaches. Israel's belligerence was recalled later by U Thant

'if only Israel had agreed to permit UNEF to be stationed on its side of the border, even for a short duration, the course of history could have been different. Diplomatic efforts to avert the pending catastrophe might have prevailed; war might have been averted'

Another senior UN official, Brian Urquhart, when referring to Israel's refusal to a two week moratorium in the straits (which Nasser agreed to), writes in his memoir –

'Israel, no doubt having decided on military action, turned down U Thant's ideas.'

Also the then US Secretary of State Dean Rusk recalls the cycnial surprise attack launched by Israel, instead of trying the diplomatic route, which nasser was open to –

'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-opeing the Strait of Tiran. We might not have succeeded in getting Egypt to reopen the strait, but it was a real possibility'

Now lets look at the admissions of Israeli leaders –

"The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory." (Mordechai Bentov )

"The danger of Israel's extermination was hardly present before the Six-day war." (General Yeshayahu Gavish)

"I do not believe Nasser wanted war. the two divisions he sent into the Sinai on May 14th would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." (General Rabin )

"There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger."(Chaim Herzog)

"In June l967, we again 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)

So there we have, Israel didn't have to go to war, it wasn't defensive, and Israel also refused all diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict peacefully.

Question is why didn't Ambassador Oren mention all of these facts in his article? Pretty obvious....

 

SEADOG1946

5:29 AM ET

June 7, 2011

Waiting for snipper4F...

must be shift change time at the local Israeli embassy/consulate hasbara office.

 

SEADOG1946

11:59 AM ET

June 7, 2011

snipper4F - a paid plo shil?

ah, the loaded question... learned that in shul, did you?

 

MZYK

9:36 PM ET

June 7, 2011

Bollocks

It doesn't matter how much the straits were used nor does it matter why Nasser removed the peacekeeping forces - you're grasping at straws. What matters is that he made his intent very clear, especially when you consider comments he made long before the war started and the Soviet misinformation being fed to the Arabs.

If you expand on the Begin quote he's basically saying that there was no proof that an Egyptian offensive was imminent but doesn't rule out the possibility. Given the aforementioned factors and the wonder that is hindsight [in that Begin describes the war of independence, war of attrition and Yom Kippur war as unavoidable] we can see that whilst Nasser wasn't prepared his intentions were clear and he was playing with fire.

You see, nobody can deny that the war of independence was a war of extermination waged by the Arabs. Even the person you're quoting (Begin) says "...If not for our ability, none of us would have remained alive." - this became the precedent for both future conflict and tension. Israel knew very well that their borders virtually invited them to be attacked and the first war in which these borders were exploited, they knew they face extermination.

The rest of your quotes (which I can't seem to verify or analyze as they all appear on anti-Israeli sites) rule out the possibility that Israel faced extermination, not the possibility of Israel being attacked. Again, given the fact that Israel had already faced a war of extermination, the various acts of aggression and comments made by Nasser before the war, one can only conclude that the possibility of being attacked was very real. Baring this in mind, it is asinine to expect Israel to absorb the shock of an offensive. Of course we will never know but had Egypt and co launched an offensive, Israel would surely have been devastated by it's aerial power and the post-war quotes would be very, very different.

Even if you ignore the acts of aggression and the comments of the Arab leaders prior to the war it can still be argued that defensively, it was an extension and direct result of the precedent set by the war of independence. Begin also said (expanding on your quote): "this was a war of self-defence 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." - people will try to quote selectively, take out of context or misinterpret quotes in order to paint the picture that the evil Zionists just wanted to expand their land and that the six day war was a part of their master plan to cleanse the Levant of Arabs when the truth is, whatever way you look at it, Israel had its survival in mind.

