[danholo]

Edited my post because by the end of his first video he touches upon the subject in a way I mentioned in removed part.

Finkelstein's focus on Israel isn't a distortion but a rectification of distortion. The real problem isn't a "threat" to Israel; it was always far better able to threaten, or abuse.

It's like you're just repeating what I said: "the only way to survive in that region was to turn the tide of power in your favor."

As I see it, Israel could not afford any other option at that time.

[stephen50right]

Edited my post because by the end of his first video he touches upon the subject in a way I mentioned in removed part.



It's like you're just repeating what I said: "the only way to survive in that region was to turn the tide of power in your favor."

As I see it, Israel could not afford any other option at that time.

<<< Israel could not afford any other option at that time. >>>

At that time or any other time into the far distant future. Even if Israel signs the most wonderful peace treaty with all the Muslim countries, Israel would continue to remain armed to the teeth and forever vigilant.

Which is exactly why Israel really couldn't care less if they sign a peace treaty with the Palestinians or not. Nothing for the better would really change for Israel. It would change for the better for the Palestinians, things would be much better for them, but not for Israel.

[danholo]

Maybe, I don't know. On some levels yes but there will be belligerent forces on all sides no matter the era. There is not a single consensus on the matter but since religion is such a powerful force in the region, the dominance, or the desired dominance of Islam, throughout the entire Middle East should never be discounted unless its political influence wanes. Same goes for Judaism whose most strict Zionist stances would never be able to give away an inch of Palestine/Israel to other nations -

but we are speaking about the Six Day War here, just to keep it on topic.

While Finkelstein touches upon the issue of 'the Zeitgeist', it's as if the responsibility of the Arab leadership is completely absolved because they are "non-aligned and anti-Imperialist" as if their pan-Arabist aspirations were somehow non-Imperialist. I must admit that, from a certain perspective, I'm quite a fan of Nasser.

Another article to through into the mix:

This Time, the Loser Writes History
The Six-Day War

by Gabriel Glickman
Middle East Quarterly
Summer 2017 (view PDF)

It is a general law that every war is fought twice—first on the battlefield, then in the historiographical arena—and so it has been with the June 1967 Arab-Israeli war (or the Six-Day War as it is commonly known). No sooner had the dust settled on the battlefield than the Arabs and their Western partisans began rewriting the conflict's narrative with aggressors turned into hapless victims and defenders turned into aggressors. Jerusalem's weeks-long attempt to prevent the outbreak of hostilities in the face of a rapidly tightening Arab noose is completely ignored or dismissed as a disingenuous ploy; by contrast, the extensive Arab war preparations with the explicit aim of destroying the Jewish state is whitewashed as a demonstrative show of force to deter an imminent Israeli attack on Syria. It has even been suggested that Jerusalem lured the Arab states into war in order to expand its territory at their expense. So successful has this historiographical rewriting been that, fifty years after the war, these "alternative facts" have effectively become the received dogma, echoed by some of the most widely used college textbooks about the Middle East.[1] [...]

[skinster]

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

Thanks for the videos.

No probs. Finkelstein is brilliant on this subject.



Also, reminder:

[starman2003]

It's like you're just repeating what I said: "the only way to survive in that region was to turn the tide of power in your favor."

After the first, '48 war, survival really wasn't the issue at all. Glickman is full of it, repeating the same lies. The arabs in '67 had no intention of starting a war nor any capability to destroy Israel. Claims that they did stem from empty rhetoric intended for arab audiences. Glickman flies in the face of history when writing the Israelis were defenders and the arabs "aggresssors." One of the worst distortions ever.

[Suntzu]

"Pay not attention to that man behind the curtain!"

[Oxymoron]

After the first, '48 war, survival really wasn't the issue at all. Glickman is full of it, repeating the same lies. The arabs in '67 had no intention of starting a war nor any capability to destroy Israel. Claims that they did stem from empty rhetoric intended for arab audiences. Glickman flies in the face of history when writing the Israelis were defenders and the arabs "aggresssors." One of the worst distortions ever.

What the fuck does that mean? They had a Tank ratio of something like 5-1, 3-1 in Air force twice the manpower, and huge reserves. Who in their right mind can say they had no capability to destroy Israel? What utter nonsense.

[Suntzu]

What the fuck does that mean? They had a Tank ratio of something like 5-1, 3-1 in Air force twice the manpower, and huge reserves. Who in their right mind can say they had no capability to destroy Israel? What utter nonsense.

If you close one eye a say "La, la, la, la, la!" loudly it makes perfect sense.

[Zionist Nationalist]

Jordan could cut off Israel in two halves within a few hours
9km is what was the distance beteen the west bank and the mediterenan sea
mix this with a combined Arab attack on all fronts that include other countries such as Iraq,Morocco,Libya,Lebanon,Tunisa,Sudan,Yemen
and Israel could have been destroyed within a short time
at that time Israel and the Arab armies had equivalent military tech

[danholo]

What the fuck does that mean? They had a Tank ratio of something like 5-1, 3-1 in Air force twice the manpower, and huge reserves. Who in their right mind can say they had no capability to destroy Israel? What utter nonsense.

They didn't because they sucked, and still do. However, Israel needed to carry out the first strike in any case in order to survive the war by itself this is why it had to initiate the armed conflict. This doesn't discount the posturing and general belligerence towards Israel by its overtly hostile Arab neighbors. While the accounts of history have changed the general and publicized history somewhat, it doesn't completely debunk the overall scenario what was happening at the time.

