Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:27, 7 August 2006

Military history Unassessed

This page is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history ??? This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. Additional information: /  This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

U.S. and Britain have to be added as combatants

Do it.

-G

General Image

Can we get an image up at the top, specifically similar to the one on each individual country as "Syria" or "Israel" etc. except showing all parties, and color coded as individual or allied to show the full place of the world? Jmw0000 01:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well-cited does not mean neutral

How plainly obvious can it be that some people here wish to convey their OPINIONS in this article? Whereby Misplaced Pages policy forbids such non-neutral or POV contributions, a certain few of the regular editors of this article apparently feel that asserting their opinions through the proxy of a "well-cited source" does not constitute a POV contribution. You are WRONG. Just because you find published material that you agree with does not mean 1) that it is true 2) that it is neutral or 3) that it is relevent to the article.

Specifically concerning my revisions and deletion of a couple of Ian's sources, they were either not relevent to the discussion, ex-post-facto pondering added solely to convey one position, or so blatantly one-sided that they should not be in the article in the first place. Please do not continue to use this article as your soap box. Aiden Cathasaigh 02:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Aiden, I reverted the page solely because you deleted a significant amount of material - some of which I find very hard to see how it can be considered POV, false or irrelevant - e.g. the fact that Israel had informed the world that it would consider closure of the Straits a casus belli when it withdrew from them in 1957, which I happened to put in earlier. The newer introduction also uses significantly less neutral language, sometimes with the effect of making Israel look worse. I noticed that you put in some material which was relevant and a contribution to the article, and I was planning on reincorporating it. But when you delete and add in the same edit, you ensure that your positive contributions become much less certain of remaining, because you make other people have to do much more work if they feel you have unjustifiably removed content. It is necessary to realize that you are not the arbiter of truth or falsity. If something is well-cited and represents a significant element in debate, it belongs in the article - seeWP:NPOV. The aim of NPOV is to present the debate, and for this it is necessary to have POV positions presented in a fair and neutral way. You should also not personalize things with terms like Ianpedia. If you really think something should be deleted, especially in a contentious area like the Arab-Israeli conflict, you should explain why on a case by case basis, not do things en masse without specific explanations.

What you call expostfacto pondering is hardly that; it is just one very significant - probably the majority opinion - on the legality of the preemptive strike; in fact the US State department's legal advisor said much the same thing before the war. I agree this section is maybe too long, I personally tried to make it less argumentative and more neutral earlier on, but something like it certainly is relevant. Some of your changes put words in people's mouths which they would never say - the FM of Egypt would hardly call an Israeli strike retaliatory rather than punitive, a much better word there. On the Golan shelling, it is not and never has been in dispute that Israeli actions in the DMZs were an important cause of the shelling. These sections could have been better, more neutrally written or better sourced, but it is much better to neutralize, modify and understand than delete somebody else's work just because you feel it is opinion rather than fact. You may even find that if you read the other side's sources, your opinions might change. I hope you realize they may feel the same way about your contributions - the point is to try to collaborate on something both sides can agree on, and fairly represent scholarly disputes on matters if two editors have different opinions. If something is blatantly one-sided, then make it less blatant, and give the other side; that is how Misplaced Pages insists things be done.

Finally, you should realize that although I don't care and am willing to talk anywhere on the page, the usual thing, that most prefer, is to put additional posts on the bottom, not the top. I think most people would find it difficult to use the strict chronological order of what is being discussed, and I think it unlikely that you will get most people to go along.John Z 04:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Aiden, Apyule reverted to my version. I would put in your new stuff now, but I am too exhausted, and will do so tomorrow if no one else does. It's better to debate about what should be changed or not be in the article then. RegardsJohn Z 10:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

John, in order to avoid an edit war, I will list my grievances with the article and attempt to justify my previous changes.

• "Norman Finkelstein has argued that this shelling was often deliberately provoked by Israeli incursions into, and settlement of, the Israel-Syria demilitarized zone."

1. Norman Finkelstein, the provider of the "well-sourced" material on the Syrian shelling of Israeli villages, is in no way a respectable academic source.
2. His justification of the Syrian shelling does nothing to contribute to the factual information provided in the article. What it does do is attempt to convince the reader that what happened is justified. It is simply being used as a proxy for other editors to convey their opinions through this source.

• "In 1966, Egypt and Syria signed a military alliance, initiated for both sides if either were to go to war. According to foreign minister Mahmoud Riad Egypt had been forced into the mutual defense pact by the Soviet Union. The pact had two objectives: (1) to reduce the chances of a punitive attack on Syria by Israel and (2) to bring the Syrians under Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s moderate influence. ."

1. Just as the Finkelstein addition, this contribution does not simply inform the reader of the creation of the defense pact--which is the primary purpose of the 'Background' section--it goes beyond this and gives the reasons for the defense pact from the sole perspective of the Egyptian FM.
2. The cited source for this material is Rikhye's Sinai Blunder, and is not directly from Mahmoud Riad. Actually, the source, according to Rikhye, is from "The Egyptian Foreign Minister, Mahmoud Riad, in a conversation with me in July 1967 on this subject..." Considering we do not have a direct quote, not to mention the fact that this is a paraphrase of a conversation 13-years later (the Sinai Blunder was published in 1980), the account is not only hearsay--inadmissible under Misplaced Pages policy--but it is highly probable the account is not accurate.
3. The actual quote from Rikhye's Sinai Blunder is that the Soviet Union had "persuaded" not forced "Egypt and Syria... to enter into a mutual defense pact..."
4. The characterization of the objectives of the defense pact as a means to prevent "punitive" Israeli attacks is also from the perspective of the Egyptian PM, certainly not a NPOV source. The same applies to Nasser as a "moderate" influence. This "moderate" influence also is the same guy who said "We will drive the Jews into the sea", blockaded Eilat, kicked out the UNEF from the Sinai, etc., etc., etc.

• "In the UN General Assembly debates immediately after the war, many nations argued that even if international law gave Israel the right of passage, Israel was not entitled to attack Egypt to assert it because the closure was not an "armed attack" as defined by article 51 of the UN Charter. Similarly, international law professor John Quigley argues that under the doctrine of proportionality Israel would only be entitled to use such force as would be necessary to secure its right of passage."

1. This is in the "Background" section. The point of this section is to layout the framework for the cause of the war, not to question the actions of only one party after-the-fact.
2. Yet again, the only source used is one which questions Israel's actions, after-the-fact, and from the perspective of only one source.

• "Nasser himself wrote that "I am not in a position to go to war" and Rubenburg states that Egypt believed that the issue of navigation in the Straits of Tiran was amenable to peaceable resolution, but that from the outset of the conflict Israel favoured war and rejected multilateral diplomacy or the use of the United Nations. "

1. And yet again, we are given only one side of Nasser, the side that portrays him as a "moderate" influence, or perhaps someone who by all means does want to go to war. What is left out of our little book of Nasser quotes are ones such as "There is no longer a way out of our present situation except by forging a road toward our objective, violently and by force, over a sea of blood and under a horizon blazing with fire." Or how about, "I will throw the Jews into the sea"? Why do I feel this article continually tries to perceive the Arab states as helpless victims while Israel is obviously the evil aggressor?

Painting a picture of a situation according to the perspective of an author, even if cited, does not guarantee that the information is NPOV. Like I said before, I can find just as many bogus, one-sided, bigot sources and add them to the article. Sure my information will be "well-sourced" with the appropriate footnotes, references, and all the things that make you tingle inside, but will it be neutral? Not a chance. Aiden Cathasaigh 20:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Aiden, if scholars disagree on the interpretation of the primary sources that disagreement should be explained and the sources cited. --Ian Pitchford 23:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Ian, the article is already too long, and the materials removed in no way contribute to the factual accuracy of the article or are relevant to the "Background" subject matter; hence, they were removed. Pitting one POV source against another is not going to accomplish anything nor is that how an article should be written. I've supplied sufficient reason above as to why the 4 entries in question were removed. Just because they happen to be your opinion and from whatever author you can find to support your opinion does not mean it is a) NPOV b) true or c) relevant to the article. Aiden Cathasaigh 23:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Aiden, if you think a source is POV you can illustrate that by showing how the interpretation in question doesn't withstand scrutiny. That's what I've done, for example, in showing that Oren doesn't even accurately report his own book in the article already cited . However, even authors as far apart as Rubenberg and Oren are agreed that Egypt was not planning to launch an attack on Israel, i.e. there's no real dispute about the fact that the Israeli attack was not pre-emptive and so whether the introduction has "strike" or "war" it is still false. Lyndon B. Johnson and "17 maritime powers" might well have declared the Straits international waters, but he and they had no right to do so. A group of Arab nations could just as easily get together and declare their right to sail up an down the Thames. It has no bearing in international law. The section with the reference to Rikhye is his report of a discussion with the Egyptian foreign minister. It shouldn't be altered to reflect some other point of view not expressed in this source. --Ian Pitchford 23:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

You are missing my point entirely, Ian, (in part because I doubt you even read my exhaustive justifications for my changes) and I hate to have to spell this out for you yet again but it appears I must.

• The article is not about pitting one POV source against another. It is about presenting FACTS to the reader in an understandable format.

• "According to foreign minister Mahmoud Riad Egypt had been forced into the mutual defence pact by the Soviet Union. The pact had two objectives: (1) to reduce the chances of a punitive attack on Syria by Israel and (2) to bring the Syrians under Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s moderate influence. "

1. Explain to me how it is OK for you to cite as the purpose of a defense pact only one source who just so happens to be one of only two members of said defense pact. How can you honestly argue that Mahmoud Riad--the Foreign Minister of Egypt, the author of the defense pact--is a NPOV source? Your quote may have come from Rikhye's Sinai Blunder, but it still remains a paraphrased quote of Mahmoud Riad, the Egyptian FM, who two sentences later affirms Nasser as a "moderate" influence. If this isn't POV I don't know what is.
2. Not to mention, hearsay isn't allowed in Misplaced Pages articles and this is clearly a case of hearsay: a paraphrased quote written in a book 13 years after-the-fact.

• "In the UN General Assembly debates immediately after the war, many nations argued that even if international law gave Israel the right of passage, Israel was not entitled to attack Egypt to assert it because the closure was not an "armed attack" as defined by article 51 of the UN Charter. Similarly, international law professor John Quigley argues that under the doctrine of proportionality Israel would only be entitled to use such force as would be necessary to secure its right of passage. "

1. The details on a debate that occurred after the war, for one, do not belong in the background section of the article.
2. As another reviewer stated, this material does not only present the fact that Israel launched a pre-emptive attack against Egypt--the purpose of the article, mind you--it provides an argument that the attack was unjustified. Yet another instance of a POV argument being made through the proxy of a source.

• "Nasser himself wrote that "I am not in a position to go to war" and Rubenburg states that Egypt believed that the issue of navigation in the Straits of Tiran was amenable to peaceable resolution, but that from the outset of the conflict Israel favoured war and rejected multilateral diplomacy or the use of the United Nations. "

1. It is an accepted fact that the blockade was considered casus belli and Egypt knew this when initiating the blockade. Can you deny the fact that Egypt blockaded the straights? No. But on the other hand, is it a matter of opinion that Egypt wanted peace and that Israel wanted war? Yes. So like I said before, why is this here? It only conveys one opinion, that of Nasser, and is clearly present solely to portray Israel as the aggressor. "...from the outset of the conflict Israel favoured war and rejected multilateral diplomacy..." Need I say more?

Once again, Ian, the article is not about pitting my POV source against your POV source. It is about presenting facts, and frankly it seems you and some others clearly are not interested in doing so. Aiden Cathasaigh 00:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Aiden, none of the above is POV in Misplaced Pages's usage. Riad's report on the purpose of the pact is reported as such, i.e. it's a fact. If you don't think he represents the situation accurately, then cite other sources to support that conclusion. I think you will find this difficult. Whether a pre-emptive strike was justified under international law is obviously a key issue and that's why I have cited legal authorities on the issue. Why should Misplaced Pages readers be denied access to these? Israel did reject multilateral diplomacy (e.g., UN, World Court) and launched the war after they had been told by the US and their own officials that Egypt's deployment was defensive. US diplomacy was ongoing at the time - in other words Israel rejected that too even though the Americans were confident that a diplomatic situation could be achieved. The resons why Egypt wasn't prepared for war are mentioned in the article, sourced appropriately. As far as I can see your only objection is that the article doesn't reflect your own POV. --Ian Pitchford 06:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Though I may not agree with all of Aiden's methods I do generally agree with his assertions. Ian seems to be arguing that most of the cases he is arguing is accepted fact and no longer debated, ironically the majority of these cases are the complete opposite. It is mostly accepted fact he is wrong. Even most western governments who are un-friendly to Israel would state that blockading the Straits of Tiran was a casus belli, Ian's assertion that the 17 maritime powers decision was as applicable as 17 arab nations wanting to navigate the Thames is completley absurd, a waterway lying completley inside one nations borders is a completly seperate situation from a vital strait that borders four nations, the decision of the 17 maritime powers was important in international law.

Furthermore while I understand John's argument that Aiden should not modify a whole article without coming to a consensus first, I also however find this ironic due to the fact that since last time I saw this article about a month ago someone has completley modified it and changed it to look like Israel had about as much right to launch a pre-emptive attack on her neighbors that Hitler had on Poland. I think this article need some serious work.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 09:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The main points here are that the Straits of Tiran weren't blockaded and that the port at Eilat wasn't important to Israel economically. Contemporary sources are clear on both of these issues and I can add additional references if you think it's important. The legal argument is important, but secondary. There is a famous contemporary legal opinion published in the New York Times arguing that the Arab case was the more persuasive under international law. I can add this too. --Ian Pitchford 09:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The article in the NYT was an opinion article, there are some pretty crazy and stupid opinions found even in well-respected Newspapers (i.e. Bill O'Reilly's articles can be found in reputable magazines somtimes). Also there is still near consensus that the port of Eilat was important to Israel, since the suez canal was closed to Israeli shipping it was vital considering that they still had much trade with Asia, Oceania, and Africa. Egypt did blockade the S. of Tiran, they did it simply by not allowing ships bound for Israel through the narrow straits. Come on Ian, who know as well as I do that it is possible to find sources for any viewpoint that is not completly out there, even reputable sources doesn't necessarily mean it is a true statment.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The NYT piece was actually a letter from a distinguished international lawyer stressing the point that, as always, there were arguments on both sides but that overall he'd rather argue the Arab case in court. Eilat wasn't important to Israel economically. There are State Department documents (available online) from the time emphasising that the issue of the Straits for Israel was political and not military or economic. The Israelis were genuinely worried that Nasser might win a diplomatic/political victory and thereby strengthen his position in the Arab world. The Straits weren't blockaded and there were clear assurances from Nasser to U Thant, the UN and the US as late as early June that Egypt had no intention of attacking Israel. Notably, the Israelis themselves thought their own case was so weak that they discussed with the US ways of provoking Egypt to attack and after the war began they pretended that Egypt had actually invaded Israel. I will cite all of my sources for this as soon as I have time. They are all reputable. --Ian Pitchford 13:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Old untitled discussion (undeleted)

"In 1956, when the US withdrew its support of Egypt's Aswan High Dam facility, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez canal, a move which incensed Britain and France, who were the majority shareholders. "

What on earth did US support for the Aswan dam have to do with nationalizing the Suez Canal? As written, it implies there is a cause-and-effect here, and I don't see one.

An event mentioned in this article is a June 5 selected anniversary

I feel that the Quasar modifications of Feb 8th should be reverted -- they have absolutely nothing to do with a neutral point of view. Anyone against this? --Markonen

Hm. Those edits are pretty bad. But make sure you merge in the valid edits made since Quasar modifications. --mav

since Israel continued to deny Palestinian rights as well as denying them any hope for national aspirations

What Palestinian right? West Bank and Gaza were under (illegal and internationally unrecognized) Jordanian and Egyptian control - so if anyone, it was Jordanians and Egyptians who denied Palestinian rights. Also LOL about Soviet support for Israel - was it in the form of hundreds of Egyptian MiGs or Syrian T-55s? --Uriyan

Why the NPOV dispute?

Why is this article NPOV disputed? Whoever disputes it just added the line and didn't give any clarification as to what he/she objects to. -- AdamRaizen 02:01, 2003 Aug 10 (UTC)

It is unashamedly written from an Israeli point of view and should probably be rewritten from scratch.

what sentences are written from an israeli point of view?

Did the 56 war end with a defeat of the Israeli army? Or was there no pressure from US/USSR which made Israle withdraw from the sinai? Or had Egypt, Jordan or Syria recognized Israels right to exist? TeunSpaans

I dont see it. Since the claim is over half a year old, and no proper motivation has been given, I will remove the non-npov remark. TeunSpaans

Why is quote belligerency here in return for the end of all states of "belligerency"....is the word being used in a non-conventional manner that quoting is necessary. OneVoice 01:38, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It seems like the majority of this article is dedicated to explaining why Israel started the war......Israeli apologism perhaps? Slizor

Slizor, your statement does not appear to be supported by the article. The majority of the paragraphs, sentances, words or seemingly another other measureable/countable aspect of the page is taken up with the battles and the aftermath of the war. Do you disagree with this statement? OneVoice 14:25, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What is the point of asking a question about my position, when I have already stated my opinion? Anyhow, I will rephrase. The "background" section seems intent on Israeli apologism.

Slizor

There are difficulties with this article. The article fails to mention AT ALL that Israel began the war. Clearly, as the article does more than adequately demonstrate, Israel was provoked. But, it does not mention that Israel attacks first. Also, nothing is said about US involvement in ending the war, in threatening to end supplies for the Israelis. Basic facts are left out about the war being used stage for Cold War aggressions between the United States and the Soviet Union. The article is not NPOV, instead it has been written from an apologetic point of view in defense of Israeli actions during the conflict. Stargoat 9:30, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I hate to put it this bluntly, but you are full of crap. The Egyptians blockaded the Tiran straits, Israel's only sea route. This is a long-recognized, very clear act of war. Furthermore, the UN peacekeeping force was ordered out of the country by Nasser, and Syrian and Egyptian troops were amassed along the borders to Israel. To say the Israelis "started the war" is very clearly a lie on your part, and it has nothing to do with your POV. If Canada blocked off all our seaports, amassed troops on our border, and announced they would soon drive us into the sea and annihilate our state, we would be perfectly justified in attacking Canada, just as Israel was justified in attacking Egypt and Syria in 1967. These things all happened, and if you say they didn't happen, you are not expressing a point of view, you are LYING. Cardshark

Heh, you shouldn't make personal attacks. What's worse, you're wrong, on most of your facts, I'm afraid.

1 Even you say Israel attacked. Which it did. As I said, Israel was provoked. Which it was. But that doesn't mean that Israel did not attack first. This is an issue which the article fails to address. And when the war began, it began when Egyptian troops were being pulled back from the Israeli border.

2 As for this "we" stuff, speak for yourself.

3 If you're going to quote me, at least quote me correctly. I said "Israel began the war", you incorrectly quoted me when you said "the Israelis "started the war"". You might want to be more careful in the future. Have a nice day.  :) Stargoat 23:34, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay, is it that dramatic a difference to quote you as saying "Israel started the war" vs "Israel began the war"? Neither one is true.

Blockading the Straits of Tiran was an act of war. Period. The embargo has *long* been recognized as an act of war deserving of retaliation. Do you disagree? Which happened first? The embargo or the attack?

Hold it. An *embargo* has never been considered an act of war- it is merely a government restricting who that government's citizens may do business with.

A BLOCKADE is something else entirely- and yes, it is generally considered an act of war, as ships that try to run the blockade are generally fired upon.

Kicking out the UN peacekeepers was also an act of war. This one is perhaps less cut and dried than blockading all Israeli ships from delivering goods and services to Israel, but a reasonable person would agree that it was an act of war. How about you?

Furthermore, Nasser said in a radio address that he would drive Israel into the sea and wipe it off the map.

