originally posted by: Dfairlite
"Unfortunately this is not the case at all. Israel was never attacked in 1967, because it was the one doing the attacking."
Well, you're right in a sense and wrong in another sense. Yes, israel attacked egypt first (because of troop build up on ALL surrounding borders, and
in nassers words, the desire to: "destroy israel" and all of those behind it. But israel pleaded with Jordan to stay out of the conflict and instead,
jordan attacked israel. Which israel responded to.
Well no, I'm right in all senses. As you point out, Israel did the attacking. Israel did the invading.
Nasser had indeed moved a portion of his military into the Sinai - as a defensive measure
. Just as he had gone to the other Arab states to
expand his defense
pact with Syria to include others. Including Jordan. When Israel attacked Egypt, the defense pact was triggered, and these
othern ations went to war against Israel.
Now as I just mentioned, Egypt and Syria already had a mutual defense pact. And a few months prior, there had been fighting between Israel and Syria -
Syrian forces fired mortars at Israeli troops from Golan. Israeli warplanes responded. However the defense pact was not triggered, because Syria had
been the aggressor in that instance. However, the Soviets disagreed, and were very loud that the defense pact had been activated and that Egypt should
strike back. Assad demurred.
However, fast-forward those few months. Again, the Soviets are talking with Assad... and they provide Assad with intel saying Israel plans to attack
Egypt. The intel was probably
bogus, but there's no reason to ignore it when your ally tells you "those guys who invaded you ten years ago are
planning to do it again." Assad responds defensively
- by placing a small force in the Sinai and expanding that mutual defense agreement. Yes,
a small force. In the words of then-general Chief of Staff, Yizhak Rabin,
"We did not think that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to Sinai on May 14 would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive
against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.
The entire thing was a set-up by the Soviets. Why? well, it's 1967. What is going on in the realm of cold War, in 1967? Well over in southeast Asia,
there's a proxy war going on, with the US just starting to get mired down in Vietnam. So, from Khrushchev's line of thinking, why not lure the
Americans into a sand trap as well? The thinking was likely that either Egypt would launch an attack (it didn't) or that the war would be slow and
grinding (it wasn't - largely because
Nasser wasn't willing to commit his full forces to fight it) and that the US would get involved to aid
Egypt never attacked Israel. Egypt didn't even muster sufficient forces to defend the Sinai, much less launch an attack on Israel. the two divisions
that Nasser parked in the desert were a statement to Israel, saying "we're on to you." Jordan was involved because it was obligated - Israel asking
Jordan to sit it out would be a lot like Russia asking the UK to sit out a Russian invasion of Poland.
Now as for Nasser's "vow" to "destroy Israel"? Well, you're right in a sense and wrong in another sense. Yes, the words "destroy israel" did in fact
pass Nasser's lips. Specifically he vowed that this would be the result if Israel attacked Egypt. While clearly that worked out very well for him, the
fact is the "vow" was conditional on what Israel may choose
If there is to be peace, nations must recognize the right of other nations to exist. That's all I'm getting at. I'm not saying it's a right
that's guaranteed by anything, simply that for peace to exist nations must respect one another.
it's really hard to make this argument and expect someone to take you seriously, when you are defending an occupation state that has spared no effort
in preventing the existence of, much less recognition of, the state it is occupying.
Arafat had everything to do with the bombings, here is just one example:
And I can't help but note the sourcing here;
"Israeli military intelligence officers said"
and "an intelligence officer said.
Perhaps you have something more concrete than anonymous parties with a strong vested interest in a particular narrative?
As for the arab league offer. They're offering nothing. They still refuse to recognize israel's jewish state. Why would a jewish state accept
an offer that doesn't even recognize them?
Except that full diplomatic recognition of Israel is part of the offer.
As for the khartoum resolution, that's a really special way to look at it. If one member of the UN goes against the sanctions on Iran does that
mean the sanctions are lifted by all of the other countries. Of course not. One member state breaking the rules does not make the agreement between
the rest of them, defunct.
No, but think of it this way, sticking with the UN comparison.
If the UN votes to place sanctions on iran... and the nthe United States, UK, China, and Russia all decide "Yeah, nevermind, let's ignore that," then
does it matter that Fance, Ghana, and Chile are still on board with the idea? "Oh no," Iran says, "we won't get any fancy salt from the Andes to put
on our mcDonalds fries!"
Point is, when the most powerful party or parties in an agreement ditch the agreement, the agreement might still stand, but it's toothless.
so currently, Egypt and Jordan have backed out formally. Palestine recognizes Israel. Saudi Arabia officially
maintains the "three nos" but is
in up to its neck with israel otherwise. Who's that leave? Sudan? Yemen? Oh I know, Oman
is going to make all the difference, right?
The Khartoum Resolution is like one of those Galapagos tortoises where only males are still alive - it still exists, but it's not going to get
anything done anytime soon.
edit on 23-7-2014 by TheTengriist because: (no reason given)