Talk:Six-Day War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Six-Day War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

I edited part of the section about the events leading to war[edit]

The article was missing an important confrontation that occurred on April 7, 1967 between Israel and Syria, so I added it. -- Wiki Khalil (talk) October 13 2012

Unwanted war?[edit]

This article statement:"Most scholarly accounts of the crisis attribute the drift to war to an escalation that was unwanted" is problematic.

  • Egypt planned to attack Israel at 27 May 1967. This plan was canceled between the 25 May to the last minute 27 May. Hence, at least until the 25 May, the war was wanted.
  • The view of current historians is important, but each side perceptions of the other side are important too. The Israeli discovered the 27 May Egyptian attack plan and asked the Americans to deal with. The U.S told the soviets, and the Soviet ambassador waked up Nasser in the middle of the night and asked him not to attack. During the days after the 27 May, with Nasser repeating severe threats, could Israel be sure that the Egyptian will not attack eventually ?

I propose to add this text:

"Egypt planned to attack Israel at 27 May 1967. This plan was canceled at the last minute. Later, Nasser threatened that the Arab people want to fight, and the objective is the destruction of Israel. Israel decided to strike preemptively."

You are engaged in WP:OR, synthesizing choice statements from a vast record in order to rewrite your version of the war on wikipedia, for which reason, unless you learn to edit correctly, the only alternative is to revert you, as I just did on the absurd snippet abouty Palestinian frenzy. That is in the source, but the whole section deals with complex details about Jordanian dissent, disagreement with Nasser by Tal, total lack of Jordanian capabilities, certainty of losing in any war, also the West Bank. All you saw was the word 'Palestinian frenzy'. Nothing of the tactical need for noise-making, nothing of the belief in the Jordanian elite that as in 1956 if war broke out international powers would step in and stop it before damage took place. That edit is one more proof of why you should not be editing wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources for the Egyptians side:[edit]

Senior Egyptian officials:[edit]

"the testimony of Egyptian Chief of Staff General Mahmoud Fawzi to the effect that an Egyptian air attack was scheduled for 27 May, and that the relevant orders had already been signed by Abdel Hakim Amer when Nasser ordered its cancellation on 26 May" (Gluska 2007 , p. 168)

"According to then Egyptian Vice-President Hussein el-Shafei, as soon as Nasser knew what Amer planned, he cancelled the operation" ( Bowen 2003, p. 57 (author interview, Cairo, 15 December 2002). I have not verified)

the testimony of Bassiouny, who recalls that when the Washington Embassy reported that Secretary of State Dean Rusk had information that Egypt was going to start the war, Amer wrote on the cable, “Shams, it seems there is a leak.” (Shlaim, Louis, 2012, p68 )

Egyptian military steps[edit]

on May 26, two Egyptian Air Force MiG-21s overflew the reactor (at 52,000 feet) on a photographic reconnaissance mission, and interceptors and missiles failed to bring them down. The Israelis linked the mission to a possible preemptive strike on the plant (Morris, victims, p. 308)

In the Sinai, there was deep confusion; as late as 5 June officers were still not sure whether their goal was offensive or defensive. Nasser is said by some officers to have added to the chaos by his constant interference in military plans (Shlaim, Louis, 2012, p66 )

On approximately 20 May, Saad alDin Shazly, commander of a Special Forces unit in the Sinai, was given an offensive mission plan involving an advance through Israel.(Shlaim, Louis, 2012, p67 )

As late as 25 May, therefore, everything was set for an attack at daybreak on 27 May.(Shlaim, Louis, 2012, p67 )

It was only one hour before the planned strike on 27 May that Said’s army liaison officer told him the attack had been aborted after a U.S. request to the Soviets. Shazly was not informed of the shift to a defensive posture until about 1 june. Although Nasser reiterated that Egypt would not strike first, tanks and planes in the Sinai were fully fuelled and not concealed, as if they were going to attack (Shlaim, Louis, 2012, p68 )

Nasser intentions[edit]

