Jordan stays out of 6-Day War

[Oddball]

Originally Posted by Brilliantlight

I would want why else on God's green Earth would the Canadians and Mexicans massed on our borders? Massing troops on someone's borders is usually a very clear sign that they are preparing for war. They didn't go through all the trouble and expense of moving troops there just to play shuffleboard!

Hey, give the man some credit, were talking Canadians and Mexicans vs. US

[Brilliantlight]

Originally Posted by Red

Hey, give the man some credit, were talking Canadians and Mexicans vs. US

True, but that was the closest American equivilent. You would have to boost the power of Canada/Mexico by at least a factor of 5 for them to be as close to American military power as Eygpt was to Israel.

[aktarian]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

Things that did not exist do not apply. There were no Israeli incursions into the Sinai Penninsula and certainly no Palestinian communities in the middle of Egyptian desert.

But but these things hapened on Syrian border.

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

The UNEF saw to that until Nassar ordered them out and U Thant complied.

Which brings us to interesting question. When did UN troops on Israeli side of the border leave?

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

Nor would it have been possible to 'clear' a village in Egyptian, Jordanian, or Syrian soil. They would have been back hours after any Israeli soldiers left.

Guess you never heard of Qibya (or numerous other Israeli incursions into Jordan), but I digress.

I was talking about demilitarised area on Syrian border established after 1948 war. Which Israel violated.

Originally Posted by Red

Were have you gotten this from? Could you please direct me to your source, I would like to evaluate this myself, especialy take a look at the context...

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/m...third_arab.htm

Repeated here

http://www.washington-report.org/bac...94/9407073.htm

Originally Posted by Red

Anyway, Its easy to look back in history and say that there realy was'nt any threat afterall when you know the outcome. I have a sneaky suspicion that with groving confidence in the IDF and IAF, so is the selfesteem groving.

Yes,s pecially if you are former leader of that country and you claim you knew then enemy will not attack you but you attacked anyway.

Originally Posted by Brilliantlight

I would want why else on God's green Earth would the Canadians and Mexicans massed on our borders? Massing troops on someone's borders is usually a very clear sign that they are preparing for war. They didn't go through all the trouble and expense of moving troops there just to play shuffleboard!

To, I don't know, prepare for defence agaisnt US agressive move? Nah, when other side masses troops it's for attack. When we mass our troops it's our business and nobody will tell us what to do.

[Brilliantlight]

Originally Posted by aktarian

To, I don't know, prepare for defence agaisnt US agressive move? Nah, when other side masses troops it's for attack. When we mass our troops it's our business and nobody will tell us what to do.

IIRC Nassar kicked out the UN (which was stupid if he didn't want a war, the UN would have made it more difficult for Israel to attack Eygpt), called for a holy war, started a naval blockade and massed troops all before Israel attacked. If he didn't want a war he did everything he needed to do to look like it.

[aktarian]

Originally Posted by Brilliantlight

IIRC Nassar kicked out the UN (which was stupid if he didn't want a war, the UN would have made it more difficult for Israel to attack Eygpt),

When did UN troops elave Israel? Before, at same time or after?

Originally Posted by Brilliantlight

called for a holy war,

Doubt it but possible. Though when one country attacks you before you use rhetoric you have handy.

Originally Posted by Brilliantlight

started a naval blockade

Which was an "act of war" but this one is pointed out while ISraeli ones are ignored.

Originally Posted by Brilliantlight

and massed troops all before Israel attacked. If he didn't want a war he did everything he needed to do to look like it.

And Israelis saw all this as not leading to a war. But they saw an opportunity to grab more land and took it.

[Brilliantlight]

Originally Posted by aktarian

But but these things hapened on Syrian border.



Which brings us to interesting question. When did UN troops on Israeli side of the border leave?



Guess you never heard of Qibya (or numerous other Israeli incursions into Jordan), but I digress.

I was talking about demilitarised area on Syrian border established after 1948 war. Which Israel violated.





http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/m...third_arab.htm

Repeated here

http://www.washington-report.org/bac...94/9407073.htm



Yes,s pecially if you are former leader of that country and you claim you knew then enemy will not attack you but you attacked anyway.