Here's some quotes since you seem to be a fan of them:

"We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand, we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood" - President of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser, 1965 - Howard Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1979) p. 616

“it is the duty of all of us now to move from defensive positions to offensive positions and enter the battle to liberate the usurped land…Everyone must face the test and enter the battle to the end.” - President Attassi of Syria, February 22nd 1967 - Theodore Draper: Israel and world politics: Roots of the third Arab-Israeli war, Secker & Warburg (1968) ISBN-13: 978-0436137013

“(this battle will be)…followed by more severe battles until Palestine is liberated and the Zionist presence ended.” - Syria’s information minister Mahmoud Zubi, April 8th 1967,

“The Israeli flag shall not go through the Gulf of Aqaba. Our sovereignty over the entrance to the Gulf cannot be disputed” - Egypt’s President Nasser

"We want a full scale, popular war of liberation… to destroy the Zionist enemy" - Syrian president Dr. Nureddin al-Attasi speech to troops

"Taking over Sharm el Sheikh meant confrontation with Israel (and) also meant that we were ready to enter a general war with Israel. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel” - Gamal Abdel Nasser speech to the General Council of the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions

 

SEADOG1946

6:31 AM ET

June 8, 2011

snipper4F... your responses keep disappearing on this thread...

and on others in the archives... perhaps the editor(s) recognize professional hasbara/propoganda.

 

BASE

8:22 AM ET

June 8, 2011

@MZYK

"he's basically saying that there was no proof that an Egyptian offensive was imminent but doesn't rule out the possibility"

So what you are saying is that this was a preventative war, since there was no imminent attack coming? The problem with this is that it is not a justification. Preventative war is not justified. There is a possibility that Canada could attack the US, or that Surinam could attack China, so should we invade Canada (to get their beer..?).

Preventative war = uninstigated agression = violation of international law. So you are saying that the Israelis attacked a country for no legitimate reason? Sounds about right...

 

BASE

8:26 AM ET

June 8, 2011

@MZYK (again)

And this one...

"nobody can deny that the war of independence was a war of extermination waged by the Arabs"

But you just said that there was no imminent attack coming from Egypt. So the logical interpretation is that Israel was unprovoked but attacked Egypt anyway. Egypt et all counterattacked once Israel attacked, and THEN it was a war of extermination? That is such bullshit.

If Israel attacked Egypt for no legal reason, then Egypt has every right to counterattack. You cant pick the fight then claim that you are about to get your ass kicked once you pick it. That is complete nonsense.

 

MZYK

1:37 PM ET

June 8, 2011

Base

What are you talking about? The "no imminent attack" was regarding the six day war, not the war of independence which set the precedent for how Israel would deal with future threats and acts of aggression. I didn't say "there was no imminent" attack, don't put words in my mouth. I said that Israel couldn't know for sure what would have happened and in the event that an attack was imminent, then to expect the tiny Israel to absorb the shock of a first strike (especially from the Egyptian air force) is nonsense.

Essentially this boils down to a group of people surrounding somebody they have bullied before, forcing bystanders to go away, blocking the victims path and threatening to kill him only for the victim to take the initiative and kick the shit out of them all while they're not expecting it. Could the victim know for sure that he was going to be attacked? No, that doesn't make his pre-emptive strike an act of aggression, but self defense.

See in the real world, you can't declare that you're going destroy another country (as Nasser did several times prior to the six day war), mass forces on their border, remove peace keeping forces, and block trade routes because to any normal and reasonable person, at the very least such acts are a deceleration of intent, and given what they tried to do in '48, threats were to be taken very, very seriously. If all of this was just bravado and a show of force then still it is entirely Nasser's fault - Israel is not to blame for his idiocy unless you believe they have amazing Zionist mind control technology.

 

REPSTONES

1:50 PM ET

June 8, 2011

Bollocks?

You can't refute any of the facts i presented and so resort to mentioning some of the statements from Arab leaders, which Oren also referred to, but makes no mention of the threats Israeli leaders where issuing against Syria. In lead-up to the war on May 11th Gen rabin said on Israel Radio - "the Moment is coming when we will march on Damascus to overthrow the Syrian Govt, because it seems that only military operations can discourage the plans for a people's war with which they threaten us."

Oren also leaves out this startling statement from Director of Military Intelligence at the time, Aharon Yariv - "I would say that as long as there is not an Israeli invasion into Syria extended in area and time, I think Egyptians will not come in seriously..they will do so only if there is no other alternative. And to my eyes no alternative means we are creating such a situation that it is impossible for the Egyptians not to act because the strain on their prestige will be unbearable."

Israel refused diplomatic avenues to de-escalate the situation. Israel was made aware by President Johnson that it would be more than a match for the Arab armies. The simple fact remains, Israel wanted war. I suggest you study the evidence, instead of criticizing me for presenting it.