Even further, do you deny that Syria had been sitting on the Golan Heights lobbing shells at Israel for years before 1967? Was this not an act of war? To say "Israel began the war" sounds like a bully who continually hits someone on the arm, over and over and over again, until the victim gets fed up with it and pounds the bully unmercifully. Then the bully says "He started it".

Did the Israelis launch the first battle in 1967? Yes. Did they "begin the war"? No. This is not a POV dispute, this is clear fact. You say I'm wrong on most of my facts, yet I note that you do not so much as mention which ones they are, and offer not a single shred of fact to support your assertion. I can offer authoritative sources for everything I said, and I will do so as soon as you tell me exactly what you believe I am wrong about.

The only time I said we was when I said that we (Americans) would be justified in an attack if our seaports were blockaded by a foreign power. This is not a radical notion, and not only do I speak for myself, I'm quite sure I speak for the vast majority of Americans on this topic, and I certainly speak from a defensible historical viewpoint. Apparently you disagree and think such a situation calls for a diplomatic solution? This is typical liberal guilt mongering worthy of someone like Chomsky. A blockade *is* an attack.

I'm a staunch liberal myself (as I suspect you are), but really, on this subject, you need to study the history from someone besides Noam Chomsky (as you seem to be repeating his mantras). He is incredibly biased when it comes to this topic.

I withdraw my accusation that you are a liar, and instead would merely contend that you are ignorant. Cardshark

And you yet insist with the name calling. Your vitriol towards this issue, and myself, is unsettling. I'm not sure you understand the concept of NPOV or No Personal Attacks. Perhaps you consider reading up on them. I've provided a link.  :)

Let's see here. You've called yourself an American, so I'm sure you're familar with this situation, but have only forgotten. By your logic, Cuba would be justified in attacking the US, as would have the former Soviet Union. The Americans have placed an embargo on Cuba for the past forty years. But Cuba has restrained itself.

Furthermore, your history is erronous. By the time the war began, the blockade had been challenged and overcome. There was no blockage when Israel began the the war. The real reason that Israel was so mad wasn't the blockade of the Straits of Tiran, it was the closure of the Suez Canal to Israeli traffic.

As for the Syrian audacity in attacking Israel, it is only matched by Israeli aggression in attacking Syria. Both sides, though Syria especially, were very guilty of firing at each other. Israel was making more of a land encroachment effort than Syria, but wasn't above sending in commandos to blow stuff up. Israel also liked to occasionally demonstrated her air superiority by shooting down Syrian planes over Damascus.

You've claimed that Egypt's removal of the peacekeepers was a start of hostilities. If kicking out Peacekeepers was a pretext to war, it was removing peacekeepers designed to protect Egypt. Peacekeepers that were placed their since the '56 war, another war started by Israel. And I won't even bring up the assassination of Count Bernadotte.

But I believe that Gamal's recent edits recify this matter more than satisfactorily. The article has taken a great leap towards a NPOV.Stargoat 20:29, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I didn't call you a name this time. I said you were apparently ignorant. You might take that as an insult, but it is not, prima facie, an insult, and certainly not a "name calling". No one can know everything, and we are all surely ignorant about one thing or another.

You state that we have embargoed Cuba for years. While it is true that we will not trade with them, we do not prevent other countries from trading with them. That would be an act of war.

Kennedy did blockade them for a short time during the missle crisis, however, and it *was* and act of war, and the Soviet Union, and/or Cuba *would* have been justified to give a military response. That they didn't is pretty lucky for everyone, is all.

You claim the Straits of Tiran (Israel's only connection to Asia and the major artery for their oil) was reopened before the war. Nasser blockaded it on May 22nd. Israel attacked the Egyptians and Syrians on June 5th.

When exactly was it reopened? Are you claiming it was reopened sometime between May 22nd and June 5th? What day was that exactly? What sources do you have? Sadly, I am afraid you are misinformed.

I never said that Israel was blameless. Clearly they were not. Just as clearly, the blockade was the causus belli, and the start of the war.

At risk of getting completely off topic, doesn't Helms-Burton attempt to create an embargo against Cuba? I remember Canada and Europe getting pretty annoyed with the US over it. Perhaps Canada would have been justified in making that blockade, as you suggest, or perhaps Europe should have viewed this as a declaration of war. !-) --Baggie 13:40, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

The reason the Canucks and Euros were unhappy about Helms-Burton was because it authorized US companies to sue non-US* businesses that profited using property in Cuba that had been siezed from US owners by Castro. They don't much care about the embargo as such (i.e, they think it's silly and pointless, but also think the US has the same right to be silly and pointless as every other government).

• as the US has embargoed Cuba, no US companies use such property. If one did, it would be subject to the same liability as a non-US business, as well as additional penalties for violating the embargo.

fascinating, what's the source?

It was later revealed that the Soviet Union had intentionally escalated the situation in the Middle East by sending false messages to the various Arab states that the Israelis were massing their forces at the border with Syria.

Do you have a source for this? It's fascinating and I would like to know more. Stargoat 02:46, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I saw this detailed the PBS DVD "The 50 Years War". Soviet officials are interviewed in the video and acknowldege it. What the Soviets did was truly evil. They instigated war so that they would emerge with greater influence in the region. alan196@aol.com

I question the presentation of select quotes introduced by "Here are some reflections by Israelis about the background". Assuming them to be fully accurate, they seem selected to demonstrate that this was not a defensive war. The issue of how imminent an attack was may be arguable, but certainly the situation was dangerous and unpredictable. Were not the straits of Tiran blockaded? According to Soviet officials interviewed in the PBS "50 Years War" video, the Egyptians were ready to strike first but were restrained by the Soviets so that America would not be brought into the conflict. There are numerous other quotes by Israeli officials of their certainty that Egypt was preparing an attack. I wish people would care about truth and balance before agenda. alan196@aol.com

A note to the paragraph reading

Here are some reflections by Israelis about the background:

"In June 1967, 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, Israeli Cabinet minister in 1967, in the New York Times, August 21, 1982

This is from an article in NYT that referes to a speach at National Defence College Aug 8, but continues:

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

To me this reads as irony: "we had a choice, to give up the future of our nation". In my view by omitting this sentence the editor has changed the meaning of what Begin said.

Liberty Incident and Gabby Bron

While the Liberty incident and Gabby Bron are hugely important to those who wish to "prove" Israel's perfidy, in reality they are minor in the context of the whole war. The article is already 31K long; it doesn't need two separate paragraphs in two separate sections discussing the Liberty, and the combined paragraph gives all the relevant facts. Detail on the incident, and the various theories surrounding it, belong on the Liberty Incident page. Jayjg 16:34, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Gabby Bron claim is not even primarily relevant to the Liberty incident. I quote:

Gabby Bron, an Israeli reservist at the time, now a journalist, said he witnessed the execution of POWs in the airport area of al-Arish in the Sinai peninsula on June 8th. He says he watched them dig their own graves, and were then shot dead with Uzis. The American naval ship the USS Liberty, which was attacked by Israel during the Six-Day war, resulting in the death of 34 American sailors, was less than 13 miles off al-Arish. Some have speculated that Israel attacked the American naval ship to cover up the execution of POWs in al-Arish that Gabby Bron said he witnessed.

It's an allegation of a war crime committed in the Six-Day War. Connecting it to the Liberty Attack is mere speculation, but its connection to the Six-Day War is direct. - Mustafaa 17:55, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The whole Gabby Bron incident is questionable, and it appears to be intimately tied to the Liberty Incident. I haven't been able to find any primary sources for the Bron claim; rather, a small number of Liberty Incident, pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic sites carry a claim that Gabby Bron stated he witnessed the massacre of 150 Egyptians, likely based on a book by James Bamford about the Liberty Incident in which he first makes this claim. Other sites, however, point out that Gabby Bron himself denies any such massacre took place. For example:

But there appears to be no verifiable evidence that such a massacre ever took place, and Bamford's description of events at El Arish doesn't hold up. Thus, he attributes to Israeli journalist Gabi Bron a claim that 150 prisoners were executed there. But Bron himself denies that and says "there were no mass murders." http://www.occupationalhazard.org/article.php?IDD=540

and

Why, for instance, would Israel massacre a thousand Egyptian POWs? Israel took tens of thousands of prisoners during the Six Day War; most of them, it quickly let go. So why kill a thousand? Because, one supposes, that is just the sort of thing Israelis do; they kill people for sport, in the manner that one hunts ducks for sport. (For the record, the principal sources of the massacre story – Israeli journalist Gabi Bron and scholar Aryeh Yitzhaki – both insist no massacres took place and that they were misquoted in an Associated Press dispatch out of which the El-Arish story arose. Their denials, a matter of public record, go unmentioned in "Dead in the Water." http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1088046788934&p=1006953079897

From what I can see the whole "al-Arish" incident is so poorly attested to that it would be irresponsible to even mention it, as it seems to be just another of hundreds of propagandistic conspiracy theories that pop up whenever Jews and Israel are involved in anything. However, in the interests of avoiding a Misplaced Pages war, I left the questionable claim in the article. Jayjg 21:01, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Their claim about being misquoted seems to be pretty flatly contradicted by a highly pro-Israeli (and highly detailed) article on the question, which says:

For the AP article of the next day, August 17, revealed that Yitzhaki, a member of a far-right political party in Israel, admitted he came out with his charges to protect the leader of his party, who had just been indirectly implicated in some genuine killings of Egyptian POWs in the 1956 Middle-East war. According to the AP, Yitzhaki “acknowledged that he spoke out mainly to shift attention ... from Tzomet leader Raphael Eitan ... to leading government officials, including Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.” That Yitzhaki’s credibility was therefore shaky at best is another fact kept from readers by Bamford.

although it of course gives a different reason to mistrust the story.

This purports to be the article Gabi Bron wrote - Yediot Ahronot, August 17, 1995. Do you know if Yediot Ahronot keeps any archives online? I can't find them, but my Hebrew isn't very good. - Mustafaa 21:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This set of quotes adds some interesting details, though (unlike the previous) from a pro-Palestinian stance:

"Egypt said today that it had discovered two mass graves in the Sinai containing the remains of Egyptian prisoners of war and unarmed civilians shot by Israeli soldiers during the 1967 war. . . . At the same time, an Israeli historian said that as many as 300 unarmed Egyptian were killed in both the 1967 war and in the war of 1956. Those reports led to other allegations and revelations. . . . "I saw a line of prisoners, civilians and military, and they opened fire at them all at once," Mr. Moussa was quoted as saying. "When they were dead, they told us to bury them. . . Al Ahram also quoted a bedouin, Suleman Moghnem Salameh, who said he saw Israelis kill about 30 Egyptian soldiers and officers after they surrendered, leaving them for the Bedouins to bury. . . . President Mubarak has called for an investigation in Israel and punishment of those responsible. Israel responded by sending Elli Dayan, a Deputy Foreign Minister, to discuss the matter. During his visit here, he offered compensation to the victims but noted Israel's 20-year statute of limitations." (The New York Times on September 21, 1995)

OK, looking at the original article I conclude that he did make the claim that some number of POWs (about 10 that he saw) were killed, on specific charges of being "fedayeen". This claim was made in relation to a separate issue - the retracted Aryeh Yitzhaki claims about 1000 POWs - and was only later picked up by the USS Liberty theorists. Gabi has denied that there was a massacre - and, indeed, 10 people is not a massacre - but I have seen no claim that he has retracted what he actually said, as opposed to what he was misquoted as saying. Such a claim certainly needs to be in the article, but does not need to be linked to the USS Liberty - in fact, looking at the original I think such a linkage is completely implausible, and not worthy of this article. Any thoughts?- Mustafaa 06:33, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. I typed in a long response a while ago which apparently has disappeared. Well, you've added more stuff since then anyway, so perhaps it's for the best. Regarding the webpage, I would be quite cautious about its accuracy for a number of reasons. To begin with, it's obviously a translation, but we don't know who translated it, or how accurate the translation is. Second, there appear to be editorial comments included in the text, though they are not differentiated well from the main text (if, indeed, they are editorial comments). Third, the page refers to Israel Shahak, and that alone is enough to reduce its credibility, though I can't figure out how the Shahak sentence relates to the article itself. Fourth, the editorial comments are highly-biased; for example, they say that the Yitzhaki claims are "well-authenticated", when we know he himself admitted spreading these rumours to deflect negative attention from people he was trying to protect. I've been to the Yediot Aharanot website, but I don't have a Hebrew keyboard to type in searches. In any event, I doubt that an article from 1995 would still be online, and I doubt I would find it if it was.

Regarding your second link, I first note that it too comes from a Liberty Incident conspiracy website; the link between the two seems as strong as ever (that is, the people who promote this idea are mostly Liberty Incident conspiracy theorists). Second, most of it is about the Yitzhaki claim, which we have already discussed (I realize the parts you excerpted are an exception to that). Another site that you linked to has this to say about the Moussa/Liberty claim:

The New York Times story, by Youseff Ibrahim and dated September 21, 1995, does contain the quote from Abdelsalam Moussa, who claimed to be an eyewitness to the killing of 30 to 60 POWs. But – and this is crucial – the report does not indicate when the killings described by Moussa took place, before the Liberty arrived, or while it was on station off El Arish. However, a Reuters dispatch published in the Jerusalem Post (September 21, 1995), reports Moussa as saying that the killings he claims to have seen took place on June 7, which was before the Liberty arrived! Thus, contrary to Bamford’s charge, the attack on the Liberty could not have been to prevent the ship from discovering the Israeli slaughter alleged by Moussa.

Mr. Bamford also takes from Ibrahim’s report the story of the Israelis supposedly gunning down 30 more prisoners and then ordering some Bedouins to bury them. According to Ibrahim however, these episodes took place on June 6 and June 7, two days and one day before the Liberty even arrived off El Arish. So, again, Bamford deceptively cites this episode even though it clearly offers no support for his thesis.

Ibrahim also notes the curious fact that Moussa had not come forward sooner, attributing this to the Egyptian government’s supposed desire not to delve into such issues after it recovered the Sinai from Israel in the early 1980’s, but this certainly does not explain why the Egyptians would not have trumpeted Moussa’s claims in the twelve years between the war and the peace treaty with Israel in 1979. Deceptively, Bamford keeps this too from his readers.

The AP story which Bamford cites to support his claims in this paragraph (dated August 16, 1995; it ran in Newsday the following day), actually has nothing to do with the details of the paragraph. There is no mention of Abdelsalam Moussa and no mention of the Bedouins. While the article does mention killings in El Arish, it dates them to June 9-10, after the attack on the Liberty. If Bamford considers this article a credible source, then whatever happened in the episode it describes clearly had nothing to do with the attack on the Liberty. But Bamford deceptively keeps this from his readers as well. And, so eager is he to paint the Israelis as latter-day Nazis, he also hides from readers another relevant passage in this AP article, which stated that the alleged killings of Egyptians occurred when “some of the prisoners opened firing after surrendering and shot dead two Israeli soldiers.”

Regarding the numbers killed in the "Bron" incident, while the "translation" of the Yediot Aharonot article indicates 10, every other link I've seen (including the second one you brought) indicates at most 5. For example (again from the earlier long article you linked to):

However, another AP article dated August 17, 1995, which Bamford seems not to quote, gives the number of killed according to Gabi Brun (the spelling is slightly different) as five, not 150. In addition, according to the article, Brun’s commanding officer, who was also there at the time, denied that there were any executions at all.

There are many other articles like this, all saying five (not ten) people were killed. In any event, I don't think the a link to such dubious evidence should be given, I think the number should be adjusted to refect 5, and I think the fact that there are competing theories as to why Israel would have knowingly attacked an American vessel should all be in the article. I'll make adjustments based on this, please let me know what you think. Jayjg 18:18, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Journal of Palestine Studies has a translation of the article of Bron in Vol 25, no. 3, p154. It seems to be identical to this one and clearly says that he watched 10 executions while implying they were only 10 personally witnessed out of a longer sequence. Personlly I don't think this belongs here in relation to Liberty, though conceivably (doubtfully, imho) it could be mentioned as an example of an alleged atrocity. This theory about the Liberty frankly sucks. It is nowhere good enough an explanation for Israel to attack a US ship. These executions (assuming they really happened) were not strategically important enough for Israel to take such massive risks - if they were so fearful about the Liberty watching the executions, they would have stopped the executions rather than attacking the Liberty. Btw, the claim that Bron retracted needs a lot better evidence than a mere unsourced claim in JP. --Zero 19:44, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that specific page makes the claim that Bron witnessed 10 executions, but every other reference refers to five, not ten. As for the claim he "retracted", it is actually a claim that he denied that there was a "massacre" or "mass murders", not that he retracted his original claim that he had witnessed 5 executions. And I gave more than one source for it. As for the Yediot Aharanot reference, I'm willing to leave it in the interests of compromise. Jayjg 20:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Judging historical questions according to the number of web pages that support each view is a completely useless method. Writers of web pages rarely do any original research, they just copy of other sources (especially each other), so counting web pages only determines how popular a story is and does not say anything about whether it is true or not. The real issue is where the information came from originally and the accuracy of the transport of that information from the original source to us. So far I think that the YA article is the only one quoted which originates from Bron himself. We don't have the original Hebrew article but we have a translation published by an academic journal. That puts the "10" version way ahead of all your web pages. --Zero 12:00, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The issue is not the number of webpages, but the sources they quote, vis:

"another AP article dated August 17, 1995... gives the number of killed according to Gabi Brun (the spelling is slightly different) as five"

"One day after Yitzhaki's charge came a first-person account by Gabi Brun of Yedioth Aharonoth, the country's most widely read tabloid. He wrote of watching Israeli troops execute five Egyptian prisoners in the Sinai Desert town of El Arish in 1967." Washington Post, August 19, 1995

"I watched as the man dug a hole for about 15 minutes. Afterwards, the (Israeli military) policeman told him to throw the shovel away, and then one of them leveled an Uzi at him and shot two short burst, each of three or four bullets. Another prisoner was brought to the same hole a few minutes later, forced to enter and also shot." (Gabi Brun, an Israeli journalist, in Yediot Ahronot, August 17, 1995, as reported in the Toronto Sun, August 18, 1995)

"Israelis could read a first-person account of just one of the smaller of such incidents by writer Gabi Brun of Yediot Ahronot, Israel's largest-circulation daily. He watched as Israeli troops seized five Egyptian soldiers in the town of Al Arish, only a few miles from the Israeli border, where they could have been interned. Instead, one of the five was forced to dig a grave and then lie down in it, where he was shot. Each of the other prisoners, in turn, was forced to lie down and be shot in the same grave, which then was filled in. Washington Post readers who looked very hard could find the same account on page 18 of the Aug. 19 edition." Washington Report, September 1995

So according to you The Journal of Palestine Studies translated the number killed as 10, but according to AP, the Washington Post, and Washington Report the number was 5, and apparently according to the Toronto Sun it was 2. Of course, it's possible they're all relying on the same translation, but we have no way of knowing that. By the way, the Toronto Sun claim comes from the virulently antisemitic Zundelsite, which would normally be discounted as a reliable source of information about Jews and Israel. However, in this case it is interesting that it does not try to use any higher figure of deaths. Jayjg 19:14, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, almost certainly a common source (probably AP), but anyway I asked my library to locate the original article. Dunno how long it will take. --Zero 19:43, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Air Superiority

This article mentions that Israel had air superiority. To my knowledge, Israel has no jet fighter construction companies. Where did those aircraft come from? I ask because the article goes into detail about foreign support of Egypt, Syria, et al, but it doesn't mention any foreign support for Israel - and I doubt that Israel was operating without foreign support. Kainaw 20:05, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe that Israel's aircraft was mostly French and American built, but exact aircraft should come from documentation. Stargoat 20:54, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Correct, they used French Mirage IIIs for air superiority. After the war, the french cut them off and they started buying American jets, Douglas A-4 Skyhawks immediately and in 1969, F-4 Phantom II jets. Terrapin 21:10, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV Image

What's up with the NPOV cartoon? Why not produce a region map or leader photos instead?

the cartoon becomes funny when you read the result ;-) Terrapin 14:24, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would say thinking the war was funny because of this IS npov - gloating because "your" pov side killed more people than the other. If used in a npov way it should be used strictly as an example that certain egyptians hoped that israel would be pushed into the sea.