On 13 May 1967 Nasser received a Soviet intelligence report which claimed that Israel was massing troops on Syria's border. Nasser responded by taking three successive steps which made war virtually inevitable (Shlaim, Louis, 2012, p 7 )

He was subsequently to imply- as during his speech of May 26 to Arab trade union leaders-that the whole sequence of moves, culminating in the closure of the straits, had been planned to trigger war with Israel, with the ultimate aim of “liberating Palestine." (Morris, victims, p. 306)

In 1966 Nasser himself had declared that if Israel developed an atomic bomb, Egypt’s response would be a “preemptive war’ directed in the first instance against the nuclear production facilities.27 On May 21, Eshkol had told the cabinet Defense Committee that Egypt wanted to close the straits and “to bomb the reactor in Dimona. (Morris, victims, p. 307)

He was subsequently to imply- as during his speech of May 26 to Arab trade union leaders-that the whole sequence of moves, culminating in the closure of the straits, had been planned to trigger war with Israel, with the ultimate aim of “liberating Palestine." (Morris, victims, p. 308)

Abdel Magid Farid, however, suggests that Nasser did actually consider the first strike option until early on 27 May, when he was hauled out of bed at 3 by the ambassador from the Soviet Union (his only source of arms and spare parts) and warned not to precipitate a confrontation (Shlaim, Louis, 2012, p68 )

Sources for the Israeli side:[edit]

Israeli military considerations[edit]

In the first days of June ... as did the sense that the Arab states might launch an attack within days There was particular fear of a limited Jordanian or Jordanian-Egyptian offensive against Eilat. (Morris, victims, p. 310)

Israeli diplomatic and political steps[edit]

"In private, Eshkol had sent Nasser secret messages urging deescalation. In public, he continued to assert Israel’s peaceful intentions, call for international mediation, and avoid criticism of Egypt. This reinforced the existing image of Egyptian military superiority — if Israel wanted to avoid war, it was presumably because Israel thought it would lose" (Shlaim, Louis, 2012,The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences, p66 )

Nasser seems to have been encouraged by the fact that Israeli rhetoric condemning the Tiran blockade and subsequent developments was relatively mild. Even the fact that the United States counselled restraint was interpreted as an attempt to protect Israel from Arab wrath — and therefore as further evidence of her need for protection. (Shlaim, Louis, 2012, p68 )

Although Eshkol denounced the Egyptians, his response to this development was a model of moderation (Mutawi p. 93)

the leaders of the confrontational states were caught by complete surprise when Israel took their threats at face value (Shlaim; Louis2012, p. 63 )

Nasser appeared to challenge Israel to a duel (Shlaim; Louis2012, p. 7 )

Background section[edit]

Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, it was agreed here to revert the Background section to the March 2011 version in order to take out the "bloat". On 29 July, User:Dailycare put this into effect. However, over the last week, User:Ykantor has doubled the length, and I feel it’s on the road to "bloat" again. I’ve therefore reverted to Dailycare’s version and included this hidden/nowiki message: "Please do not add text to the Background section without first obtaining consensus agreement on the talk page. The section has a tendency to become “bloated” over time. Per WP:SUMMARY STYLE, this should provide only a very brief overview as there is an article dedicated to this: "Origins of the Six-Day War"" DeCausa (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Btw, in the same edit, I also took out some unused references in the notes that had been showing as error messages. I think they had been left over from previous edits. DeCausa (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

- Among other sentences you deleted these 26 words: " Israel and Syria disputes were the War over Water,[29][30] Israeli cultivation of the Demilitarized zones,[27][31] and Syria sponsoring of Fatah killing of Israeli soldiers ans civilians". Is it possible to justify this deletion of very important disputes? . remember that some historians look at these disputes as the main reason for the escalation.