To, I don't know, prepare for defence agaisnt US agressive move? Nah, when other side masses troops it's for attack. When we mass our troops it's our business and nobody will tell us what to do.

What you don't mention is that he said there was no choice in the strictest meaning of the words. For example the Israelis could have just endured attack after attack from Lebenon and still wouldn't have lost the land. However what kind of government would allow its citizens to be attacked on a regular basis by outside forces? Answer, none. Nasser was also an idiot to publically call for a holy war. If he didn't want a war he should have kept his mouth shut, kept the UN in and not mass any troops at the border.

[Brilliantlight]

Originally Posted by aktarian

When did UN troops elave Israel? Before, at same time or after?



Doubt it but possible. Though when one country attacks you before you use rhetoric you have handy.



Which was an "act of war" but this one is pointed out while ISraeli ones are ignored.



And Israelis saw all this as not leading to a war. But they saw an opportunity to grab more land and took it.

Then WHY mass troops at the border? That is just incredibly stupid unless you want a war because massing troops are normally a prelude to war and everyone knows it.

[Grimm Reaper]

Yes, we would have to expand Mexican and Canadian military might dramatically to affect and alarm the US.

Why, if the entire Canadian military showed up on the American border, would they even be noticed?

aktarian, first, I am confident that the Le Monde issue and other quotes are without legitimacy, as it is historical fact that the Egyptian army moved FIVE full divisions into the Sinai, along with attendant supporting units and at least one reinforced tank brigade under a Brigadier Shazli. These units alone outnumbered the Israelis in tanks and even more massively in artillery. It is absurd to think any Israeli thought there were only TWO divisions facing them as late as 1982. Nassar's plan was to keep increasing the pressure, killing Israelis, damaging the infrastructure, etc until such time as Israel was forced to act, thus also awarding his army the defender's advantage for the first major battles.

The UN troops were in the Sinai, Egyptian side, per the agreement following 1956 and pulled out prior to the Egyptians moving in @100,000 men.

Are you referring to the Israeli air strikes? Israel never violated the DMZ with Syria prior to 1967 although Syria certainly launched attacks over it.

Also the Egyptian blockade qualified as an act of war. The Israeli raids did not, unless you count the Arab fedayeen raids and Syrian air strikes and artillery barrages as also being acts of war, in which case the onus is entirely off of Israel, since their moves were generally reprisals to the actions of others, Qibya and others being some of the reprisals. I note that they were not 'cleared' as the Arabs had their (damaged) community back the moment the Israelis left.

[Dave Howery]

unprovoked? In addition to the 100,000 Egyptian troops in the Sinai, there were 150,000 other arab troops ringed around Israel before the war, some from as far away as Algeria. Just why do you suppose all these troops suddenly decided to mass up on Israel's borders? Did they all go on vacation at the same time and just happen to take their guns and tanks with them? In any event, Nasser clearly stated his intentions at an Arab Trade Union COngress meeting, saying bluntly that he intended to destroy Israel. One of his staff members later said that Nasser said straight out that he closed the Straits of Tiran to Israel precisely to provoke a war... and he assumed that the vastly superior forces surrounding Israel would easily win. It's been noted in several books that a sort of "let's destroy Israel" hysteria gripped the arab world in '67, mainly because of Nasser. Hussein in Jordan wanted no part of it, but was rather forced to join or face massive unrest in his country. So, the preemptive strike did take place before the arabs struck... but ironically, Nasser wanted them to strike first, so he could launch a devestating counterattack... didn't quite work out that way....

[aktarian]

Originally Posted by Brilliantlight

What you don't mention is that he said there was no choice in the strictest meaning of the words.

No, he said thet Israeli gov't knew Egypt wasn't neither about to attack nor planning to attack. They (Israel) choose to go to war to gain more land.

Originally Posted by Brilliantlight

For example the Israelis could have just endured attack after attack from Lebenon and still wouldn't have lost the land. However what kind of government would allow its citizens to be attacked on a regular basis by outside forces? Answer, none.

Arabs are supposed to take it. Because fighting back is called terrorism by Israelis and US.