Oh yeah...those quotes appear on 'anti-Israel' sites (as you describe them) because the facts themselves surrounding 1967 are anti-israel. What do you think you'd find on 'anti-Israel' websites...recipes for hummus?

 

REPSTONES

1:52 PM ET

June 8, 2011

Bollocks?

And this beaut

'You see, nobody can deny that the war of independence was a war of extermination waged by the Arabs.'

If you are referring to 1948, again, if you have studied the facts, its very easy to show that yet again (as Ben-Gurion admitted) the zionists were the aggressors.

 

REPSTONES

2:02 PM ET

June 8, 2011

Bollocks?

'then to expect the tiny Israel to absorb the shock of a first strike (especially from the Egyptian air force) is nonsense.'

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz......yet again if you have studied the copious amounts of documentary evidence available you'd know that Abba Eban was made privy to US intelligence which showed Israel's position was not threatened by the arab armies, the then under-secretary of State Nicholas Katzenbach recalled later –

"The intelligence was absolutley flat on the fact that the Israelis in essence would do just what they did. that is, they could mop up all the arabs in no time at all."

And as the ex head of the CIA (during that period) Richard Helms stated with pride –

'we predicted almost within the day how long the war would last if it began'

So there we have it. Israel refused diplomatic overtures to resolve the crisis. It was aware that the Arab armies posed little threat, and launched the war. Yet you would have us believe that which is actually rubbished by the copious amounts of evidence. Do you piss into the wind often?

 

REPSTONES

2:07 PM ET

June 8, 2011

Bollocks?

And by the way, as you seem to be basing your rather shoddy and frankly untenable defence of Israel launching the Six Day War on the rhetoric coming from various Arab leaders, unfortunately yet again under International law, you can not start a war because somebody says something you dislike. Furthermore your logic demands that you would have supported a strike on the US by Saddam for the US govt calling for regime change. #Fail

 

JOHNBOY4546

6:21 AM ET

June 7, 2011

Israel CAN'T return to the Green Line?

No, sorry, you have that wrong.

The reality is that Israel DOESN'T WANT TO return to the Green Line.

It's grown way too comfortable sitting its Big Fat Arse on territory that does not belong to it.

So comfortable, in fact, that it can't stand the though of getting up and moving out.

 

BASE

8:28 AM ET

June 8, 2011

true

If anything the current 'borders' (aka -settlements, annexations, etc) make Israel more vulnerable than the 67 borders do.

 

GAHGEER

9:16 AM ET

June 7, 2011

Dear sir

I don't know why a former diplomat would lie and keep pummeling us with his editorializing and presentation of his version as facts.

He talks in the intro about the poor Israel, but then further explains how Israel increased its size by 6 times in this war even though it was the weak side.

Oren says: "Enemy planes struck Israeli cities along the narrow waist, including Hadera, Netanya, Kfar Saba, and the northern suburbs of Tel Aviv; and thousands of artillery shells fired from the West Bank pummeled greater Tel Aviv and West Jerusalem."

But actually, a testimony by a military expert Abdallah Schleifer, who WAS in East Jerusalem during the war shows the disarray and the quick defection of the Jordanian forces, who didn't even use their artillery to attack what were fair targets.

"A study in the official journal of the British Royal Artillery was later to comment with surprise on the behaviour of the Jordanian artillery on the central front: "Once hostilities had started, all the main Israeli air bases... were within reach of the Jordanian 155 mm. guns. Had they taken on these vital targets, the Jordanians could have caused havoc amongst the Israeli aircraft refueling"

As for Oren's thousands of artillery shells, I think he is talking about Congo. Because the above testimony also shows that: "According to authoritative Israeli sources - whose interest would be to exaggerate Jordanian bombardment as the alleged justification for invading the West Bank - only one shell ever fell in the Tel Aviv area, fired at 2100 hours on Monday night [June 5]."

Oren also goes on to say: "Ground forces, meanwhile, moved to encircle Jerusalem's Jewish neighborhoods as they did in 1948."

The same testimony explains with details the fact that Jordan's army didn't even cross the 1949 armistice line.

(Source: http://www.palestine-studies.org/files/pdf/jps/10836.pdf)

I am not sure why Oren would join the choir of Israel's lawyers who come up with new tricks and lies to justify their expansionist ambitions and to try to turn back time, but perhaps this is a Zionist thing.

