Talk:Six-Day War

"preemptive attack" needs to be qualified

In the third paragraph of this article, it states "On June 5, 1967, Israel launched a preemptive attack on Egypt." There is a reference to a footnote that contains many quotes from a wide variety of sources characterizing the Israeli attack by the adjective "preemptive". This is a subjective use of the adjective, and a qualification of it as such should be inserted into the article, particularly given that the following sentence states that "The Arab countries denied planning to attack Israel and asserted that Israel's strike was not preemptive but an unwarranted and illegal act of aggression" (emphasis added).

A reasonable alteration of the text of this article would read:

"On June 5, 1967 Israel launched an attack on Egypt it claims was an act of preemption against an imminent military threat from Egypt."

JRHammond (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this would be better wording. Go ahead and change.BorisG (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Pre-emption should be judged on the objective facts not subjective statements. It is a fact that Egypt closed the Tiran Straits, thus closing the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping. It is a fact that Egypt massed 100,000 or more soldiers on Israel's border. It is a fact that Egypt expelled U.N. Peacekeepers from Sinai thus depriving Israel of an important buffer. It is a fact that Syria and Jordan mobilized their respective armies and were joined by contingents from Iraq, among other Arab countries. It is a fact that anti-Israeli war rhetoric reached a fever pitch in Arab capitals just prior to commencement of hostilities. Judging by objective facts and not by revisionist post-war interviews, it is clear that the Arabs were bent on war. Therefore, the term pre-emption or "pre-emptive attack" is not only more appropriate, it is more accurate. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubts Arabs prepared for war. However I disagree with the statement "Pre-emption should be judged on the objective facts not subjective statements". In my dictionary, pre-emption is about motivation for the attack, and therefore is inherently subjective. Alas, maybe the very fact that it is inherently subjective means that the wording 'launched a pre-emptive attack' is ok, because all it means is that Israelis meant it as pre-emptive.BorisG (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

For an attack to be "preemptive", there must have been an imminent threat of attack from Egypt. But no imminent attack is evidenced, as acknowledged by two former Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Rabin and Menachem Begin, both of whom acknowledged that Nasser had not intended to actually initiate a first strike against Israel.

To say Israel's attack was "preemptive" is itself subjective. And I agree 100%, as I already indicated, that the use of this adjective to describe Israel's attack should therefore, for that very reason, be eliminated.

To address each evidence given that the attack was "preemptive":

1) Israel's closing of the straits was not a military attack. Israel's attack did not "preempt" the closing of the straits. So this example is totally irrelevant. Whether or not this action justified Israel's attack is also an irrelevant question for our purposes here. Even if we assume this justified Israel's attack, it doesn't make Israel's attack "preemptive".

2) Egyptian troop movements don't prove intent. A very persuasive argument can be made that Egypt's positioning was defensive, an argument supported by Rabin and Begin (as noted above), who both acknowledge that Nasser never intended a first strike. Both U.S. and Israeli intelligence prior to the war also assessed that it was unlikely Nasser would actually strike first. Israel had already attacked Samu. Israel was planning an attack on Syria and had already attempted to provoke Syrian belligerency in the Golan Heights, and Israeli leaders were making similarly belligerent remarks as Nasser had. Israel also moved troops to the border.

So by this same reasoning, had Egypt actually launched the first military attack, it was have been an act of "preemption". Unless we can accept that this was the case, the logic must be rejected.

3) There are numerous alternative explanations for the belligerent nature of Egyptian officals' statements, including attempting to deter an Israeli attack through rhetorical exaggeration of the Egyptian force of arms. As both U.S. and Israeli intelligence assessed prior to the war, Nasser wasn't going to attack -- but even if he did, Israel would win the war in two weeks. If Israel attacked first, it could win in one week, such was the great superiority of its arms.

Judging by the objective facts can only lead to the conclusion that the use of the adjective "preemptive" to describe the Israeli attack is a subjective one, and therefore inappropriate for a Wikipedia entry.--JRHammond (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As for alternative explanations for Egypt's bellicose talk, it doesn't negate the fact that such talk reached a crescendo and as Michael Oren points out, carried with it a momentum from which there was no return. In addition, your analyses curiously omits the expulsion of U.N. peacekeepers from Sinai. What was Israel to discern from that move? Also, your claim that Israel was massing forces along the Syrian border is false. As Zeev Schiff and others well-regarded in the field note, this was a false Soviet claim designed to further ignite Arab (particularly Egyptian) passions and put them into a frenzy.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"1) Israel's closing of the straits": I think you mean Egypt here? If so, could you please repair it? If so, you can delete my notice here.Mpvdm (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that there is no evidence Israel was under imminent threat of attack by Egypt. That is an interpretation of facts, not a fact itself. As a matter for debate, the use of the adjective "preemptive" here is subjective and should have a caveat included or be removed.JRHammond (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

We will never know if Nasser planned to attack first, or was just bluffing. But his behaviour was sufficiently threatening and aggressive for the Israelis to take the chance of an Egyptian attack seriously. The Israelis thus launched an attack to pre-empt the attack by the Egyptians. Thus the attack was preemptive. BorisG (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"We will never know if Nasser planned to attack first . . . Thus the attack was preemptive." I think that pretty much speaks for itself. Your argument is a non sequitur. An attack is "preemptive" if it is an action taken against a real imminent threat. It is not "preemptive" if it is an action taken against only a perceived threat. The fact that you acknowledge whether Egypt actually presented an imminent threat or not is debatable is all anyone need to recognize that the use of the word "preemptive" is subjective, and thus should be removed or qualified.JRHammond (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, in 1973, when informed (rather late) of an imminent attack by Egypt and Syria, the Israeli government considered a pre-emptive attack, but decided against it, fearing international outcry. This resulted in heavy loss of life. I am sure if they launched a pre-emptive attack, we would have a similar debate over the nature of that attack.BorisG (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant.JRHammond (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd note in addition the difference between a "preemptive" and a "preventive" attack. One could argue that Israel's attack on Egypt was "preventive". That at least might be debatable. But to say it was "preemptive", there's absolutely no evidence to support. To say it's "subjective" is actually a serious understatement, but it being subjective is enough that this needs to be revised on Wikipedia.JRHammond (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious that the phrase "Israel launched a preemptive attack" is POV, and therefore out of place in Wikipedia. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree (that presenting the Israeli attack as objectively preemptive is an indefensibly subjective value judgment, at least according to what seems to be the current state of historical scholarship on the set of events); it doesn't belong in its present form.Historian932 (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"Pre-emptive" is a later formulation. The Israeli government maintained originally that Egypt had attacked Israel. You will still find this version in many books. Ian Pitchford (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with those who argue that the Israeli attack was not "preemptive". They are attempting to impose their subjective view that the threat was not imminent enough to be called "preemptive." By JR Hammond's definition, there could be no such thing as a preemptive strike, because you can never know for sure if an attack is imminent until it starts to happen. The question is not whether an attack was actually imminent, but whether the person engaged in a the "preemptive" strike (in this case the Israelis) could reasonably have feared that one was imminent. My dictionary defines "preemptive" as "taken as a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared; preventive; deterrent." By that definition, the Israeli attack objectively qualifies. The Egyptians had blockaded the Straights of Tiran, expelled the UN peacekeepers, and massed troops and tanks on the border. An Egyptian attack was certainly possible, very likely feared, and the Israeli first strike prevented any such attack from happening. The word is used correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.231.183 (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your argument defeats itself, inasmuch as you acknowledge that the use of the adjective "preemptive" is subjective. You say arguing that the adj. should not be used as a factual assertion is "to impose their subjective view that the threat was not imminent enough to be called 'preemptive.'" But that's the whole point. Your imposing your subjective view that the threat was imminent enough to be called 'preemptive'. It's subjective. That's why it needs to be removed or a caveat included. 118.160.21.65 (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

According to a substantial body of mainstream historical opinion Israel did NOT believe Egypt was going to attack. It's therefore wrong for the article to baldly state that it was a pre-emptive strike; it should reflect the disagreement. The current formulation reflects badly on Wikipedia's reputation, especially on such an important and sensitive issue. 82.12.113.64 (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Both U.S. and Israeli intelligence assessed that Egypt -- inasmuch as doing so would be suicidal -- would not attack. So even if one argues that for Israel to have perceived an 'imminent threat' (as opposed to there actually being such a threat) is enough for the use of "preemptive" as a factual assertion (which is a patently absurd argument to begin with), one can observe that it is still problematic. For neutrality, accuracy, and fairness, this needs to be removed or a caveat included. 118.160.21.65 (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

if history is the best judge of events, then let us see what happened in 1973 (the Yom Kippur War). israel was warned by America and other large powers NOT to initiate a pre-emptive strike. and so it did not. Egypt crossed the canal (Suez), started the war, and caught Israel waiting for instructions. the troops in the front line deployment were not ready for battle. israel lost many soldiers in the war, and many soldiers were taken prisoner. It was Ariel Sharon who turned the tide with his tank corps. in view of the utmost importance to air supremacy, israel took out the Egyptian airforce, thus enabling its groundforces to advance beyond israel's borders, a tactic that was imperative to protect its civilians. considering the above, clearly, had israel not taken out the enemy airforce on the ground, the result would have been catrastophical for the jewish state. therefore, the term "pre-emptive (defensive) strike" should stand, and not be subject to historiography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.218.215 (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are totally irrelevant to the discussion. 118.160.21.65 (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As expressed by "popular" opinion, (majority of comments made on talkpage), the word preemptive itself is subjective. Even Bush claimed "preemptive" war against Iraq, which still had to develop technology, building nuclear and biological weapons, and also the missiles to deploy them, before making any attack. In 1967, we only know that the two sides were both hostile to each other, and went to war as a show of strength. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atif.hussain (talk • contribs) 04:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