I agree with the above post. The cartoon should be removed since it adds nothing to the quality of the article. Please post objections here else I will remove it in a few days. Monkeyman 00:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

First, this section should be in the bottom of this page, not in the middle. Second, I agree that the article could include maps of the region, of military actions, etc. Third, I can't comprehend how does this make the pre-war cartoon out of place. I tend to think it is vital to the topic - as an evidence of pre-war inflammatory rhetoric. Some of the points above are simply invalid:

• "certain egyptians hoped that israel would be pushed into the sea" - but the cartoon is not even Egyptian. As the article demonstrates (read it), this was a common emotion in the countries around Israel, not only in Egypt. However we do not say that all Egyptians or all Arabs felt this way, do we?
• A political cartoon is not supposed to be neutral (for other examples see Propaganda or Anti-Semitism), but our coverage/caption of it should be. I think it is though, as we don't take sides here.
• "gloating because "your" pov side killed more people than the other" - please present the evidence of the "gloating".

Finally, I don't think it is funny at all. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 01:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I have to ask what is added to the article by keeping the cartoon? I'd say a map of the region would be far more helpful first image to people viewing the article. Monkeyman 01:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

It is an evidence of pre-war hype. I can provide more cartoons of that period, even more offensive that this one (particularly, Syrian with a pile of skulls with Stars of David, smoking urban ruins in the background). As for map vs. cartoon, why one should exclude another? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so can we agree to keep the cartoon but put a map of the region as the first image? Going once, going twice ... Monkeyman 19:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 21:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that cartoon as presented isn't an NPOV image. This is an NPOV image. :p An example of pre-war propaganda is entirely relevant to an article on a war. Rogue 9 23:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute (again)

This article is very, very, very pro-Israeli. It needs to be neutralised, so to speak.

• I don't know how "pro-arab" you can get about a fact of history that completely humiliated and embarassed the three most powerful Arab armies in six days.

• It's not about being pro-Arab or pro-Israeli. It's about being neutral, fair and balanced. The Six-Day war ended in an Iraeli victory, sure, but this article completely neglects the actions of the arab armies and glorifies the actions of the Israeli army. For example "Brave Israeli tank commanders held of Dozens of Arab tanks", that's about the whole slant of the article. It glorifies the Israeli army calling their soldiers 'brave', 'corageous' and so on but completely neglects the efforts of the Arab armies. Neutralisation 09:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • Outside of a sentence about the airfoce attacking the "helpless" arab armies (which I changed), I fail to see any other kind of mention like that. There is no use of "brave" or "courageous" anywhere in the article. As for "efforts of the arab armies", it mentioned them. It just mentions them getting pummeled, which is fact, not POV. Terrapin 16:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Neutralisation. Jayjg 16:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Terrapin, I apologise for the NPOV dispute, I was mixing up this article with another article relating to the military history of the IDF/ISF. Thanks for the welcome Jayjg. Neutralisation 21:13, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

THE SAND STORM THAT UNCOVERED A MINEFIELD

During a discussion regarding the Six-Day War, an incident was related which I have been unable to verify and perhaps a reader of this can shed some light on the matter. It seems that the opposing forces were maneuvering in the desert in an attempt to gain the superior position and military advantage. A powerful sandstorm reduced viability to zero and, effectively, caused all movement (and hostilities) to cease. The opposing forces did not move until the storm passed, after which, it was a clear and sunny day. When they shook the sand off, they learned that the wind had uncovered and exposed a mine field which was directly in front of them blocking the route they taking. The sandstorm saved many lives. This is a lovely "story", but did it happen? What source can I read that has an account of this? Thank you, Samuel C. Aurilio

Apparently it's an urban legend: . Jayjg 00:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Statement on the USS Liberty incident

Allow me to back up my change that was recently reverted. I derived it from the main article. See here, the last two paragraphs (which I wrote). This was substantiated by me on its talk page. I’ll give you the chance to revert the change back again after reviewing the evidence presented, which, may I add, has yet to be challenged in the main article.

I've reviewed the Liberty article, and the section you linked to, and see nothing there that justifies the removal of the sentence in this article. Can you be more explicit please? Jayjg 17:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure, let me point you to a link: http://usslibertyinquiry.com/arguments/American/israelidefenses/investigations/investigations.html. For reference, the phrase was - "Israel said the attack to be a case of mistaken identity, a claim subsequently supported by independent Israeli and U.S. inquiries and other investigations." I propose that it is changed to just "Israel said the attack to be a case of mistaken identity." Noting the article, none of the 'investigations' had anything to do with accident being a mistake.Liberty researcher 18:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, one side says the investigations prove it was a case of mistaken identity, the other side says that the investigations didn't attempt to prove that, or weren't proper investigations. Is that it in a nutshell? Jayjg 18:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in a nutshell that is what you can say. But "a claim subsequently supported by independent Israeli and U.S. inquiries and other investigations" does not say that. That phrase says much more than that. The phrase gives an assumption that the investigations susbstantiated Israel's claim and that the survivors are, in a nutshell, wrong. But that is not the case. The investigations *are* challenged. And I'm sorry, but it isn't even a challenge: if you read each of the 13 investigations, you'll know it to be a solid hard piece of evidence. I have read all 13 investigations (well, of the 13 that actually existed) and there is no way that any of them proved mistaken identity, or that they were even investigations that examined culpability of the attack. Liberty researcher 19:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of the current wording? I've tried to NPOV, stating the positions of both sides. Jayjg 21:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perfect, definitely NPOV, perhaps more than my suggestion of removing it! Thanks, Liberty researcher 01:53, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The US Spy tapes declassified a year or so back confirm that it was mistaken identity. Also, www.thelibertyincident.com also reviews the evidence.

Why did Israel attack?

Sorry! Subjective Opinion: (It was a war to show the world Israel's supreme intelligence abilities, while also reminding the neighboring Arab states that confrontation is not a good idea.)--Treeshrub 06:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I am conducting research on the Six-Day War in order to more fully understand the geopolitics of the Middle East, and I noticed a good example of public history vs. dissenting history, and I believe some of the following quotes need to be incorporated and the article reworked.

All of the background is heavy Israel POV! Note this 'public history':

On May 17, Nasser demanded that U.N.E.F. evacuate the Sinai, a request with which UN Secretary-General U Thant complied. Thereafter, Israel refused to allow UN peacekeepers to deploy on its territory. Nasser began re-militarization of the Sinai. Egypt ordered United Nations peacekeeping forces to leave the Sinai, and in their place, Egyptian tanks and troops were concentrated on the border with Israel.

Now the dissenting history:

Levi Eshkol, Israeli Prime Minister, Yediot Ahronot 18 Oct 1967

The Egyptian layout in the Sinai and the general military build up there testified to a military defensive Egyptian set-up, south of Israel.

Yitzhak Rabin, Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff, Le Monde 28 Feb 1968

I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.

Menachem Begin, Israeli cabinet minister, said when Begin was Prime Minister, New York Times 21 Aug 1982

In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with our selves. We decided to attack him.

And here is the one that gets me every time:

Modechai Bentov, Israeli cabinet minister, Al Hamishmar 14 Apr 1972, Le Monde 3 Jun 1972

All this story about the danger of extermination has been a complete invention and has been blown up a poseriori to justify the annexation of Arab territory.

I'm sorry, but this article does not show true history... it has too much Israeli POV. Please help me rework the article to show truth - Israeli aggression due to the ambitions of territorial aquisition, and not Israeli self-defense. Liberty researcher 04:29, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's easy to "quote mine" out of context quotes in order to try to present a false view of history, and everybody has interesting ex post facto theories. However, the quotes that "get me every time" are the ones made by relevant Arab politicians before the war, when the eventual outcome wasn't at all clear. For example:

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 a battle of annihilation. Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad, May 20, 1967.

The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations. President Nasser of Egypt, May 30, 1967.

Oh, and I believe it was still Egypt which ordered the U.N. peacekeeping force out of the Sinai on May 16, and closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships on May 22. Your "dissenting history" is irrelevant to that. Jayjg 01:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are right there; that wasn't a very good comparison... Liberty researcher 04:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree that Israel may have felt threatened. But why would Israeli leaders have so blatantly came out after the war and completely nullify the reason why it is refusing to follow up on UN Resolution... was it 242? It wasn't all self-defense. Regardless of what the other leaders said before, Israel knew exactly what it wanted to do. According to them, it was about land and not about "defense." Note: I'm not trying to start a war, although the tone of my previous post may have seemed so. I more or less wanted to begin a lively discussion/debate of these quotes. Liberty researcher 04:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Politics make people say all sorts of interesting things, and, as I've pointed out, people's beliefs about their motivations can often change in light of hindsight. The feeling in most of the world (including Israel and the Arab world) at the time and afterwards was that the surrounding Arab countries were intent on destroying Israel. Senior members in the Israeli government may also have seen this imminent attack as an opportunity to create more defensible borders; is there a recognized and published historian who advances this thesis? Jayjg 15:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You assert that Israel did not fulfill UN Res 242. This is a matter of contention. The authors of 242 stated that they specifically worded it to mean that Israel had to withdraw from some of it but not all of it and that the final borders must be peacefully negotiated among the relevant parties. Until then, Israel is allowed to administer it. (You can find the discussion on the wikipedia page on UN SC Res 242.

The reasons that led Israel to attack first

• I wonder why doesn't your "research" include the following:

MYTH

"Arab governments were prepared to accept Israel after the Suez War."

FACT

Israel consistently expressed a desire to negotiate with its neighbors. In an address to the UN General Assembly on October 10, 1960, Foreign Minister Golda Meir challenged Arab leaders to meet with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to negotiate a peace settlement. Nasser answered on October 15, saying that Israel was trying to deceive the world, and reiterating that his country would never recognize the Jewish State.

The Arabs were equally adamant in their refusal to negotiate a separate settlement for the refugees. As Nasser told the United Arab Republic National Assembly March 26, 1964:

"Israel and the imperialism around us, which confront us, are two separate things. There have been attempts to separate them, in order to break up the problems and present them in an imaginary light as if the problem of Israel is the problem of the refugees, by the solution of which the problem of Palestine will also be solved and no residue of the problem will remain. The danger of Israel lies in the very existence of Israel as it is in the present and in what she represents."

Meanwhile, Syria used the Golan Heights, which tower 3,000 feet above the Galilee, to shell Israeli farms and villages. Syria's attacks grew more frequent in 1965 and 1966, while Nasser's rhetoric became increasingly bellicose: "We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand," he said on March 8, 1965. "We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood."

Again, a few months later, Nasser expressed the Arabs' aspiration: "...the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel."

MYTH

"Israel's military strike in 1967 was unprovoked."

FACT

A combination of bellicose Arab rhetoric, threatening behavior and, ultimately, an act of war left Israel no choice but preemptive action. To do this successfully, Israel needed the element of surprise. Had it waited for an Arab invasion, Israel would have been at a potentially catastrophic disadvantage.

While Nasser continued to make speeches threatening war, Arab terrorist attacks grew more frequent. In 1965, 35 raids were conducted against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched.

Meanwhile, Syria's attacks on Israeli kibbutzim from the Golan Heights provoked a retaliatory strike on April 7, 1967, during which Israeli planes shot down six Syrian MiGs. Shortly thereafter, the Soviet Union — which had been providing military and economic aid to both Syria and Egypt — gave Damascus information alleging a massive Israeli military buildup in preparation for an attack. Despite Israeli denials, Syria decided to invoke its defense treaty with Egypt.

On May 15, Israel's Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai and massing near the Israeli border. By May 18, Syrian troops were prepared for battle along the Golan Heights.

Nasser ordered the UN Emergency Force, stationed in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw on May 16. Without bringing the matter to the attention of the General Assembly, as his predecessor had promised, Secretary-General U Thant complied with the demand. After the withdrawal of the UNEF, the Voice of the Arabs proclaimed (May 18, 1967):

"As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

An enthusiastic echo was heard May 20 from Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad:

"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 a battle of annihilation."

On May 22, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping and all ships bound for Eilat. This blockade cut off Israel's only supply route with Asia and stopped the flow of oil from its main supplier, Iran. The following day, President Johnson expressed the belief that the blockade was illegal and unsuccessfully tried to organize an international flotilla to test it.

Nasser was fully aware of the pressure he was exerting to force Israel's hand. The day after the blockade was set up, he said defiantly: "The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war."

Nasser challenged Israel to fight almost daily. "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight," he said on May 27. The following day, he added: "We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948."

King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30. Nasser then announced:

"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations."

President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined in the war of words: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map." On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

The Arab rhetoric was matched by the mobilization of Arab forces. Approximately 250,000 troops (nearly half in Sinai), more than 2,000 tanks and 700 aircraft ringed Israel.

By this time, Israeli forces had been on alert for three weeks. The country could not remain fully mobilized indefinitely, nor could it allow its sea lane through the Gulf of Aqaba to be interdicted. Israel's best option was to strike first. On June 5, the order was given to attack Egypt.

-Danny

Be that as it may, inserting the postion of the Jewish Virtual Library verbatim, is not only likely a Copyright violation, but is POV is well. Jayjg 17:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Copyright American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, Reprinted with permission.

-Danny

Six Day War editing

I wonder why does Misplaced Pages continue deleting my edits while I am not passing over copyright rules more than other users?

From the Jewish virtual library:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/copyright.html

"We ask that any of our material that is reprinted carry the following tagline with a link back to the Jewish Virtual Library:

Copyright American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, Reprinted with permission."

I have done it by linking to their site on "external links".

What is the problem then?

Regards, Danny

It hasn't been released under the GFDL, and it's POV as well. Jayjg 16:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

References?

Could someone include a references section listing the sources used for this article/suggestions for further reading? --Tothebarricades.tk 22:53, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmmm

Nobody but me see a problem with this?: (been in the article a long time, but people should look where they put what they cut and paste): "Moreover, the Egyptian blockade prior to the 1956 Suez War violated the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, which was adopted by the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on 27 April 1958."  :) --John Z 06:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

This directly relates to Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran before the Six Days War.

Guy Montag 07:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it does, but still, don't you see the problem? (It is stating an impossibility, and should be rephrased.) I didn't because I wasn't 100% sure what people wanted to say here.--John Z 07:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean? The general reason it was included was because it relates to the blockade of the Straits of Tiran and how it was used by Israel as a legitimate cassus belli against Egypt under international law.

Guy Montag 21:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

It could not possibly have been in violation of the Vienna Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contigious Zone), so I will replace it with a reference to international customomary law instead, which probably is applicable (but I wont give any 100% guarantee). Oh, and Egypt never signed the 1958 conventions either. --Cybbe 22:54, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

My other edits consisted of replacing possibly controversial, perhaps POV phrases with direct quotes, which cannot be POV. Return is accurate, purely factual, says nothing about sovereignty and used universally. In particular it is the word used by Israel itself! and is thus essentially another case of NPOV direct quoting. Relinquished is just plain peculiar.--John Z 06:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

If it is a direct quote then I have no problem.

Guy Montag 07:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Great! I'm pretty new here, but I've been very pleasantly surprised at how reasonable and generous people on all sides are here about such controversial topics. It may look nasty to longtime participants, but compared to anywhere else such things come up, it is all sweetness and light here!--John Z 07:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Usually we are professional about the subject. We dont treat it as a forum to discuss political issues, but to make sure it is a comprehensive narrative that takes into account the most neutral point of view. My sources are meant to represent one part of the conflict and others represent other parts, together we try to construct something we can both read.

Guy Montag 21:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

POV, "Revisionism"

I do not believe that revisionism is the correct word for this. Nowhere in the article is there any proof that the US and Britain didn't militarily aid Israel, or that they did. All that there is is that the US and British governments say they didn't help the Israelis in combat operations and that the Arab governments say they did participate in combat. This then becomes a case of one word agains the other with no PROVEN answer as to who is correct. If ther is no proof one way or the other, how do you claim it is "revisionism", do you just believe the US and Britain ahead of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan? I don't know what would be better, but I don't think "revisionism" should be kept.say1988 16:38, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

You can't prove a negative. Can you prove that the government of China didn't assist Israel? How about the government of India? There is no credible evidence that any of these countries were involved in combat, and so no credible historians believe them to have been involved; until there is some evidence they were involved, claims that they were are "revisionist". Jayjg 17:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does the US spend a lot fo money aiding Israel? Yes. Has the US military carried out secret campaigns? Yes. Personally I don't believe that the US was involved, but there is a possibility. Revisonism is rewriting history, and the most common example I have seen is the holocaust, which there is evidence, including Nazi records of it. You cant prove that it didnt happen, and I cant prove that it did, which results in a my word against yours, which even if one is more credible than the other (and personally I dont see the US government as very credible, especialy with regards to military operations) there is still a chance it could be either way, even the worst liara can tell the truth sometimes. I use the US here because I don't know much about the UK, but I suppose you could say that they have a history of helping Israel(Suez). You say that the Arab claims are ilegitimate until there is evidence, bu there is no evidence to support the US and UK so you are siding ith hem based on bias towards them. I still just think the word "revisionism" should be changed.say1988 04:01, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

To make a claim you need evidence. There is none for U.S. and U.K. direct involvement. There are no credible historians who support this idea either. Thus it is "Revisionism", by definition. Jayjg 05:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, this whole section should be either eliminated, or drastically reduced. If someone is really in love with this material, create an article for it. Even more than "revisionism", this is really just stupid lies about a war made during or immediately afterward, wartime propaganda of the sort that every one indulges in, though not always to the same extent. IIRC, there is good documentation that these were just knowing lies on the part of the Arabs, whose only importance was a possible effect on the very halfhearted 1967 oil embargo. Big deal. By comparison, the First World War article has absolutely nothing about the Creel Commission, far more important to it than this. The article doesn't even mention the raid on Samu, in the opinion of everyone, e.g. Michael Oren, a major step on the road to war, but devotes a quarter of it to this drivel. If it is kept, it should be balanced with "Israeli revisionism" (Israeli propaganda)- which I think also was quite unimportant stupid selfserving propaganda that nobody believes in - i.e. the early claims made by Israel that it had been attacked. The US wasn't completely sure itself in the early hours of the war that this wasn't true, and there may have been some small credence put in slightly after the war, but no one believes it now, as there is no evidence for it, nobody claims it anymore (and probably there's declassified evidence it was just made up too). However, Abba Eban kept repeating what everyone knew to be false for decades after, apparently to strengthen the justification for the war and not contradict his old tall tales. If every war article devoted such space for each side's ancient propaganda, there'd hardly be any room for the facts of the war itself.--John Z 23:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With regards to Jews and Israel "revisionism" is a loaded term that provokes a certain response that clealry violates NPOV. It is tarring legitimate views with a Nazi brush. Slizor 00:16, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

One cannot prove that Martians did not land either. There is no evidence whatever of any US direct participation in the war. The section presently is written in such a way that a casual observer might think there was some substance to the Egyptian claims. A big chunk of text is devoted to bumf.

The reason that it is mentioned is because it is still widely believed in the Arab World so there is reason to show there is no evidence that supports it. In the article on the holocaust there is probably a section devoted to the Nazi claims that the "Jews were evil" even though any sane person with a neutral viewpoint would understand it is just crazy nazi propaganda.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Did Pakistan participate in the war?

Did Pakistan Air Force involve with the arab nations in fighting Israel during the war?

According to a Dutch Aviation Website, http://www.scramble.nl/pk.htm and a couple of other pakistani sites, they claim that they shot "numerous" israeli planes with figures ranging from 3 to 10. I would be glad to know the exact number of planes claimed and actual shot down by them in the war, if they did participate. And what were their casualities, if any. --Idleguy 12:12, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

And on the seventh day...

