Here is an interesting take on this war.
From Earl of Trumps
I bet you believed it when they told us they defeated three sovereign nations in 6 days, too. The UN formed a coalition of 20 UN nations to get Saddam out of Kuwait, and it took months to do it, not 6 days. YOu want to believe that a nation of about 5 million people defeated 3 NATIONS in 6 days, I have some swamp land I want to sell you.
From Al-Jazeera
On June 5, 1967, just three weeks after it marked the 19th anniversary of its founding, the state of Israel went to war with the armies of neighbouring Egypt, Syria and Jordan. What would come to be known to Israelis as the Six-Day War and to Arabs as the June War, saw the defeat of three of the mightiest armies in the region, in a total victory for Israel. The Six-Day War, which was considered an enormous military achievement in military history, wasn't even a real war. It was just a chase with live fire against an escaping enemy.
The outcome of the war altered the map of the Middle East for the forseeable future – a result with consequences that blocked the path to peace between Israel and Palestine until this day. It re-drew the landscape of the conflict, expanded Israel’s territorial claims and confirmed its military dominance in the region.
The war, also known as the Naksa, the setback, came just two decades after the events of 1948 when the state of Israel was established and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were expelled. It was in ’48 that five Arab armies had previously tried to put an end to the impending threat of an Israeli state, with the addition of the Lebanese and Iraq armies.
United Nations (UN) interventions relieved pressure on the Israeli army and created an opportunity for negotiations: first between Egypt and a young general, Gamal Abdul-Nasser, establishing an armistice agreement, and then with Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.
In 1956, however, an empowered Abdul-Nasser sought to reclaim power in the region by signing huge arms deals with Czechoslovakia that would then back the nationalisation of the Suez Canal. With Britain and France, owners of the international Canal company, looking for a pretext to act against Nasser’s canal grab, war with Israel is suggested as the perfect conclusion.
Israeli forces crossed Egypt’s borders and into the Sinai in a matter of months but were forced to withdraw after universal condemnation. What this did achieve for Israel was a period of unplanned peace as UN troops were stationed along the Egypt-Israel borders for a decade. Egypt requested the UN withdraw its peace-keeping troops from Sinai on May 16, 1967. Less than a month later, Israel launched “Operation Focus” – an aerial strike that eventually led to the humiliating defeat of its neighbouring Arab armies.
Should we believe Earl of Trumps or Al-Jazeera?
Anyone else have similar views?
https://www.aljazeera.com/program/featured-documentaries/2017/6/2/the-war-in-june-1967
@rajk999 saidYes, I have PROOF that Israel simply did a sneak attack on armies that were not battle ready, as Israel had claimed
Here is an interesting take on this war.
From Earl of Trumps
[i]I bet you believed it when they told us they defeated three sovereign nations in 6 days, too. The UN formed a coalition of 20 UN nations to get Saddam out of Kuwait, and it took months to do it, not 6 days. YOu want to believe that a nation of about 5 million people defeated 3 NATIONS in 6 days, I ...[text shortened]... ews? [/b]
https://www.aljazeera.com/program/featured-documentaries/2017/6/2/the-war-in-june-1967
for the reason as to why they attacked, "preemptively".
The Yom Kippur War, Ramadan War, or October War[56] also known as the 1973 Arab–Israeli War
Egypt and Syria fought back to avenge the sneak attack that Israel handed them in the six day war.
Yes, the Israeli's held off the attack, but let us recall that Syria lost many tanks, Jordan and Egypt
lost jets blown up on the tarmac in the '67 Six Day Fiasco, but still manage to take it to the Israelis.
This PROVES that in 1967, the same countries "defeated" in 1967 were NOT battle ready.
It was all al and grab for Israel in 1967. They stole, Gaza, West Bank (Judea and Samaria), Golan,
Shebra Farms, Sinai, ALL LANDS REFERENCED IN THE BIBLE. how Amazing is that. Yeah, right.
This was Israel's attempt at expanding their lands, as they wanted at that time to absorb the entire Levant.
@earl-of-trumps saidLOL ...... Ok. I read your opinion on the matter.
Yes, I have PROOF that Israel simply did a sneak attack on armies that were not battle ready, as Israel had claimed
for the reason as to why they attacked, "preemptively".
The Yom Kippur War, Ramadan War, or October War[56] also known as the 1973 Arab–Israeli War
Egypt and Syria fought back to avenge the sneak attack that Israel handed them in the six da ...[text shortened]... Israel's attempt at expanding their lands, as they wanted at that time to absorb the entire Levant.
Thanks.
@earl-of-trumps saidIf the Arab armies weren't "battle ready" in June, 1967, that's really their own goddamned fault. They had blockaded the Straits of Tiran, demanded withdrawal of the UN peacekeepers and exclaimed in extremely blustering rhetoric how this time, they were going to take out Israel once and for all.
Yes, I have PROOF that Israel simply did a sneak attack on armies that were not battle ready, as Israel had claimed
for the reason as to why they attacked, "preemptively".
The Yom Kippur War, Ramadan War, or October War[56] also known as the 1973 Arab–Israeli War
Egypt and Syria fought back to avenge the sneak attack that Israel handed them in the six da ...[text shortened]... Israel's attempt at expanding their lands, as they wanted at that time to absorb the entire Levant.
I'll grant that the Arab countries were underprepared to fight Israel, but it wasn't because of anything but their own incompetence. It's not like Israel attacked out of the blue. War alert was at a fever pitch in all places, and that Egypt and Syria did so extremely poorly in '67 was about their own incompetence, not Israel's "sneak" attack.
That they did a little better 6 years later (though still lost badly in the end) doesn't excuse their embarrassing performance in 67, nor prove anything about their moral righteousness.