Originally Posted by Brilliantlight

Nasser was also an idiot to publically call for a holy war. If he didn't want a war he should have kept his mouth shut, kept the UN in and not mass any troops at the border.

Which ISrael knew wasn't leading to attack.

Originally Posted by Brilliantlight

Then WHY mass troops at the border? That is just incredibly stupid unless you want a war because massing troops are normally a prelude to war and everyone knows it.

The problem was, there was no "massing". Israelis themselves admit this wasn't a threat to them.

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

aktarian, first, I am confident that the Le Monde issue and other quotes are without legitimacy,

Why? Did they print something Israelis didn't say? Where is Israeli denial?

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

as it is historical fact that the Egyptian army moved FIVE full divisions into the Sinai, along with attendant supporting units and at least one reinforced tank brigade under a Brigadier Shazli. These units alone outnumbered the Israelis in tanks and even more massively in artillery. It is absurd to think any Israeli thought there were only TWO divisions facing them as late as 1982.

Then why do Israelis admit otherwise?

It's my experience that Israelis are often more frank and truthfull about their actions than Israeli defenders from outside Israel.

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

Nassar's plan was to keep increasing the pressure, killing Israelis, damaging the infrastructure, etc until such time as Israel was forced to act, thus also awarding his army the defender's advantage for the first major battles.

Sounds awfully like Levon affair.

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

The UN troops were in the Sinai, Egyptian side, per the agreement following 1956 and pulled out prior to the Egyptians moving in @100,000 men.

Once again, when where troops on Israeli side removed and how amny were there on Israeli side?

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

Are you referring to the Israeli air strikes? Israel never violated the DMZ with Syria prior to 1967 although Syria certainly launched attacks over it.

No, I'm talking about Israeli incursions into DMZ along Syrian border and expelling Palestinians from there.

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

Also the Egyptian blockade qualified as an act of war.

As did Israeli incursions and similar.

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

The Israeli raids did not, unless you count the Arab fedayeen raids and Syrian air strikes and artillery barrages as also being acts of war, in which case the onus is entirely off of Israel, since their moves were generally reprisals to the actions of others, Qibya and others being some of the reprisals.

And if those raids were not reprisals but independant, first-strike actions (like many were)?

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

I note that they were not 'cleared' as the Arabs had their (damaged) community back the moment the Israelis left.

Yes, allt hey lost was village demolished and inhabitants killed. Not much of a cleraing.

Originally Posted by Dave Howery

unprovoked? In addition to the 100,000 Egyptian troops in the Sinai, there were 150,000 other arab troops ringed around Israel before the war, some from as far away as Algeria. Just why do you suppose all these troops suddenly decided to mass up on Israel's borders? Did they all go on vacation at the same time and just happen to take their guns and tanks with them? In any event, Nasser clearly stated his intentions at an Arab Trade Union COngress meeting, saying bluntly that he intended to destroy Israel. One of his staff members later said that Nasser said straight out that he closed the Straits of Tiran to Israel precisely to provoke a war... and he assumed that the vastly superior forces surrounding Israel would easily win. It's been noted in several books that a sort of "let's destroy Israel" hysteria gripped the arab world in '67, mainly because of Nasser. Hussein in Jordan wanted no part of it, but was rather forced to join or face massive unrest in his country. So, the preemptive strike did take place before the arabs struck... but ironically, Nasser wanted them to strike first, so he could launch a devestating counterattack... didn't quite work out that way....

Only that Israeli gov't relaised this wasn't a threat and Israel was not to be attacked. But that they decided to strike at Arabs to annex some land.

[Grimm Reaper]

aktarian, the Egyptians started the war with a blockade, an internationally recognized act of war.

What land did they seek to gain? I seem to recall Egypt getting it all back for a peace treaty. Just as they gave back the entire Sinai in 1956 thinking Nassar was dealing in good faith.

No, murdering innocents, seeking to destroy an entire nation, these are acts of terrorism. Responding when your people are being shelled is morally legitimate. Ah, the Arab whine, this is a very dangerous beast, when attacked it defends itself.