I've heard that the reason the Six-Day War lasted six days was because, on the seventh day, everyone ran out of ammunition. Is this correct? --Carnildo 03:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

No, It ended at 18:45 of the sixth day since Syria signed the cease-fire agreement with Israel, which was on the road to their capital... The war in the other 2 fronts ended earlier.Greenlad 18:48, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Intro paragraph: who started it?

The current intro paragraph includes the sentence "It began when Israel launched a preemptive war on its Arab neighbors...". Upon closing the Gulf of Aqaba, Nasser proclaimed, "We knew the closing of the Gulf of Aqaba meant war with Israel... the objective will be Israel's destruction." The Egyptian commander at Sharm al-Sheik said, "the closing of the straits was an act of war". Now, these quotes are from The Case for Israel, which I recognize to be a work of advocacy. But quotes are pretty factual, aren't they? They're sourced to Michael Oren, Six Days of War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), pages 93 and 84 respectively. (Another surprising (to me) quote, from Hafiz al-Assad, at the time the Syrian defense minister: "The cream of our troops stands at the front. Strike the enemy settlements, turn them into dust, pave the Arab roads with the skulls of Jews. Strike them without mercy." Oren quotes this on p. 253.) Am I entirely off-base here? A cursory examination of the reviews linked to from Michael Oren imply that Six Days of War is pretty even-handed. I'm having difficulty reconciling the above with the statement in the Background section that "As Begin was to admit in 1982, Nasser didn't choose to attack Israel, Israel chose to attack Nasser." I'm currently waiting for the relevant pages to show up through inter-library loan so I can see what's missing in that ellipsis; in the meantime, I'd like some feedback on whether or not I'm entirely off-base here. grendel|khan 19:14, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Oren's book, like the author, expresses the traditional Israeli POV, and right-wing Israeli at that, it is more a work of pop history than ground-breaking scholarship, for a negative review, cf Finkelstein's book cited in the article. Concerning quotes and wars, a) you should know that in this conflict there is a preposterous, incredible number of faked, distorted and edited quotes going around from all sides' propaganda and b) "sticks and stones ...." "actions speak louder than words" etc. Saying things does not start wars, doing things does. The Begin speech is in Laqueur and Rubin's Israeli Arab reader. There is no question at all nowadays that Israel did fire the first shots. The question is whether it was a legitimate pre-emptive attack or not. There is quite a lot of evidence from internal Israeli sources, or Begin's speech, that Israel's leaders did not think that Nasser was about to attack them. There is much that is still not clear and debated about the complex road to war. This article has a lot of problems, omitting events which everyone agrees are important, and needs less quote-warring in my opinion, rather than more. Fixing it up and having it stay fixed against everybody's povwarring would be a herculean task. Think I may try my hand at modifying the intro a bit, should say something like launched what it claims was a preemptive .. after a complex situation quickly became dangerously overheated from actions of all sides. --John Z 22:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Without having read any of his works yet, I'm going to say that, judging by his article, Norman Finkelstein has an axe to grind. But who doesn't? Aside from that part, to respond: (a) What would you consider a reliable source? If I'm going to bring sources to the table and you're going to handwave them away, we're not going to get very far. (b) I didn't intend the "pave the Arab roads" comment to illustrate anything other than what looks like genocidal intent on the part of the Arab armies. On the other hand, the preceding quotes illustrate Nasser's intent to start a war. Hardly "sticks and stones". My point is that Nasser really, really wanted to go to war with Israel. Is this disputed?

My vote would be for an intro paragraph stating "...It began when Israel launched attacks on Egyptian, Syrian and Iraqi airfields in response to the military blockade of the Strait of Tiran. Jordan entered the war against Israel shortly thereafter. By its end Israel controlled the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights...."

However, since there seems to be controversy (though I'm not convinced it's legitimate controversy), I'd break out some more of the 'Background' section to show a more thorough description of the exact events and rhetoric on both sides leading up to the war.

Oh, and can you provide a traditional cite for that reader, or a link to exactly where Menachem Begin said that, so I can get it through ILL? It's a little suspicious to me that the evidence for Israel's warmongering shows up at the earliest fifteen years after the fact, in a pretty short quote. And what was Begin's status in 1967? The article states that he was part of the Knesset, but that's all. Was he part of the ruling party at the time? What exactly was the governmental decision process for launching the airstrikes? grendel|khan 15:02, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

If you're still checking quotes, you will find that that Dershowitz misquotes Oren, and Oren makes some distortions of his own. Oren quotes Nasser as saying

We knew that closing the Gulf of Aqaba meant war with Israel...If war comes it will be total and the objective will be Israel's destruction

Dershowitz omits the "If war comes" altogether. You can read Nasser's entire speech in the Laquer/Rubin book that User:John Z mentioned. In fact what Nasser actually said was not "If war comes" but "If Israel embarks on agression against Syria or Egypt". Also, this may be a translation issue but in the Laquer/Rubin transcript Nasser says closing the Straits meant "confrontation with Israel" not "war with Israel". (See Talk:Arab-Israeli conflict for more on this speech.)

Another misquote by Dershowitz: the quote on p. 84 of Oren's book is "the closing of the straits was a declaration of war" (not "act of war") and it was NOT said by the "commander at Sharm al-Sheik" but a paratroop commander, who continues "...but at that point we did not know this and we carried out orders without questioning".

As to the "pave the Arab roads" quote from Assad, the bloodthirstiness is deplorable but in fact it is clear from the chapter in Oren that Assad said this on the night of June 9, after the IDF had already started its assault up the Golan, so the statement obviously could not have been the cause of a war which started four days earlier.

I'm not satisfied with the introductory paragraph either, namely because it states as fact, rather than POV, that Israel's attack was preventative. But the worst part of this article is that it never mentions the Egyptian view of the Straits of Tiran issue at all, but rather assumes the Israeli contentions that the Straits were an international body of water; and that Israel had the right to start a war to guarantee its "rights". Whereas the Egyption view in both 1956 and 1967 was that the Straits, which are three miles wide at Tiran, are within Egypt's territorial waters and that Egypt was within its rights to prevent shipment through its own territory to a country with which it was still technically at war; more importantly, if Israel was so sure of its right of passage through the Straits, it could have brought the issue, a dispute over international law, to the World Court for resolution, rather than starting a war. After all, Israel is a signatory to the UN Charter, which requires its members to resolve its differences peacefully whenever possible. Brian Tvedt 02:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I've added some of this context and have re-written the intro. However, much of the article is still simply false as the standard scholarly sources show. --Ian Pitchford 22:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Ian, regarding your recent edits, could you make clearer exactly what the sources said in each instance, and then attribute the view to those sources, rather than stating the views as facts? For example, you wrote: "From 1953-1956 the IDF launched a number of large retaliatory strikes on Arab neighbours, which were designed in part to emphasise Israel's military superiority. Paradoxically, from 1954 onwards under the influence of the the IDF's new chief of staff Moshe Dayan the retaliatory strikes were also intended to provoke Arab states into war with Israel ..." Although you follow it with a Morris quote, you don't attribute the preceding sentences. And the same for your other additions. SlimVirgin 07:11, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Dear SlimVirgin, Everything I've added is sourced to the scholarly sources added, for example the section you quote is all sourced to Morris pp. 190-191. I can provide additional references if necessary. The scholarly sources do concur on the facts and the article doesn't represent these. I think the reason the new sources look odd within the body of the article is because it's drawn almost entirely from one unreliable source, i.e., the book by Oren. --Ian Pitchford 07:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Fedayeen infilitration

Egypt sponsored fedayeen infilitration way before 1956. Not to mention, there are very pov sentences structures using Morris's claims as fact. Guy Montag 22:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

From The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World by historian Avi Shlaim, W.W. Norton 2001, pp.128-129:

Records of Egyptian and Jordanian military intelligence captured by the Israeli army in the course of the 1956 and 1967 wars conclusively disprove Dayan's version and substantiate Nasser's version. These records show that until the Gaza raid, the Egyptian military authorities had a consistent and firm policy of curbing infiltration by Palestinians from the Gaza Strip into Israel and that it was only following the raid that a new policy was put in place, that of organizing the fedayeen units and turning them into an official instrument of warfare against Israel.

The Jordanian documents tell a similar story. From them we learn that it was only in June 1955 that Egyptian military intelligence began to sponsor infiltration into Israel from Jordanian territory. Here, however, there was no change in the offical attitude toward infiltration. On the contrary, when the Jordanian authorities learned of the Egyptian attempt, they adopted even tougher and more comprehensive measures to counter it. These measures caused friction and tension between Jordan and Egypt.

Brian Tvedt 01:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Michael Oren among others, tells another story. As far back as 1950, Colonel Mustafaa Hafez sponsored Palestinian infiltration from Gaza, many of which included sabotage attacks against Negev facilities, and terror attacks agains Israeli civilians. Sourced or not, this is a discrepency in historical fact that needs to be discussed. Guy Montag 03:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Guy, if you can't cite sources this is by definition POV, i.e., unsourced editorial comment. No one is interested in the opinions of Misplaced Pages editors. If you want to make the claim above find a source. Expert opinion cited as such is not POV. Please don't label it as such. If you believe there is a dispute over the facts by experts of comparable standing, then just discuss that in the article and cite all the sources. Please don't restore the introduction making the POV claim that an invasion force was massing on Israel's borders. --Ian Pitchford 07:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

It is absurd to include more than the briefest mention of the pre 1956 and Suez war story here. Just because more people probably look at this article than the Suez war is no reason to include it and fight about it here. Attributing some things to Morris is ridiculous, it is like saying according to astronomer Homer J. Simpson, the sun rises in the east. The long accepted fact that Egypt did not sponsor the fedayeen before the Gaza raid is due to Ehud Ya'ari's Egypt and the Fedayeen, based on his publication of captured archives (in the early 70's iirc) not New Historians Shlaim or Morris much later by the way. As a common sense proposal, I also suggest using books for their main topic - e.g. Oren's 6 day war about this war, not the Suez war.John Z 08:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The material belongs in the 1956 war article, not this one. Brian Tvedt 11:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

When an article starts filling with peripheral material, it's a sure sign of POV pushing. Thanks for removing it. Jayjg 20:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Belongs there or not, it is still wrong material. I have in my hand Israel's Secret Wars' by Ian Black and Benny Morris. He explicitly states (on p.117) that the Gaza raid was "less a consequence of the death sentences in Cairo (related to Unit 131 prisoners that Nasser promised not to execute) than of years of raiding by Palestinian and Egyptian irregulars across the frontiers of the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The Arab marauding, often as close as ten miles from Tel Aviv and on the outskirts of Jersusalem, turned large stretches of the border into virtual combat zones..." So don't tell me that this is unsourced. Morris tells a consistent story, it is not he who is taking things out of context.Guy Montag 18:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

There's no contradiction, (I don't think Nasser promised not to execute anyone, btw) Nobody denies that there were infiltrators, many of them terrorists before Gaza. The mufti, funded by the Saudis, for instance sponsored them. The question is whether Egypt sponsored them before Gaza. The scholarly consensus answer is no, based on captured documents and other sources - (e.g. records of negotiations between Israel and Egypt before Gaza (cf Elmore Jackson's Mission to Cairo iirc) show that Ben-G didn't really insist that Egypt was doing it) -and real negotiations were hardly likely if Israel thought there was massive state sponsored terrorism coming from Egypt. John Z 19:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Egypt captured Gaza after the Israeli war of Independence in 1948. Afterwards, they turned Gaza into a virtual military base. Ben Gurion did not pressure Nasser because at that time he had just seized power. It was thought in all quarters, from London to Paris, to Tel Aviv, that he could be negotiated with. This is all sourced information. All you have to do is rent the book from any library and read the page I gave you. But on thing you are right. It was after the Gazan raid that Egypt officially amalgamated Palestinian fedayeen into their armed forces, but it doesn't mean that before that, Egypt did not unofficially sponsor terrorists. They did. Col. Mustafaa Hafez and Col. Salah Mustafaa both acted as controllers for various Palestinian terrorists in Gaza and the West Bank. Arguing that Egypt did not sponsor terrorism like for example, Iran does today, is simply a point of rhetoric, not reality. Guy Montag 00:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The quote you provided from Black/Morris does not mention Col. Hafez or Col. Mustafaa. It refers only to "irregulars", with no mention that they were sponsored, officially or unofficially, by anybody. So the crucial claim you are making, that "Egypt sponsored fedayeen infilitration way before 1956", is still unsourced, and in fact contradicts the work of respected historians.

In Righteous Victims, Morris is consistent with Shlaim: "Until 1955 the Arab states officially opposed infiltration and generally attempted to curb it" (p. 270). John is correct that Shlaim's conclusion is baed on Ehud Ya'ari's investigation of captured Egyptian documents.

Brian Tvedt 12:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Morris does refer to Hafez as being responsible for sending agents into Israel; 24 of these were captured in 1954 during their missions to "gather intelligence or commit acts of sabotage". These missions/raids were organised by Egyptian military intelligence (see Israel's Border Wars, pp. 65-66) However, on pages 85-86 he writes "Throughout the early and mid-1950s Israel variously charged that the Egyptian authorities were instigating or encouraging armed infiltration from the Gaza strip and Sinai, actively helping the infiltrators, and doing nothing to curb the incursions. The reality was somewhat different and more complex, with the IDF's Gaza Raid in February 1955 marking a clear watershed: before the raid Egyptian policy had, with few exceptions, consistently opposed infiltration; after it, while continuing to oppose uncontrolled civilian infiltration, the Egyptian authorities themselves initiated terrorist infiltration for political and military reasons. In their more candid moments, before 1955, Israeli officials acknowledged that Egypt opposed infiltration. In November 1953 Dayan, then OC IDF General Staff Branch, told American officials that "the problems along the border with Egypt are not the fruit of Egyptian Government plots but a fruit of its neglect, especially in the Gaza strip area, where Egyptian rule is weak and the refugee problem is going from bad to worse. The Egyptians are busy with their internal problems... and do not pay attention to what is happening in the Strip.... and therefore... the infiltration spreads". And on page 93 "Immediately after the Gaza Raid Egyptian officials - who had hitherto referred to infiltrators as mitsalilun, a negative term connoting thieves - began to refer to infiltrators as Fedayeen (men of sacrifice), a positive term. A similar change occurred in the Egyptian media, which hailed the Fedayeen, and Egyptian documents began to refer with pride to the exploits of the border-crossers and with the delight at the distress they were causing Israeli border communities." . --Ian Pitchford 15:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC) RE: "In their more candid moments, before 1955, Israeli officials acknowledged that Egypt opposed infiltration. Fact is, there were a lot of raids in 1954-5, and Egyptian army unita and Egyptian instigated raiders were involved. "In April 1954, for the first time, the Egyptian military authorities sent squads of 'official' infiltrators across the borders." - Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, Page 292. The Black Arrow raid was a response to Egyptian raids later in 1954. "The operations were directed b the commander of Egyptian military intelligence in the strip, Maj Mustafa Hafix, and it is likely that they were authorized from Cairo" - Benny Morris, Righteous victims p 283. We have to look at the actual FACTS that Morris reports and not at his commentary, which is sometimes contradictory. Morris can contradict his own conclusions as well on successive pages.

Troop Numbers and Deployment

The introduction has been changed to read "following the massing of Arab troops near its borders and an Egyptian blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat". However, I understand that troops were not "massing" on the borders, but were deployed for deep defense. Additionally, although a blockade was announced it wasn't enforced and in any case Eilat was a minor port at the time and the only import of strategic importance, oil, could be imported via Haifa. Can anyone else comment? Regarding the "war box" showing Arab forces at a total strength of 465,000, Egypt had a strength of c. 150,000 with 50,000 deployed in the Yemen, Jordan had c. 55,000 and Syria c. 75,000. The IDF deployed c. 264,000 troops, not 50,000. Comments? --Ian Pitchford 01:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I've replaced "massing" with the more neutral term "deployment". Benny Morris supports your contention that the deployment was defensive in nature (Righteous Victims, page 302). Also reworded the description of the Straits action. Actually Egypt never used the word "blockade" to describe the closure. From their way of looking at it, they were just stopping the transit of enemy shipping through their territorial waters, the navigable portion of the Straits being within three miles of the Egyptian coast. The fact that this was the only means of passage for ships sailing to Eilat was just tough cookies. Brian Tvedt 02:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It's irrelevent how Egypt termed their action. Under international law, the closure of the Straits was a blockade. We are not looking at the conflict through the prism of "how Egypt saw it." Aiden Cathasaigh 21:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

We are supposed to be presenting both sides, neutrally. I have no problem with the article stating that Israel VIEWED it a blockade. Brian Tvedt 01:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Who or what is this 'Nasser'?

Reading from a position of total ignorance, I'm left wondering who and of what significance this 'Nasser' is. The first mention of the term is in P3 of 'Background', where it is used unintroduced and unlinked: "(2) to bring the Syrians under Nasser’s moderate influence.". The term not being defined (or linked to) before being used hinders my understanding of the article when reading it from top to bottom.

I assume it refers to Gamal Abdel Nasser, but this is not obvious. In my opinion, it would benefit the article to introduce/link him early in the article, rather than assume the reader's knowledge. I can't be the only person with no prior knowledge of the six-day-war: it happened forty years ago, in an area of the world that's never in the news, except when a new atrocity happens.

I'd make this change myself, but I don't know enough about the issue to feel confident that I'm not just spreading misinformation.

Thanks, I've fixed it. Jayjg 02:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You don't know who Nasser was? Rogue 9 23:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Aiden's NPOV

Aiden, could you say specifically which claims you want to dispute and the scholarly source(s) you are citing in support? This is the only way we will be able to contribute and chart a way forward. --Ian Pitchford 09:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

You cannot be serious, Ian. I've listed in GREAT DETAIL the passages that I object to and have clearly listed WHY they are POV arguments. Like I've said about a DOZEN times now, the article is not about pitting one POV source against another. It is about presenting facts, not interpretations, opinions, or points-of-view. The passages in dispute have been listed for over a day now under the "WELL-CITED does NOT mean NEUTRAL" header, which you have failed to address and simply dismiss. Until these POV additions are either removed or modified in a way to present facts, not speculation or opinion, I will dispute the neutrality of the article. And may I remind you, it is not permissible to remove a NPOV dispute without resolving the reasons for such a dispute. I'd hate to have to file a complaint. Aiden Cathasaigh 20:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think you should set up a list over citations you believe do not belong in Misplaced Pages. This is anyway a good thing when adding the NPOV tag to an article, as it gives casual users a simple overview over what is disputed and what is not.

By the way, I believe I just removed one of the citations you objected to. Cheryl Rubenberg is neither neutral, nor important enough to have her opinions mentioned in an encyclopedia. --Heptor 22:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I've already done this numerous times. There are about 4 quotes I think are POV and they are listed under the "WELL-CITED does NOT equal NPOV" discussion at the top of the page. Ian has yet to actually address these complaints.

I hope you consent that I put your list to the bottom of the page, where you usually find new additions. I understand this is unusual, but as John Z commented, new stuff belongs to the bottom. If you disagree, do remove it. --Heptor 09:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to chime in here and extend Aiden's point that "well-cited does not mean neutral." Having read this article in its entirety for the first time, my feeling is that its viewpoint is somewhat imbalanced. I'm not taking issue with any particular passage or citation, but rather that there seemed to be many instances of detailed analysis and discussion of the communications, and in at least one instance, possible motivations of Israeli leadership, while little is offered regarding the leaders of the other countries involved. For instance, we are offered the names, and strategies of the various Israeli Generals, but who are the Egyptian Generals? The Syrian? The Jordanian? What were their strategies? It seems to be a well-spoken, well-cited article, but it does read a bit like it's written from the point of view of "Here's what happened with Israel during this war." I think, rather than deleting anything, what could help bring it closer to a neutral viewpoint would be to simply add more documentation and analysis of what was happening in the command structures of the other countries engaged in the war. Drogue 04:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That was my feeling exactly, though I would use stronger language to express it. --Smithfarm (lazily not logged in) 85.160.6.38 16:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Cheryl Rubenberg quote

I removed the Cheryl Rubenberg quote about Israel's enthusiasm to go to war. The man is only a an associate professor, and thus far from being a mayor player in the conflict. He is also biased towards pro-arabic POV as a member of 'Deir Yassin Remembered'. His opinions therefore have to be taken with caution, especially when he claims that "...from the outset of the conflict Israel favoured war and rejected multilateral diplomacy or the use of the United Nations". If his opinions are to be presented in the article, it has to be indicated that it is his opinions. In any case, he is only an associate professor. There are thousands like him and I don't see why his opinion should be mentioned in an encyclopedia.

