A 50-Year Occupation: Israel’s Six-Day War Started With a Lie

And what a war it was...

On this day in 1967 Israel faced 547,000 soldiers, 957 fighter jets, 2.504 tanks, 1,845 personnel carriers, 962 field guns, 2,050 anti-aircraft guns and 13 hostile countries determined to destroy her.

The rest is history

 

If an embargo is an act or war then we'd have WW3 by now

 

"Blockade" < the term I used.
Blockades are an act of war.

 

You mean the blockade that was broken in mid April of 1948? You do know it was the act of Arab militias headed by Jordan and not Egypt. Right? Not to mention that it happened 19 YEARS before the 6 day war happened.

 

No. The Egyptian blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, on 22 May 1967.
Blockades are an act of war.

 

A blockade isn't really an act of war even though it could be used in a war. Otherwise wed say that Israel was waging war when they blockaded Gaza strip. An allegation that they vehemently denied. Instead they were doing it for "self defense". Or so they claimed. But lets look at historic context before we get into the meat of what embargo and blacked actually mean

"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."[106] With what Israel saw as provocative acts by Nasser, including the blockade of the Straits and the mobilization of forces in the Sinai, creating military and economic pressure, and the United States temporizing because of its entanglement in the Vietnam War, Israel's political and military elite came to feel that preemption was not merely militarily preferable, but transformative.

Major General Mattityahu Peled, the Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces during the war, said the survival argument was "a bluff which was born and developed only after the war ... When we spoke of the war in the General Staff, we talked of the political ramifications if we didn't go to war — what would happen to Israel in the next 25 years. Never of survival today."[203] Peled also stated that "To pretend that the Egyptian forces massed on our frontiers were in a position to threaten the existence of Israel constitutes an insult not only to the intelligence of anyone capable of analyzing this sort of situation, but above all an insult to Zahal (Israeli military)."[204]

In a 30 March 1968 Ma’ariv interview Defense Minister Moshe Dayan explained: "What do you mean, [the war was] unavoidable? It was, of course, possible to avoid the war if the Straits [of Tiran] had stayed closed to Israeli shipping.[205]

Menachem Begin also stated that "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."[206]

According to Martin van Creveld, the IDF pressed for war: "...the concept of 'defensible borders' was not even part of the IDFs own vocabulary. Anyone who will look for it in the military literature of the time will do so in vain. Instead, Israel's commanders based their thought on the 1948 war and, especially, their 1956 triumph over the Egyptians in which, from then Chief of Staff Dayan down, they had gained their spurs. When the 1967 crisis broke they felt certain of their ability to win a 'decisive, quick and elegant' victory, as one of their number, General Haim Bar Lev, put it, and pressed the government to start the war as soon as possible".[207]

That the announcement of the blockade of the Strait of Tiran paved the way for war is disputed by Major General Indar Jit Rikhye, military adviser to the United Nations Secretary General, who called the accusation of a blockade "questionable," pointing out that an Israeli-flagged ship had not passed through the straits in two years, and that "The U.A.R. [Egyptian] navy had searched a couple of ships after the establishment of the blockade and thereafter relaxed its implementation."[208]"

It looks like the blockade thing was just Israeli's crappy excuse to start another war to gain more land. And they did.



An embargo is a type of a blockade.

 

It is. Always.
Egypt committed an act of war against Israel. Israel responded, as she had every right to do.
Thus began the 6-day war.

 

On 50th Anniversary of Israeli Occupation, Palestinian Opinions Largely Ignored - FAIR

​

This week marks the 50th anniversary of what’s called in Israel and the United States the Six-Day War, and an-Naksah (“The Setback”) in Palestine—a conflict that lasted from June 4 to June 10, 1967, and marked the beginning of a decades-long occupation of Gaza and the West Bank by the Israeli military. In their respective opinion pieces analyzing the conflict and its subsequent effect on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, major US media have favored Israeli and pro-Israel American voices at the expense of Palestinians by a wide margin.

A survey of opinion pieces in major US newspapers and magazines over the past week found that an overwhelming majority of voices featured in the media—23 out of 26—were Israeli or American, while only three were Palestinian or Palestinian-American.