The Israelis have said no such thing, and have made clear that the blockade alone was a threat as well as an unprovoked act of war.

There is no need for further denial for Le Monde lied. The number of Egyptian soldiers, the units involved, and the tanks and other firepower are a matter of public record. The Israelis have made abundantly clear what forces they faced, as they should have since they captured most of the equipment(or at least the burnt out hulks). The number of tanks alone would have confirmed far more than two divisions.

There were no UN troops on Israel's side of the border, nor did the UN ever propose putting any there. EGYPT had blockaded Israel previously, Israel had never tried to blockade Egypt.

Likewise, there were no Israeli incursions into the Syria DMZ and no Palestinian villages in Syrian territory to begin with.

Levon? Are you referring to a political scandal in Israel in the 1950s known as the Lavon Affair as an act of war?

If you count Israeli reprisals as acts of war, then the fact that they were responding to raids proves the Arabs were the aggressors. And once again, if the Arabs, Palestinian or otherwise, let their community be used as a base to attack Israelis then too bad when the LEGITIMATE MILITARY TARGET gets hit in reprisal.

[Dave Howery]

Aktarian, did you read what I wrote at all??!! Nasser himself said he was trying to goad Israel into a war; he wanted Israel to strike first so he could lead the overwhelming forces on Israel's borders in a final counterattack to destroy Israel. He said it loud and publicly. What more do you want to acknowledge that the Arab forces around Israel were a threat?
When I was researching the 6 Day War in college, I looked up some back issues of Time that covered it. Amusingly, the issue that covered the war had a letter from an Egyptian in it that called for Israel to fight, pretty much daring them to attack. Two issues later, people were writing in to laugh at the poor guy, and another Egytian wrote in complaining of Israel's shabby treatment of the Arabs....

[aktarian]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

aktarian, the Egyptians started the war with a blockade, an internationally recognized act of war.

And ISraeli incursions into DMZ? That is not?

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

What land did they seek to gain?

Sinai, WB, Golan.

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

I seem to recall Egypt getting it all back for a peace treaty.

After 1973 war and after US pressure. You seem to forget they rejected peace offer which was very simialr to Camp David.

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

Just as they gave back the entire Sinai in 1956 thinking Nassar was dealing in good faith.

That was due to US pressure.

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

No, murdering innocents, seeking to destroy an entire nation, these are acts of terrorism.

Such as "land clearing operations" by Israelis in 1948 and alter?

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

Responding when your people are being shelled is morally legitimate. Ah, the Arab whine, this is a very dangerous beast, when attacked it defends itself.

Unless you are LEbanese. If youa re ELbanese youa re supposed to endure shelling and not respond. Because if you do respond you are terrorist.

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

The Israelis have said no such thing, and have made clear that the blockade alone was a threat as well as an unprovoked act of war.

That may have been an act of war but so were Israeli actions.

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

There is no need for further denial for Le Monde lied.

And NYT? Where did ISraelis denounce this and call it a lie?

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

The number of Egyptian soldiers, the units involved, and the tanks and other firepower are a matter of public record. The Israelis have made abundantly clear what forces they faced, as they should have since they captured most of the equipment(or at least the burnt out hulks). The number of tanks alone would have confirmed far more than two divisions.

Yet Israeli PM at that time said they were only 2 divisions.

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

There were no UN troops on Israel's side of the border, nor did the UN ever propose putting any there. EGYPT had blockaded Israel previously, Israel had never tried to blockade Egypt.

Oh I see. One side allows stationing of troops. When they are asked to elave that is agressive move. OTher side doesn't allow stationing of troops int he first place and this isn't an agreessive move. Fascinating.

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

Likewise, there were no Israeli incursions into the Syria DMZ and no Palestinian villages in Syrian territory to begin with.

Of course there were. Just because you refuse to believe it it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

Levon? Are you referring to a political scandal in Israel in the 1950s known as the Lavon Affair as an act of war?

Setting bombs in Egyptian civilian places. then when one of perpetrators is caught and hanged callingt his clear antisemitic act.