Cheryl is a women's name, the analysis is accurate and even in accord with that of Oren, who is on the opposite side of the spectrum. I put up the Rubenberg page to make her affiliation clear. PLease try to add something to the article! --Ian Pitchford 21:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not a task of an encyclopedia to decide accuracy of an analysis, it is its importence I question. Her importance certainly does not come from her position as an assosiate professor. Neither is her affilation stated in the article. Oren writes that "...Israelis inflating the Egyptian threat", something I would consider typical for Israelis, who do not usually endeavor in self-boasting. It is very very far from "Israel favoured war". --Heptor 22:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The Rubenberg quote has been agreed by SEVERAL people (JohnZ, Heptor, Myself) except for Ian to be a POV argument. Not only does it blatantly try to paint the picture of Israel as a blood-thirsty aggressor who "favoured war", it attempts to portray Nasser as a peace seeker, when I can show you literally hundreds of quotes such as "The Arab people want to fight," "We will drive the Jews into the sea," etc., that say the exact opposite. Like I've said a million times, Ian, it's not about adding more POV sources to counter your POV sources--it seems you're the only one who wants to play that game--it's about providing a factual account of events for the reader. Aiden Cathasaigh 00:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a serious misunderstanding of Misplaced Pages here. The opinions of editors unsupported by references to the scholarly literature are just that, the opinions of editors, and as such count for nothing. All you are doing here is substituting your own opinions for that of a scholar working in the area. If you want to challenge what Rubenberg says then do the research and cite your sources. What she says is accurate, i.e. "US officials assured Israel that Egypt's troop movements were demonstrative and without military intent, and Israel's own government and intelligence officials concurred in this analysis"- compare with Oren "The Americans said their intelligence sources could not corroborate the claim; that the Egyptian positions in the Sinai remained defensive" and "Eban was livid. Unconvinced that Nasser was either determined or even able to attack, he now saw Israelis inflating the Egyptian threat". Rubenberg says "from the outset of the conflict Israel favoured war and rejected multilateral diplomacy or the use of the United Nations.", Oren says '"On 30 May Nasser responded to Johnson's request of eleven days earlier and agreed to send his vice-president, Zakkariya Muhieddin, to Washington on 7 June to explore a diplomatic settlement in "precisely the opening the White House had sought". US Secretary of State Dean Rusk was bitterly disappointed by Israel's pre-emptive strike on 5 June as he had been certain he would have been able to find a diplomatic solution if the meeting had gone ahead. Oren writes that Rusk was "mad as hell" and that Johnson later wrote "I have never concealed my regret that Israel decided to move when it did".' What exactly are you challenging here? --Ian Pitchford 09:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

POV citations suggested for removal

John, in order to avoid an edit war, I will list my grievances with the article and attempt to justify my previous changes.

• "Norman Finkelstein has argued that this shelling was often deliberately provoked by Israeli incursions into, and settlement of, the Israel-Syria demilitarized zone."

1. Norman Finkelstein, the provider of the "well-sourced" material on the Syrian shelling of Israeli villages, is in no way a respectable academic source.
2. His justification of the Syrian shelling does nothing to contribute to the factual information provided in the article. What it does do is attempt to convince the reader that what happened is justified. It is simply being used as a proxy for other editors to convey their opinions through this source.

• "In 1966, Egypt and Syria signed a military alliance, initiated for both sides if either were to go to war. According to foreign minister Mahmoud Riad Egypt had been forced into the mutual defense pact by the Soviet Union. The pact had two objectives: (1) to reduce the chances of a punitive attack on Syria by Israel and (2) to bring the Syrians under Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s moderate influence. ."

1. Just as the Finkelstein addition, this contribution does not simply inform the reader of the creation of the defense pact--which is the primary purpose of the 'Background' section--it goes beyond this and gives the reasons for the defense pact from the sole perspective of the Egyptian FM.
2. The cited source for this material is Rikhye's Sinai Blunder, and is not directly from Mahmoud Riad. Actually, the source, according to Rikhye, is from "The Egyptian Foreign Minister, Mahmoud Riad, in a conversation with me in July 1967 on this subject..." Considering we do not have a direct quote, not to mention the fact that this is a paraphrase of a conversation 13-years later (the Sinai Blunder was published in 1980), the account is not only hearsay--inadmissible under Misplaced Pages policy--but it is highly probable the account is not accurate.
3. The actual quote from Rikhye's Sinai Blunder is that the Soviet Union had "persuaded" not forced "Egypt and Syria... to enter into a mutual defense pact..."
4. The characterization of the objectives of the defense pact as a means to prevent "punitive" Israeli attacks is also from the perspective of the Egyptian PM, certainly not a NPOV source. The same applies to Nasser as a "moderate" influence. This "moderate" influence also is the same guy who said "We will drive the Jews into the sea", blockaded Eilat, kicked out the UNEF from the Sinai, etc., etc., etc.

• "In the UN General Assembly debates immediately after the war, many nations argued that even if international law gave Israel the right of passage, Israel was not entitled to attack Egypt to assert it because the closure was not an "armed attack" as defined by article 51 of the UN Charter. Similarly, international law professor John Quigley argues that under the doctrine of proportionality Israel would only be entitled to use such force as would be necessary to secure its right of passage."

1. This is in the "Background" section. The point of this section is to layout the framework for the cause of the war, not to question the actions of only one party after-the-fact.
2. Yet again, the only source used is one which questions Israel's actions, after-the-fact, and from the perspective of only one source.

• "Nasser himself wrote that "I am not in a position to go to war" and Rubenburg states that Egypt believed that the issue of navigation in the Straits of Tiran was amenable to peaceable resolution, but that from the outset of the conflict Israel favoured war and rejected multilateral diplomacy or the use of the United Nations. "

1. And yet again, we are given only one side of Nasser, the side that portrays him as a "moderate" influence, or perhaps someone who by all means does want to go to war. What is left out of our little book of Nasser quotes are ones such as "There is no longer a way out of our present situation except by forging a road toward our objective, violently and by force, over a sea of blood and under a horizon blazing with fire." Or how about, "I will throw the Jews into the sea"? Why do I feel this article continually tries to perceive the Arab states as helpless victims while Israel is obviously the evil aggressor?

Painting a picture of a situation according to the perspective of an author, even if cited, does not guarantee that the information is NPOV. Like I said before, I can find just as many bogus, one-sided, bigot sources and add them to the article. Sure my information will be "well-sourced" with the appropriate footnotes, references, and all the things that make you tingle inside, but will it be neutral? Not a chance. Aiden Cathasaigh 20:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe Nasser ever said "throw Jews into the sea". If you can find a reliable source that proves he said it, then by all means it should go in the article. Brian Tvedt 11:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Aiden, of course some sources deal with particular issues and the accounts of particular individuals. In this article they are cited as such and hence are not POV in Misplaced Pages's usage. Your opinion of Finkelstein is POV and of no relevance and in any case his comments are no longer in the article. Rikhye's source in an interview with the Egyptian foreign minister giving his opinion and both these facts are made clear, Rikhye says "forced" when speaking of Nasser's decision. John Quigley is one source - an expert one - Hazel Christie is another. If you think they are wrong provide evidence. I've answered the point about Rubenberg twice now. The fact that her account is the same as Eban's and the US Government's as reported by an officer in the IDF, i.e. Michael Oren, should be reassuring. It's also accurate. Frankly, I think that challenging scholars who are in agreement when we have in the article an opinion of one US journalist recorded in the 1990s ("The view was, as reporter Mike Shuster put it, that Israel "was surrounded by Arab states dedicated to its eradication. Egypt was ruled by Gamal Abdel Nasser, a firebrand nationalist whose army was the strongest in the Arab Middle East. Syria was governed by the radical Baathist Party, constantly issuing threats to push Israel into the sea.") is somewhat odd. I also find it odd that you keep saying you can find sources whilst just reporting your own opinion. --Ian Pitchford 09:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I believe Aiden has a very good point. If you look well enough, it is possible to find scholar research supporting any claim, no matter how bogus. You can find scholar research suggesting that "Theory of Evolution" is a hoax created by Satan, you can find research suggesting that Holocaust never happened et cetera. Not all scholar research belongs to Misplaced Pages, it is as simple as that.

More to the points :

• Norman Finkelstein is a controversial figure and if his views are to be presented, it should be mentioned that they are controversial. This is not an example of ad hominem fallacy, as I object to his opinion, not to his use of logic or facts he present.

• Mahmoud Riad's explanation for why Egypt entered the alliance should stay. It is an official Egyptian position, and is relevant to this article. It is interesting to know Egypt's official position, in contrast to position of some rebel assosiate professor who once wrote a book.

• The discussion in UN about legitimacy of the Israeli response should stay, but I would like to know what nations were arguing that Israel was not entitled to attack. I don't think that opinion by John Quigley should stay, but I do not feel strongly about it since it looks like a fair attempt to interpret the international law.

• If Nasser was considering himself "not in position to go to war", it should be stated here. But did he tell the Israelis? In a credible way, so that Israelis would not disregard it as an attempt to put them at ease before an attack? The opinion of Cheryl Rubenburg has absolutely nothing to do here.

--Heptor 10:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Heptor, Finkelstein is a controversial figure, but it is relatively easy to find other sources and as I mentioned above the single opinion attributed to him was deleted. As an aside I should point out that some of Finekelstein's most controversial work is supported by esteemed figures in the relevant fields, for example Raul Hilberg. Obviously, I agree that Riad's viewpoint should stay. If there's any more to be said then perhaps someone would like to start the 1966 Egyptian-Syrian Pact article in which views can be explored. As I keep saying (with evidence above) Rubenberg's summary is accurate and there's no reason to delete it. US and Israeli sources concur. Additional references might be appropriate. I don't believe Aiden has a good point as it is not possible to find in the peer-reviewed scholarly literature published by university presses "research supporting any claim" and we certainly don't put the views expressed by Misplaced Pages editors, journalists and web pages above the most reliable scholarly sources. Obviously, Shuster's views should go as should the sections from Oren's speech that mis-represent his own book. --Ian Pitchford 13:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

We are now discussing a very imotional subject, and many people feel very strongly about it. Even in the peer-reviewd scholarly literature you will find views ranging from those supporting Israel as a peace-loving democratic country plagued by vicious Arabs who hate Israel because it is democratic and not Islamic to one that Israel is a war-mongering beast that will stop at nothing to consume the open-handed peace-loving Arab world in flames. Rubenberg represents the latter view. And again, I study at a university myself. Do you have any idea how many assosiate professors there are in this World?

Also, you changed from "Israeli planes flew over Damascus" to "Israeli planes killed 100 Syrians". I presume you have a source for that? --Heptor 20:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

This is all rather abstract. Please make specific points and I'll respond. My defence of Rubenberg's comments appears above, twice. The source for the attack on Syria is given. What are yours for deleting Rubenberg? --Ian Pitchford 21:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Her view is not important. See my previous postings for argumentation. You did not even try to respond to that. BTW, what do you mean by "Israeli cabinet authorized a limited strike against Syria"? Did they actually strike or was this strike "de-authorized" at some later point? --Heptor 23:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Menachem Begin speech

My impression that the message Menachem Begin is was trying to convey in his speach was that Israel could not be certain that Egypt was about to attack. Still, if they did attack, it would mean an unacceptable cost in Israeli lifes and a risk of defeat. Because of that, Begin meant that the strike was an act of self-defence, despite the possibility that Egypt never intended to follow up on its threats. I maybe presented it in a wrong way in my edit to the page. John Z, do you agree with my analysis of Begin's speech? --Heptor 21:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a reasonable analysis, but I think that we have too much around there already. The succeeding quote from Mike Shuster that Ian doesn't like, and there is a bit of fighting about, is partly acceptable because it explains the state of mind of Begin and many others. This article is really becoming a mess; people should just calm down (I don't mean you in particular at all). Though this was not a bad or maybe even unacceptable example of it, you should really be careful of and read WP:NOR. Jayjg is usually the one who reads the riot act to people on this, but he hasn't been around too much the past few days. Begin doesn't really say that he thought an Egyptian attack would be very costly - and most military experts, which Begin was not, were not too afraid of one, unlike the general populace. Maybe just continue quoting to explain that he felt it was "to assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation." You're right that it needs a bit of context, better than Shuster; it would be nice if someone found a published analysis of it. Basically, just try to stick very close to what your sources say and not put your own interpretation in - especially on hotly debated areas like this, where debate over fantastically tiny minutiae is common. I can't overstate how good an idea this is, especially if you want your edits to have any permanence. I am very glad that you generally assume good faith, which others should do here too. John Z 09:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It depends on which versions you compare John. If you go back as recently as 8 September the article could only be described as a false, or at least a very partisan, representation of events. Misplaced Pages should aspire to far better than this. --Ian Pitchford 14:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I agree that the earlier versions are not balanced, what I meant is that the article has been more readable at times, though getting more neutral. I hope we can get agreement on something else I suggested a while back - getting rid of or at least spinning off the section on Arab revisionism or whatever it is called nowadays - it is far too long relative to the importance. I'll drastically reduce it in the next couple days I guess. The ideal article on the 6 day war should be longer - it is one of the two most complicated A-I wars; the background is very complex and still debated - i.e. was there a green light or not? - and the article simply needs that space. What I meant also is that there should be and usually is a basic skeleton of events which everyone agrees happened, however they describe them, and then there are the disputed territories, which one side or another might succeed in occupying in the article at one time or another. This article is deficient even in the basic skeleton that keeps it from degenerating into chaos, and could do with some quiet reorganization. For instance, with the disappearance of the NF quote, there was nothing on Israeli DMZ activities (and the shelling), so it definitely did contribute to the factual information provided in the article. Also, as I mentioned earlier, there is nothing on the raid on Samu. I think a good rule might be that we should at least mention, usually chronologically, anything that has a whole chapter on it in a book on the war. I know I generally err on the side of caution and being too patient, but not everyone does; it would be good if people tried a bit to make their edits permanent and non-argumentatively fit in with the flow of the article rather than be absolutely right.John Z 16:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree on the question of readability: the article doesn't flow so well now. A chronological approach of agreed facts is best I think, and certainly Samu must be mentioned. Re "green light" I read the other day that the US covered the cost of the mobilization of Israel's reservists, but I haven't tracked down the source yet. --Ian Pitchford 22:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I knew that I was walking a thin line when I tried to add context to the Begin citation, but it seemed like the only way to get anywhere. In the old version the citation was definitly out of context. Basically I think it is reasonably good now, but if somebody finds an independent analysis, it would be preferable. I think those military who were not afraid of an Arab attack were proven deeply wrong in the Yom Kippur war, when Arabs did attack, and costed Israel almost 10000 casualties. --Heptor 16:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the YK war was a surprise due to incredible overconfidence and stupidity in Israel and dogged determination and intelligent planning in Egypt, not the case at all here, more the reverse. Ezer Weizmann estimated that if Egypt had attacked it would have only slightly prolonged the 67 war. If you look back, you'll see that I added the self-defense part which is what is absolutely necessary to understand Begin; maybe it is almost enough; with Shuster there the whole section seems too long.John Z 16:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

closure of the straits

I think that closure of the straits (to Israeli shipping) is the best term, especially for the introduction. It is the most common - do a google test, and most neutral. Blockade of Eilat is bad because it wrongly implies that the Egyptians tried to prevent the Israelis from leaving the port of Eilat, is nonspecific and less common. (At one point this sentence read as if Egypt was blockading Haifa!) When the Arabs closed/blockaded the Bab-el-Mandeb straits to Israeli shipping below the then Israeli-held Straits of Tiran in the 1973 war , should that also be called a blockade of Eilat? Of course other nations' cargo could go through the straits, that goes without saying especially when you use the word blockade - you only blockade against enemies. "Blockade" is somewhat POV and less common, closure is better although I am not going to go crazy about one word in the introduction. My statement about strategic goods on non-Israel ships plus Israeli-flag ships is more accurate than the current statement. See this and here is a quote, the first sentence of Carl F. Salans "Gulf of Aqaba and Strait of Tiran:Troubled waters" US Naval Institute Proceedings v 94, p12 12/68, reprinted in Moore's collection on the international law of the conflict: "On 23 May 1967, President Gamal Abdel Nasser of the United Arab Republic announced to the world that the Straits of Tiran would be closed to Israeli flag vessels and to vessels of other countries carrying strategic cargoes, including oil, to Israel."John Z 09:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

With Eilat being the only Israeli port on the Straits, and thus the only city actually affected of all cities using the Straits, how exactly is it not neutral to specifically provide the name of the ONLY city affected by the blockade? And blockade is about as "POV" as international law; it's the legal definition of Egypt's action. Aiden Cathasaigh 17:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem is not neutrality, it is accuracy - it is misleading. It could sound like there were Egyptian warships outside the port preventing shipping coming in and out. It is not the usual term for the Egyptian action, and is imprecise.John Z 10:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You're forgetting the fact that the Straits of Tiran are within Egypt's territorial waters. The term "blockade" implies that they are using force in the other guy's territorial waters, or international waters. Israel's claim was based on the idea that the Straits "connected" two international waterways, but whether this is true (i.e., whether the Gulf of Aqaba is an international waterway), and whether it is relevant (i.e., whether the 1958 Convention applied to the Arab countries, who didn't sign it), were very much debatable. In fact there was much talk in the sixties about settling the matter in the International Court of Justice, but Israel chose not to go that route, starting a war instead. Brian Tvedt 02:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

For one, the Strait is internationally recognized as an international strait, as in the 1957 declaration at the UN backing Israel's right to navigate the Strait. Secondly, there are other straits linking the Gulf of Aqaba to the Red Sea, though the Strait of Tiran is the only international waterway to do so. Nasser himself knew this and thus declared not just that he was closing the Strait of Tiran, but blockading the the entire Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping, stating, "Under no circumstances can we permit the Israeli flag to pass through the Gulf of Aqaba." Again, how is this not a blockade? Aiden Cathasaigh 04:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

There are no other straits linking the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aqaba; the Straits of Tiran means all of the straits formed there by the islands, only one of which, the one nearest Egypt, is navigable. It is the only way to get to the Gulf of Aqaba or to Eilat. Closing the straits is factually the same as blockading, if you want to use the latter word. The Bab-el-Mandeb is way further down - you have to go through it to get to the Straits of Tiran. Everybody who studied the matter seriously - 90+% of international law experts would agree I am sure - knows that both sides had a non-frivolous case at that particular time. It is just a unique case where it just was not clear how to apply international law, including many things other than the 1958 convention. I think that it is fair to say that the general evolution of the law, even before the existence of Israel, was in the pro- navigation rights direction. However, even the USA only said that Israel had the right to navigate, pending an ICJ decision to the contrary. The international law articles I have read on it- in the Moore volume - use closure instead of blockade, as far as I have noted.