JRHammond, I think that those comments are directly related to the discussion. --Shuki (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, please explain how events that occurred in 1973 are relevant for deciding whether an attack in 1967 was "preemptive" or not. On their face, your comments are irrelevant.JRHammond (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There are more than enough reliable sources to name it as it was -preemptive strike against five well armed armies/countries. --Gilisa (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Many sources claim it was "preemptive" -- yet what is the evidence for this? The evidence has been extensively discussed on this page, and is not strong enough to state as absolute fact that Egypt was planning to attack Israel and would have had Israel not attacked Egypt first -- on the contrary, the documentary record does not support the "preemptive" claim at all. JRHammond (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Because, d'uh, very similar events were happening leading up to October1973, and Israel had the opportunity to launch a 2nd preemptive attack, but refrained. Not my opinion, but that of the vast majority of sources. And telling everyone their comments are irrelevant is quite not collaborative, and merely makes it seem that you are avoiding something. --Shuki (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, I should hardly need to point out to you that events that occurred in 1973 have no bearing on whether or not an attack in 1967 was "preemptive". Duh! JRHammond (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Do we need to qualify the statement "Israel launched a pre-emptive attack" in order to conform to NPOV?

The current Six-Day War article states that Israel's attack on Egypt was pre-emptive (ie Israel struck first because it believed an Egyptian attack was imminent). Some argue that this conforms with scholarly consensus and that the phrase "pre-emptive" should remain unqualified. Others argue that a substantial body of academic opinion believes the attack was not pre-emptive, (ie Israel did not genuinely believe an Egyptian attack was imminent) and that Wikipedia should qualify the phrase in order to conform to neutral point of view (eg "Israel SAID its attack was pre-emptive") Phersu (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Qualify Which sources claim that Israel launched a pre-emptive attack? And which disagree? For something this controversial, we would violate NPOV by not qualifying the statement. Ngchen (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Qualify this has been under almost constant discussion for a couple of years (see the archives). The authors who restore this narrative have no consensus, and are deliberately violating general sanctions that require the inclusion of the views of all the interested parties to the conflict. Published analysis from a number of reliable sources say that it was not a pre-emptive attack, e.g. the ASIL Presidential Commission report, Yoram Dinstein, etc. harlan (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Qualify I believe I've documented my view sufficiently above, but I would like to add that, if the decision is reached to qualify, then this should be observed in all articles that dicusses the attack, for example Preemptive war. Shoplifter (talk) 08:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Qualify I believe that there are relatively reliable sources on both sides; this isn't just one crank source arguing against overwhelming consensus. For those editors who feel sure that the attack was pre-emptive, would a couple of words qualifying the statement (ie. "Israel said the attack was pre-emptive") really be so painful?

Yes, what would be the problem of simply expressing "preemptive" as being subjective, as opposed to expressing it as a matter of fact? Just change the wording already. This very debate itself demonstrates the subjectivity of the use of that adjective to describe the war, so continuing it endlessly really is pointless. 118.160.21.65 (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(I came here as an uninvolved editor, responding to the RfC). bobrayner (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I along with Okedem, Hertz1888, Tzu Zha Men, Poliocretes, Brewcrewer, Cptnono and Ynhockey (each of whom have expressed views on the subject) oppose your POV push. More importantly, the sources cited for preemption far out way yours both in terms of quantity and quality. You can bring a thousand editors who express the view that the “peace loving Nazis” were attacked by the “aggressive Poles” during WWII but that does not make it so. You know you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel when you start relying on Norman Finkelstein and his mentor Noam Chomsky, each of whom come to the picture with soiled hands.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Juujitsuguy, you're argument is entirely ad hominem. 118.160.21.65 (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, perhaps you missed the thrust of my argument; it wasn't about sheer numbers of editors at all.

Please let's not be so angry. Can't we try to discuss this calmly and stick to the subject? I understand that you feel strongly about this, but why would it be so bad to have a word or two qualifying the statement? It certainly would not be equivalent to arguing that peace-loving nazis were attacked by aggressive poles. I am an uninvolved editor and am not familiar with this article's traditions; perhaps angrily citing irrelevant fiction to invoke Godwin is considered a good way to prove your point around here, but it's not on other parts of wikipedia.

You may feel that the sources which disagree with you are tainted, but a substantial number of others think those sources are worth considering. Maybe or maybe not a majority, but enough to justify some compromise in wording to satisfy NPOV, I think.

bobrayner (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't qualify. It would be unjustified and improper per the reasons I expressed here. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

In your view it is "improper" to have it read neutrally (that is, having it neither say the attack was preemptive, nor denying that this was so) in order for it to read according to the pro-Israeli POV. JRHammond (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, I'm the editor who put the POV tag on this article in the first place. I've did not rely on Norman Finkelstein and his mentor Noam Chomsky. I already went through a very long detailed discussion with YnHockey [1] about including the material from the ASIL, Vanderbuilt, Yoram Dinstein, et al. You guys are misusing the sources in your list, e.g. Antonio Cassese. Many of them consider anticipatory self defense to be legal, but not pre-emptive attacks or pre-emptive wars. Since your own sources make those distinctions, there isn't the slightest chance you are going to use the term pre-emptive attack and keep other editors from including material on that subject in the body of the article or fail to mention that fact in the lede. The general sanctions require that the views of all the interested parties are supposed to be included. This nonsense has gone on long enough.

For example, the President of the American Society of International Law created a Task Force on Terrorism in 2002. It published "The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense", by Mary Ellen O’Connell. The report said that preemptive war must be distinguished from anticipatory self defense, and that any use of force in self-defense must respect the principles of necessity, proportionality, and cannot violate the jus cogens norm against unilateral use of force. O'Connell said that in the past commentators had defended Israel’s attack on Egypt on the grounds that it was anticipatory self-defense. She cited contrary evidence, like Rabin's remarks in the Le Monde interview, and said: "Israel stated that it had convincing intelligence that Egypt would attack and that Egyptian preparations were underway. We now know that the Israel acted on less than convincing evidence. Thus, the 1967 Arab-Israeli war does not provide an actual example of lawful anticipatory self-defense."[2]

In "Assessing Claims of a New Doctrine of Preemptive War Under the Doctrine of Sources", James Thuo Gathii says that many scholars and state officials do not support the notion that customary law permits the unilateral use of preemptive force without UN approval. He notes that State practice, opinio juris, and some legal scholars do distinguish between preemptive wars (which are illegal) and preemptive strikes under certain rare circumstances, i.e. anticipatory self-defense when a threat is imminent. He says 'there has yet to be a good case in which the very limited and contested notion of anticipatory self-defence met the Caroline test. The closest case that might have, but is now regarded as not having met the Caroline test, was Israel’s first strike against Egypt in the 1967. Few regarded it as a good example of a permissible anticipatory attack under the Caroline test, especially after it became clear following the attack that there was no overwhelming threat that justified the attack to ensure Israel’s survival. Many States criticized the attack, which made it clear that the attack would not serve as a precedent to legitimize “a general right of anticipatory self defense.”' see Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 1-34, 2005 harlan (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Qualify Neutral point of view is at the heart of Wikipedia. Phersu (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't qualify - The sources presented to support the qualify viewpoint were, for the most part, either irrelevant (such as the claim that Israel would have won anyway), or sub-par, from failed academics (Finkelstein) or biased non-experts (e.g. Chomsky). The problem of bias was particularly evident, as it seems the people cited for this viewpoint are the same people who always write negatively about Israel in the context of the conflict, no matter the issue (Finkelstein, Chomsky, Quigley, Shlaim, etc). The sources for the "preemptive" formulation were of high quality, by persons not involved in the conflict. okedem (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

But this is ad hominem argumentation. The bottom line is that the use of the adjective "preemptive" to describe the war is subjective. It therefore needs to be removed or qualified. This simple suggestion should hardly be controversial. JRHammond (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Okedem I'm pretty sure that your post violates WP:BLP by listing a number of well-known University professors and suggesting they are: "failed academics" (plural). BTW, Finklestein has an earned PhD from Princeton, is a bestselling author, and De Paul University described him as "as a prolific scholar and outstanding teacher." [3] Granting tenure is a guarantee of lifetime employment that involves financial, political, and extracurricular considerations that are not related to academic achievement. harlan (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Qualify. The sources we're discussing are not just Finkelstein and Chomsky, but also the New York Times, the commander of the Israeli air force and Begin. Per WP:NPOV, present both views and don't endorse either since there appears also to be WP:RS saying that the attack was pre-emptive. --Dailycare (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Qualify. Whether or not the war was "preemptive" is a subjective judgment open to interpretation. The article should read so as not to assert one way or the other whether the war was actually preemptive, but rather merely outline the opposing viewpoints. I've edited the text to read neutrally. JRHammond (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Qualify. This is a case where WP:NPOV is very clear and it is frustrating that it has taken so long to get to this point. The term "preemptive" implies that Egypt and/or the other Arab countries involved were about to attack Israel. To employ it as a statement of fact, without qualification, implies that it is accepted by all sides that this is the case when manifestly it is not. As several editors on this talk page have carefully documented, there are multiple notable participants, commentators, and researchers of the war who do not agree that such an attack was imminent. The objections of okedem, Hertz1988, and Jiujitsuguy to acknowledging the views of these notable individuals basically amount to this: they do not agree with them. Sanguinalis (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on lead, other articles

According to WP:Consensus, "Ideally a consensus decision would have the agreement of all interested editors, but sometimes this proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken..." and "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."

Given the prerequisites, it is my interpretation that a consensus has been formed to the point that describing the Israeli attack as "preemptive" does not comport with WP:NPOV. I would add that I sympathize with Hertz1888, whom I want to commend for making a sensible argument despite holding a view in opposition to my own, in saying that consensus is a necessity and that this state of agreement has not been attained. I think that's a valid point of view, but as I said, I would respectfully disagree. I count seven to three editors in favor of qualification, and of equal importance, I believe that there is a stronger case made for this position, with less ad-hominem argumentation, as compared to the opposing view.

With that said, I want to make the argument in favor of re-writing, and re-sourcing, the lead (and possibly other segments of the text) to give equal weight to the opposing views on the issue of preemption. I believe that there is a wealth of valuable source material that should be taken into account for the improvement of the article as a whole. Given the extensive documentation that has been provided to augment both views in the course of this dicussion, it wouldn't be unjustified to start a new article that deals solely with the preemption debate. I think this would be to the benefit of all parties.

Secondly, I want to once again underscore the importance of the consensus reached being observed in all articles that deals with this issue. Here's a few pressing examples:

The article on Preemptive war currently reads: "The Israel Defense Forces, in light of Arab military buildups on its border, famously launched a devastating preemptive strike on Arab forces at the start of the Six Day War in 1967. Israel's preemptive strike of 1967 is perhaps the most cited example of preemption."

In History of the Arab-Israeli conflict: "The fighting in the Six-Day War of 1967 began with a strike by Israel, which many consider preemptive..."

In Arab-Israeli conflict: "In 1966-67, Egypt's leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser, began a pan-Arab campaign seeking unified support to conquer Israel and expel the Jews. Freshly armed with the latest in Soviet supplied planes, tanks, and other military stocks, Egypt felt, for the first time since 1948, that they were in a position to overrun Israel. Egyptian media began a relentless and supportive jingoist campaign whipping up a fervor of popular support for war. This enthusiasm spilled over to the other Arab capitals.

On May 30, 1967, Jordan entered into the mutual defense pact between Egypt and Syria. Egypt mobilized Sinai units, crossing UN lines (after having expelled the UN border monitors) and mobilized and massed on Israel's southern border. Likewise, armies in Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan also mobilized, encircling Israel for an imminent coordinated attack. In response, on June 5 Israel sent almost all of its planes on a preemptive mission into Egypt."

As I understand it, the consensus view is that the attack should be described in neutral terms, without giving undue weight to the Israeli nor the Arab viewpoint, and that what follows from this is that both positions has to be expounded on, and the respective explanations duly sourced. The above examples have a strong bent in favor of the Israeli viewpoint, not only in choice of terminology but also in the texts describing the surrounding circumstances, including several unsourced statements. Shoplifter (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, while the argument has been put forth that there is no "consensus" that the attack WASN'T "preemptive", that logic defeats itself; there is similarly no consensus that Israel's attack was "preemptive". Thus, according to Wikipedia policy -- the sentence asserting as a fact that it was so should remain as I have edited to read, without the adjective, reading neutrally and taking up neither one position nor the other. Jiujitsuguy undid my edit so it included "preemptive". I undid his undoing, and will continue to do so, so that this sentence reads neutrally, according to Wikipedia policy. JRHammond (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the article by removing the subjective adjective "preemptive" from before "attack" in the sentence in question. Jiujitsuguy repeatedly undoes that edit, so that the "preemptive" remains. This is a violation of Wikipedia policy.

• To comply with Neutral Point of View, the sentence should assert as fact neither one position nor the other. Nobody is suggesting it should state as fact the war was NOT preemptive. There is no legitimate reason why having this sentence read neutrally should be objectionable.

• As Shoplifter has pointed out, according to Wikipedia policy, when no consensus can be reached, a majority decision must be taken. As everyone can see, a majority of editors agree that the sentence should be qualified. I believe a simple removal of the adjective is sufficient, as the rest of the paragraph address the matter with sufficient qualifications and caveats so as to remain neutral.

• I request editors to help watch the page to be sure no improper revision back to asserting as fact that the war was "preemptive" is made.

• I've explained my reason for editing out "preemptive" from the sentence, a decision both in accordance with NPOV policy and in line with the majority decision here (above). I request Jiujitsuguy to provide an explanation for why he has twice now reverted that edit, as required (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:REVEXP).JRHammond (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal

I did some research on the statements attributed to Menachem Begin in connection with the pre-emption aspect of the Six day War. However, what you conveniently omitted was his subsequent statement which read as follows: “(The Six Day-War) was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.”

In his speech, Begin argued that wars of self defense needn’t take place when genocide is imminent. He believed that Israel had the capability of absorbing the first blow but at a much greater cost in lives. Thus he argued that the war was indeed an act of self-defense in the classic definition.

You have deliberately taken Begin’s remarks out of context and that is disingenuous as well as misleading. But I am not surprised by this tactic as it is a tactic that has been employed time and again by another one of your “sources,” the propagandist and Hamas/Hezbollah supporter, Norman Finkelstein, a marginal figure of the extreme left and failed professor. A chief reason why he was thrown out of DePaul University was because of his tendency to make up quotes.[4]

I did a Google search of your collection of quotes supposedly made by Israeli leaders and it’s funny how the web forums that regurgitate them (such as “Jew Watch,” “The Socialist,” and “Radio Islam”) have but one thing in common – extreme, vile hatred of Israel. Such sources can hardly be considered reliable.

Essentially, an analysis of your sources reveals a cacophony of out-of-context quotes and propagandists of the extreme left whose dishonest works are riddled with bias from the prologue to the Epilogue.

The leading theorists on the concept of pre-emption, Professor Michael Walzer and noted scholar Abraham Sofaer cite similar criteria for justifying pre-emptive strikes and both agree that Israel’s attack on Egypt is a classic example of implementation of that doctrine.

The consensus view of mainstream sources concur that Israel’s strike was pre-emptive. For example Winston Churchill and Randolph Churchill note that on May 26 Nasser addressed the leaders of the Pan-Arab Federation of Trade Unions and said that if war came “it will be total and the objective will be to destroy Israel. We feel confident that we can win and are ready now for war with Israel.” This was followed by an order from the Ministry of Religious Affairs that all Imams and preachers make “Jihad” the subject of their sermons, with the objective of whipping up war fever in Cairo. They further note that, “The great powers were alarmed by Nasser’s recklessness. He appeared to be losing his balance.” (Churchill, Randolph, S., Churchill, Winston S. Six Day War, Houghton Mifflen Co. (1967), p.46.)

They posit that Nasser himself initially may not have wanted a showdown but got carried away with events that he himself created. Citing Abba Eban, they note that “Nasser was like a man who had gone to Monte Carlo with £100 and staked it at the roulette wheel. Each time his number came up he became more courageous – he felt that Fortune was smiling at him.” (Id p.49)

They state that there were four developments that individually would have been of great concern to Israel but collectively proved to be existential threats. These were the closure of the Straits of Tiran, the deployment of 100,000 soldiers and 800 tanks in Sinai (after UNEF expulsion), the Jordanian-Egyptian military pact just days before the war and the deployment of Iraqi forces in Jordan. The confluence of these four developments left Israel with little choice but to act decisively and pre-emptively. The authors sum it up this way, “Israel....did not wait for her enemy to draw – she had seen the glint in Nasser’s eye.” (Id p. 75)

Note the following additional sources:

• "The Israeli first strike is...a clear case of legitimate anticipation." Michael Walzer, Just and unjust wars: a moral argument with historical illustrations
• “The United States has often walked a fine line between preemption and prevention. In fact there have only been a handful of clear-cut cases of military preemption by any states in the last 200 years. (Israeli preemption in the Six Day War of 1967 is perhaps the most cited example)” U.S. National Security Strategy: a New Era U.S. Department of State (2002)
• The Six Day War is, "A classic example of preemptive war." Henry Shue, David Rodin Preemption: military action and moral justification
• "Classic examples of preemptive wars include the July Crisis of 1914 and the Six Day War of 1967 in which Israel preemptively attacked Egypt…" Karl P. Mueller Striking first: preemptive and preventive attack in U.S. national security
• “The Six Day War between Israel and alliance of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq was an example of preemption.” And, “It exemplifies preemption.” Charles W. Kegley, Gregory A. Raymond The Global Future: A Brief Introduction to World Politics
• "Preemptive attack is morally justified when three conditions are fulfilled: The existence of an intention to injure, the undertaking of military preparations that increase the level of danger, and the need to act immediately because of a higher degree of risk. Since these conditions were met in Israel’s Six Day War, Israel’s preemptive attack on Egypt on June 5, 1967 was a legitimate act of self-defense.” Mark R. Amstutz International ethics: concepts, theories, and cases in global politics
• "The Six Day War of 1967 is another example of preemptive warfare. In June of that year, Israel initiated a preemptive strike against the United Arab Republic, which had been massing troops on its border areas in preparation for attack."PREEMPTIVE WARFARE – A VIABLE STRATEGIC OPTION Colonel David Bowman, United States Army National Guard and Professor Anna Waggener

Historian Michael Oren notes that recently declassified documents reveal a number of Arab countries had extensive plans to attack Israel several days before the Six Day War began. The Egyptian attack plan, "Operation Dawn" called for strategic bombings of major ports, airfields, cities and the Dimona nuclear reactor followed by an Arab invasion. He further notes that in the weeks leading up to June 5, Israel found itself surrounded by large armies in Syria, Jordan and Egypt. The combined military forces on these three fronts gave Israel a distinct disadvantage in all areas of military readiness. In sum, despite attempts at historical revisionism, the evidence is clear and incontrovertible. Israel acted preemptively to frustrate Arab plans. On this basis, I am reverting.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm not the one targeted by this rebuttal, I will, of course, not preempt (no pun intended) the opportunity for the person who is to respond to it. I feel obliged however to point out that your comments on Mr. Finkelstein are, it seems to me, a textbook violation of WP:BLP, which endangers Wikipedia. I would strongly advise you to remove any defamatory language from your text. Shoplifter (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you added an article written by Alan Dershowitz in ostensible support of your remarks about Finkelstein. Dershowitz and Finkelstein have been involved in a protracted dispute, primarily in regards to the content of Dershowitz's book The Case for Israel. This debate was unfortunately very heated and comprised a great deal of ad hominem attacks. To use writings by Dershowitz in support of libelous claims about Finkelstein does not lessen the infringement of WP:BLP. Shoplifter (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What is libelous is taking quotes out of context (like in the cited example of Menachem Begin) and attributing to them a meaning not intended by the authors. What is libelous is when Walt & Mearsheimer quote Benny Morris to advance their convoluted theories and those quotes and references are once again taken out of context and attribute to the author views that are actually contrary to what the cited author believes. Here's what Benny Morris had to say about Walt & Mearsheimer's work;

• "Like many pro-Arab propagandists at work today, Mearsheimer and Walt often cite my own books, sometimes quoting directly from them, in apparent corroboration of their arguments. Yet their work is a travesty of the history that I have studied and written for the past two decades. Their work is riddled with shoddiness and defiled by mendacity. Were "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" an actual person, I would have to say that he did not have a single honest bone in his body."And Now For Some Facts Benny Morris, The New Republic, 8 May 2006--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, you are not rebutting my charge of a WP:BLP violation. You are avoiding the issue by referring to other people and writings which are irrelevant to your statements about Finkelstein (a logical fallacy). I don't see what you seek to gain from this. Shoplifter (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, you are violating WP:SOAP. Wikipedia describes positions, it does not endorse positions. There are a number of very reliable sources, including Israeli and Zionist sources, which say that it was not a pre-emptive strike. Maybe you think that Menachem Begin's remarks prove the attack was defensive, but many legal scholars nonetheless cite the lack of imminent threat as proof that the attack was illegal. Those views have to be included in the article, and they have to be summarized in the lede. There is no support whatever in WP:UNDUE or WP:LEDE for advancing a single controversial viewpoint. harlan (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy,

1) Menachem's statement is not taken "out of context". He acknowledged that "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him". The fact that he went on to describe it as a war of "self-defense" does not negate the fact that he effectively acknowledge it was not a "preemptive" attack.

2) You engage in guilt-by-association and ad hominem arguments (re: Finkelstein, etc) yet again in an attempt to support your position. Employing such fallacious arguments is totally inappropriate for a Wikipedia talk page.

3) You repeatedly claim that the "consensus view" in the "mainstream" is that the attack was "preemptive". I don't agree, but this is irrelevant; it was also a consensus view in the mainstream in '02-'03 that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Yet some of us who are capable of thinking and assessing information for ourselves were pointing out that there WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM. The question here is not what this or that source CLAIMS. The question is what the actual evidence from the documentary record is. And in this case, the documentary record is perfectly clear in establishing the great unlikelihood that Nasser would have made a first-strike on Israel. This was the assessment of both U.S. and Israeli intelligence, and has subsequently been acknowledged by prominent Israelis, including Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin (as noted above). The bottom line is that this is a subjective judgment and should be reflected as such in the article, as opposed to asserting as fact the pro-Israeli POV, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy.

4) You copy/paste comments you made citing Churchill, but neglect to address my counter-points. So I'll also copy/paste my response:

"The quote from Nasser (Churchill) does not indicate Nasser was referring to a war resulting from an Egyptian attack, as opposed to a war resulting from an Israeli attack. Preachers making "jihad" the subject of their sermons also does not support your claim, as neither does it indicate Egypt was preparing for an offensive, rather than a defensive, war. Your third point is also moot. We are not questioning whether Nasser was being "reckless" or not; the question is whether he actually intended to attack Israel, and the documentary record is perfectly clear that the consensus is he was not. For instance, there was a consensus between U.S. and Israeli intelligence that the likelihood of an Egyptian first strike was low. Prominent Israelis have since acknowledged this fact, including Yitzhak Rabin, Menachem Begin, and Michael B. Oren."

5) Citing Abba Eban hardly supports your position. It was Eban who went to the U.S. falsely claiming that the assessment of Israeli intelligence was that Israel was facing the threat of destruction. As DCI Helms told President Johnson, this was the kind of assessment the Israelis wouldn't submit to their own leadership, and was pure propaganda. And as Oren points out in his book, the actual Israeli assessment matched that of the U.S. -- that Israel's military was vastly superior to the combined Arab states' and that the likelihood of an Egyptian attack was extremely low.

6) You cite the closure of the straits of Tiran is irrelevant as evidence that the attack was "preemptive". But this is irrelevant. The closure does not demonstrate any intent on Egypt's part to launch a first-strike on Israel.

7) You cite the deployment of Egyptian forces in the Sinai to support your claim that the attack was "preemptive". Yet you continue to ignore the fact that the U.S. intelligence assessment was that these lines were defensive, that both U.S. and Israeli intelligence assessed there was almost no chance Nasser would strike first, and that prominent Israelis like Begin, Rabin, and Oren have acknowledged that this was so.

8) You cite Oren on "Operation Dawn". Yet as Norman Finkelstein has observed, Oren deliberately and demonstrably distorted the documentary record in his account (see, Finkelstein is a real scholar, contrary to your ad hominem arguments, and actually checks source documents):

"A major thrust of Oren's account suggests that Israel launched its strike in the face of an imminent and overwhelming Arab attack. Basing himself on a few self-serving postwar Egyptian memoirs, Oren gives over many pages to Operation Dawn, a preemptive strike allegedly planned for near the end of May by Nasser's powerful defense minister, 'Abd al-Hakim 'Amer, and said to be abruptly aborted by Nasser. Yet, even mainstream American and Israeli historians crediting Operation Dawn typically consign it to a footnote or a phrase, whereas Oren, citing the same Egyptian memoirs, turns this ephemeral and inconsequential alleged episode into a centerpiece of his history, thereby magnifying the threat Egypt posted. Fabricating a mammoth speculative edifice on an already flimsy evidentiary foundation, Oren professes to divine Nasser's subtle calculations for supporting Operation Dawn (pp. 95, 120), even after acknowledging that it is unclear whether 'Nasser even knew about the plan' (p. 92) Oren further observes that the 'Egyptian first strike' posed a 'potentially greater threat' to Jordan than an Israeli attack because an unsuccessful Egyptian offensive would be blamed on Jordan, undermining Hashemite rule, while a successful Egyptian offensive might 'continue onward to Amman.' 'The predicament, as defined by royal confidant Zayd al-Rifai,' Oren continues, 'was mind-boggling: "Even if Jordan did not participate in a war ... it would be blamed for the loss of the war and our turn would be next"' (p. 128; the ellipsis is Oren's). turning to the source Oren cites, we read that King Hussein feared an Israeli attack in the event of a regional war 'no matter what Jordan did.' To document Jordan's worry, the source quotes Rifai: 'Even if Jordan did not participate directly in a war that was started by Israel it would not only be destroyed by the Arab world and even blamed for the loss of the war but our turn would be next' (emphasis added). It would seem that the 'predicament' posed by an 'Egyptian first strike' to Jordan would not have been quite so 'mind-boggling' if Oren had not excised the phrase 'that was started by Israel.'" -- ("Abba Eban With Footnotes", Norman G. Finkelstein, Journal of Palestine Studies XXXII, no. 3 (Spring 2003), pages 74-89).

Finkelstein points out in a footnote that Israeli historian Benny Morris "altogether doubts its [Operation Dawn's] existence". He also notes:

"Even assuming an Egyptian attack was planned and leaving aside that the alleged plan was aborted well before 5 June, it could not have influence the Israeli decision to strike unless officials knew about it. Although circumstantial indications suggest that they might have known, it remains that both at the time and in his later memoirs Abba Eban emphatically dismissed all talk of a planned Egyptian attack as 'hypochondriac frivolities' and a 'cheap trick' designed to justify an Israeli attack, and neither British and U.S., nor, for that matter, Israeli intelligence could detect in late May any evidence of an imminent Egyptian attack."

(If you respond, please try to address Finkelstein's facts and arguments, rather than engaging in your usual ad hominem arguments, Jiujitsuguy.)

And just as Oren acknowledges that the Israeli intelligence assessment matched that of the U.S., he also acknowledges that, while Nasser's Military Intelligence Chief suggested attacking first so as not to lose their air force in an Israeli surprise attack (which, as Oren also notes, was then well in the planning), Nasser dismissed any suggestion of making the first strike: "Now it was Nasser's turn to object, stepping in to explain that Egypt could not risk alienating world opinion by assaulting Israel..."

Also, it should be noted as a simple logical fact, applying an equal standard, that had Egypt actually attacked first, it could easily be described as "preemptive" since Israel was IN FACT demonstrably, and admittedly (like I said, Oren himself documents it) been planning an attack on Egypt.

So let's end this debate already. Jiujitsuguy, nobody -- NOBODY -- is suggesting the article should state as fact that it WAS NOT "preemptive". Why do you object to the article simply taking up a NPOV and simply NOT asserting that it was?

There is absolutely no legitimate reason whatsoever to object to the edit I have made, and no legitimate reason whatsoever to undo that edit -- as you have done now 3 times.

I implore other editors to help me to keep this article within the bounds of Wikipedia policy on NPOV and verifiability by NOT having it state AS FACT that which is a subjective judgment open to interpretation and debate (as this talk page itself clearly demonstrates).

Also, the last time you undid my correction, you did so with the note that there was "no consensus" for it. Yet, as everyone here can see, there is also no consensus (on the contrary, most editors expressed being in favor of qualifying the sentence) that the attack was "preemptive", and so by your own logic the sentence should remain neutral, as I have made it.JRHammond (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it

I've been watching this edit warring for a while, and I just don't get it. Can those arguing that the attack was not preemptive explain why, in a very clear and concise manner? And would some in between wording stop the edit warring? I'm thinking something like: "On June 5, 1967, Israel launched what it described as a preemptive attack on Egypt." ← George ^talk 01:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If you've been watching, then you know that there has always been an on-going objection to the use of the term pre-emptive strike in the lede. Every archive of this talk page has one or more lengthy discussions on that topic, which illustrates that there is no consensus that it properly reflects all the views of the interested parties to the conflict.

WP:PRACTICAL says Community discussion takes place on various pages: noticeboards such as at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; or pages such as Requests for comment and Requests for arbitration. These require collaborative effort and considered input from their participants to form a consensus and act appropriately upon the consensus. In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. Editors decide outcomes during discussion, polls are regarded as structured discussions rather than votes. Both during polls and discussions, opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale; convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you. An argumentative approach rarely convinces others.

I put the POV tag on this article and I'm not edit warring. Jiujitsuguy is simply incorrect about "all the mainstream sources". Many legal experts and historians do not agree that it was a preemptive attack. For example, Yoram Dinstein (War Aggression, and Self-Defense, 3d ed. 2001) and Christine Gray (International Law and the Use of Force 2004) are two mainstream legal scholars who have said that Egypt initiated hostilities. As a consequence, they say the air strikes on 5 June 1967 were not legally a preemptive situation at all. They consider them to be either an intercept or counterattack. Their postulation addresses criticisms from the majority of scholars, who say that the Israeli attack was illegal based upon the "doctrine of necessity".

Mike Akehurst pointed out that, in the beginning, Israel itself had told the Security Council that the Arab armies had attacked her first. He asked "If this Israeli claim is false, why did Israeli tell a lie?" That viewpoint is contained in the very first citation in the "pre-emptive strike" footnote (see Quigley). The fact that Israel actually changed its story about the "pre-emptive attack" isn't summarized in the lede or mentioned in article.

Israel had shot down Syrian aircraft over Damascus, and had carried out a massive premeditated assault deep inside Jordanian territory that was condemned by the Security Council. Those facts were removed from the lede. Historians Michael Oren, Tom Segev, Moshe Shemesh, and a host of others say those events either led directly to the war or started it. They were certainly NOT "border clashes".

Here are some sources that were mentioned in previous discussions. The accounts published by the Israeli decision makers themselves, Israeli historians, and Israeli political scientists agree that the decision to go to war was made on the basis of the IDF's Doctrine of Deterrence, not upon the basis of defensive considerations. Israeli leaders felt that the IDF could not afford to back down. The offensive was launched to preserve the IDF's long-term deterrent capability.

• David Rodman said that since the early days of the State, Israeli military doctrine placed a premium on offensive, rather than defensive warfare. Military leaders felt that there was a better prospect of deterring the outbreak of hostilities if the IDF transferred fighting to enemy territory as soon as possible. That strategy also compensated for limited finances and the absence of alliance partners. see Between war and peace, editor Efraim Karsh, page 153

• Dan Kurzman said Rabin was not concerned with the Sinai build-up. see Soldier of peace, page 202

• Rabin said the IDF GHQ Intelligence assessment was that Israel was facing a repetition of Operation Rotem, and that Egypt would eventually withdraw. He characterized the Sinai troop build-up and the closure of the Straits as "humiliating pinpricks" that would render the IDF's long term deterrent capacity worthless. During the meeting in "the Pit", he and the other military leaders said they were afraid that it would appear that the government had lost confidence in the IDF, and that the significance of the closure of the Straits lay in the effect on Israel's deterrent capability. see The Rabin Memoirs, page 80-81; Israel in the Middle East: Documents and Readings on Society, Politics, and Foreign Relations, Pre-1948 to the Present, edited by Itamar Rabinovich, Jehuda Reinharz, pages 212-213; and Israel's Decision To Go To War, June 2, 1967, by Col. Ami Gluska

• Avner Yaniv said that IDF doctrine was based on the assumption of the inherent disability of Israel to win a decisive strategic battle and impose peace on the Arabs. The leadership felt that Israel could not subdue the Arabs. It could defend itself, cause the Arabs pain, and destroy their armies for a while, but they felt that solving the problem once and for all was beyond Israel's capacity. The IDF relied on a strategy of active conventional deterrence that emphasized punitive and demonstrative use of force and the accumulation of dissuasive power not through one military victory, but through a succession of quick decisive blows to Arab military power. see National security and democracy in Israel, page 90.

• Avi Shlaim said there is general agreement among commentators that Nasser neither wanted nor planned to go to war with Israel. He said the Israeli economy would survive the closure of the Straits, but the deterrent image of the IDF could not. see The Iron Wall, pages 236-237.

• Yagil Levy says that the tendency to use force and generate escalation in order to bring about counter-reaction by the Arabs, ruled out possible options to settle the crisis other than by war. Israel's doctrine of deterrence called for "flexible retaliation" designed to deter the Syrians or provoke them so that Israel could launch a full scale response. He said that Israel became trapped in its own formula of deterrence. see Trial and error: Israel's route from war to de-escalation, page 107

• Re'uven Pedatzur said that any erosion of Israeli deterrent power is an impediment to peace in the region. He said that Israeli deterrence is greatly dependent on the IDF's capability to inflict great and painful damage to the enemy -- "deterrence through punishment." and that in the absence of comprehensive peace in the Middle East, deterrence will remain the chief component in Israel's national defense doctrine. see Limits of Deterrence, Ha'aretz, 28 March 1995 p B1

• Uzi Benziman described Israel's doctrine of strategic deterrence and Ariel Sharon's role in launching cross-border attacks into Jordan or Egypt where his forces would strike targets and disappear. see for example Sharon: An Israeli Caesar, pages 42-44

• Greg Cashman said that in late May 1967, Egypt had complained that the false Soviet report caused them to send troops into the Sinai. see An Introduction to the Causes of War: Patterns of Interstate Conflict from World War I to Iraq, page 185

• The Egyptians had already provided categorical assurances to Israel through the US Secretary of State and the UN Secretary General that they did not intend to initiate hostilities, and that they were willing to make concessions to avoid a war. see Cashman; Foreign Relations, 1964-1968, Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, document 132; and paragragh 9 of the report to the Security Council from the Secretary General of the United Nations, S/7906, 26 May 1967.

• Christopher Gelpi says that the government of Egypt had let it be known that their tough statements were "mere words designed for public consumption." see The power of legitimacy: assessing the role of norms in crisis bargaining, page 141

There are many popular and quite different histories of the war, e.g. 1967: Israel, The War, and the Year That Transformed the Middle East, by Tom Segev; Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East, by Michael Oren; and Warriors for Jerusalem: The Six Days that Changed the Middle East, by Donald Neff. The article quotes Rabin, Begin, Dayan and many other leaders who said they didn't think that Nasser was going to attack; that he didn't want a war; or that the war had been avoidable. Why do we have to include the theory about a "preemptive attack" in the lede? It isn't very well supported by the contents of the article or the various accounts.

"Anticipatory Self-Defense" and Other Stories by Jeanne Woods and James Donovan, 14 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 487 (2005) [5] discussed the Six Day War and said that "The on-going occupation of the territory set aside for a Palestinian State suggests the motive was a quest for land and resources." harlan (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, many of the sources that you cite actually support the view of preemption and other sources have been taken out of context and I will soon provide a point by point rebuttal. I would do so now but my time is limited and unfortunately, you provided no hyperlinks. Rest assured that a response will be forthcoming.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That was somewhat clear, although not very concise harlan. Could you maybe sum up why the attack wasn't preemptive in one or two sentences? (I don't really care about the individual scholars and sources at this point, I'm just trying to grasp the big picture.) And keep in mind that whether or not someone was planning to actually attack Israel has no bearing on whether the attack was preemptive. All that matters is whether or not Israel thought that attacking first would preempt someone else attacking them. ← George ^talk 06:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

George, I didn't say the attack wasn't preemptive. Right now the lede says: "Israel said it had taken preemptive action because it believed an Egyptian attack was imminent." but it cites Quigley et al. who point out that Israel officially claimed that Egypt had attacked first, then changed its story to the preemptive strike version later-on. The article says that years afterward, many of the leaders involved in the decision making process said they didn't believe that Egypt was ready to attack, or that the war was unavoidable. Wikipedia is supposed to describe all of those published views without endorsing any of them in the lede.

The article also says "Egypt denied planning to attack Israel, saying the Israeli strike was not preemptive but an unwarranted and illegal act of aggression." You say "All that matters is whether or not Israel thought that attacking first would preempt someone else attacking them.", but do not provide a published source so that that viewpoint can be included. Apparently Egypt and a number of legal authorities differ with you on that particular topic. Wikipedia NPOV policy applies to the material about the casus belli. So, all significant views have to be represented and summarized fairly without endorsing controversial positions. harlan (talk) 08:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

First, to be clear, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not even aware if there is a legal difference between a preemptive attack and a non-preemptive attack from the perspective of an international court. I'm merely talking about the use of 'preemptive' as an English word that means to take action before someone else has a chance to—regardless of whether or not that action is legal, justified, or imagined.

Working off my earlier suggestion, and based on (what I believe is) agreement among the editors here that at some point Israel claimed that the action was preemptive, what about a wording like "On June 5, 1967, Israel launched what it would later describe as a preemptive attack on Egypt"? We could go into more detail later in the article, but I don't like seeing editors edit warring over this word when I think there is probably agreement that Israel eventually described the attack as preemptive. Thoughts? ← George ^talk 08:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you are attempting to construct an unsourced narrative that favors one particular point of view. Why not just say Israel attacked and go into all of this, including the subsequent claim that it was preemptive, later-on in the article? harlan (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm just trying to help stop a silly edit war. Towards that end, I looked at what we agree on. Some sources say the attack was preemptive, some don't. Israel said they were attacked first, then said the attack was preemptive. That's a pretty big difference, or at least you seemed to indicate that there's some big legal difference, so it should be mentioned in the lead somehow, and I haven't seen any policy based arguments for why it shouldn't be (provided that it is properly framed as Israel's description at some point after the initial attack). ← George ^talk 09:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me make an attempt at clariyfing the issue. I think there is a risk of not seeing the forest for all the trees because of the legal jargon involved. I believe the legal debate is important, but it's not necessary to solve the impasse as far as the formulation of an NPOV lede. The facts, it seems to me, are these: stating that "Israel launched a preemptive attack" implies that there is a historical consensus that Israel thought Egypt was going to attack, and therefore struck first to preempt the Egyptian attack. This is incorrect, as there are numerous notable scholars and commentators who reject this view, arguing that Israel did not believe Egypt would strike first. To conform with WP:NPOV, the facts should be stated objectively ("Israel launched an attack" seems to me to be the most appropriate formulation in this regard) and both views should then be examined and properly sourced in the article.

The debate in these talk pages has mainly revolved around whether the view that the strike was not preemptive is WP:Fringe and thus unworthy of consideration. I think that has been conclusively proven not to be the case, by harlan among others (who is, in my opinion, probably the most well versed editor on the legal issues to take part in this discussion). But you shouldn't take my word for it; look for yourself and make your own judgement. If you agree that there is a notable view among scholars that the attack was not preemptive, then stating that it was is in violation of WP:NPOV. I think it's as simple as that. Shoplifter (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So I follow you until the last sentence, Shoplifter, and then I think we may disagree. If the view the the attack wasn't preemptive is notable, that does not mean that describing it as preemptive violated WP:NPOV. It only means we need to either explain both sides of the subject, or work around the issue. The first of those is pretty lengthy for a lead, but I think my suggestions achieved the second. Instead of saying that the attack was preemptive as fact (as the current wording does, which may violate NPOV), my suggestion simply states that Israel claimed that the attack was preemptive later on, which is something I think we all agree on. ← George ^talk 10:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize for being nebulous, and I understand your point in regards to WP:NPOV. What I meant to say was, since there is a sufficiently strong view among scholars that the attack was not preemptive, using that word in describing the attack would be in violation of WP:NPOV. That's why I prefer the, in my opinion, wholly objective wording ("Israel launched an attack"). If you eye through the debate, I believe you will find that it's closer to a 50-50 than a 90-10 situation among scholars on whether or not the attack was preemptive. The discussion has been one where the camp in opposition to using the word presents sources to this effect, and the camp in favor of using the word then attempts to refute the validity of these sources. I joined the debate, not aware of this situation, but only because I was very surprised to find that the US intel assessments (stemming from public government sources), which directly contradicts Israel's claim of an Egyptian attack being imminent, was not included in the article. I then came to recognize that those in favor of using the word has mainly been making ad hominem arguments about the political views of certain scholars (specifically Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky) instead of rebutting the contents of the sources. I for one believe that whether or not Finkelstein "supports Hamas", or whether or not Benny Morris favors nuclear war against Iran, is of no relevance to the actual content of their respective writings on the topic. The scholarship must stand for itself; it should be examined objectively. Even so, the fact that some editors are piling up on the alleged political views of a few individuals instead of having a serious discussion about the source material seems to me to indicate an unwillingness to face the fact that there is a notable view on the issue that is in opposition to their own. Again, this is my interpretation of the talk page debate; look through the pages and see what you will find. Shoplifter (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we're more or less in agreement. The debate over the term 'preemptive' was largely mishandled, questioning the "truthiness" of the label or the politics of the sources that did or didn't use it, when all that really matters is that we can verify who does and doesn't use the term. At any rate, hopefully we're making progress in that discussion. ← George ^talk 17:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

George, if you have been watching then you must have seen me repeatedly simply and concisely sum up the objections to the use of the adjective, such as in the section entitled "End the debate on the use of "preemptive" and just revise it already!". See also my rebuttal to Jiujitsuguy in the above section "Rebuttal", etc.

But more to the point, I agree with you a simple revision should be acceptable to all. I've edited to simply read "Israel launched an attack on Egypt" to comply with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, as that which follows sufficiently presents both views about "preemption" in a neutral manner. However, I think your suggestion "On June 5, 1967, Israel launched what it described as a preemptive attack on Egypt" is equally appropriate, and would have no objection to this wording whatsoever.

I suggest we take a vote on this wording. I favor it.JRHammond (talk) 07:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

One feature that a number of sources highlight is that, at first, Israel did not describe its military operations as a preemptive attack. harlan (talk) 08:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

George argued: "And keep in mind that whether or not someone was planning to actually attack Israel has no bearing on whether the attack was preemptive. All that matters is whether or not Israel thought that attacking first would preempt someone else attacking them."

That is incorrect. By definition, whether an attack was or was not actually "preemptive" depends not upon this or that PERCEPTION, but upon the actual facts and the evidence from the documentary record that an attack had actually been planned that it was necessary out of self-defense to "preempt".

Merriam Webster defines the verb to "preempt" as "to prevent from happening or taking place". Well, if there was not actually going to be an attack needing to be prevented, then there is not in fact "preemption" -- inaccurate perceptions to the contrary notwithstanding.

Moreover, even if we applied this fallacious logic, it would STILL be inappropriate to describe the attack as "preemptive", since Israeli intelligence at the time assessed that it was highly unlikely Nasser would be so foolish as to launch a first strike, and as has been repeatedly observed, numerous prominent Israelis have acknowledged this fact, and the fact that the "threat" of an imminent Egyptian attack had been hyped, such as by Abba Eban in his discussions with representatives from the Johnson Administration (as I've discussed above).

There is just no legitimate reason whatsoever to assert as fact that the war was "preemptive". This is a subjective judgment, unsustainable from a documentary record that in fact indicates just the opposite, that Nasser had no intention to attack, and thus violates Wikipedia policy on NPOV and Verifiability.

George suggested this wording: "On June 5, 1967, Israel launched what it would later describe as a preemptive attack on Egypt". George has also suggested: "On June 5, 1967, Israel launched what it described as a preemptive attack on Egypt", which I endorsed. However, I prefer the former over the latter, as Israel in fact immediately, at the time, claimed the attack was self-defense, lying to the international community and falsely claiming that Egypt had struck first (Harlan has alluded to this fact). It only later acknowledged that that wasn't true and changed its story with the claim that it was "preemptive", so this suggestion of George's would be more technically accurate. I have no objection to this wording. JRHammond (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing in the Merriam Webster definition of prempt—to prevent from happening or taking place—that disagrees with what I said. Maybe it's easier if I use an example. Let's say that you seem me walking down a hallway towards a door. You then put a blockade in front of that door, preventing me from going through it. Now, for all you know, maybe I never intended to go through that door (you can't read my mind, nor see the future), but your belief was that I was heading for the door, so from your perspective the blockade was preemptive. And you would consider it preemptive regardless of if I had a legal right to go through the door or not. Now, let's say that despite the fact that I was walking in the direction of your door, I never actually intended to go through, and had planned on turning down another hallway all along. From my perspective, your blockade wasn't preemptive, because I knew my plans ahead of time and wouldn't consider your blockade as preventing me from going where I want to go, but you would still consider it preemptive because you didn't know my plans in advance, and were just going on what you observed me doing. Does that make sense?

