New Israeli/Palestinian peace plan

[MMMMMM]

Well I saw a PBS or History Channel documentary on it less than a year ago.

Nasser actually said this would be the war that would eliminate Israel. My overall impression from the documentary was that the Arab intent was to attack.

[Chris Alger]

You're not going ot get much history from the History Channel.

Egypt scored a lot of points with its prewar belligerence: showing its resolve to the USSR and Syria, getting the UN off Egyptian soil; "righting the wrong" of 1956; demonstrating Arab unity, scaring Israel, focusing the attention of the superpowers on the region, and generally reasserting Nasser's position as the leader of pan-Arabism and anti-Zionism. This was welcome at a time when Egypt's government was in a deep political and financial crisis. So there was a lot of accompanying propaganda and rhetoric (especially from non-government sources or governments that had less at stake, like Iraq) that inflated the Egypt's power and determination to lead the charge and "liberate Palestine," "wipe Israel off the map," etc. Israeli propagandists have endlessly capitalized on this rhetoric, as did the Israeli press of the day, while ignoring the lack of credence given to it by Israel's political and military leadership, who well understood where the balance of power lay.

The internal debates within the Egyptian command, however, show that Egypt was neither planning to attack but also divided over its ability to defend against an Israeli attack. It was unprepared for war and had been drawn into an Israel-Syrian crisis against its will. Its military, already exhausted from the Yemen conflict, was utter unprepared to launch any offensive campaign.

So the basic issue on the Egyptian side was whether to consolidate its gains at the risk of being attacked or to back down and surrender some of the poltiical capital it had acquired. Egypt gambled that Israel would be deterrred from attacking by the US, who in turn would fear a superpower confrontation. But the Americans gave Israel a green light and Egypt lost.

Few countries have suffered such a decisive, nearly instantaneous military defeat, another fact that underscores the absence of an Egyptian "threat" to Israel. In a few days, Egypt lost between 15,000 and 20,000 troops, including some 1,500 officers and pilots. 85% of its military hardware, including 85% of it s fighters and all of its bombers, had been destroyed and much of the remainder -- including over 300 tanks -- had been captured by Israel. The Syrian and Jordanian air forces were also destroyed (prior to Israel's conquest of the occupied territories). The Israel-Arab casualty ratio was an incredible 1:25. Both Egypt and Syria ceased to be significant military powers in the region (and Jordan wasn't to begin with). Israeli generals candidly claimed that they were quite capable of taking Damscus or Cairo had Isreal so desired.

1973 was a different story, but 1967 was a one-sided bloodbath.

[B-Man]

Funny how the person who refers to others on this site as "chauvinists" is the one who is always twisting the facts to make the group that he is prejudiced against look like the aggressors.

Let me get this straight--Egypt forced U.N. peace-keeping troops out of the Sinai, massed its own troops in the Sinai (while Syria was simultaneously moving its troops into position to attack Israel), and ordered a blockade of Israeli shipping... yet it was Israel that was responsible for starting the 1967 war, not the Arabs!

I know how you feel Chris--Israel has no right to defend itself, ever, under any circumstances. Just as today they are supposed to take no actions whatsoever against or to prevent suicide bombings (they should just sit there and take it!), in 1967 they should not have taken any actions to defend themselves when all of their neighbors were massing troops and preparing to attack (and had already instituted a shipping blockade)--they should have waited for the imminent attack, and then responded (which of course would have made the kill ratio much less favorable than 25:1 in favor of Alger's favorite country).

People like you are the reason there will never be peace in the Middle East. You always blame Israel rather than look at the facts. Under the Alger view, Israel never has any right to defend itself, it is supposed to be a sitting duck for any and all Arab attacks (even after its neighbors started 4 wars against it in 25 years). Unfortunately, neither Israel (nor any sane person) subscribes to the Alger view. Israel isn't going away, Chris, and Israel is always going to defend itself against Arab aggression, whether you like it or not. You are just going to have to face the facts and deal with it.

[Chris Alger]

"yet it was Israel that was responsible for starting the 1967 war, not the Arabs!"

I didn't say or imply this. Egypt gambled with an insane provocation that Israel couldn't tolerate, and Israel seized the opportunity to crush its only military competition and grab territory it had coveted since 1948. If you're going to accuse me of "twisting facts," you might want to at least read the post.

"Israel has no right to defend itself, ever, under any circumstances"

Ditto.

"Just as today they are supposed to take no actions whatsoever against or to prevent suicide bombings (they should just sit there and take it!)"

Ditto.

"they should not have taken any actions to defend themselves when all of their neighbors were massing troops and preparing to attack (and had already instituted a shipping blockade)--they should have waited for the imminent attack, and then responded."