By the way, didn't notice this before, but "is considered" instead of "it considered" is utterly unacceptable. It is totally POV and simply false Aiden - there are many encyclopedic sources who disagree; your edit summary is misleading at best. , and I am changing this immediately. John Z 10:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

John, the phrase "is considered to be" has been in the article for months, even before I begin editing the article. It is not my contribution. Secondly, how is it not a pre-emptive attack? There are plenty of sources that will attest to the attack being pre-emptive. However, if you wish to convey the opinion that it was only Israel's opinion the attack was pre-emptive, please explain why. Aiden Cathasaigh 16:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was wrong then, and it is wrong now. I discussed the matter a while ago with someone else when the wording was a bit different, but we didn't change it I then, I don't think. However, it was eventually changed and should not be changed back to something incorrect. "Pre-emptive" has a clear and long accepted meaning in international law, stemming from Daniel Webster's letter on the Caroline Case. It is not my opinion that it is disputed that it was a pre-emptive attack, it is a fact. Misplaced Pages does not take sides in disputes. In the GA debates after the war, many condemned it as an act of Israeli aggression, and the US position was only that both sides should be criticized; not that there was Egyptian aggression, which pre-emptive basically implies. I do not think you will find any official US statement that the attack was pre-emptive. For "is considered" you need to have unanimity, which does not exist - the Arab states (and many others) would hardly agree, and there are not even any Arab confessions years later that they were about to attack.John Z 17:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Bogus killings?

Found something interesting: the alleged killings of 1000 POWs by IDF seem to be totally bogus. Even the historian who made those claims is totally bogus. Aryeh Yitzhaki is a member of a right-wing political party who made claims as a diversion. I searched Aryeh Yitzhaki on google, and did not find references to any other research made by him. For full repuke, see http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=181&x_context=7, page serch for Yitzhaki. --Heptor 17:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The author must be hoping that no one actually reads the sources. A number of historians are cited in the AP article in the Washington Post and in the other reference given. The AP article also has "Rabin, who was chief of staff when some of the 1967 killings allegedly were committed, walked away today when a reporter shouted a related question. His office later issued a statement denouncing the killings and calling them isolated incidents." and "Another Israeli historian, Uri Milstein, said there were many incidents in the 1967 war in which Egyptian soldiers were killed by Israeli troops after they had raised their hands in surrender. "It was not an official policy, but there was an atmosphere that it was okay to do it," Milstein said. "Some commanders decided to do it; others refused. But everyone knew about it." --Ian Pitchford 22:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not in question that isolated killings of POWs did occur on both sides, but not in a systematic fashion as your version describes. The unfortunate source of those allegations, Aryeh Yitzhaki, is not even a historian. AP published a rebuke article on that story the following day. James Bamford totally abuses the source material by using an article that has been rectified the next day; if he has other sources, please give reference to exactly who they are and what they saw, as I did with Aryeh Yitzhaki. --Heptor 11:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I hope you approve of the new version. Thank you for pursuing the matter. It has turned out to be far more convoluted and more interesting than I could have imagined! --Ian Pitchford 15:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

That was one solid piece of work! Still need some information on how many war prisoners Israelis captured totally, and how Egyptians treated their POWs. For example, I red somewhere that downed Israeli pilots were killed when found. I will get back to this later. Still, one good piece of work here, Ian --Heptor 17:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You're very kind. The research was really enjoyable. It would be good the article had solid facts and figures here, but I can't find anything at all. --Ian Pitchford 18:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I rearranged the article structure, so that confirmed killings of POWs are moved out of "Controversial Claims" section. Also, I added some ballancing info as to mistreatment of Israeli POWs in another war. I could find little information on mistreatment of Israeli POWs in this war, probably because there were so few Israeli POWS. There is however plenty of information from other wars. The article is very unballanced without it.

I seem to have forgotten to log in last time, sorry for the confusion. --Heptor 19:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC) (back after beating some wicked deadlines)

I can't accept these changes Heptor. No one describes killing as "mistreatment". An article is not "unbalanced" because it doesn't contain information on events that did not happen, i.e. Egyptian mistreatment of IDF prisoners. I can't find a retraction by Yitzhaki. Only the claim on the CAMERA web page that he did retract. Information on "mistreatment" from other wars is not relevant as the subject is the 1967 war and the particular topic the killing of prisoners --Ian Pitchford 22:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean? "Killing" is by definition an act of mistreatment. I prefered using "mistreatment" in the section title because it sounds less bombastic and more encyclopædic. The original reference to Yitzhaki retracting his claims is from an AP article on 17 august 1995, one day after the radio address. I will use that reference instead. Anyway, it is not controversial whether he retracted the claims the next day or at a later time - in any case it was long before Bamford wrote his book.

And yes, the mistreatment of Israeli POWs does belong in a historical context, to show the nature of this conflict. You would not write about allied bombing of Dresden, which killed about 30 000 non-combatants, without mentioning the German bombing of London or other German atrocities? In this particular war Arabs captured few prisoners they could mistreat, but there were plenty of examples of mistreatment in other wars. The mistreatment you mentioned affected about 100 Egyptian POWs, including those found in the "shallow mass grave" by Egypt. It is important to the context to mention that this is of a total of 4338 POWS that were returned to Egypt. --Heptor 11:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not acceptable Heptor. No one told they were about to face "mistreatment" would expect to be killed, would they? In the article of 17 August Yitzhaki does not retract the claims; nor are his claims refuted. All it says is that of the six or seven incidents mentioned, the one in El Arish has a different interpretation. It doesn't dispute that 300 men wearing Egyptian army uniforms were killed, but it claims that these were armed Palestinians "trying to escape from the Gaza strip". No evidence is provided. No one knows as yet whether the total of all incidents is equal to or greater than the 1000 mentioned by Yitzhaki, but it is ominous that orders were being issued even after the war had finished to try and prevent the killings. The return of PoWs is mentioned in the article. There is no excuse for bringing in irrelevant information from the 1973 war, or for including unsourced claims about anti-semitism. All of the primary sources on massacres are Israeli: Yitzhaki, Rabin, Pa'il, Bar-Zohar, Bron, Milstein etc. You have also deleted significant new sourced content from the article. If you have time to spare why don't you investigate some of the other controversial claims: demolition of villages in violation of the Geneva convention, use of napalm against civilians, invasion of Syria after it had accepted the ceasefire etc, etc. --Ian Pitchford 13:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Those prisoners were killed, and it is stated very clear in the article. The word "mistreatment" is only used in the title of the section, to make article sound less bombastic. Did you find the original AP article? I used the quotation on camera.org which says that he did retract his claims. Still, I don't see how this is controversial - the claims were obviously bogus, and to state that Yitzhaki retracted them is not controversial. That is why I didn't bother to check the Camera reference to the original article in the AP. If you did, please provide the source.

I originally wrote "Pro-Arab" media, but Jayjg corrected it to anti-semitic. And after reading the Radio Islam website, I, quite frankly, agree with him. Just check their article on Marx: http://www.radioislam.org/marx/marxen.htm.

And where are you trying to get by mentioning that all of your primary sources are Israeli? As far as I know, Misplaced Pages does not have a policy that anything said by an Israeli must be accepted uncritically. Or are you trying to advocate a policy change? --Heptor 14:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

If you can find a source Heptor, cite it, it's as simple as that. Until you can do that stop adding your POV to the article. --Ian Pitchford 16:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

What statement exactly do you mean is my POV, and I did not source? --Heptor 16:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you be clear about what claim it is that you want to make and what sources you are using in support? I've spent ages trying to makes sure that the article has appropriate references and would like to see this standard maintained. With regard to the use of English I can see you have problems with grammar and spelling, that's understandable given that you don't seem to be writing in your first language. "Killing" is never referred to as "mistreatment" in English. Material on the 1973 war is not relevant here. You keeping deleting sourced content on UNEF. Why? --Ian Pitchford 16:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you please be specific on what part of my contribution you consider to be a POV? What exactly are the problems with my "grammar and spelling"? Are there misspellings in my text? Where? As to "killing" being an act of "mistreatment", it has nothing to do with my native language. Killing is an act of mistreatment, just like a "whale" is a "mammal". I just don't want to have the wording "killing of pows" in the section title, as it sounds too much bombastic for an encyclopædia. As to the letter from General Mohammed Fawzy, Chief of Staff of the United Arab Republic, I consider it a pro-Arab POW, but that's another story. --Heptor 16:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

PS: I just fixed some minor "carelessnesses", but that was in your text. Like "soldiers came forward to say that they had witnessed the execution of unarmed prisoners" - like, the execution? Didn't you imply that English is your first language? --Heptor 17:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I see you've reverted the article again asking for more specific comments. I think I was specific above but I'll try again.

Thank you very much for that.

1. You've deleted sourced content on UNEF without explanation. The only justification you give above is your POV.

The UNEF content you speak about is letter from General Mohammed Fawzy, Chief of Staff of the United Arab Republic. It is very much a POV, and I do not see how it is important. But that is an entirely different discussion.

No doubt there are many views about the war, but this is an important source document accurately cited. It should stay. --Ian Pitchford 17:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

1. You've redefined mass murder as mistreatment.

I think we will need a judgment on that. I think "mistreatment" a better term to use in a section title. We can have "killing" if you insist, but I do not like it.

We will have to disagree. I find this as objectionable as if someone were to refer to mistreatment of the Jews in Auschwitz. I've been to a concentration camp and if I were compelled to refer to what went on there as "mistreatment" I would despair. Gratuitous killing is an abomination, not "mistreatment".--Ian Pitchford 17:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

1. You've drawn a false comparison with a completely different conflict and completely different acts, i.e mass murder of Egyptian PoWs in the 1967 war with mistreatment of Israeli PoWs in the 1973 war.

# 1. The conflicts are not different, it is a part of one Arab-Israeli conflict. It is important to the context of the article that also arabs engaged in killing POWs. So you do agree that killing of the Israeli soldiers is mistreatment?

The 1967 war is not the 1973 war. Torture is not murder. I don't know how much clearer I can be on this point. See above for what I think of killing unarmed people. --Ian Pitchford 17:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

1. You've inserted the opinion that Yitzhaki retracted the claims the following day without providing a source.

Associated Press article from 17. august 1995, as cited on http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=181&x_context=7. You wrote earlier in the talk that "In the article of 17 August Yitzhaki does not retract the claims; nor are his claims refuted. All it says is that of the six or seven incidents mentioned". Do you have access to the original AP article? If yes - care to share? If no - where did the information come from?

I have access to the Jerusalem Post article of that day, which is what I think is being referred to - judging from the quotations. Anyone can buy the article.--Ian Pitchford 17:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

1. "Yitzhaki retracted his allegation already next day." is not a grammatical sentence in English.

Hmm, sounds good to me :( But I am not a native English speaker, so you are probably right here.

1. You've inserted the POV "This claim was also repeated by James Bamford in his book “Body of Secrets” in 2001, some six years after the original claim was exposed as false" without providing a source for the alleged "falsehood".

Didn't you write yourself that he came with his "research" on the spot to shift attention? How could it get more false than that?

Yes, I corrected it as soon as I read the original sources and found that what he actually said was that he was annoyed at the attention given to the 1956 killings when there were so many in the 1967 war and that everyone knew about them. The point of Yitzhaki's radio broadcast is that so many other soldiers came forward after it. I think the article explains that well and it does refer to the Bamford stuff and gives the references for anyone interested in the USS Liberty incident. --Ian Pitchford 17:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Bamford and "anti-semitic" websites are not the source for the claims of mass killings, and Yitzhaki's claim was not of a single event. As the article already explains killings have been verified by IDF documents, Egyptian reports, press reports in the New York Times, Washington Post, Several Israeli newspapers, Meir Pa'il, Yitzhak Rabin, Gabby Bron, Michael Ben-Zohar, and Uri Milstein.

Some killings have been verified, but this figure is far from 1000. If you know about some serious research that indicate that the number of Egyptian POWs killed was higher than about 100, please share it.

That's right. We don't know the total. Only that many killings have been reported. The article explains this. The actual total might be higher or lower and we'll know when the archives are opened, although acording to Golani, in the book chapter cited, the IDF is still trying to suppress well-known information about the 1956 killings, let alone those in 1967. --Ian Pitchford 17:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments please. --Ian Pitchford 17:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Hope this clears it up a little. --Heptor 17:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Notes

Ian, you could convert the weblinks to footnotes as well, in this sort of format:
#{{note|DGold}} by ], ''Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs'', January 16, 2002. Retrieved September 28, 2005.
Once you did so, you could insert them all into the list of notes, and then you could make that list self-numbering. Jayjg 18:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

That is a good idea. Thank you. --Ian Pitchford 18:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Using Mike Shuster as an authority

I'll leave the quote from the 2002 NPR story for now because simply deleting it messes up the paragraph flow. But I do think it should be removed, and it's not just to make a WP:POINT. I genuinely believe the article would be better without it. There has been enough written about this war, and it occured long enough ago, that we should be able to write a good article on it using only as sources: (1) Academically recognized historians and Middle East specialists; (2) Experts in international law; (3) People like James Reston who were acquainted first-hand with the events and personalities involved. I have no problem with using Michael Oren as a source, despite his biases (though he shouldn't be the only source). But to drop in a biased potboiler summary produced 35 years after the fact is pathetic. If it is true that the Syrian Baath party was "constantly issuing threats to push Israel into the sea" there has to be better evidence than this. Brian Tvedt 02:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

NPR is a respected source, but I will gladly find corroborating sources to Shuster's reporting, which shouldn't be hard to do at all considering it's pretty common knowledge that both the Baathists and Nasser repeatedly threatened to "drive the Jews into the sea." Further, how come we don’t see you complaining about Rikhye's 13-years-after-the-fact recollection of a conversation he had with the Egyptian PM--hearsay--which describes Nasser as a "moderate influence"? Aiden Cathasaigh 07:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Aiden, Rikhye was the commanding general of UNEF. He's highly respected as an eyewitness source. --Ian Pitchford 13:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

What's more, Rikhye clearly falls into category (3) above. Shuster did not witness any of the events or know any of the people involved first-hand. All he is doing is repeating what he has learned elsewhere; why not present those sources themselves? As to "drive the Jews into the sea", I don't believe that any Syrian or Egyptian leaders said that. It certainly requires documentation, which should be easy to find if those really were their words. There were statements made in Syria and Egypt about the "liberation of Palestine", and if you want to bring those into the article and point out that Israel considered them threatening, that's fine. Brian Tvedt 23:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

False Information?

Article states: " As soon as Eban arrived, he was handed a cable from the Israeli government, and in it the false information that Israel had learned of an Egyptian and Syrian plan to launch a war of annihilation against Israel within the next 48 hours." It is not clear what the source of this description of "false" information is. As far as Israel knew, it was true. The cable actually said, according to Oren (102) - "The Arabs are planning a large scale offensive. The question is no longer the Straits of Tiran but Israel's very existence." This was based on various intercepts and in fact the Egyptians had planned to launch Operation Dawn on May 27 or 28 and were stopped by Kosygin according to Oren. See page 119 - 120. MEW 15:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Amer had a plan to cut off Eilat - not to launch a "war of annihilation" in a large scale offensive. Nasser vetoed the plan. It's not thought that the cable Eban received refers to this plan. Israel's existence was not in danger at any point and Meir Amit, the Mossad chief, told the CIA that Israel expected victory in two days. British intelligence thought seven days; American intelligence ten. --Ian Pitchford 15:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What is your source for this information about Amer's plan? "Beyond air strikes at strategic targets and the detachment of Eilat, 'Amer now broadened the objective to include the entire Negev" - Oren p 92 and ref. Even assuming it was so, what would have been the effect of cutting off Eilat? "It's not thought that" - who thinks it besides you? Israel had detected a lot of activity and air chatter, including an overflight of the Dimona reactor. If you insist on precise references, you will need to give them yourself. Stating that the info was false, without any reference, is giving a gratuitous POV. It makes it look as though the Israelis were deliberately deceiving Eban, especially in conjunction with the rest of the quotes. There are no grounds at all for assuming that is the case. USSR Ambassador to Jordan told Burns he expected the Arabs to win. Nasser told the trade unionists "We knew that closing the Gulf of Aqaba meant war with Israel" (Oren P 93 and many other references) - so it is fairly clear he didn't get dragged into this assuming he would lose. MEW 18:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

My sources are Oren and the U.S. Department of State. Eban didn't believe the content of the cable (as the article already makes clear, drawing on Oren's account) and neither did the Americans. You can also read the US intelligence assessments of 26 May in the links given, e.g. "The UAR's dispositions are defensive and do not look as if they are preparatory to an invasion of Israel". --Ian Pitchford 14:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I have edited the words 'false information'. It is very vague. Who and when knew that it was false? Did the sender know it was false? Did the receipient think or know (BTW it's not the same thing) it was false? I would say Eban may have suspected it was false, but could not possibly know for sure. And given the gravity of the claim, could he afford to ignore it? If you want to say it was false, say it in a separate sentence in a precise way and cite your sources.--15:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC) Sorry this was BorisG

Miscellaneous errors

Following is probably not accurate: " On 5 June at 7:45 Israeli time, as air alarms sounded all over Israel, the Israeli Air Force left the skies of Israel, sending all but twelve of its jets in a mass attack against Egypt's airfields." 7:45 is probably the time of the first attack. According to Oren the first planes left at 7:10 AM. "At 7:30 Israel time, the first targets came into view" Oren p 174. By about 10 past 8 A.M. we knew that the first wave had been successful in our kibbutz, because someone had returned from a nearby airbase. According to Oren p 171 Israel had 250 aircraft: 65 Mirage, 35 Supre Mystere, 35 Mystere Mark IV 50 Ouragan 20 Vatour and 45 Fougas, about 200 hundred participated, including some of the Fougas Magisters. Therefore, Israel did not use "all but 12 of its jets."

Hod says there were 197 planes operational that morning and four were left in Israeli air space, so 193 attacked Egypt. I've added the source. Incidentally Hod says the attack had been planned for a year and he expected victory over the Egyptian Air Force in six hours. --Ian Pitchford 21:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It says:

"Meanwhile, the Egyptians didn't help themselves by turning off their air defense radars at that time: they were worried that rebel Egyptian forces would shoot down the Egyptian military leaders, who were about to perform an inspection. " This is probably not true. Amer was in the air, and they were ordered not to shoot, but they were not ordered to turn off their radars.

Yes, I believe you're right. I've changed the article and have cited a source. --Ian Pitchford 21:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

--- It says: " Overall, Egypt had around 100,000 troops and 900-950 tanks in the Sinai" But it also says: "Egyptian army had a nominal strength of around 150,000, but 50-70,000 troops, including the elite units, were fighting in the civil war in Yemen" --- Assuming that some troops were also left in Egypt, there probably could not be 100,000 in Sinai, or else the Army was larger.

100,000 is the figure most often used, but it all depends on what you count and when you count them. --Ian Pitchford 21:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

--- It states: "The northernmost Israeli division, consisting of three brigades and commanded by Israel Tal, one of Israel's most prominent armor commanders advanced slowly through the Gaza strip and El-Arish, which were not heavily protected." --- According to Tom Segev's new book 1967, an entire division was wiped out in Khan Yunis and the general captured. According to Oren, the Egyptians had four full divisions in the Rafah gap area (page 178). Doesn't seem to be lightly defended. MEW 20:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Making the article more ballanced

I believe that section about claims about "IDF massacres of Egyptian POWs" is utterly unballanced, and that parts of it are established facts not belonging under "controversial claims and theories". As such, I suggested to:

• move the part about confirmed killings of POWs from the "controversial claims and theories" section.
• add a short reference to Israeli claims that their soldiers too often have been mistreated or killed when surrendering or captured; because few Israeli soldiers were captured during the Six-Day War (as little as 15 to all four Arab armies, in contrast to over 5000 prisoners captured by IDF) , information from another arab-israeli war have to be used; I found material referring to Yom Kippur War, during which many more Israelis were captured.
• include the mentioned information about the total number of Arab soldier captured, to make clear that only a small fraction of the captured Arab soldiers were mistreated, while the majority was treated well.
• make it more clear that Aryeh Yitzhaki's claim that as many as 1000 Egyptian soldiers were killed after being taken prisoners or while surrenering is made up on spot; and that he has admitted it later. According to a camera.org article, Associated Press exposed that already the next day (do a search on the page for the AP article of the next day to find the reference faster).

I already tried to make the mentioned changes to the article, but it met some heavy resistance from Ian Pitchford. Please see the article as I believe it should be. Input from other Wikipedians is needed to resolve the issue.