On the other hand, Israel's recent military failures showed that the threat would not come from the east, but from the north (Hezbollah, which pummelled Israel with rockets) where Israel has depth, and the south (Gaza, where Hamas did the same) where Israel enjoys geographic depth too.

I am sorry, Oren, but your article is fit for some obscure regional newspaper in the USA, whose Christian Evengelical subscribers would cheer for anything that would draw closer the return of their Messiah.

 

AUGUST WEST

9:17 AM ET

June 7, 2011

Tony Soprano would be proud

Hey, we had to steal that house and evict the occupants because we needed it. They only hated us because we stole their first house, so we had to steal their second house.

 

BASE

8:31 AM ET

June 8, 2011

@MARINESNIPER

"YOUR history"?

I thought you were a Marine sniper? How is that HIS history and not yours?

STOP claiming that you are an American.

 

JBROCKLE

9:21 AM ET

June 7, 2011

I see. So what the author is saying is that...

Israel won a crushing victory whilst having the 1967 borders, clearly demonstrating that they are indefensible. Now that the IDF outmatches all regional forces to an even greater extent that it did in 1967, the borders are still indefensible?!

 

COURTNEYME109

10:26 AM ET

June 7, 2011

Think Rocketry

A significant buffer zone in missile talk means time. Time to react, time to intercept and of course - time for 'East Palestine' to deny, blame non state rocket rich creeps and adapt Pakistan's Writ of State phobia.

There are simply no good reasons available for any serious thinking person to seriously advocate the 67 borders.

Since Nazi time Deutschland and Imperial Nippon screamed "God! Please! Stop!" there have been born more than 100 nation states and the movements of hundreds of borders. Border moving - seldom agreeable to everyone - yet nation states accepted them as a settled border was better than war.

Germany accepted losing Prussia, Russia accepted the secession of Kazakstan and Serbs are handling the idea of Kosovo. The Greeks are handling Turkey's illegit occupation of Cyprus. Syria is doing just fine without Golan.

Even in 3rd world states gave up treasured aspirations rather than shed blood forever - Somalia gave up Ogaden, Guatemala stopped demanding Belize and Indonesia finally gave up East Timor.

There is one glaring, bizarro conspicuous exception to this willingness to accept facts - no matter how disappointing they are

Why cause Palestine is magically different? Roughly less than 7 million Arabs absorbed by a collective of nation states numbering 300 million would be easy, fun and fast to do.

Annexation and Right of Relocation would be far easier than Arab League, Fatah or HAMAS' to Officially Recog Little Satan, swap ambassadors and renounce intentions to destroy a democratic member of the UN.

Might as well get started now

 

BASE

8:32 AM ET

June 8, 2011

Exactly

They were so indefensible that Israel was able to defeat a much larger army...

ZERO LOGIC

 

DASNEONLICHT

11:26 AM ET

June 7, 2011

Indefensible Borders

If Israel's 1967 border was indefensible, how did Israel win such a decisive victory? Today, Israel's military might overwhelmingly deters conventional aggressors, not its expanded borders.

Mr. Oren's argument is a textbook example of Mearsheimer's offensive realism. That is, he does not merely seek Israeli security, but Israeli dominance of the region (the best form of security). He will persuade few with such a self-serving argument.

 

KUNINO

3:45 PM ET

June 7, 2011

Enchanting

The ambassador invents a new meaning for the word "sharing". As in his account of how Israel after the 1967 became "aware that another people -- the Palestinians -- inhabited that land and that we would have to share it."

Share it by stealing it, a process that continues 44 years later. The ambassador writes on about the generous offers of peace Israel has extended in recent years without making clear that these offers do not include returning any land stolen in the past 44 years. Palestinian refusals to accept such offers are easy to understand, unless you happen to be an Israeli politician or diplomat.

The article's implication that president Obama might be calling for a strict return to 1967 borders is not right and could not be wrong by accident. The president delivered his speech twice, once directly to AIPAC -- a remarkable example of transparency -- and said the second speech was because some people had been mischaracterizing the first. This process continues today forfascinated readers of fp.com.

 

BASE

8:34 AM ET

June 8, 2011

Spot on

"Palestinian refusals to accept such offers are easy to understand, unless you happen to be an Israeli politician or diplomat."