- Comparatively, Is it justified to keep in the section the much longer (63 words) text concerning Samu: "Soon thereafter, in response to PLO guerilla activity,[34][35] including a mine attack that left three dead[36] the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) attacked the city of as-Samu in the Jordanian-occupied West Bank.[37] Jordanian units that engaged the Israelis were quickly beaten back.[38] King Hussein of Jordan criticized Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser for failing to come to Jordan's aid, and "hiding behind UNEF skirts"

-It is a pity that a summarized important text is deleted because of a supposed policy to force going to the talk page before writing, which was never approved. There is no such a policy even for much more controversial articles ( e.g. "Hitler") . Are you sure that you are authorized to reject a well established WP:bold Wikipedia policy ? I will appreciate it if you return to your civilized manners and cancel those deletions of yours. Ykantor (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You supported returning to the March 2011 version. Now you want to add your tidbits. Trouble with that is that someone with the opposite POV to yours will come along and add their tidbits and off we go. This article is not about how the war started. There's another article to have that POV contest over. DeCausa (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I support DeCausa in this matter and was going to do the edit myself as well, but I've been busy with non-wiki things. The point in removing the bloat is to get rid of superfluous text in the summary of the background, so obviously then I feel that adding trivia to the summary goes agains the gist. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Dailycare: you are not being here to build an encyclopedia( WP:NOTHERE). Behind your polite style there is no wp:goodfaith. You avoid discussion of points which are against your view, and you recycle sentences which were proven wrong already, in order to frustrate an editor who argue with you, as seen in this talkpage. You repeat this behavior here, ignoring the claim that the Israel - Syria disputes are notable for the article. You tag this sentence " Israel and Syria disputes were the War over Water,[29][30] Israeli cultivation of the Demilitarized zones,[27][31] and Syria sponsoring of Fatah killing of Israeli soldiers ans civilians" as a bloat or trivia without explanation although historians look at these disputes as the main reason for the escalation. Ykantor (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

DeCausa: Looking at other Wikipedia:Featured articles concerning wars, it seems that the size of both the lead and background sections might be larger. Please have a look at these featured articles: Byzantine civil war of 1341–47, Boshin War, Anglo-Zanzibar War, Nagorno-Karabakh War.

-You are right when you want to avoid a war of POV, so why won't we have a look at each of those deleted sentences and discuss wether it is justified to keep it or to delete it. Ykantor (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"it's in other articles" is not a good argument. There are two differences with those articles (1) THey don't have specific daughter articles on "origins" as this one has; WP:SUMMARYSTYLE won't apply to those articles in the same way. (2) They are not plagued by POV-pushers specifically concerned to prove that "the other side" caused the war and doing that by adding choice facts that support their thesis, which over time results in the background section bloating to the extent that it dominates the article. This one is. DeCausa (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
-"it's in other articles" is indeed not a good argument, but Wikipedia:Featured articles "are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles. ".
- You are right that they do not have daughter articles, but their leader and background sections are still the yardstick to use. In my opinion the existing leader and background sections are crippled and should be increased. Would you accept to ask at the wp:Help desk for an advice concerning the size of those sections?
- Concerning POV, there is indeed a risk of POV war. I repeat my proposal: why won't we have a look at each of those deleted sentences and discuss whether it is justified to keep it or to delete it? There should be a compromise that both sides may accept. Ykantor (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Ykantor, I believe most historians would agree that what we now have in the background summary (Samu raid, UNEF expulsion, Soviet warning etc.) are the key elements behind the escalation. The cultivation of the DMZ probably didn't help reduce tension, but I don't recall reading very many academic texts that consider that to be a "main reason for the escalation" as you allege above. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong flags.[edit]


In the Belligerents section Syria's flag is shown next Egypt, and Iraq's flag is shown next to Syria.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Thanks for your comment. The flag listed next to Egypt is the flag of the United Arab Republic, and was Egypt's official flag in 1967. See Flag_of_Egypt#United_Arab_Republic_.281958.E2.80.931972.29 The flag shown next to Syria was Syria's flag from 1963 to 1972. See Flag_of_Syria#Ba.27athist_flags. GabrielF (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Background leads directly to end of war[edit]

The introduction notes some of the background events, and then says that "Within six days, Israel had won a decisive land war". The start of the war is entirely omitted. I presume that is to avoid mentioning that Israel started the war. That omission ought to be rectified.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the first paragraph of the lead does mention that Israel started the war. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)