Regarding the specific wordings, I'm waiting to see Jiujitsu's take on my suggestions, but thanks for being open to compromise. ← George ^talk 10:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

George, I'm in no way making a "compromise" by agreeing to your suggestion. ;) Since we are in agreement on a suggested revision, I might end it there, but I think it's important to clarify this issue over the definition of "preemption". The adjective comes from the verb "preempt", which I gave the definition for. You're argument is that it doesn't matter whether Egypt was really intending to attack, it only matters what Israeli perception was. But if Egypt was NOT really going to attack, it doesn't matter what Israel's perception was -- the attack was not, in fact, "preemptive". If there's nothing to prevent, there's no actual preemption. This is a rather basic logical fact, and not really debatable. In your analogy, you actually demonstrate the point, including caveats like (emphasis added), "...you would CONSIDER it preemptive...", "FROM MY PERSPECTIVE...", and "you would CONSIDER it preemptive". This goes to the whole point I've been making all along, which is that it is a subjective judgment. As such, stating it as FACT is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. But we agree on a solution, so let's just go with that and move forward with it and get others on board so this "debate" can end. JRHammond (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think we're in agreement, and I used the perspective caveats quite intentionally. I concur that stating that the attack was preemptive as fact isn't a good idea (unless both sides are laid out), but describing it as the Israeli perspective is neutral and accurate, without taking any sides. Hopefully Jiujitsuguy agrees. ← George ^talk 17:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of mainstream sources agree that it was a preemptive attack. This is not a subjective Israeli view but an objective viewpoint by those who have studied the subject. By way of example, suppose I said "On December 7, 1941 the Japanese navy initiated an attack against Pearl Harbor that the U.S. described as a sneak attack." That would be wrong because it makes it seem as though this is an exclusively American position when in fact, it is almost a unanimous position. Let me illustrate with another example. Suppose I said "in 1939 German forces invaded Poland in an attack termed by Poland as an act of aggression." This would also be misleading as it is again, almost universally acknowledged that the German attack on Poland was an act of aggression. You will always find a few marginal, loose ends who will argue differently just as you'll find people who think that the United States was complicit in Sept 11 attacks. My point is the consensus of mainstream sources and the bulk of scholarly opinion concur that the attack of 1967 was preemptive and in fact, it is the most cited example of preemption. Harlan took many of his cited sources out of context and I am in the midst of preparing a thorough rebuttal. In fact, many of his sources support the view of preemption but he carefully avoided hyperlinks to frustrate ease of corroboration.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, you continue to restate your position without addressing the facts and arguments presented from the other side. You continually parrot that "The vast majority of mainstream sources agree that it was a preemptive attack", falsely implying that the view it was not so is a marginal one -- it is not -- and that the documentary record sustains the "preemptive" claim -- it does not.

You repeat yourself, but have yet to reasonably address the fact that both U.S. and Israeli intelligence assessed that Egypt would not attack, that Begin, Rabin, Oren, et al have acknowledged this unlikelihood, that Israeli first claimed Egypt had struck first only to acknowledge this was a lie and revise their claim to the "preemptive" one (which is actually the only "revisionist" account here), and so on. I rebutted your rebuttal point by point above, yet instead of addressing the facts and logic of my argument, you simply revert to repeating this same old tired line. This is wearying and inappropriate.

In 2002-3, the vast majority of mainstream sources claimed that Iraq had WMD. Yet I and others were pointing out that there was no EVIDENCE to support this CLAIM. The fact that most sources may claim something does not make it true. I would hope editors at Wikipedia would be able to scrutinize more carefully than this absurd standard allows for. How many times does the mainstream media need to fail the public and reveal its propagandist nature before people wake up and start questioning things and examining the evidence for themselves? Should Wikipedia simply parrot propaganda, or should it seek to be objective and present all viewpoints in a neutral and fair manner? Clearly, Wikipedia NPOV policy demands the latter. Why do you reject the NPOV standard? What is the problem with having this sentence read neutrally, rather than asserting either the one or the other side as absolute fact? There is no legitimate reason whatsoever to reject a neutral wording.

The issue here is not how many people make this claim vs. how many people make that claim. The issue here is the EVIDENCE. What evidence do those who claim "preemption" present to support that claim? Well, we've been over the evidence at length on this page, and the majority of editors agree this claim needs to be presented AS SUCH, rather than as a proven fact, to comply with NPOV and Verifiability.

You're own arguments consist primarily of two logical fallacies: appeal to authority and ad hominem. When you've been presented with sources contradicting your claim the attack was "preemptive", you have repeatedly responded not by demonstrating any errors in fact or logic on the part of those sources, but instead by employing ad hominem arguments. Such dishonest rhetorical devices have no place either in a serious discussion of historical facts or on a Wikipedia Talk page. Nor do they do anything to substantiate your claims or support your viewpoint. You'll have to actually address the facts presented and the logical syllogisms employed by those you disagree with if you want to present a convincing argument. JRHammond (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"Preemptive" edit war

• Good Granny, can you folks stop with the lame edit warring already? Just say "Some sources describe it as preemptive" and list the sources. Crap. This is lame. • Ling.Nut 14:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Who do you mean by "you folks"? The only people who would argue with your suggested solution are those who insist that the war should be described as fact as "preemptive", such as Jiujitsuguy, who continually undoes my edit to make the paragraph read precisely along the lines you suggest and in compliance with Wikipedia's NPOV. Comments such as this don't help me to ensure that a reasonable solution remains implemented, without people like Jiujitsuguy undoing it to read in a biased manner. If you have something actually helpful to say, by all means, let's hear it. JRHammond (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ling.Nut is right. The edit war needs to stop. It just leads to bad feelings and heated discussions. I suggest noone edit the contested sentence until consensus has been reached, even if it means that the wrong version will stay for a while. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources report that it was a pre-emptive war. If JRHammond wants to include the minority claim that it was not pre-emptive, I don't think anyone is preventing him. --Shuki (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Frederico1234, your suggestion is absurd. Clearly, the only appropriate thing to do is to edit it to read in a neutral manner, neither asserting the one view nor the other as fact. Why should the lack of a consensus mean it should remain biased towards one side? If we cannot make it read neutrally (which is all anyone is asking for) without a consensus that the attack was not preemptive, why should it be allowed to remain stating stating as fact that it was preemptive without a consensus? You're applying an unfair and unequal standard that is totally absurd and inappropriate. Given the lack of consensus, I will continue to edit the page as necessary to ensure that it reads neutrally, in compliance with Wikipedia policy. JRHammond (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, you should familiarize yourself with the discussion before giving us your opinion, so as not to make comments that are irrelevant. Nobody is arguing that here. That is not the issue (perhaps since the article already includes both views). You really should make at least some kind of effort to know what the point of the discussion actually is before trying to insert your two cents. Just a polite suggestion. JRHammond (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

IP 24.23.193.232 undid edit by Sanguinalis, which was done by the latter to make the sentence comply with WP:NPOV. In doing so, IP 24.23.193.232 commented "it is the majority viewpoint". Yet 24.23.193.232 included no caveat expressing that this was indeed a "viewpoint", as just acknowledged, as opposed to a fact. I thus undid the undoing by 24.23.193.232 so as to correct this blatant violation of WP:NPOV. JRHammond (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

24.23.193.232 offered a fairly reasonable alternative. Would prefer he/she discussed edit prior to making change. Edit was made to: "On June 5, 1967, Israel launched what was widely described as a preemptive attack on Egypt." I revised this slightly to: "On June 5, 1967, Israel launched what is widely described as a 'preemptive' attack on Egypt." Reason being this was not Israel's initial claim (they initially claimed -- falsely -- that Egypt had attacked first, so they responded in self-defense). Only after this pretext fell apart did they acknowledge Egypt had not attacked, and then they revised their claim to the claim of "preemption". Moreover, it's also more accurate to use the present tense since this is true today. Quotation marks around "preemptive" help emphasize this is a viewpoint and to show this is the term used in the works cited. JRHammond (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've rejigged the intro slightly - if we're going to say the attack is "widely described" as preemptive, then we have to add that the description is also widely disputed. I've also removed the line about Nasser's "war rhetoric and military posturing", which - in the way it was used - made it seem that Wikipedia was casting doubt on the truthfulness of his statement. Phersu (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The page has been protected due to edit warring. The first sentence of the third paragraph currently reads:

On June 5, 1967, Israel launched what it subsequently described as a preemptive attack on Egypt.

I am content with that and would like others to weigh in whether they are also content with it or would like to see it changed and, if so, how and why. I'm sure we can all be reasonable and arrive at a reasonable solution without further edit warring.