I am not aware of any evidence that in May-June 1967 any country was "preparing to attack" Israel or that Israel faced any "imminent attack" from any Arab country. The evidence I cited suggests otherwise. If you have something to the contrary, either present it or stop wasting space.

[Cyrus]

"I am not aware of any evidence that in May-June 1967 any country was "preparing to attack" Israel or that Israel faced any "imminent attack" from any Arab country."

Absolutely correct. And this is why I cannot understand the meaning of your phrase "Egypt gambled with an insane provocation that Israel couldn't tolerate".

What "insane provocation"? From as far back as the early 60s, Nasser had assessed (Summit of Alexandria) that Israel was militarily stronger than all its Arab neighbors together. He was urging extreme caution in dealing with Israel, warned Syria not to act foolishly in provoking Israel (he specified that Syria could not count on Egypt's help if it unilaterally caused war) and effectively declared Israel winner of the infamous "water war" with Jordan.

Israel's strategy of escalation on the Syrian front, however, continued apace and was probably the single most important factor in dragging the Middle East to war in June 1967. Here's Moshe Dayan, speaking to the Israeli journalist Rami Tal in 1976 (as published in the Israeli Yediot Aharonot, weekend supplement, 1997) :

<ul type="square">"..Never mind that. After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way : We would send a tractor to plow someplace where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot! And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was. I did that, and Laskov and Chara [Zvi Tsur, Rabin's predecessor as Chief of Staff] did that, and Yitzhak did that, but it seems to me that the person who most enjoyed these games was Dado [David Elazar, OC Northern Command, 1964-69]."[/list]
The old fox must have gotten quite a chuckle out of all this.

[Chris Alger]

In fact, what I wrote was "Israel was every bit as much of an aggressor during the war as the Arab states." You interpreted this as my saying "yet it was Israel that was responsible for starting the 1967 war, not the Arabs!"

Your pathological chauvinism so overwhelms you that you can't tell black from white, leading you to describe simple criticism based on research and Israeli scholarship as "anti-semitic lies" for the crime of poking holes in the propaganda veil erected by Israel apologists. This kind of Stalinism demonstrates no affinity for Israel, Israelis or Jews, but merely a self-abasing compulsion to shore up a mindset that can't tolerate disagreement or dissent.

[MMMMMM]

"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel"--Gamel Abdel Nasser, May 27, 1967

"Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map"--President Aref of Iraq, May 31, 1967

[Chris Alger]

The insane part was the Eilat blockade. Nasser gained nothing from this demonstration of power but is was the pretext Israel needed to get US approval for the war (especially since the alternative was enforcing J.F. Dulles's pledge that US force would keep the straits open, something that LBJ was hardly inclined to do given the current crisis over Vietnam). All of Nasser's actions can further be faulted for instigating the Arab propagandists and warmongers -- some of whom served under Nasser -- who were chomping at the bit for a major confrontation with Israel.

Nasser's poltiical acumen in reading the Israeli domestic situation was horrible. Regardless of what Israeli officials thought, the Israeli public was terrified of a repeat of the 1948 war, still fresh in the minds of many. People were digging trenches and bomb shelters in their backyards. Israeli political cartoons showed Eshkol unable to make up his mind, Nasser in tank surprising Eshkol in bed. Begin had to be brought into the government to help neutralize the right. Nasser's hope that Israel would sit back and take it simply because he wasn't really threatening Israel was just as deluded as Krushchev's belief that the US would accept missiles in Cuba to counter US aggression there.

Nasser misread the US situation and underestimated the extent to which his relations with the US had irretrievably soured. LBJ and his advisors were no doubt delighted at the prospect of Israel alone clobbering Egypt and Syria.

Finally, Nasser ignored the inability of his top commanders to function properly and the inability of his military to use its hardware. His armor and infantry were left in the Sinai without orders or operational plans, making them sitting ducks. Doing that during the course of ratcheting up tensions is just nuts.

Where can I get the full text of a Tal interview translation? Shlaim contends that Dayan was partly exaggerating in order to embarrass his poltical successors after his fall from grace.

[Chris Alger]

In other words, they merely restated the same failed, impotent Arab policy since 1948 that made them a diplomtic laughing stock, which Isreali officials, by refusing to consider any comproimse over the Palestinian situation in order to obtain permanent peace, were perfectly content to live with.

Note Iraq. The country that would barely appear in hostilities and with little to lose.

[MMMMMM]

Well I just went to eBay and looked for The Iron Wall and White Out but found neither; I'll keep an eye out for them both (since I like to order cheap on eBay or from Dover whenever possible).

Meanwhile I'm looking forward to seeing how you and Alger reconcile the quotes of Nasser and Aref (just prior to the 1967 war) with your positions.