===The UN formed a coalition of 20 UN nations to get Saddam out of Kuwait, and it took months to do it, not 6 days. YOu want to believe that a nation of about 5 million people defeated 3 NATIONS in 6 days, I have some swamp land I want to sell you.===
Read about a few thousand soldiers of Alexander's conquests of entire Persian armies or about Caeser's small fraction of the Roman army pacifying the entire modern day France; or maybe about Napoleon's conquest of essentially all of Europe or maybe about the Union Jack conquering and holding down territories with populations hundreds of times its own on paper-thin supply lines. Numbers are great, but leadership, strategy and tactics win wars, not (just) numbers.
@sh76 saidGranted, the Arab armies were incompetent. But this was not unknown to the Israelis, who were telling US officials they could win a war against both Syria and Egypt in 3 to 4 days (as I showed in another thread using US documents).
If the Arab armies weren't "battle ready" in June, 1967, that's really their own goddamned fault. They had blockaded the Straits of Tiran, demanded withdrawal of the UN peacekeepers and exclaimed in extremely blustering rhetoric how this time, they were going to take out Israel once and for all.
I'll grant that the Arab countries were underprepared to fight Israel, but it was ...[text shortened]... n't excuse their embarrassing performance in 67, nor prove anything about their moral righteousness.
Egypt had agreed to mediation of the Straits of Tiran issue and Israel had denied the UN request to re-station the peacekeepers inside the Israeli border. It's abundantly clear that Israel wanted war at the time and was confident it would win quickly.
@no1marauder saidThat all goes to the issue of justification. We've fought this out in the past and I'm not interested in another round right now. My point was simply to refute EoT's claim that Israel's victory wasn't a real victory and that it's impossible for one country to defeat three countries in such a short time, etc.
Granted, the Arab armies were incompetent. But this was not unknown to the Israelis, who were telling US officials they could win a war against both Syria and Egypt in 3 to 4 days (as I showed in another thread using US documents).
Egypt had agreed to mediation of the Straits of Tiran issue and Israel had denied the UN request to re-station the peacekeepers inside the ...[text shortened]... er. It's abundantly clear that Israel wanted war at the time and was confident it would win quickly.
@no1marauder saidPeace-keepers within Israeli borders would just be a hindrance and in the way. They better off leaving. Israel made a good call there. Israel did not want war. War was inevitable and they were able and willing to face it.
Granted, the Arab armies were incompetent. But this was not unknown to the Israelis, who were telling US officials they could win a war against both Syria and Egypt in 3 to 4 days (as I showed in another thread using US documents).
Egypt had agreed to mediation of the Straits of Tiran issue and Israel had denied the UN request to re-station the peacekeepers inside the ...[text shortened]... er. It's abundantly clear that Israel wanted war at the time and was confident it would win quickly.
@sh76 saidI'm not interested in defending Earl's views.
That all goes to the issue of justification. We've fought this out in the past and I'm not interested in another round right now. My point was simply to refute EoT's claim that Israel's victory wasn't a real victory and that it's impossible for one country to defeat three countries in such a short time, etc.
But I will say that the military balance has always been in Israel's favor and that justifications of its wars and attacks based on the supposed danger of Arab states overrunning her are at best misinformed and at worst propaganda.
@no1marauder saidYou are making the mistake of underestimating the enemy again. Hamas and surrounding Arab states want Israel out of there. Thankfully Israel does not do that.
I'm not interested in defending Earl's views.
But I will say that the military balance has always been in Israel's favor and that justifications of its wars and attacks based on the supposed danger of Arab states overrunning her are at best misinformed and at worst propaganda.
@rajk999 saidThey were "in the way" if Israel wanted war.
Peace-keepers within Israeli borders would just be a hindrance and in the way. They better off leaving. Israel made a good call there. Israel did not want war. War was inevitable and they were able and willing to face it.
Which they did.
It's amusing that you and Zionist apologists use Nasser's expelling the peacekeepers as an excuse for war but then justify Israel refusing to allow them on its soil because it would have gotten in the way of Israel's war. Nasser was concerned that Israel was going to launch an attack on Syria and thought removal of the peacekeepers would deter Israel from doing so. Obviously that was a bad gamble, but it's unlikely the presence of UN peacekeepers would have deterred the Israeli sneak attack anyway.
@no1marauder saidThey both wanted war, but its up to the weaker side, with more to lose to avoid it.
They were "in the way" if Israel wanted war.
Which they did.
It's amusing that you and Zionist apologists use Nasser's expelling the peacekeepers as an excuse for war but then justify Israel refusing to allow them on its soil because it would have gotten in the way of Israel's war. Nasser was concerned that Israel was going to launch an attack on Syria and thought r ...[text shortened]... t it's unlikely the presence of UN peacekeepers would have deterred the Israeli sneak attack anyway.
@rajk999 saidQuite obviously Israel wasn't the "weaker side".
They both wanted war, but its up to the weaker side, with more to lose to avoid it.
Israel uses Prussian/Swedish strategy which works excellently for short wars. It is not the ultimate military strategy but it works under some circumstances. This strategy is characterized by aggression and tactical mastery but a lack of endurance.
https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/06/the_prussian_wa.html
[T]here is indeed a German way of war and... it had its origins within the Kingdom of Prussia.... Prussian, and later German commanders, sought to maneuver their operational units... in a rapid and daring fashion. The Germans called it Bewegungskreig... the war of movement on the operational level.... Such a vigorous operational posture [required]... an army with an extremely high level of battlefield aggression, an officer corps that tended to launch attacks no matter what the odds, and a flexible system of command that left a great deal of initiative, sometimes too much, in the hands of lower ranking commanders.
Thus the Germans evolved a certain pattern of war making.... Other nations... evolved different patterns.
Arab armies are legendarily bad. They have poor leadership, training and morale.
https://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars