Talk:Six-Day War

Article is pretty much incomprehensible

This article is about 3 times longer than it needs to be. I doubt any casual visitor would even bother reading the whole thing. Nobody who hasn't neurotically studied the conflict will understand most of it.

It is also poorly structured, punctuated by unnecessary quotes that belong in a novel, not an encyclopedia.

It is also a complete mystery to the reader the exact reasons for the Arab and Israeli attacks. The article wastes so much space discrediting various rationales for the war that it does not assign any real motives for the Israeli attack. 69.133.126.117 (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The Israeli cabinet decided to go to war on May 23, immediately upon learning Nasser would close the Straits of Tiran. The military problem was that while Nasser could gradually ratchet up the pressure, Israel could stay mobilized for only a short time. So Israel needed the crisis to be resolved quickly. Nasser presumably understood this, so why did he put Israel in this position? His Soviet sponsors and others were on his back to go war as soon as was practical. He would tell then that while he was eager to lead the charge, 1) there had to be a united Arab front against Israel, and 2) the United Nations and UNEF had to get out of the way. For a long time, both these things probably seemed like pie in the sky. But suddenly in May 1967 they were both reality and Nasser was out of excuses. Kauffner (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You have a good point. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to shrink the article (nor do I feel that I am qualified). I'll tag it, though... --Sci-Fi Dude (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Quotes

The editors that claim the quotes of Israeli leaders are being taken "out of context" should supply a citation that contains the so-called proper "context" for these same remarks, or else refrain from deleting pertinent well-sourced material. harlan (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"well sourced material?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The 30 March 1968 edition of Ma’ariv is cited and verifiable. Many Israeli newspapers are available through IDC Publishers, for example copies from: http://www.idcpublishers.com/pdf/241_titlelist.pdf are available via ILL. If you Google the quote it appears to have been cited in: "The Other Israel", By Arie Bober, Published by Anchor Books, 1972, ISBN 0385014678 as well. harlan (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you want it in you have to provide the context. Otherwise the citation makes no sense and it is not clear what it adds. Is there any editor who claims to have seen this interview or read about in another source?Mashkin (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, very well Harlan, but it doesn't sound like you've seen the articles that allegedly supports the text in the article. So we don't know the context and we don't have a source? What's the issue here exactly? How is this sentence still in the article? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I was telling you where you could obtain a copy to verify the citation, or read it for yourself online. I already have. Bober had no afiliation with Ma'ariv, but since he cited the interview and provides the quote, in English, I will mention that as well. The book was originally published by Doubleday, but Moshe Machover has placed it online here: http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/mideast/toi/chap1-04.html

The quote makes perfect sense. The Defense Minister, Dayan, said that the war had been avoidable even if the Straits of Tiran had stayed closed to Israeli shipping. That is hardly earthshaking news. How much context would you like? On the eve of the decision to go to war, the IDF Chief of Logistics said Tiran wasn't important to begin with, and that it had lost any significance long ago. The port couldn't even handle ocean going vessels until after 1956, and only five Israeli vessels had passed through during the subsequent ten years. see NASSER AND HIS ENEMIES: FOREIGN POLICY DECISION MAKING IN EGYPT ON THE EVE OF THE SIX DAY WAR, footnote 97 and Benny Morris Israel's Border Wars, 1949-1956, page 337. According to the UNEF Commander, General Rikhye, the claim that Egypt was committing an act of aggression was a questionable charge, since the last Israeli vessel had passed through nearly two years earlier. He was in charge of monitoring the situation and he claimed that the Egyptians had only searched two ships before relaxing the implementation of their blockade. see The Sinai Blunder, By Indar Jit Rikhye, page 78. harlan (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What do reliable sources have to say about that quote? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The editors at two professional publishing businesses, Ma’ariv and Doubleday, printed the quote. It is third party verifiable using an ordinary Google search, and it speaks for itself. I'm restoring it along with the other well-known quotes from Israeli leaders that were deleted without any explanation. harlan (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the quotes are not given in context, not the fact that they uttered the sequence of words (which is the case regarding the 1976 "interview" with Dayan). Mashkin (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia NPOV policy is to let published sources speak for themselves, and all of these have citations to verifiable published sources. So, the point is that YOU need to supply some published evidence that proves, or at least indicates, that these well-known quotes were taken out of context in the first place. harlan (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

lets start with the Dayan interview. He was not in a position of power when the incidents occurred and was a member of the oppisition (in fact he spent much of the time in Vietnam as a reporter). Hence he does not have particular expertise on the subject. also the suppsoed interview took place in 1976but was published only many years after he died. I have never seen the claim that the is a recording of these conversations. Also it contains claims that are pretty clearly wrong (e.g. that the Hula valley villagers wanted the land on the Golan for themselves, that it why they pushed for the war - there was no attempt by them after the war to get the land). Mashkin (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Mashkin, Wikipedia isn't interested in your personal critique of the Ma'ariv interview. Your objections look like a lot of WP:OR inferences and conjecture to me. The published quote speaks for itself, and its so well-known that its notorious. If you want to debunk it, you'll need to go head-to-head in the article using a reliable published source.

There were certainly lots of incidents in the DMZs while Dayan was serving as the IDF Chief of Staff. He is quoted saying that he provoked most of those. He also said that the other IDF Chiefs had done the same. He knew those men personally, and had access to IDF situation briefings and their old operational reports while he was the Defense Minister. Somebody in Israel obvious wanted to settle on the Golan. harlan (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Harlan, the quotes come from relaible sources and should be allowed to speak for themselves. If maskhin and brewcrewer know of sources that contradict these quotes then they should add them. Where Dayan was at the exact moment this was going on is irrelevant, he knew how the IDF operated and said that many of the other commanders engaged in the same tactics he did. This is a reliable quote from a reliable source and another reason has to be given why it shouldn't be included other than certian editors don't like it. annoynmous 05:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Claims

The intro to the article reads:

Egypt's president Nasser expelled the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai Peninsula in May 1967.[7] Nasser knew that the Soviet claims were false, but used them as a pretext to evict the peacekeeping force that had been stationed there since 1957, following a British-French-Israeli invasion which was launched during the Suez Crisis.[8]

I can't find anywhere what "Soviet claims" are being referred to here - I imagine that more explanation has been lost in an edit somewhere. Anyone know enough to explain, or change the existing text to not refer to it? 82.163.43.10 (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It refers to Soviet intelligence report given by Soviet President Nikolai Podgorny to Egyptian Vice President Anwar Sadat, that claimed falsely that Israeli troops were massing along the Syrian border. It is mentioned in "Israel and Syria" paragraph in the article.Igorb2008 (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't that info be moved up then so the sentence actually makes sense?radek (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the RS is divided on what Nasser believed, which is fundamentally unknowable. The report represented a Soviet demand that Egypt take action against Israel. To focus on whether or not Nasser believed that Israel was actually massing troops is to miss the point. Kauffner (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

casualty figures don't add up

"The following casualties are as confirmed by Israel: 800 Israeli soldiers were killed, 338 on the Egyptian front, 550 on the Jordanian front, and 141 on the Syrian front;"

1. This passage is not attributed to any source.

2. 338 + 550 + 141 = 1029, not 800; why the discrepancy?

Winterbadger (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem may be indicated by the fact that there are no inline citations for those figures. Someone needs to find some accurate ones... I Found some figures here: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign+Relations/Israels+Foreign+Relations+since+1947/1947-1974/THE+SIX-DAY+WAR+-+INTRODUCTION.htm.

I quote: "Israel's casualties amounted to 759 dead and about 3,000 wounded. Arab casualties came to about 15,000."

--Sci-Fi Dude (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Miraculous Events?

Reading the article, I see no information on the many miraculous events that were supposed to have happened in protection of the Israeli forces. Is it just that there isn't enough documentation out there, or that no one has thought of it?

--Sci-Fi Dude (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple documentations of supposed "miraculous events" that protected and/or saved Israeli soldiers - especially in the invasion and ensuing attempts to hold the old city.

I don't have the time right now to research them (I'm on a deadline to get a report done for school) but I was putting the idea out there in hopes that someone else could work on it.

--Sci-Fi Dude (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you should wait until you have enough time to come up with specific incidents before you bring up how the supernatural possibly aided a natio state fight some other nation states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.43.13 (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sharm El-Sheik

"and the Israeli light boat crews that captured the abandoned Sharm el-Sheikh on the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula on June 7."

The link is to an article about the town. However, it seems that the text I quoted is referring to a ship. Can anyone clarify?

--Sci-Fi Dude (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me to be referring to the town. After all, it is on the southern tip of the peninsula. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Sci-Fi Dude (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

An unlikely event

Is there anybody watching this page? One interesting piece of observation here: Ahron Bregman in his book Israel's Wars, 1947-93 (ISBN 9780415214681), points out that Israel didn't expect a war to break out:

'The view in Israel in the first half of 1967 was that Egypt was unlikely to embark on a full-scale war. This opinion rested upon a fact that as long as Egypt's elite forces, eight brigades in all, were still involved in the civil war in Yemen, he would not dare to attack Israel.' --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It was the Soviets who engineered the war. In mid-May, they told Nasser that Israel was massing forces to attack Syria. Even if he didn't believe it, he had at least to pretend that he did. The UN agreed to withdraw its forces from Sinai much more easily than anyone expected. Suddenly, Nasser no longer had any of the excuses that he had using earlier to delay. Kauffner (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is true... but shouldn't undermine the fact that it was conscious decision by Nasser. On May 13, Soviets informed Egyptian official that '‘Ten Israeli brigades had been concentrated on the Syrian border’ ready to strike at Syria'. What did Nasser do? He ordered the dispatch of two divisions across the Suez Canal and into the Sinai, with the aim of distracting Israel from what seemed to be, according to the Soviet report, an imminent strike at Syria. In addition, Nasser sent his Chief of Staff Mohammed Fawzi to Damascus, entrusting him to confirm the Soviet information about the apparent Israeli mobilization. In Syria, Chief of Staff Fawzi went with Syrian General Anwar Al-Kadi to inspect the border, but found nothing unusual, aerial maps indicated no unusual movement of Israeli troops too. So what did Nasser do then? Nasser did not call his divisions back from the Sinai – in fact he went so far as to reinforce them by dispatching more troops to the desert. Furthermore, on 16 May he instructed UN troops, which since the 1956 war had been deployed on the Egyptian side of the border (Israel would not allow them to deploy on her side of the border) and in Gaza and Sharm el-Sheike, to leave their posts. Finally, on 23 May, Egypt’s president took yet another step, by ordering the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. In the full knowledge that the Israelis were likely to react violently, Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping. That he did so with open eyes we know from Anwar Sadat, who later testified how Nasser had said to his colleagues, whom he had brought together to decide on the closure of the Straits: ‘Now, with the concentration of our force in Sinai the chances of war are fifty–fifty but if we close the Straits, war will be 100 per cent certain’. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Both sides of the arguement

For the sake of neutrality, shouldn't Israel's claim that its attack was pre-emptive be accompanied by Arab's counter claim that it was an offensive attack?

e.g. "Israel launched an assault on the Egyptian airforce in what it called a pre-emptive attack. This claim was, however, disputed by the Arab states which asserted Israel had initiated an offensive war." Xullius (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This phrase will of course be acceptable, just cite it properly. Off the record, this won't change the fact that Egypt actually started the war - by closing (or at least declaring them closed) the Straits of Tiran on May 22. The blockade violated the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, which was adopted by the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on April 27, 1958, and provided Israel legitimate casus belli. The fact that Egypt didn't sign the convention shouldn't undermine the violation of IntLaw. What is more, on 28 January 1950, Egypt wrote in its memorandum to the US that 'This occupation [of Tiran and Sanafir islands by Egypt from Saudi Arabia] is not conceived in a spirit to hinder in whatever way it may be the innocent passage across the maritime space separating these two islands from the Egyptian coast of Sinai. It goes without saying that this passage, the only practicable, will remain free as in the past, being in conformity with the international practice and the recognized principles of international law.' --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Violation of a treaty is not necessarily an act of war, else there would be far more wars in the world today. That this violation "started the war" is just one possible opinion of several. Zero^talk 23:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There is much more involved than just the treaty. Both sides understood beforehand that closing the strait was a "red line" for Israel. It's hard to understand it as anything other than a deliberate provocation. The Soviets must have told Nasser, "We got a naval buildup going on in the Mediterranean. The U.S. is busy in Vietnam. Rise and shine." They had spent a lot of money of on the Egyptian and Syrian armies and certainly didn't want that going to waste. Kauffner (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course it was a provocation - as were Israeli threats and actions against Syria and Jordan before the war. --78.148.27.195 (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Are not both 'offensive attack' and 'preemptive attack' politically spun phrases implying hard-to-document motivation? Why not simply use the term 'attack' or 'invasion' which are empirically descriptive? Motivations are discussed later in the article anyway. The references are detailed, however, an argue for both motivations. This is best discussed outside of the synopsis.

Flag of Syria is incorrect

The flag of Syria in this article has 2 stars, but from 1963-1971 Syria's flag had 3 stars. Could somebody please fix it? I've seen it fixed before but then for some strange reason it keeps getting reverted to 2 stars....72.27.89.161 (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)