Or, apparently, an American politician as well.

 

JAAPBO

4:47 PM ET

June 7, 2011

pure propaganda

This piece by Micheal Oren is pure propaganda and myth. Today it is well established by reliable historians that Israel (and not the Arab countries) was the agressive side:
- Israel provoked tension by raiding Samu on the West-Bank in Nov. 1966, killing 18 Jordanian soldiers (much like the Nov. 6 2008 attack on Gaza, which provoked Hamas rockets)
- Israel continuously provoked tension by trying to change the status quo in the DMZ with Syria;
- Israeli leaders threatened Syria
- there were no serious Arab attack plans
- Israel attacked when peace threatened. After Israel's attack U.S. secretary Dean Rusk was "shocked ... and angry as hell" because the Egyptian vice-president was coming to Washington for talks about re-opening the Straits of Tiran. "We might not have succeede in getting Egypt to reopen the strait, but it was a real possibility"
(read e.g. Norman Finkelstein's "Image and Reality ..." (p. 123-150) or Zeev Maoz' "Defending the Holy Land")

 

BASE

8:35 AM ET

June 8, 2011

I kike that!

Israel attacked when peace threatened

I may have to use that one!!!

 

KIRYAT

12:32 PM ET

June 8, 2011

Base

Oye Vey little brother. Here's the deal, no "Kikes" or "Towel Heads" here, just Jews and Arabs trying to get out of this mess. I dont expect you too understand that, but you are always welcome to come visit us and learn a bit. It's a bit more complicated than PC-bravado, so come and join us for a bit.

 

J THOMAS

8:51 PM ET

June 8, 2011

Base, I think you may have

Base, I think you may have made a typo, you substituted a K for an L in your title.

I missed it the first time and thought you typed "like".

 

GARVAGH

4:57 PM ET

June 7, 2011

Nasser was only posturing

Nasser was only posturing, and he did not intend to attack Israel, in June 1967. Israel knew this when it launched its surprise attack on Egypt and destroyed the Egyptian air force on the ground.

Israel can have peace and security within the 1967 borders.

 

J THOMAS

5:25 PM ET

June 7, 2011

Why do we have yet another

Why do we have yet another propaganda piece by the Israeli ambassador?

Why not have one by the palestinian ambassador? Oh, you say, what palestinian ambassador?

Quite.

 

FRISBEETARIAN

8:35 PM ET

June 7, 2011

Bah let these pigs squabble,

Bah let these pigs squabble, sooner or later they are gonna get trampled again by Hezbollah. At which point Northern Israel will be ours to control.

 

CAIRO ARAFAT

1:26 AM ET

June 8, 2011

Michael Oren's and the Israeli Propaganda Machine

True peace and acceptance of a two state solution comes by defending both people’s rights to live safe, secure, and prosperous lives. Defending people’s right to live in dignity and security within their own country should be the end game for Israelis and Palestinians. Translating the Israeli message that they need to confiscate more Palestinian land to protect the citizens of Israel is a bogus argument. Israel, like all other countries, has the right and duty to protect “its” own borders-on its borders, not on the borders of another country. Palestinians will also have to protect “their” borders, too. The Israeli demands that they maintain control over the Jordan Valley, East Jerusalem and surrounding areas, and the areas that border along the western borders of the Occupied Palestinian Territory for “security purposes is a bogus argument. Everyone now is aware that this is simply a manipulative, overused ploy to justify and maintain the illegal presence of Israeli settlements and settlers on Palestinian land. The ambassador makes clear that while pretending to support the two-state solution, Israel interprets that as one state occupying its neighbor - the honest meaning of 'defensible borders.

Removing Israeli settlements and its pervasive infrastructure, taking down the Annexation and Separation Wall, handing over control of water resources, and re-settling Israeli settlers within Israel is a task that Israel will have to address if they are serious about negotiating a two state solution. Palestinians have come to terms with the fact that the State of Israel was built on 78% of historic Palestine. Israel must now come to terms with the fact that they remaining 22% of historic Palestine will become the State of Palestine. The Palestinians will seek to build up their own industries, agricultural initiatives, and tourism within the borders of the State of Palestine. Israel will continue to flourish within its own state. Palestinians are ready, able and set to identify and ensure security of “defensible borders” based on the June 4, 1967 borders. Is Israel?