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

If you count Israeli reprisals as acts of war, then the fact that they were responding to raids proves the Arabs were the aggressors. And once again, if the Arabs, Palestinian or otherwise, let their community be used as a base to attack Israelis then too bad when the LEGITIMATE MILITARY TARGET gets hit in reprisal.

And if Israelis hit Arab targets WITHOUT ISRAEL BEING HIT INT HE FIRST PLACE? Then what?

Originally Posted by Dave Howery

Aktarian, did you read what I wrote at all??!! Nasser himself said he was trying to goad Israel into a war; he wanted Israel to strike first so he could lead the overwhelming forces on Israel's borders in a final counterattack to destroy Israel. He said it loud and publicly. What more do you want to acknowledge that the Arab forces around Israel were a threat?

Yes I read what you wrote. And I also read what Begin and Rabin said.

As I said before, Israelis are often more frank and honest about their actions than it's foreign advocates.

[Cloudy Vortex]

And why not, much of history is one bunch of gits socking another bunch of gits? After spending so much time in Europe (and Asia, and Africa, and the Americas), the Jews probably decided that using violence to achieve one's ends is natural, expected, and is what the other guy is going to do anyway. The Arabs have done very little to prove them wrong.

I really do believe that the Six-Days War was eagerly desired by Israel, Egypt, and Syria (or were they the UAR yet). Jordan didn't really want in, but that doesn't mean that Hussain didn't want the Israelis gone. He probably felt fairly good about his chances. After all, it was three states against one. He made a mistake he never repeated, which makes him far wiser than his analogs in Cairo and Damascus. I can't see how one can keep Jordan out of the War. It was a lesson they needed to learn.

[Dave Howery]

Aktarian> so, your revision of history is that the Arabs chose to concentrate 250,000 men and 2000 tanks on Israel's borders with no hostile intent whatsoever, including troops from as far away as Algeria? And then Israel chose this moment, when they were outnumbered more than they ever had been before, to go conquering for territory? They ought to be applauded for their bravery then....

I'm seriously beginning to wonder if you are Hank Fletcher under another name...

[Grimm Reaper]

aktarian, I am about to give up. After this I shall assume that you simply have no interest in the facts.

1) Israel did NOT invade Syria's DMZ. Even the UN has admitted this. Syria's false charges were based on Israeli tractors plowing fields WEST of the Sea of Galilee, which is Israeli territory. It was never a DMZ. Israel's strip on the EAST side was and there were no farms there to plow.

2) The land you CLAIM Israel wanted was given back as soon as a peace treaty was signed, except that 2/3 of the Golan went back sans a treaty.

3) The US put pressure in 1956 because the US thought Nassar was an honest man. His treachery is the reason Israel did not leave the Sinai again months after 1967, because the US no longer believed Nassar.

4) 'land cleaning' operations in Egypt and Syria. More fantasies of the people who started a war and can't handle reality.

5) After 1967 Israel offered the land back, INCLUDING the Golan and WB for peace. The Arabs responded at Khartoum with the infamous 'three nos'.

6) If you are Lebanese, the situation is simple. Do not attack Israel and do not allow others to attack Israel and you will not be retaliated against.

7) The size and scope of the Egyptian forces in 1967 is historical fact. I am sorry that Le Monde lied about the specifics and made up quotes, but that does not change history.

8) The UN never asked for permission to station troops in Israel. I guess you can't handle basic facts.

9) There are not and never have been Palestinian towns in Syria, a completely separate nation. Your fantasies in this regard are on a par with imagining acts of war by Israel while questioning whether a very real blockade fell into that category.

[Oddball]

@aktarian
Well I'v read the links your refering to regarding Begin and Rabin have said, and I sincerly think your taking things out of context. My interpretation of their statment defenitly does not suport your view. As Iv said before, hardley no one denies that Israeli actions in '67 were offensive or that the Israeli "started" the war. But to say it was unprovoked...

Lastley you said: "..., Israelis are often more frank and honest about their actions than it's foreign advocates."
This is a statement I often get thrown at me, but if you change "Israelis" in your statement with "Palestinians," the new statement is IMHO just as valid from my point of view... Atleast the Israelis enjoy free speach, something that is not a given thing in most Arab nations...


@Dave H & Grimm R
Both of your two posts is IMHO excelent, and your posts mostly says what I wanted to say.

So I'll rest my case. Were realy are going OT anyway

[aktarian]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

aktarian, I am about to give up. After this I shall assume that you simply have no interest in the facts.

1) Israel did NOT invade Syria's DMZ. Even the UN has admitted this. Syria's false charges were based on Israeli tractors plowing fields WEST of the Sea of Galilee, which is Israeli territory. It was never a DMZ. Israel's strip on the EAST side was and there were no farms there to plow.

http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbook...e/80858E0m.htm

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache...n+%2BDMZ&hl=en

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

2) The land you CLAIM Israel wanted was given back as soon as a peace treaty was signed, except that 2/3 of the Golan went back sans a treaty.

What peace treaty? And what perts of golan were returned?

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

3) The US put pressure in 1956 because the US thought Nassar was an honest man. His treachery is the reason Israel did not leave the Sinai again months after 1967, because the US no longer believed Nassar.

No, Us put pressure because UK and France were involved and US didn't want any other (non-US) influence in region.

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

4) 'land cleaning' operations in Egypt and Syria. More fantasies of the people who started a war and can't handle reality.

Land clearing operations in Palestine.

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

5) After 1967 Israel offered the land back, INCLUDING the Golan and WB for peace. The Arabs responded at Khartoum with the infamous 'three nos'.

And when this offer was accepted by egypt in 1971 Israel responded with "We woun't withdraw".

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

6) If you are Lebanese, the situation is simple. Do not attack Israel and do not allow others to attack Israel and you will not be retaliated against.

Even if those Israelis are occupation troops in your country.

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

7) The size and scope of the Egyptian forces in 1967 is historical fact. I am sorry that Le Monde lied about the specifics and made up quotes, but that does not change history.

What about NYT? Did they made up stuff too? and where is Israeli denial that this was said?

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

8) The UN never asked for permission to station troops in Israel. I guess you can't handle basic facts.

[Mr. Ben-Gurion, summarizing his speech, presented a seven-point declaration which he offered the world "with full moral force and unflinching determination." The seven points were as follows:]


/.../
6. On no account will Israel agree to the stationing of a foreign force, no matter how it is called, in its territory or in any of the area occupied by it.

http://amichai.com/war/process/56war.html

So they refused even before being asked.

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

9) There are not and never have been Palestinian towns in Syria, a completely separate nation. Your fantasies in this regard are on a par with imagining acts of war by Israel while questioning whether a very real blockade fell into that category.

Who is fantasizing? You aren't reading my posts. I keep saying "clearing Palestinian villages inside DMZ along Syrian border". You start dreaming about some PAlestinian villages in Syria....

[aktarian]

Originally Posted by Red

@aktarian
Well I'v read the links your refering to regarding Begin and Rabin have said, and I sincerly think your taking things out of context.

How do you take "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" out of context? What was original context then?

Originally Posted by Red

My interpretation of their statment defenitly does not suport your view. As Iv said before, hardley no one denies that Israeli actions in '67 were offensive or that the Israeli "started" the war. But to say it was unprovoked...

Hey, Rabin and Begin called it so...

[Grimm Reaper]

aktarian, I think I need to give up, or should I call you Hank? It is clear you will stand by your positions without regard for the truth or the facts, and as I am not licensed psychiatrist I am not the one to help.

Allow me to offer a few final points:

1) The strength of the Egyptian army in 1967 is a proven fact, your OPINION and any alleged quotes are irrelevant.

2) The only DMZ on the Syrian-Israeli border was ISRAELI soil east of the Sea of Galilee and there were never any Palestinian settlements there to be cleared in the first place. Much of it is a few FEET in width.

3) The UN did not ask to station the peacekeepers in Israel after 1956 or when Nassar threw them out in 1967.

4) There are no Israelis in Lebanon.

5) Israel returned all of Sinai for the Camp David accord, and about 70% of the Golan in 1974.

6) The Arabs did not agree to peace in 1971.

And there you have the facts, folks.