--Heptor 22:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

PS: The entire discussion between me and Ian may be found on Talk:Six-Day_War#Bogus_killings.3F. It should be noted that it began when Ian put up Yitzhaki's accusations in the article as a fact, which explains the title of that section. --Heptor 12:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with many of your changes Heptor, including the proportional comparisons between POW abuse by Israel and that of Egypt. It needs to be made clear that of the dozens of Egyptian POWs abused by Israel, these can be considered isolated incidents, with thousands more returned unharmed. Secondly, there are little to no respectable sources making claims that it was an institutional decision to kill Egyptian POWs. Compared to that of Egypt, however, the percentage of abused POWs is considerably higher. Ian is in this case, yet again, using a source he agrees with as a proxy to express his POV on a subject. I do agree with him, however, that including in the article instances of POW abuse in subsequent wars is not relevent, especially since some may simply consider them Egyptian reprisals for abuses by Israel in 1967. Nevertheless, documented abuses in prior wars may be relevent as it highlights habitual offenses by both sides, all contributing to the perpetuation of abuses by and against both parties. Aiden Cathasaigh 23:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed the article according to your compromise proposal; I will see if I can find some reference to prisoner abuse or war crimes in general commited by Arab armies prior to Six-Day War. --Heptor 11:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

PS: I hope I interpreted Aiden correctly; if not, shame is on me. --Heptor 18:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Noticed Ians revert; Ian, if there are grammatical errors in my text, correct them just as everbody else corrects yours; also see Misplaced Pages:Civility. If you think that the text is too harsh on Bamford becuase it states that he used a source dubious at best, please show explain how stating that he used a dubious source constitutes a POV. --Heptor 18:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Heptor, you did interpret me correctly. And about your revert a couple minutes ago, I spent quite a while correcting grammatical errors in Ian's last version which were put back in when you reverted, so I reverted it back again. Please re-add your content to the most current version so we'll have less work to do later on. Once you get your additions up, I'll gladly proof-read your contributions. Aiden Cathasaigh 20:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

All of the section on IDF killing of prisoners is well-sourced and therefore shouldn't appear under "controversial claims and theories". With regard to the specific points above:

1. "add a short reference to Israeli claims that their soldiers too often have been mistreated or killed when surrendering or captured". COMMENT: If there is a good source on a claim that is directly relevant to the war I can't see any problem with this. If you claim that Israeli soldiers were mistreated then in your unique usage of the word you are implying that they were killed.
2. "include the mentioned information about the total number of Arab soldier captured". COMMENT: This has been in the article for several days along with the link you mention.
3. "make it more clear that Aryeh Yitzhaki's claim that as many as 1000 Egyptian soldiers were killed after being taken prisoners or while surrenering is made up on spot". COMMENT: You will need a source for this claim if standards in the article are to be maintained. I don't know of any source making a claim about the total number killed. If you are going to say that Yitzhaki's total for six or seven incidents of 1,000 is wrong then that implies you know what the total is.
4. "is made up on spot; and that he has admitted it later". COMMENT: You will need a source for this. I've looked and have not been able to find one. As the web page you keep referring to says the claim is backed by an AP source you need to find that source, otherwise there's nothing more than a claim in a web page. A claim of a source is not evidence.
5. "It needs to be made clear that of the dozens of Egyptian POWs abused by Israel, these can be considered isolated incidents, with thousands more returned unharmed." COMMENT: You will need a source for your claim of "dozens". The article doesn't put any figure on numbers killed because there is no publicly available source on this. All we know is that the historians who have seen the evidence say "many instances" and "many incidents". As I mentioned above the information on prisoners returned is in the article. --Ian Pitchford 21:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

1. This war is a part of a larger conflict; any prisoner mistreatment(killings or otherwise) in other wars in the same conflict is relevant.

2. Good

3. You are confusing what I am writing in the talk with my suggestion in the article. It is my personal assesment that he is likely to have made up those claims on the spot. I am not trying to write that in the article; he did however admint that the claims were made up the next day, and this was reported by assosiated press.

4. As per 3.

5. The total number of POWs killed mentioned in the article is well under 100; it is clear enough, and I am not trying to mention this explicitly. The total number of prisoners also need to be mentioned, so that a reader could easily make an independet assesment of how many prisoners were killed relative to how many prisoners were treated well. --Heptor 12:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Controversial Claims and Theories

Titling the section simply "Controversies" implies that controversies center on the incidents, not in their factuality, in a way implying that they are incidents that did occur but are simply controversial. "Controversial claims" implies that the claims may or may not be true, but are claims held by some parties. I feel the latter more accurately describes the section, since many of the instances may or may not have occurred to the extent claimed. For example, one could speak of a controversy surrounding the United States' firebombing of Japan in WWII. As this is a documented part of the war, the existence of the firebombing is not disputed, but is simply controversial as to whether or not it was necessary and/or legitimate, etc. However, US and British combat support in the Six-Day War, as well as Israeli and Egyptian killings of POWs may or may not have occurred to the extent claimed, and therefore should fall under the category of "Controversial Claims," which for the most part are held only by Arab participants of Six-Day War and pro-Arab sources. Aiden Cathasaigh 22:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

As an extent to the killings is not claimed this is not really a problem. No figure is given for the total or for any individual incident. The fact that there were killings is not disputed and so I have moved the section out of "controversial claims". --Ian Pitchford 14:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

There exist a clear controversial theory that IDF systematically murdered about 1000 Egyptian POWs. It started with a claim by an Israeli right-wing politician, which he based on research he never dit. It was repeated many times, included in a book by Bamford. This theory is controversial, to say the least. --Heptor 14:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

This is false Heptor. The article only explains the role of Yitzhaki's radio broadcast in encouraging others to come forward. It doesn't say or imply that Yitzhaki's claims are true and in fact it says that they have not been substantiated. The fact that other reputable historians did come forward as a result of the broadcast is the reason why we know that killings did take place. Not only did Yitzhaki work in the IDF history archives he also worked as Meir Pa'il's research assistant - this is confirmed in the Jerusalem Post on 17 August 1995. If it's important to you to verify that Yitzhaki retracted the claims then find the source and cite it. A link to the Misplaced Pages article on the Associated Press wont do. If you do find the source it wont make any difference to what the article actually says about this issue. --Ian Pitchford 15:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Ian, we discussed it before, you are talking about an article in Jerusalem Post while I talk about an article in published by Associated Press as cited on http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=181&x_context=7. It is like loosing your keys in a dark valley, and then searching for them under the street light, because it is easier to spot them there. Still, it is not controversial that he made up his claim, even your own version of the article implies that.

Neither it is controversial that some killings did take place. Still, you could dig up documentation for well under 100 cases, with Egyptian digging up 30-40 bodies in a mass grave being the largest single insident.

Yitzhaki claimed there were about 1000 PoWs killed. Bamford also claimed that those killings were done in a systematic manner, by orders from IDF commanders. This is what is controversial. --Heptor 15:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Heptor, we are not going to have "mistreatment" used as synonym for "killing". It is not acceptable in the English language. The article makes no controversial claims. The killings have been verified by others. The article quotes these others. The article already says that Yitzhaki's claims have not been substantiated. The article puts no total on the killings. Bamford's claims are not mentioned in the article. The article refers to the IDF order banning killings. What is the problem? --Ian Pitchford 15:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote at all? The only thing being controversial are the claims that about 1000 PoWs has been killed in an institutionized way. --Heptor 15:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I did indeed. You are still duplicating the whole section for no reason. You are still trying to introduce your unique usage of "mistreatment" as a synonym for "killing". You are still adding poorly written content with no references, e.g. "Although he withdrew his claims already the next day". You are still citing a web page that contains a patently false claim "That said, there were press reports in 1995 alleging that Egyptian POWs were murdered during the 1967 Six Day War, and Bamford cites some of these to support his charges. However, a number of the reports cited by Bamford also note that Israeli eyewitnesses denied any such thing occurred. Bamford keeps this from his readers. These same reports also indicate that Israeli POWs were killed by their Arab captors. Again, Bamford never mentions this, intent on painting a one-sided portrait of bloodthirsty Israelis. Finally, Bamford also ignores the fact that later investigations refuted the claim that the alleged massacres of Egyptian POWs ever took place." Finally, you are trying to introduce references to anti-semitism where it has no place. Please stop damaging this article. --Ian Pitchford 16:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly what part of the supplied text do you consider containing "a patently false claim"??

In any case, the way you put up the article gives an impression that Yitzhaki's accusations are probably correct. In this encyclopedia we need to have a clear distinction between established facts and controversial theories.

I put up this article in "requests for comment", and hope for more editors to contribute. Until then, there are two editors supporting separation of established facts from controversial theories, and one who does not. Please respect that. --Heptor 16:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Established facts are supported by sources. Please provide at least one source for your assertions. The article says that Yitzhaki's claims have not been substantiated. The article explains that the killing of POWs has been confirmed by many reliable sources and so this is not controversial and the article has already been amended to reflect this. The "patently false claim" made in the article you cite is that massacres of POWs have been refuted. Do you really need me to explain this to you? The CAMERA web page you quote also refers to an AP report of 17 August 1995 that cannot be traced and to an article in Newsday that does not appear in the Newsday archive. It claims, falsely, that "These same reports also indicate that Israeli POWs were killed by their Arab captors" and makes no reference to the comments by Bar-Zohar, Rabin and Milstein confirming that killings did take place. Bamford has also responded here. Jerusalem Post articles repeatedly refer to Yitzhaki without any mention of a retraction, eg. 20 August, "Last week, Bar-Ilan University military historian Arye Yitzhaki alleged that soldiers killed some 300 Egyptian POWs during the 1967 war, though this has been repeatedly denied by Housing Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who was acting commander of the unit in question, the Shaked reconnaissance unit". 23 August "Reports of other executions of Egyptian prisoners followed, and military historian Arye Yitzhaki said he believed Israeli soldiers had killed 1,000 Egyptian POWs during the Six Day War". 27 August "Bar-Ilan University historian Arye Yitzhaki had earlier been one of those who had fueled the debate on alleged IDF atrocities, when he said that, based on army documents, he believed some 1,000 Egyptians were killed by Israeli soldiers in the Six Day War, after they had already surrendered." --Ian Pitchford 18:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

My question is: If "Yitzkhaki’s claim that up to 1,000 prisoners had been killed was not substantiated," why is it even mentioned in the article? If you have other sources who claim to have first-hand knowledge of executions, why are they not in the article instead of Yitzkaki? As far as I'm concerned, Yitzkhaki's unsubstantiated claims--as even you admit them to be--are not legitimate, corroborated claims and should not even be present. If you do, however, have legitimate, substantiated sources, they should be in the article. But until you can produce these, all such references should be removed. Follow your own rules, Ian. And should you respond, don't skirt the issue as usual. Aiden Cathasaigh 19:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Aiden. I have answered every point you make here several times to absolutely no effect even though I've provided sources for everything in the article. Do you remember that the article had only two sources for everything until I started editing it? Yitzhaki's claim is mentioned in the article because it was his radio broadcast that started the debate in Israel over the 1967 killings. The article explains this. There is more context in yet another source I haven't cited here and in the book chapter by Bar-On et al cited. The debate over the 1956 killings was already underway because of revelations by Ronal Fisher and others. Yitzhaki's total of 1,000 has not been substantiated; nor has it been refuted. The article explains this. As a result of the broadcast historians and others came forward to confirm killings of prisoners. The article explains this. None of those who have commented have put a figure on the total number of killings as far as I know. The article explains this. Those with knowledge of the killings (Bron, Bar-Zohar, Milstein, Pa'il, Rabin) are quoted and the sources given. There are still others I have not cited, such as the four given above. --Ian Pitchford 20:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your adding sources and organizing the article, but when 99% of sources you add are from one POV, it's hard to maintain a balanced article. If a claim is unsubstantiated, it shouldn't even be mentioned in the context that it could be true. You shouldn't have to disprove something that there is no evidence to support in the first place--lack of evidence is evidence in itself. Until you can provide an actual account of the atrocities Yitzhaki is claiming occurred, I feel it should not be included in the article. Aiden Cathasaigh 21:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you have to put this in historical context Aiden and also "unsubstantiated" is not the same as "not credible" or "refuted". There was no debate over the 1967 killings until Yitzhaki came forward. His main claims were that there had been a number of incidents (six or seven) in which prisoners had been killed, with the largest number of killings taking place at El Arish. Subsequent news reports confirm that Yitzhaki did have long-term access to the IDF history archives, that he had worked on the 1967 war as a research assistant for Meir Pa'il, that other journalists, politicians and historians confirmed that killings (saying that there were "many") had taken place, and that mass graves had been found in El Arish. The only remaining dispute is over whether all of the killings amounted to a total of 1,000. We don't know the answer to this final question. --Ian Pitchford 05:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ian, there are two claims in my contribution: the total number of POWs exchanged after the war, and that Yitzhaki admitted that he made up the claim to shift the focus in the interview. The first fact is source to Israeli MFA. MFA may be considered partisan, but the source is clearly stated in the article. The second claim is sourced to an Associated Press article. True, I did not see the article myself, the information comes from http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=181&x_context=7. However, the claim itself is not really controversial: you admit yourself that the claim is "not substatiated". So please stop bugging me about me contributing unsourced claims.

It is true that you have spent a lot of time to find new sources to the article. However, the sources you tend to repesent pro-Arab opinions. Aiden's claim that you exclusivly find sources that agree wtih you is well-founded. Arab opinions are well-represented, such as when you use General Mohammed Fawzy, Chief of Staff of the United Arab Republic, when he wrote to UN force in Sinai "To your information, I gave my instructions to all U.A.R. armed forces to be ready for action against Israel, the moment it might carry out any aggressive action against any Arab country. Due to these intructions our troops are already concentrated in Sinai on our eastern border. For the sake of complete security of all U.N. troops which install OPs along our borders, I request that you issue your orders to withdraw all these troops immediately.", thus painting a picture that UN withdrawal was to protect the peacekeepers against the Israeli aggression (he had to understand that removing UN would make Israelis believe that he was prepareing for war, hadn't he?)

Almost all Israeli sources you use, said something that may be interpreted against the Israeli state, such as writing that Israeli FM felt that "...Nasser did not want war; he wanted victory without war", whatever it could possibly mean.

Those contributions make the artice pro-Arab biased in a very sneaky, hard-to-spot way.

Before I checked it, you even used Bamford's claim that IDF killed 1000 Egyptian POWs as a fact. And yes, if you want a more independent refute, see you may find it in a NY Times review: http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/04/29/reviews/010429.29findert.html. BTW, Bamford also writes that "N.S.A. sent reconnaissance bombers and other spy aircraft into Soviet airspace to record radar signals and ferret out holes in the Soviet Union's air defenses. The Soviets did not hesitate to shoot the planes out of the sky; some 200 Americans lost their lives." That supposed to have happened before U-2 insident, when one American pilot was shot down, causing an international insident. I mean, where does he gets this stuff from?

Aiden, I see no reason to give in and accept a version of the article which implies that IDF must have killed about 1000 POWs, when it only documents well under 100 cases. --Heptor 22:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree Heptor, but I think that giving Yitzkhaki’s ridiculous claims of systematic killing their own section in the article, separate from "Accusations and Controversial Claims," does more to help them than to disprove them. I think anything related to the war that is not 100% positively known should stay under this section. Giving it its own section, in my mind, only gives the claims legitimacy. Aiden Cathasaigh 01:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Good point there. Shall we use "In a public national review that began in 1995..." as the first sentence in the section about POWs actually killed? Those insidents unfortunatly did happen, and should be mentioned. Still, no evidence suggests that the number of killed prisoners was anywhere near 1000, and article should denounce such claims, that unfortunatly are still repeated long after they were exposed as false. At one time, they even made to the Misplaced Pages, thanks to guess-who. --Heptor 14:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Heptor, this is fundamental to Misplaced Pages: claims must be sourced. In this specific case Yitzhaki has not retracted, even under the considerable pressure resulting from the diplomatic incident with Egypt. Check the Jerusalem Post articles referred to above. For the nth time all of the sources for this story are Israeli, not Arab nor pro-Arab, though a claim of bias hardly invalidates a source. Oren is an IDF colonel on the extreme right of Israeli politics, but the article uses his book extensively. The figure on prisoner exchanges is in the article. --Ian Pitchford 05:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ian, those clips you claim come from Jerusalem Post do not directly contradict that he later admitted that he "came out with his charges to protect the leader of his party". The clips state that he indeed came with those charges, none states that he maintained them. Since you have access to Jerusalem Post, you can check if Yitzhaki’s then-commanding officer, historian Meir Pa’il, really was quoted saying about Yitzhaki that "He was a clerk in the department's archive. In 1968, he was an assistant of mine when I conducted a comparative study of the conquests of Sinai in 1948, 1956, and 1967. Had he stumbled on these devastating so-called facts, he would have said so then. The fact is he didn't." --Heptor 14:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

PS, almost forgot: for (n+1)th time: the claim you claim is unsourced is sourced in a report by AP as reported by camera.org. Doh --Heptor 14:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Mysterious headings

There is a heading 'Operation Focus' but that term is not explained in the section.

There is a heading 'Sinai Peninsula' but that term is not explained in the section.

Can somebody revise the sections and/or the heading? Bobblewik 19:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"The Samu Incident"

When did this take place, Ian? Several paragraphs describe events in November 1967--after the Six-Day War--while Israeli military operations are noted as taking place in May. Are your dates incorrect? Should it be Nov 1966 through May 1967? Aiden Cathasaigh 04:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

British military Intervention

I was under the impression that these articles were supossed to be neutral and truth full i dont think an explination that many Arabs belived that Britain and the U.S activley fought in the six day war is correct and I dont think that including school text books should count as a source. And there needs to be an explination that British and American Policy conserning the Middle East was shaped by the cold war not an anti Arab stance because thats what comes across. I also dont think that there is any proof off half the claims in that section encyclopedia's arnt a place for allergations Joey1986 21:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Altmany's Edits

It appears Altmany has condensed the article, something that I agree needs to be done. However, in doing so, he seems to have altered the balance of the article. For example, in his condensation of the "IDF killings of Egyptian prisoners of war" section, he summarizes Yitzhaki's claims, but omits information about Yitzhaki that could potentially discredit him. In the section "U.S. and British combat support," he includes claims by Arabs of US/British support for Israel but omits the US/British denials of such claims. I have reverted the changes. Aiden 17:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your claim of my edits not being neutral. I have actually spent considerable time trying to condense the remarks while keeping NPOV. I have indeed included the US/UK denials of the "Big Lie", as well as the UK telegram to that effect. Instead of reverting, why don't you simply fix the wording, if you see fit? altmany 18:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Because I feel before you make such drastic changes to the article you should in the least propose your changes in this dicussion. And I can clearly discern a shift in the neutrality of the article, especially relating to IDF killing of Egyptian POWs since your revision. Aiden 00:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've looked over your modified revision and added a bit to it. I feel it is satisfactory now. Aiden 00:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Ian Pitchford 13:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Double Standards

Why is it that so much of this article is devoted to Israelis killing POWS when there is hardly even a mention of it in articles such as world war two where no educated person could argue that the killing of pows was much more widespread and accepted on all sides including America, where even Gen Omar Bradley ordered that POWs should be killed in some situations. Even when no such proven complicity the sections still takes up nearly a quater of the entire article. Considering the number of POWs and the size of the conflict the number of killings is about average to the size of the conflict- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of this section has already been cut out (and certainly doesn't make up anywhere near a quarter, or even one tenth, of the article), along with almost all of the context for the war. The number of Arab casualties is absolutely extraordinary given the short duration of the war and the relatively low level of casualties on the Israeli side. There are other controversies that should be included, such as the use of napalm against civilians on the West Bank and Ezer Weizman's opinion in his autobiography that 80% of the incidents with Syria were deliberately provoked by Israel in order to seize control of the DZ's, but these issues probably wouldn't survive in the article for two minutes, no matter how well sourced. As far as I can see the article is just the standard Israeli account, with almost nothing on Arab opinions and actions. --Ian Pitchford 09:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I think is is quite far from standard Israeli account. It seems to put more blame on Israel for the initial buildup than Egypt and Syria. Also the casualty rates may seem high compared to the length of the war and the number of Israeil casualties, but they don't seem high considering the number of prisoners and the fact that Israel had complete Air Supremacy over such large concentrations of infantry. I guess looking at it though, one fourth was quite a gross exageration, sorry.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That'd be because several frequent editors of this article apparently do not recognize systematic POV. —Aiden 04:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Cite the exact passages you believe is POV and let's discuss it. Keep in mind that some people will say the whole article is Arab propaganda and others will claim it is Zionist lies - this article will always be disputed so saying it's "systematic POV" dosn't clarify anything. Celcius 06:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As to the POW killings, I suggest that we move suggest real reports of POV killings to the section above, just under the paragraph that begins with "The casualties of the war".