 

CAIRO ARAFAT

1:27 AM ET

June 8, 2011

Michael Oren's and the Israeli Propaganda Machine

Israel has built a “settlement” empire in most parts of the West Bank/OPT and is now seeking to justify its continued presence in these areas for “security purposes.” Actually in a sense they are correct. However, what they are referring to is the financial security of key business groups within Israel. Reports[1],[2] indicate that the presence of these illegal settlements has allowed Israel to expand its military industrial complex and uses the West Bank as testing grounds for new and sophisticated military and IT devices and equipment that are then sold globally. Private Israeli security and intelligence companies are expanding their services both at home and abroad. The military arm of the government uses the presence of the settlements to demand ever larger proportions of the budget. The US government subsidizes this scheme through its annual 3 billion USD donation to economic and military support for Israel.
In addition, the construction sector within Israel has profited tremendously by the over 17 billion USD that has been expended on these illegal and illegally subsidized settlements and infrastructure in the West Bank since 1967. Billions of dollars of support for this construction has arrived to Israel as donations from “supporters of Israel and the Greater Zion.”
Israeli settlement-based businesses and industries in the West Bank have benefited from exploiting cheap Palestinian labor, usurping Palestinian water and land resources for their own benefit, and being able to bypass Israeli environmental, tax, and resource laws that are applicable within Israel.
Even the banking system has exploited the presence of settlements to increase their profits. They use continued turmoil and political instability to manipulate bank exchange and currency ratings and make profits by buying and selling shekels and dollars for their benefit.
When Israel realized that they were losing money by sustaining Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip, they decided to initiate a unilateral withdrawal. Now the Palestinians are calling for a negotiated process to end this usurpation and colonization of their lands in the West Bank. Like all other occupiers and colonizers, Israel will lose economically. However, it will gain peace and security for its people. Will they take the opportunity for peace or choose greed?

[1] Zuriel-Harari, Keren, 2005, “Mofaz: My Aid. Uniting all of Israel’s Military Industries Into

One Big Company?, Globes, 18-19.5.05.

[2] Shir Hever (2005). The Economy of the Occupation. Part 2. “The Settlements-Economic Cost to Israel.” The Alternative Information Center (AIC).

 

CLIFFBCALIF

3:47 AM ET

June 8, 2011

A the End of the Day

When all is said and done Israel will remain in control of the land it needs and in control of Jerusalem. Its economy will continue to be vibrant, its school system will continue to be successful, It will continue to be a democracy where all including Jews, Muslims, Christians, Bahia, etc. can freely practice their faiths, its citizens will all be equal, the Israeli Army will continue to have Arabs as soldiers, officers, and Generals, its Supreme Court will continue to have Arab Justices, etc.

ll this is due to the moral decency of the State of Israel and its democratic and secular nature versus the decrepit, barbaric dictatorships of the Arab World and their culture which allows the killing of women, hold females to be second class people, where their rulers butcher their populations, where their populations murder Christians and other minorities, where their schools teach hatred of Jews and others, where a person who leaves the Muslim faith is sentenced to death, .....

And, of course, Israel's future is guaranteed by its nuclear tipped missiles which can reach into Russia and the entire Muslim World, its fine army, and its ever growing (successful) anti-missile and anti-rocket systems.

Sorry, you Arab and pro-Arab type, you just can't change these facts or erase them. Actually, I am not sorry.

PS, You had the chance to prove yourself in Gaza. There are no second chances in that world. The Palestinians should march on Jordan, after all there are at least 1.5 million Palestinians living there. Oh wait, you tried that in the past and failed due to Jordanian Army actions.

You Palestinian folk and supporters just can't win for loosing, can you?

This type of internet chatter has no real impact and no real worth, so why is everyone here?

 

SEADOG1946

7:15 AM ET

June 8, 2011

CliffBcal - And of course,

"Israel's future is guaranteed by its nuclear tipped missiles which can reach into Russia and the entire Muslim World." What, nothing targeted for Europe, just Holy Mother Russia and the Muslims?

 

CLIFFBCALIF

3:19 PM ET

June 8, 2011

Targeting

Normally nations only target those who may attack it. Sort of like the US having its Trident missile systems target against North Korea and Iran, among others.