Ultimately Israel couldn't afford to have Arab posturing and hostility and had to act accordingly. Attributing it to malice is naive.

Glickman is full of it, repeating the same lies. The arabs in '67 had no intention of starting a war nor any capability to destroy Israel. Claims that they did stem from empty rhetoric intended for arab audiences. Glickman flies in the face of history when writing the Israelis were defenders and the arabs "aggresssors." One of the worst distortions ever.

I don't think your comment can be counted as a proper response. Seriously, I don't find him to be lying at all - he is making an argument based on various sources and bases it on "the face of history", which is your only tangible retort.

I don't even think you read the point he was making with the article because the current (i.e., your) version is to portray Israel as the villain and sole aggressor and absolve the role of the Arab regimes entirely, while there was quite clearly a multifaceted conflict occurring where all parties are culpable. An excellent quote from the article:

"The eminent historian Bernard Lewis found it reasonable to wonder whether the Israelis were in some ways culpable for the events that led to war:

[...]As more information becomes available about the sequence of events leading to the opening of hostilities, it seems that the participants were like characters in a Greek tragedy, in which at every stage the various actors had no choice but to take the next step on the path to war.[/i]

History is prone to be the first victim in any case because unfortunately it is so politicized - your version becomes the only version while the opposing version becomes "lies". Fortunately historians uncover facts and make it much interesting, and human, at the end of the day. Launching hostilities might have been a stupid miscalculation on Israel's part but ultimately it turned the tide of the entirety of geopolitics in the Middle East in six days and strengthened its viability in the region, and the world, for years to come - but also fell victim of its own folly by inheriting an entire foreign population with which it still doesn't know what to do.

tl;dr: Read the article.

[Oxymoron]

They didn't because they sucked, and still do. H
.

And Israel knew this how? They fought one hard won war of independence, they could be certain about how much the Arab armies had improved. I mean the Egyptian performance in Yom Kippur war was not totally inept.

[danholo]

And Israel knew this how? They fought one hard won war of independence, they could be certain about how much the Arab armies had improved. I mean the Egyptian performance in Yom Kippur war was not totally inept.

Overall composition of their armed forces in general. They had new weapons but their organizations and training were and are inept. Of course, it does not change the fact that they did possess plenty of fire power and this is why Israel had to establish air superiority immediately at the start of the war, which pretty much decided the outcome.

As for the Yom Kippur War, Egypt understood its folly and had its forces trained quite well for the oncoming assault.

[Oxymoron]

Overall composition of their armed forces in general. They had new weapons but their organizations and training were and are inept. Of course, it does not change the fact that they did possess plenty of fire power and this is why Israel had to establish air superiority immediately at the start of the war, which pretty much decided the outcome.

As for the Yom Kippur War, Egypt understood its folly and had its forces trained quite well for the oncoming assault.

My point is that analysis is based on hindsight, at the time Israel only saw the numbers and the equipment, and the tanks and the planes. Israel saw them as a real threat, and acted.

[danholo]

Indeed, it is quite silly to judge in hindsight. Unfortunately people are quick to moralize decades after the fact a decision when much less information was available not to mention that it was unfolding in real time.

[starman2003]

What the fuck does that mean?

The truth.

They had a Tank ratio of something like 5-1,

Says who??! Egypt had at most 950 tanks in Sinai, Israel about 600 or so--and generally far superior in quality. Israeli Centurions had far better guns and armor than T-55s or WWII vintage stuff like T-34s and SU-100s.

3-1 in Air force

Israel had 3-400 warplanes, Egypt not many more, Syria no significant airforce. And again, regardless of numbers Israel had a big qualitative lead. The MIG-21 had ineffective weapons; some variants didn't even have a gun. Israeli Mirages had two 30mm guns and superior air to air missiles.

twice the manpower, and huge reserves. Who in their right mind can say they had no capability to destroy Israel?

Who? The US Joint Chiefs of Staff!! As I posted before, they concluded Israel would win no matter what happened.

What utter nonsense.

Spoken by yourself and similar dupes. The fact Israel won such a quick victory at minimal cost clearly indicates it had the edge from the start--and real military experts (as opposed to politicians and lay people) like the joint chiefs knew this.

Zionist Nationalist wrote:

Jordan could cut off Israel in two halves within a few hours

Absurd, because the Israelis had the edge on this front too. The Jordanians couldn't even defend the West Bank--let alone advance into Israel--in part because of overwhelming Israeli air superiority.

At that time Israel and the arab armies had equivalent military tech.

Nonsense, see above.

[Suntzu]

The only edge the Israelis had was surprise which is why the Liberty was attacked.

[starman2003]

The only edge the Israelis had was surprise which is why the Liberty was attacked.

As I just posted, they had superior tanks and fighters. They were also had better tactical leadership, which proved decisive at Abu Agheila and elsewhere.

[Zionist Nationalist]

It does not matter whatever the Arabs planned to attack Israel or not but they did everything to make it look like they are preparing to invade Israel
in 67 Israel was seriously preparing for a long term war with massive casualties so the best form of defense was to attack

[Suntzu]

:lol: As I just posted, they had superior tanks and fighters. They were also had better tactical leadership, which proved decisive at Abu Agheila and elsewhere.

Fortunately for the Israelis, the Arabs are second only to the French at running away.

[Suntzu]

It does not matter whatever the Arabs planned to attack Israel or not but they did everything to make it look like they are preparing to invade Israel
in 67 Israel was seriously preparing for a long term war with massive casualties so the best form of defense was to attack

Yep, if some big thug in a bar is tryin' to pick a fight your only hope is to sucker punch him.