AS to POV of the article, let's begin somwhere: "Egypt, although not Israel, agreed to the stationing of a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai". Does it suggest that Israel actually opposed a UN security force to be placed in Sinai? Or did it oppose placing those UN security forces on its own territory, that was much more populated (after all, Sinai desert)? --Heptor, 5 May 2006

Western Wall Image: Dispute about copyright

The western wall image was taken from the Knesset Web site. That site's copyright explicitly states: "Copyrights with regards to historical photographs It is prohibitted to copy or distribute an historical photograph, photographs or parts of a photograph, which appear in this site, in any form or by any means, including electronic or technical means, without written permission from the Government Press Office."

I'm not the uploader and don't see the evidence of it being a PD. I would argue that this is a world-famous image and qualifies for {{HistoricPhoto}}. I've changed its lic. accordingly. Even though this particllar file is from Knesset website, the historical image may be found in thousands of books, magazines, and webpages other than knesset.gov.il. It would be good to provide another source for it, or write them for permission. ←Humus sapiens 04:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks as though it qualifies under the Historic Photo rule. I wasn't aware that that was legal. Lokiloki 05:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being reasonable, Lokiloki. ←Humus sapiens 06:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Continous reversion to same

The continued deletion of information on this topic is completely unfair, and has resulted in an article which confuses the topic very badly.

Surely there should be some supervision by impartial historians of this article?

Small Addition to reasons!

I have recently added to an already existing sentence a first name and a date. In 1967 in an effort to to resolve the issue peacefully the U.S. Did arrange for Egyptian Envoy Zakaria Mohieddin to travel to the United States to negotiate. However I added the 1st name of Mr.Mohieddin and later the correct spelling and position in Egyptian Government. Also I added the Date on which he was going to depart. Now About that date I will not add this to the text but I have a certain idea I would like to present to you and hear ur reactions if one of them is to erase what I changed then so be it. Since Egypt was expecting to send a top level government employee deemed neutral and the most diplomatic choice since Nasser obviously wasn't then, The Egyptians were most likely not going to attack at that specific time and were not expecting an attack. So even if Egypt Started the hostilities apparently there was some understanding that they were or "might have been" willing to solve it diplomatically and Yet Israel attacked and thus ensued an actual war from an "act" of war.

In my own personal belief which I do not use academically, I was surprised but I have found very little evidence to conclude that Israel and Israeli's are peaceful or truly desire it the same in an even more outspoken way of Arabs as is already known, however Egypt has initiated it first so One point in their favour.

This is obvious original research, you haven't provided any sources to back up any of your claims.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

NEWLY declassified?

I seek a clarification of "newly", since I have no (easy) way of knowing when that part of the article was written. Meneth 15:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Minor Correction to War in the air Section

"During the Six-Day War, the IAF demonstrated the crucial importance of air superiority during the course of a modern desert conflict."

Just a little analretentive change, but air superiority significantly decreases in importance with a change of terrain. While this holds true again - to a degree - with the first Gulf War, the Nato bombing campaign of Serbia was largely viewed as a failure; given the use of various tactics to help defend against interdiction attacks, and significantly hinder Bomb Damage assessement that are unavailable in a desert conflict. Chpetzu 10:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Chpetzu

Six Day War?

I know these conflicts back in 1967 some how didn't end after six days! Every day since then it has been on the NEWS! Please ADSUM love to you and your neighbours.

The 7th Prince

Intro & Casus Belli

Moshe & I seem to agree on reprisal/incursion and maybe the longstanding & necessary "what it described as" neutrality issues, so I put them back in. Not wedded to Golan shelling, perhaps it doesn't belong, but didn't want to change the "balance" too much before- Perhaps better without it, as it may be too imbalanced anti-Arab with it. Saying the fedayeen were led/supported by Egypt is simply wrong. If it is "well documented and sourced elsewhere" - someone please point it out - it is not in the body of this or related articles. It is not in Oren, who basically says the opposite: "Behind the scenes, though, the Egyptians labored to persuade their hosts to desist from further support of al-Fatah." p.47 (talking about April 67) and Shlaim's Iron Wall p. 232-233 also explicitly contradicts this: " tried to use all the confrontation states as staging bases for their operations against Israel, but Syria was the only country that gave the Fatah fighters assistance and encouragement. The Egyptian authorities firmly prevented Fatah from operating against Israel from the Gaza Strip and Sinai..." Perhaps Fatah guerilla should be used instead of fedayeen here. The person who put this in may have thus been thinking of the fedayeen before the 1956 war, not this one. I do not think we should go beyond Oren's or Shlaim's sponsored, supported, assisted or encouraged to "led." 4.234.102.142 10:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I didn't agree with replacing reprisal with incursion, and I made that clear, I just did it once because I thought it would help to avoid an edit war, which judging by your continuing recalitrance it didn't. Also Egypt may not have supported fatah guerillas, but they supported their own fedayeen incursions.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

According to whom? According to all available sources - I could add more - I note you have not given even one - there were no or practically no Egyptian supported fedayeen before the 6 day war. How would they have gotten through UNEF lines, among many other questions? Without question, these nonexistent fedayeen were not a major, or even minor cause of the war, and Israel itself, afaik did not say so. Again, people who put this statement, which (apparently) all sources disagree with, are the ones who need to support it. It grossly distorts the background of the war. At the very least, it is OR. I made a minimal change which all sources agree on. Please do not change it back without support for this astounding assertion, in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy. 4.234.96.107 03:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Israel alone? Are u kidding me?

It was not only Israel who fought on the six day war, but also USA, Britain and France helps. It doesn't make sense, how could they have not helped. They must've given some kind of assistance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.230.14 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats funny, the only support for such statements are "They must have had some assitance, they couldnt have won by themselves". What a joke.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, his statements are anything but supported by facts. Besides, this article and other make clear that Israel made an preemptive attack, blunting the Arab military forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.207.15.27 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahah...that's where you're wrong. Egyptian forces initated the war by creating a blocakde to cut off Israeli shipping. Also, Egypt removed UN forces from the Israeli-Egyptian border and deployed its military. Israel responded to Egypt's escalating actions. You make it seem as though Israel just decided to attack for no reason.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

There are two pieces to considering the "big lie" question. The problem is that the question pre-supposes one of two possible states: Israel acted alone, by itself, or that Israel was actively supported by outside forces. The facts don't seem to back up either proposition, as Israel was being financially and militarily supported by outside nations, but those nations weren't sending active duty units. No, other nations weren't actively attacking, and no, Israel didn't fight based on only it's own resources. It's helpful for propaganda purposes to pretend that either of the two states are true, but neither statements reflect much more than that... propaganda. Ronabop 08:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You claim that "Israel didn't fight the war based on its own resources" is either incredibly misleading or just demonstrably naive of how wars are fought in general, Israel was helped no more than any nation is when they go to war. People have this misconception that Israel gets all of its money from donations from other countries which is not true at all, sure at the time they got most of their equipment from other nations, but they paid premium prices for it. In fact Israel didn't really get anything "free" until decades later (as part of the peace agreement with Egypt) unless you count the relatively small amount of restitution from Germany, I find it comical that you would even state that it is propaganda to say that Israel won the war by itself, when it is obvious that it is only propaganda to say that they didn't.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You have apparently missed my point. Ronabop 11:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that I did at all, you were trying to equate the statement that "Israel won the war on its own" with the claim that "Israel had outside military help". They aren't similar in the least.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope. I was pointing out that the arguments for both extreme points of view tend to use a false dilemma, and thus, tend to be inaccurate. I wasn't even addressing the semantic argument you are using, which, in itself, also appears to be a false dilemma... that either "Israel wholely supported itself", or that "Israel was wholely supported by others". Again, neither is true. Neither is "Israel had outside military help", or that "Israel had no outside military help", or "Israel won the war on its own" or that "Israel won the war with outside help".... These kind of statements are so general as to be meaningless, other than for purposes of propaganda. The actual levels and importance of outside support are certainly their own interesting areas of study, but reducing a complex web of interconnected levels of material supply, intelligence information, regional alliances and diplomatic assurances, to something as simple as four or six words is intellectually dishonest.

Did Israel get US help? Heck yeah, its in the US national archives. We even told them that they wouldn't need the additional airlifts they were requesting, because our intelligence estimates indicated that they could trounce the opposition (contrary to Mossad's estimations) with the supplies we had already promised and/or sent. We even dispatched the 6th fleet to check the soviet support, ensuring that Arab leaders wouldn't be able to get the level of assistance desired from their cold war allies. Here's a CIA perspective: Ronabop 22:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Your source doesn;t actually say anything about a requested airlift. Do you have any deatils on that? Isarig 01:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"it is probably a gambit intended to influence the US to . . . provide military supplies . . . " and "President Johnson declined to airlift special military supplies to Israel or even to publicly support it", and "that although Israel expected US diplomatic backing and the delivery of weapons already agreed upon, it would request no additional support and did not expect any". Ronabop 01:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So, I see one speculation by a CIA analyst that Israel might want to influence the US, and another statement that directly contradicts your claim of Israeli request for addiitonal airlifts "t would request no additional support and did not expect any". If this is all you have, I'd say you're making a mountian out of a molehill Isarig 02:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, it wasn't a lone analyst's opinion, this passed through ONE, and the CIA chief of counter-intelligence, corroborated by the DIA, and finally judged by the CiC (that would be POTUS, the president himself). Quite literally, hundreds of people. The latter statement about "no additional support" comes after the US's CiC personally informing an Israeli ambassador that all intelligence pointed to the ability for Israel to win the war without the US being *publicly* involved in additional support, but existing arrangements would still go through. Thus, the US would continue its *existing* support, but not become an official combatant or official party to the escalation. As I said above, this isn't a 4-6 word kind of thing. The back-channel communications were extremely nuanced, as well as the actual links of support (or lack thereof). Is it a molehill? Well, it's not a mountain, but it's not non-existant, either... I'd be interesting in seeing data on foreign military investment and expenditures on behalf of Israel, as well as intellifence sharing agreements (and related tactical issues) in the time period leading up to the war. I do know that France was a much bigger player before '67, and the US after '67, but I haven't seen good, actual, dollar amounts or manifests of what that support entailed. Ronabop 04:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It is, at the end of the day, a speculation, about what Israel might want to do in the future, with that report. It could be the work of 1000s of analysts, it remains speculation about hypothetical future events, followed by a clear and unambigous statement that Israel is not asking, and would not ask for any support. The document you cite does not mention "continue its *existing* support" - but rather the fullfillment of future delivery of arms deals agreed to. (These were, AFAIK, a deal to supply A-4 fighters, with a delivery date in late 1968, wholly irrelevant to the 1967 conflict). Come now, you said you have some documents regarding an Israeli request for an airlift - surely you have more than this document which says the opposite. The only military aid from the US to Isreal prior to this war was the sale of a handful of HAWK SAM batteries, completed in teh early 60s. It was a drop in the bucket compared to French or British arms. Isarig 04:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to interpreting intelligence documents! Mossad often sent over random bits of information, like how to make a really good knish, for no reason whatsoever. They wouldn't send over a "Hey, we think we're going to lose this war, the soviets might step in, starting WWIII, so we might need help" message because they actually *wanted* help, they just wanted the US to know that Israel was possibly going to lose, and it was really nice knowing us. We then didn't explain to them that they had a devastating advantage, and even if Egypt attacked first, they'd *still* win, but it might take a few more days and a loss of 30% of their planes. Not that such valuable intelligence assessments would actually *mean* anything. Fulfillment of existing support couldn't *possibly* mean honoring existing agreements about arms. Oh no, of course not. As far as the outlandish statement that "only military aid from the US to Isreal prior to this war was the sale of a handful of HAWK SAM batteries", well, that just sent me into a giggling fit. Hey, it's not like we gave them massive amounts of intel, or the CIA ran a coup in Syria, overthrew Mossadeq, shut off international funding to Egypt over the Aswan Dam, Invaded Lebanon, tried to kill Abdul Karim Qassim, installed the Iraqi Ba'ath party, or in any way shape or form virtually *guaranteed* a rout by Israel by totally destabilizing the rest of the middle east, along with launching massive arms-for-debt programs, loan guarantees, and grants.

Do you , or do you not have any sources whatsoever that claim Israel requested an airlift? This is the third time I've asked you this, and so far you've produced a sngle document that says the opposite of what you claim. You response abouve is emotional POV-pushing, but does not answer my question. The US did not give Israel 'massive amounts of intel" in 1967. You are confused with the state of affairs in 1973. Isarig 15:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Johnson *refused* an airlift because, well, it was in his nature to refuse things that *nobody* asked for or *wanted*. I hear he also refused a knish that day (okay, I haven't had a good one in months, it's on my mind), just on general principle. Ronabop 05:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You want to go back an reread your own claims. You claimed Israel requested an airlift. It would be a simple matter for you to simply admit you were wrong, instead of goin on and on with long winded responses which push a certain POV, but do not support that wrong claim. Isarig 15:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore its not even like the countries just gave the arms to Israel, they paid a fair market price for them, they might have also received somewhat minor logistical support, but it was comparitively negligible. Where do you think the Arab countries got their arms? Jordon received almost all of their weaponry from the same sources that Israel did, so its not as if the West clearly took Israel's side. Also since Egypt and Syria were Soviet client states at the time, they recieved a huge arsenal almost for free. It is really just comical that you throw around words like "false dilemma" (which really doesn't apply in the least in this context) and say that it is an "extreme view" that Israel fought without any outside help, which is an obvious straw man considering the fact that no one is saying that they received zero support, the funniest part is that you can't even disprove your own straw man properly since none of the sources you have provided really corroborate your claims.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"they paid a fair market price for them"... really? Israel has no massive military debt, and actually paid all their loans without being forgiven? Cool. But wrong.

"somewhat minor logistical support" means *not* *by* *themselves*, but that they used the help of outside forces,. I know this blows holes in the absurd ideology of "Israel, by itself..." mythos, but wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for Israeli propaganda.

"Egypt and Syria were Soviet client states at the time, they recieved a huge arsenal almost for free"... Good thing to remember. Much of the "cost" of weapons, on both sides, was being absorbed in a cold-war proxy fight. Israel "paid" "market price" for weapons to the US like Syria "paid" "market price"for their weapons to the USSR.

Finally, Moshe, you have totally missed the point that a straw man is, well, a straw-man. In this case, there is both a false dilemma (that either israel could stand alone, or not), and quite a few straw men. (that Israel was by itself, that Israel needed outside countries, yada yada.) Ronabop 06:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Iraq

Iraq was not involoved directly in that war, therefore i removed it

Number of Israeli aircrafts

Six-Day_War#Preliminary_air_attack : All but four of its 197 operational jets left the skies of Israel in a mass attack against Egypt's airfields.

Operation_Focus#June_5.2C_1967 : Nearly all of Israel's 196 combat aircraft were committed to the airstrike, with only twelve being held back to patrol Israeli airspace.

Need to get the two sets of numbers right. Tintin (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I just checked Michael Oren's book Six Days of War, which I believe is considered to be the definitive history of the conflict. On page 172 he says "All but twelve of the country's jets were thrown into the attack", as for the total number of planes sent out, he only says "close to 200." Does anyone have a source that contradicts this? GabrielF 18:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Text versus footnotes

The text says "The war was initiated by an Israeli response to Egyptian aggression" whereas the footnotes would imply the wording "perceived Egyptian aggression" might be more NPOV. I have no idea whether the footnotes are balanced... well before my time! --BozMo talk 13:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree. That is a heavily POV intro, "Egyptian aggression" would be well down the causative chain in my book.

I note the page had a more NPOV intro only a few weeks ago, so this must be a recent change. That would also account for the fact that the footnotes match poorly with the text. Gatoclass 08:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I note the "Egyptian aggression" bit was inserted a few days ago by an anonymous user who has since been blocked. Anyhow, I've reverted to an earlier, more NPOV version. Gatoclass 08:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture Caption

Near the middle of the article there is a picture of an Israeli soldier (apparently future General Yossi Ben Hanan) "cooling off" in the Suez. In the caption for the picture, the author claims that "Israeli soldiers often traded their unreliable FALs and short ranged Uzis for captured AK-47s". I am an avid gun fan so I do know a good bit about the FAL. I have never heard a serious complaint about the FAL's reliability, in fact, I haven't heard many complaints about the FAL at all (save it's weight, but it does fire the 7.62mm NATO round fully automatically, so it must be a little hefty). If is was so unreliable, then why did over 90 nations (and countless rebel military formations) adopt or field it for combat , several producing it under license (the United Kingdom, Australia, Brazil, etc.). Desert nations, such as Australia, and of course Israel, have adopted or fielded the FAL and used it successfully for many years (Australia only fully replacing it several years ago). Why would so many nations entrust their soldiers lives to an unreliable rifle? Furthermore, I do not believe that any military command condones picking up captured enemy weapons and actively employing them in battle for the long term, unless they themselves are hard pressed for weapons. Such practices form logistical nightmares. The only exception I can think of are the special forces units, whose mission profiles may require the use of foriegn weapons. I would like a source for this caption.

I always thought it had to do with the AK's resistence to jamming in sandy conditions. Similairly, I've heard stories of American soldiers using AKs in Iraq. I'm no avid gun fan or owner for that matter so I honestly have no idea. —Aiden 21:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't Pakistan mentioned in the participants list?

after all Pakistan Air Force sent their pilots (who claim 3 "kills") in aid of the Islamic nations. And what role exactly did Canada play in the war, since it is listed under the participants column.

P.S.: someone archive the talk page, it's getting lengthy. --Idleguy 04:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures.

Can someone put some pictures of arab soldiers, all 4 pictures are from soldiers of IDF. That make look the article a little POV.

Casus Belli - Ian Pitchford

Ian, I've noticed you've included an Arab "casus belli" in the info box alongside the Israeli one. This doesn't make much sense to me as it was the Israelis who started the war. They are the only side who need to supply a casus belli.

I think your points would better be made in the body of the article, wouldn't they? Gatoclass 14:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Israelis claimed originally that the Egyptians started the war by invading Israel. That's rather significant. Some of the material does belong in the body of the article, but I doubt that it will survive there, given that the entire "background" section has already been removed, references, images and all. --Ian Pitchford 07:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Background" section is still there. Or do you mean, that the previous Background section was shunted off into a separate article? Gatoclass 08:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Pre and Post 1967 maps

There is a lot of discussion about Israel retreating to it's pre-1967 terriitory. I came to this page hoping to see a map of this. I coudn't find it. I hope that it is added.

Why Casus beli can not (by definition) be disputed.

1. Israel has explained why it went to war in 67. This is the casus beli. No one dispute that that why Israel said it went to war. Any other disagreement with claims and counter claims about accuracy of historical reasons should be conducted in talk.
2. The "casus beli" is also by defintion one sided. It is the cause of the party that decided to start the war. (even if both sides were ready to go to war, the casus is the reason for a single event: why one party started in military action). As such one can not list reasons for both sides unless there is a proof (not in this case) that both sides started the war at exact same time .

summary for Ian: Your POV is valid but not in the casus beli section. Zeq 07:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)