"Holy Mother Russia?" A number of my family wandered through Russia over the centuries. That wasn't quite the phrase they used to describe that country, its government, and ....

Oh, they did not move there by choice. The Russians conquered the area where they were living and moved them deeper into Russia.

 

SEADOG1946

6:38 AM ET

June 8, 2011

CliffBcal - why is everyone here?

To provide arrogant Oren with the proverbial finger.

 

BASE

8:40 AM ET

June 8, 2011

Finger?

Mine is not proverbial...

 

KIRYAT

12:38 PM ET

June 8, 2011

Wow, the Finger. Ambassador Oren is packing up already...

You do absolutely nothing to aid the Palestinians by posting nonsense.

 

SEADOG1946

1:15 PM ET

June 8, 2011

WOW...

And there are also some that do absolutely nothing to aid the Israelis by posting nonsense.

 

KIRYAT

1:49 PM ET

June 8, 2011

Come visit us.

Come see what we are doing here (Jews & Arabs) together to get out of this mess... Here we live it daily. You are always welcome, so come and see a bit.

 

CLIFFBCALIF

3:13 PM ET

June 8, 2011

Enjoying Humor

I like your humorous attitude "Seadog," meaning ?"

The problem is that one presumes everyone knows where Arab males put their finger, generally up their a...s. Probably searching for their brains.

That is why they never make positive progress.

Just remember, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss and opportunity.

You cannot change reality and neither can the Palestinians or the Arabs. Their negative attitude towards Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims aside, the fact is that despite its small size, benefiting from ever improving weapons technology has turned Israel into a defensively powerful nation that cannot be conquered by its neighboring Arab States-- despite their many tries. And, that ever improving weapons technology continues to improve the Israeli position, e.g. Iron Dome, the ever improving laser weapons technology, etc. This is no longer 1973 and, therefore, even Russian threats of extermination will carry no weight as now it is a two way street.

If the Palestinians were intelligent and had a 21rst Century mentality, they would be happy with most of the West Bank which could become a modern society with industry and secular schools, a democratically elected government, help from the west retaking Gaza from the terrorists which now hold it and converting it into a Hong Kong like location. They could place their capitol in Ramallah or in Gaza.

Israel's IDF has a sense of humor also, notice the name of their missile delivery system. A biblical sense of humor.

 

APARATCHIK

8:59 AM ET

June 8, 2011

Three state solution

There already is a Palestinian Arab state across the Jordan plus one in Gaza. It would be far easier to make Jordan an additional official PalArab state for all those who value arab nationalism than to try and do the same with Israel. Israel should also use its military budget to buy up parts of areas A and B and export Arab millionaires. It won't end the conflict but it would be better for all concerned. Arabs would be wealthy citizens of an arab state and Israel would have a more defensible country. Israel could also provide a path to citizenship for WB arabs who wish to stay and be loyal to the state. Gaza should be incorporated into Egypt.

 

KIRYAT

10:11 AM ET

June 9, 2011

History Matters, but we will move forward...

Mention the word "history" and it can trigger a roll of the eyes.

Add "Middle East" to the equation and folks might start running for the hills, unwilling to get caught up in the seemingly bottomless pit of details and disputes.

But without an understanding of what happened, it's impossible to grasp where we are -- and where we are has profound relevance for the region and the world.

Forty-four years ago this week, the Six-Day War broke out.

While some wars fade into obscurity, this one remains as relevant today as in 1967. Many of its core issues remain unresolved and in the news.

Politicians, diplomats, and journalists continue to grapple with the consequences of that war, but rarely provide context. Yet without context, some critically important things may not make sense.

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

Second, the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem were in Jordanian hands. Violating solemn agreements, Jordan denied Jews access to their holiest places in eastern Jerusalem. To make matters still worse, they destroyed many of those sites.

Meanwhile, the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian control, with harsh military rule imposed on local residents.

And the Golan Heights, which were regularly used to shell Israeli communities far below, belonged to Syria.

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

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

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

Sixth, in the weeks leading up to the Six-Day War, Egyptian and Syrian leaders repeatedly declared that war was coming and their objective was to wipe Israel off the map. There was no ambiguity. Twenty-two years after the Holocaust, another enemy spoke about the extermination of Jews. The record is well-documented.