Here is a list of opinion pieces by Israelis and Israeli-Americans, which looked at the war and subsequent occupation from a variety of Israel-centric perspectives:

1. Israel’s 1967 Victory Is Something to Celebrate (New York Times, 6/2/17)
2. How Occupation Has Damaged Israel’s Democracy (Washington Post, 6/4/17)
3. Tel Aviv Diary: Where Did the Six-Day War Leave Us (Newsweek, 6/4/17)
4. Israelis Have Mixed Feelings About the 50th Anniversary of the Six-Day War (NPR, 6/4/17)
5. 50 Years After the Six-Day War, Israel Should Pull Out of Most of the West Bank (LA Times, 6/5/17)
6. How the Six-Day War Safeguarded Israel as the Middle East’s Democratic Anchor (Newsweek, 6/5/17)
7. Still Stuck Between May and June of 1967 (New York Times, 6/5/17)
8. When Israel’s Religious Zionists Got Their Big Break (The Atlantic, 6/5/17)
9. How the Six-Day War Changed Israel’s Mind (New Yorker, 6/5/17)
10. Israeli Novelist Highlights Lasting Consequences of Six-Day War (NPR, 6/6/17)
11. Israel Continues to Seek Mideast Peace 50 Years After Six-Day War (Chicago Sun-Times, 6/7/17)
12. How the KGB Started the War That Changed the Middle East (New York Times, 6/7/17)

Most op-eds by Americans on the Six-Day War tended to take Israel’s point of view. (Boston Globe, 6/7/17)​

An equal number of opinion pieces were written by Americans (other than Israeli-Americans or Palestinian-Americans):

1. The Myths About 1967 That Just Won’t Die (The Atlantic, 6/2/17)
2. Six Days and 50 Years of War (New York Times, 6/2/17)
3. The Past 50 Years of Israeli Occupation. And the Next (New York Times, 6/2/17)
4. In Spring of 1967, Israel Proved It Was Here to Stay (Miami Herald, 6/2/17)
5. America’s Half Century of Failure in the Middle East (CNN, 6/3/17)
6. 50 Years and Six Days: How the Mideast Has and Has Not Changed (Daily News, 6/4/17)
7. How “Israelotry” Became an American Religion (The Atlantic, 6/5/17)
8. Evangelical Zeal for 1967 Wasn’t Really About Jews (The Atlantic, 6/5/17)
9. Should Mormons Take Sides? With Whom? (The Atlantic, 6/5/17)
10. The Crisis of Arab Nationalism and the Rise of Islamism (The Atlantic, 6/5/17)
11. The Six-Day War Was a Step Backward for Zionism (The Atlantic, 6/6/17)
12. Israel’s Victory in Six-Day War Astonished the World (Boston Globe, 6/7/17)

The US-authored opinion pieces were generally sympathetic to Israel, or examined the war in terms of its impact on Israel. Two notable exceptions were Nathan Thrall (New York Times, 6/2/17), who’s seen as a critic of both Israeli and Palestinian leadership, and Lebanese-American writer Hussein Ibish (The Atlantic, 6/5/17).

Compared to these, there were just three Palestinian voices in Six-Day War opinion coverage: “How the 1967 War Came Home to Me,” by Hasan Ashwari in the New York Times (6/5/17), an NPR interview (6/7/17) with Palestinian lawyer and writer Raja Shehadeh, and one short essay focusing on how the war changed religion in Palestine (but with no commentary on the war itself) by Maysoon Zayid, Palestinian-American comedian, writer and disability advocate, in The Atlantic (6/5/17). The essay appeared alongside five non-Palestinian perspectives.

This is a ratio consistent with the New York Times series “The Six-Day War at 50”—which features one opinion piece a day on the Six-Day War—and has thus far featured three Israelis, one American and one Palestinian. To the extent that Palestinians get to write about their own occupation, it is typically a token, box-checking gesture, as if trying to barely avoid being uniformly Israeli and American.

A New York Times op-ed (6/7/17) deflected responsibility for the Six-Day War onto the Soviet Union.
​

One-sided punditry isn’t limited to Israel; as FAIR (4/28/17, 5/17/17) has noted, other US allies, such as Saudi Arabia, routinely receive fawning coverage from US media personalities and editorial boards.

