mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) (03/18/86)
Subject: The 1967 War > Such distortion of history is incredible. Nasser had ordered the > U. N. forces out of Sharm el Sheikh (sp?) and instituted a blockade > of the Straits of Tiran, leading into the Gulf of Aqaba and the > Israeli port of Eilat, through which more than 90% of Israel's oil > supply (imported from Iran) flowed. Nasser rebuffed diplomatic > efforts to end the blockade. A blockade is an act of war. > Hijab conveniently forgets to mention this. Of course, my news sources > were the American media (and to a lesser extent, the British media) > which are of course subsidiaries of the Israeli War Ministry. -) > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan And what you conveniently forget to mention is that only 5% of Israel's foreign trade went through Eilat. Oil from Iran was the main strategic material but Israel could easily get that through Haifa. Economically, the closure of the Straits of Tiran would have little immediate impact. And it was not really a blockade because Nasser had no intention of fighting. Yitzhak Rabin, the Chief of Staff, was frank about it: "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." {Le Monde, 29 Feb. 1968} Israel wanted war and the "blockade" was its golden opportunity. Farzin Mokhtarian
cramer@sun.uucp (Sam Cramer) (03/19/86)
Raif Hijab claims that
"A careful reading of the history of events leading to the 1967
Six War (one not restricted to the Israeli interpretation) would
clearly show that Israel had planned the war years in
advance, that it was clearly not a defensive war, and that
Israel was engaged in provocation to start a war."
Such a "careful reading" of history is grossly at odds with the facts.
Years before the 1967 war Arab leaders were threatening war with
Israel. Egyptian leader Nasser stated on Radio Cairo on May 18, 1962
that "we will launch a full-scale war when the right moment
comes."
Arab preparations for the attack began approximately 3 weeks
before the war itself. On May 14, 1967 Egypt mobilized its troops
and started deploying 90,000 troops and 900 tanks into forward
positions in the Sinai peninsula.
On May 16 Nasser demanded the removal of UN peace-keeping
troops from the Sinai. Before the UNEF troops pulled out the
Egyptians opened fire on them at El-Quseimah and Al-Sabah.
On May 17 Radio Cairo's "Voice of the Arabs" stated "all Egypt is
now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to
Israel." On May 18, with the evacuation of UN troops, the "Voice of
the Arabs" announced, using Hitlerian terminology,
"As of today, there no longer exists an international
emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience
no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about
Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total
war which will result in the extermination of Zionist
existence."
On May 20 Hafez Assad, then Syrian Defense Minister and now
Syrian President, stated
"Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the
aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to
explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian
Army, with its finger on the trigger, is united... I, as a military
man, believe that the time has come to enter into the battle
of liberation."
On May 27 Nasser stated
"Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel. The
Arab people want to fight."
and said
"The meaning of [the Egyptian occupation of] Sharm el-Sheikh
is a confrontation with Israel. Adopting this measure obligates
us to be ready to embark on a general war with Israel."
The next day Nasser stated
"We will not accept any... coexistence with Israel... Today the
issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states
and Israel... The war with Israel is in effect since 1948."
As the war drew closer and as Nasser was able to enlist more Arab
leaders in his encirclement of Israel the exterminationist rhetoric
echoed through out the Arab world.
Iraqi President Arif stated on May 31 that
"Our goal is clear: to wipe Israel off the map."
Let's not forget the valiant role of the PLO in this "struggle".
PLO Chairman Shukeiry (Arafat's predecessor) said on June 1
"The Jews of Palestine will have to leave... Any of the old
Palestinian Jewish population who survive may stay, but it is
my impression that none of them will survive."
Algerian President Boumedienne chimed in on June 4, saying
"The Arab struggle must lead to the liquidation of Israel."
On June 5, the eve of the war, Radio Damascus broadcast
"Oh ye Arabs!... throw them into the sea, engrave your history
with blood, fire and steel.. Ho! our powerful army, continue
your march to Tel Aviv."
and went on to state on June 7
"Soldiers of the fronts of Jordan, Syria, Sinai, Gaza and Khan
Yunis - the holy march is on! Fight! Kill them, slaughter
them and then cleanse their blood off your weapons on the
shores of of Jaffa, Acco and Haifa."
[Evidently it is such statements by the Syrians that lead some to
characterize the Syrian Ba'ath party, in power since 1963 as of a
"secular, progressive and nationalist character, with just a hint of
Euro-socialism"!]
But I guess that all the preceding evidence is not "based on a
careful reading of history" - who knows, it may even have
originated in the "Israeli War [sic] Ministry"!
--
Sam Cramer uucp: {cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!cramer
arpanet: cramer@sun.arpaabeles@mhuxm.UUCP (J. Abeles (Bellcore, Murray Hill, NJ)) (03/19/86)
> > Such distortion of history is incredible. Nasser had ordered the > > U. N. forces out of Sharm el Sheikh (sp?) and instituted a blockade > > ------> ...A blockade is an act of war.<------ [Bill Tanenbaum] > And what you conveniently forget to mention is that only 5% of Israel's > foreign trade went through Eilat. ... Israel wanted war and the > "blockade" was its golden opportunity. [Farzin Mokhtarian] Like, Earth to Farzin, Earth to Farzin! Read the above. Maybe a blockade isn't what the average Moslem or Moslem country would consider a "cassus belli (international law term meaning cause provoking a war)," but everyone else with one foot on this planet does, as does international law and international courts. (I even suspect that Moslem countries would go to war if someone blockaded one of their important ports.) Let me try to explain it to you, Farzin. Land and the access to it are limited in supply and can't be replaced. You seem to want Israel to take it on the chin at every turn. If Nassar blockades her ports, Israel is expected to reason, "We didn't really need those ports anyway." If the Jordanians divert Israel's water supply (another cassus belli), Israel is expected to reason, "We're smart Jews, and we'll figure out a way to drink salt water." You're a racist (Martillo is right)! [J. Abeles]
tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Tom Tedrick) (03/21/86)
> "A careful reading of the history of events leading to the 1967 > Six War (one not restricted to the Israeli interpretation) would > clearly show that Israel had planned the war years in > advance, [ ... ] A small point: militarily sophisticated nations have contingency plans for various war scenarios prepared well in advance. It would have been extremely irresponsible if the Israelis had not been prepared in advance. Going off at a tangent, sometimes wars get out of control once conflict begins due to these contingency plans. Hence it is wise not to start such conflicts without a very good reason. This happened in WW1 for example.
mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) (03/25/86)
Subject: The 1967 War > Interesting to notice that Farzin Mokhtarian agrees that in > early 1967 Nasser had closed the waterways and kicked the UN > observers. But, Farzin KNOWS that Nasser had no intent of going > to war. The proof? His chief of staff!! Come on! Are you serious? > [Y. Levendel] Which country's chief of staff are we talking about here, Mr. Levendel?! I quoted General Yitzhak Rabin. Does that sound like an Egyptian name to you? He was the *Israeli* Chief of Staff in 1967. Later on, he became the Prime minister of Israel. It was he who said that he did not "believe that Nasser wanted war." Rabin was not the only one. General Matitiahu Peled, one of the architects of the Israeli victory said the following in spite of pleas to keep silent for the sake of Israel's reputation in the world. "There is no reason to hide the fact that since 1949 no one was able to threaten the very existence of Israel. In spite of that fact, we have continued to foster a sense of our own inferiority. To claim that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel's existence not only insults the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this kind of situation, but is an insult to Zahal (the Israeli army)." [Maariv, March 24, 1972] None of his military colleagues seriously contested his central thesis. > I will grant Farzin that I do not really know the undercover aspects > of the 1967 war and that it is possible that Israel used the issue > of the water passage as a "golden opportunity". But, then, why give > to Israel a good reason to do it? At first glance, this does not strike > me as a solid explanation. Israeli generals worked hard to make sure that Nasser had very little choice. Raif Hijab has already mentioned how Israel made Syria its target of military activism. These were accompanied by verbal threats to overthrow the Syrian government and Israeli tank movements to the north. Syrians were convinced that Israel was about to attack them. Even though Nasser did not want war, he had to show that he was prepared to go to war with Israel if Israel attacked Syria and that required the removal of the UN forces. Even then, Nasser only aimed at a partial withdrawal. He asked the UNEF commander to withdraw his men from the Israeli-Egyptian border but not from Sharm al-Shaikh, the outpost at the mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba, which furnished symbolic protection for the passage of Israeli ships. The UN Secretary General insisted that it had to be all or nothing. Nasser was forced to make it all and to impose the blockade. General Aharon Yariv (Israeli again!) had predicted this when he said: "To my eyes no alternative means that 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." -- Farzin Mokhtarian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "From the pit of decay and dust Through blood and sweat A generation will arise to us."