The record is equally well-documented that Israel, in the days leading up to the war, passed word to Jordan, via the UN and United States, urging Amman to stay out of any pending conflict. Jordan's King Hussein ignored the Israeli plea and tied his fate to Egypt and Syria. His forces were defeated by Israel, and he lost control of the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem.

Seventh, Egypt's President Gamal Abdel Nasser demanded that UN peacekeeping forces in the area, in place for the previous decade to prevent conflict, be removed. Shamefully, the UN complied. That left no buffer between Arab armies being mobilized and deployed and Israeli forces in a country one-fiftieth the size of Egypt -- and just nine miles wide at its narrowest point.

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

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

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

Today, there are those who wish to rewrite history.

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

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

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

They want the world to believe post-1967 Israeli settlement-building is the key to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Six-Day War is proof positive that the core issue is, and always has been, whether the Arab world accepts the Jewish people's right to a state of their own. If so, all other contentious issues, however difficult, have possible solutions.

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

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

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

 

CLIFFBCALIF

4:11 PM ET

June 9, 2011

Six Day War

I was a US Navy Officer at the time of the Six Day War. US Navy Officers on all our ships were continually monitoring what was occurring when Nasser elected to send most of the Egyptian Army into the Sinai and to de facto blockade the Israeli port of Eilat and then was joined by the forward movement of the Syrian and Jordanian armies.

We of course knew that former President Eisenhower had promised the US would use its Navy to open the Straits of Tiran if the Egyptians blockaded it. We were also informed that Lyndon Johnson was refusing to honor that promise. Let that be a lesson to Israel if they ever choose to rely on US promises of future military involvement. Ask the South Vietnamese how that works in practice.

Our intelligence information was substantial and accurate. I may not have had a lot of respect for the Arab's fighting ability, but one should never underrate one's opponent. From a numerical perspective Israel was definitely being threatened and thrown to the wolves by nations like De Gaulle's France which promptly cut off Israel. Never trust the French, and they they only know how to surrender anyway.

One night in June 1967 a friend of mine asked me what I thought the Israeli military would do, knowing as a Jewish boy I was concerned about their position. My answer was that by then the Arabs had probably gotten cocky and lazy believing that Israel's lack of a response was due to their fear, and the Egyptians and others were probably not watching the radar or conducting reconnaissance, believing their own propaganda. I told her that was probably when the Israeli's would hit them and hit them hard. A blockade is under international law an act of war and warrants a military response.

When I left my friends place late that night to head back for my ship, I turned on the radio which was broadcasting news about the Israelis bombing the Egyptian. .It was the right move at the right time.

Never trust your enemy and never believe that people of that culture have a western bent who believe in letting the past go. With the exceptions of some groups such as the Kurds and a few others, they have a 7th century mentality and are dangerous people lacking a sea change in their culture. As my father, a career US NAVY man said, the Israeli's should make peace if they can, but had better keep their powder dry.

I also attended Navy courses at which the former US Naval Attache from Israel during the Six War attended. He was certainly impressed by Israel's performance having been flown over the Giddi and Mitla passes.

Regardless of the Arab propaganda expressed by many above, Israel was certainly in a threatened position prior to the outbreak of the Six Day War. The IDF turned around a bad position into a victory.

 

PAT CASH

11:04 AM ET

July 4, 2011

Its economy will continue to

Its economy will continue to be vibrant, its school system will continue to be successful, It will continue to be a democracy where all including Jews, Muslims, Christians, Bahia, etc. can freely practice their faiths, its citizens will all be equal, the Israeli Army will continue to have Arabs as soldiers, officers, and Generals, its Supreme Court will continue to have Arab Justices, etc.ll this is sázkové kanceláre due to the moral decency of the State of Israel and its democratic and secular nature versus the decrepit, barbaric dictatorships of the Arab World and their culture which allows the killing of women, hold females to be second class people, where their rulers butcher their populations, where their populations murder Christians and other minorities, where their schools teach hatred of Jews and others, where a person who leaves the Muslim faith is sentenced to death.And they want the world to believe the Arab world had nothing against sázkové kanceláre Jews per se, only Israel, yet trampled with abandon on sites of sacred meaning to the Jewish people.In other words, when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, dismissing the past as if it were a minor irritant at best, irrelevant at worst, won't work.