It’s worth highlighting some pieces that broadened corporate media’s coverage of the 1967 conflict and its lasting effects. The Washington Post ran a series of non-opinion reports focusing on the effects of Israel’s military occupation two weeks ago that were frequently sympathetic to Palestinians, highlighting their daily struggles. Two weeks ago, the New York Times ran an op-ed (5/23/17) by Palestinian-Canadian lawyer and former PLO spokesperson Diana Buttu, critiquing Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Counting the ethnicities or nationalities of commentators isn’t a perfect instrument in analyzing bias; after all, Fox News can always find African-Americans to tell you Black Lives Matter is a hate group. But it is one proxy for determining which voices are being amplified and which aren’t. As FAIR has noted before (4/6/17), pro-BDS and pro-Palestinian voices are overwhelmingly outnumbered in the New York Times by anti-BDS, pro-Israel commentators—a trend even more apparent in media at large, and one likely to continue indefinitely.

 

The shame is that TODAY there still is no peace in the land!

Palestinian/ Israeli update 6/08/2017…IDF clash with protesters in northern Gaza

Israeli raids in Palestinian towns, villages, and refugee camps are a daily occurrence in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Due to the typically aggressive nature of the raids, clashes often erupt between local Palestinian youth who throw stones and are met in response with live fire, rubber-coated steel bullets, and tear gas, often resulting in serious, sometimes fatal injuries.
According to prisoners rights group Addameer, 6,200 Palestinians were detained by Israel as of May.

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2...with-protesters-in-northern-gaza-2916260.html
----------
Of course, as usual in every conflict the loser gets the blame for everything.
In another 50 years that will still be the norm.
It's a prominent blood sport the baser people like to engage in... all in the name of Allah, Christ, Jehovah or Satan.

 

I believe Israel had four aircraft,

 

That's what you get when you have poor losers.

 

ACtually, I happen to be a student of that history since I'm only a few years younger than israel itself and vividly remember the build up to the 67 war.

 

Yeah, they even briefly had a State! But then threw it away in a foolish war of aggression. And when they love their children more than they love murdering Jews, they will again have a state!

 

Yea and I'm the teacher.

 

Well I grant that your posts do have some educational value, but most assuredly not in the manner you percieve.

 

If that were true, you'd do something other than copy/paste other peoples' work.

 

You're right. I'm not a teacher.

Teaching history requires using sources.

 

It also requires something more than copy/paste. Al you've done is regurgitate other people's nonsense.

 

Sure. Here you go.

My edits in Wikipedia:

Guatemala Civil War

• 10.1 United States Involvement
  • 10.1.1 Support for Army Intelligence

Contras

2 U.S. military and financial assistance

• 2.1 Political background
• 2.2 Low-intensity conflict
• 2.3 Illegal covert operations

Battalion 3-16 (Honduras)

• 1.2 Links with the United States

Atlacatl Battalion - Wikipedia

Didn't know I had to write a chapter for each thread I start. I actually did in a couple of threads:

1. 
   Thread
   US Intervened Over 80 Times In Foreign Elections
   The vast majority of U.S. imperialism is done secretly and therefore it passes with little notice. Through covert action by the CIA and the...

1. 
   Thread
   U.S. Strategy for Russia and Eastern Europe
   [MEDIA] In the early 1980s, the Reagan administration announced its plans to develop a missile defense system designed to protect the United...

Primary sources are other people's nonsense?

In the words of the leading oil expert in the Senate by Henry Jackson on May 21, 1977:

I could post internal documents all day and I used to but that turned out to be pretty boring for people.

 

You haven't posted any primary sources.

 

These are primary sources:

In the words of the leading oil expert in the Senate by Henry Jackson on May 21, 1977:

 

No. These are people interpreting information form primary and secondary sources.

 

Wrong. Click on the damn links:

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v12/d35

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Near East Region; Iraq; Iran; Arabian Peninsula, Volume XII

35. Paper Prepared by the National Security Council Planning Board0
Washington, July 29, 1958.

https://books.google.com/books?id=V...rranean and Iran on the Persian Gulf.&f=false

Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the ..., Volume 119, Part 13

 

If you teach history, I feel sorry for your students. They are getting a very biased and incomplete version of events.

 

And your evidence to support this claim is ?