Additionally, I have added some further information to that paragraph, specifically:

Initially, Israel falsely claimed at the U.N. Security Council that the Israeli attack had been in response to an attack by "Egyptian land and air forces".[31] Israel subsequently claimed it had taken preemptive action because it believed an Egyptian attack was imminent[24], despite the fact that its own intelligence assessment was that, given Israel's military superiority, such an attack was highly unlikely; an assessment shared by the U.S. intelligence community.[32]

If anyone has any objections to this, please state your reasons and discuss. I inserted this twice now, as Jiujitsuguy undid it the first time I inserted this. Yet he offered no legitimate reason for deleting this, such as that it contained factual errors. Please see the footnotes (31 and 32 are mine). You will all find that what I've written here is perfectly factual. So I don't see any reasons for objections, but if anyone has any, please air them so we can discuss in the interim, while the page is under protection from editing. JRHammond (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

A new problem is that the footnotes for the current phrasing does not reflect its content. The article says that Israel subsequently described the attack as preemptive, but the references in footnotes 25-30 reflects the view that it was, as is often said in those particular sources, "a clear case of preemption". I'm not suggesting to remove those sources from the article (although, as explained by Sanguinalis, the Walzer essay should probably not be included), but they are not corroborating the statement as it is currently formulated, and should therefore be noted somewhere else. Shoplifter (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, such issues are being discussed in the "Footnotes Mess" section. My immediate purpose here in this section is to preempt (pun intended) any further edit warring in the third paragraph. If anyone has any objections to the above portions of the article, please state them here. You have an opportunity to state your case now while the article is protected. Remaining silent now only to revert the text without discussion or explanation once the ban is lifted would be totally inappropriate, and contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. JRHammond (talk) 10:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation case

I just want to apprise everyone involved in this discussion that there now is a mediation case on the issue over at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-07-11/Six-Day War

I wasn't the one who submitted it, and I didn't notice it until now. It seems that the support lent so far is somewhat sparse. I hope it will be helpful towards a resolution. Shoplifter (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I submitted it. So far, it has not been helpful. I hope that situation changes. I don't know what is so difficult about just setting aside biases and having the article read neutrally, neither asserting the one view nor the other as absolute fact. I continue to fail to see any legitimate reason whatsoever that this article should not be made to comply with NPOV. Wikipedia policy demands it. I submitted it in the hopes that editors might help to ensure it remains neutral, but I've found no indication that those who replied have any interest in ensuring NPOV policy is adhered to in this case. JRHammond (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think your recent additions are wise, and a very good way to solve the dispute. The lead now recognizes that there is an extensive use of the word "preemptive" in works describing the attack, while at the same time underlining the (undisputed) circumstances which contradicts Israel's claim of preemption. I, personally, have reservations about the word "widely" being used to describe the proliferation of the term, as I think the record shows a more moderate scholarly distribution. Nonetheless, for the purpose of successful mediation, I think this is fair resolution. I have, however, one remaining objection to the current lead: there is a significant value judgement made in saying that Nasser was using "war rhetoric" (which was not mentioned earlier in the lead, and thus confuses the reader) and that his actions were seen as "military posturing". As noted in footnote 24, “... all US intelligence... had characterized Nasser's troops in the Sinai as "defensive in nature". Whether or not this was the case should be investigated in the article, but the current phrasing pre-empts such a discussion by the use of unusourced terminology. Basically, it says that Nasser was the aggressor, without qualification. This could easily be changed to read more neutrally, as in "while Nasser had amassed troops along the border, and made <insert comments as an example of rhetoric representative of what was said>, Egypt denied planning...". This seems to me to be the WP:NPOV way to do it. Your thoughts? Shoplifter (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Although it seems someone has already edit out the "war rhetoric" bit. JRHammond (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

As the edit-warring behavior of a few editors continues, I've resubmitted for moderation, in order that Wikipedia policy may be enforced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-07-25/Six-Day_War. JRHammond (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The footnotes mess

The long lists of sources cited in the "Israel launched" and "Egypt denied" sentences of the intro, while they contain many valuable references, have gotten out of hand and need to be broken up and distributed in different parts of the article. Specifically, we need to separate sources that purport to be factual narratives (like the BBC and Encarta articles) from sources that are clearly statements of opinion (like the Richard K. Betts essay). The latter should go in a different section of the article, one devoted to the debate since the war about its causes and legal basis. Also, everyone involved with this article should know that multiple sources for a single assertion can be stacked in a single footnote. There is no reason to have 7 footnotes on one sentence. And clearly argumentative essays, like the one by the philosopher Michael Walzer, should not be used to buttress a statement of fact that is not explicitly describing that opinion.

Ideally, the sentence about Egypt's position on how the war broke out should be supported only be statements from representatives of the Egyptian government itself. (The same goes for the other Arab countries, and Israel for that matter.) The collection of quotes from Mearsheimer, Walt, Quigley, Shlaim, and Chomsky, and the Rabin and Dayan quotations, these are important references, I'm glad people have found them, they belong somewhere in the article - but they are not themselves statements of the "Arab view". On the other hand, the statement from the Egypt State Information Service website is appropriate here, and I have added statements made by Egypt's representative to the UN Security Council on the day the war broke out. (By the way, the same UNSC document contains the false statement from Gideon Rafael that Israel was being attacked by Egypt.) The Security Council debates of June 1967 are an excellent source of information for what the "Arab" and "Israeli" points of view were at the time. The UNISPAL archive is a bit of a pain to deal with, but I encourage everyone to explore it as there is a lot there that can fill what's been a long-standing gap in this article. Sanguinalis (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestions. On Egypt's own position from its own officials' position, this might be helpful:

"The President of Egypt, then known as the United Arab Republic (UAR), Gamal Abdel Nasser, later conveyed to U.S. President Lyndon Johnson that his troop buildup in the Sinai Peninsula prior to the war had been to defend against a feared Israeli attack.

"In a meeting with Nasser, Johnson's special envoy to the UAR, Robert B. Anderson, expressed U.S. puzzlement over why he had massed troops in the Sinai, to which Nasser replied, '"Whether you believe it or not, we were in fear of an attack from Israel. We had been informed that the Israelis were massing troops on the Syrian border with the idea of first attacking Syria, there they did not expect to meet great resistance, and then commence their attack on the UAR.'"

"Anderson then told Nasser 'that it was unfortunate the UAR had believed such reports, which were simply not in accordance with the facts', to which Nasser responded that his information had come from reliable sources (presumably referring to intelligence information passed along by the USSR).

" Nasser added that 'your own State Department called in my Ambassador to the U.S. in April or May and warned him that there were rumors that there might be a conflict between Israel and the UAR.'"

That's from an article of mine in the Palestine Chronicle: http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=16105. The source is here: http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19/d500. The quotes from Nasser would seem appropriate, if someone wants to add them.

UNISPAL is a good suggested source. I've used it extensively. I've also been going through the State Departments Foreign Relations of the United States archives:

* http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v18

* http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19

* http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRHammond (talk • contribs) 04:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good suggestions. I've reflected upon the foonote mess myself, that's one of the reasons why I floated the idea of having an article devoted solely to the preemption debate. Perhaps it would be sufficient to add another subsection when dicussing the differing viewpoints, but there's quite a wealth of material to take into consideration. Shoplifter (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I was about to clean up the refs, and had actually deleted one that was never cited in the body text, when I noticed the section was titled "Further reading". Me personally, I'd call the first section "Notes", put all full references in a second section called "References" and then put uncited books in a third called "Further reading". But y'all do whatever you like. Restore the Cristol ref if you prefer your current scheme... • Ling.Nut 18:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed, setting aside the interpretative disagreements, the article is in need of proof reading. There's aplenty of grammatic inconsistencies (such as they way dates are written). The writing of the footnotes could do with some revived stringency also. Shoplifter (talk) 03:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Copy editing, footnotes, etc. Truce on the edit war, for this?

hey. I'll be happy to help with copy editing, footnotes, etc., whenever I have time (which unfortunately I seldom do, but I'll have some tomorrow)... Is the edit war only about the yes/no on the "preemptive" question? If so, can we get everyone to call a truce and work out your differences here on Talk (or on a new article, as suggested elsewhere, that only deals with that specific issue)? Thanks • Ling.Nut 14:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of us have already worked it out -- quite some time ago, actually. It's long been decided by a majority of editors that the claim requires qualification, rather than being stated as fact. There's just one or two people (Jiujitsuguy) who disagree with the majority of editors and continually reverted the article back to the way it was so that it reads in violation of WP:NPOV. I don't know what procedures exist to prevent editors from edit warring like that, but that's the only remaining problem. JRHammond (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Lede 3rd Paragraph Dispute

As the protected status will expire tomorrow and the article will be again open for editing, I'd like to make sure that the edit warring doesn't begin again. I've expressed this elsewhere, but so far haven't gotten any response, so I'm adding a new section in the interests of getting feedback and hopefully establishing a consensus to "preempt" any further warring (pun intended). The 3rd paragraph currently reads:

On June 5, 1967, Israel launched what it subsequently described as a preemptive attack on Egypt.[24][25] [26][27][28][29][30] Initially, Israel falsely claimed at the U.N. Security Council that the Israeli attack had been in response to an attack by "Egyptian land and air forces".[31] Israel subsequently claimed it had taken preemptive action because it believed an Egyptian attack was imminent[24], despite the fact that its own intelligence assessment was that, given Israel's military superiority, such an attack was highly unlikely; an assessment shared by the U.S. intelligence community.[32] Egypt denied planning to attack Israel, saying the Israeli strike was not preemptive but an unwarranted and illegal act of aggression.[33] Jordan, which had signed a mutual defence treaty with Egypt on May 30, then attacked western Jerusalem and Netanya.[34][35][36]

The footnotes mess is a separate issue, discussed in a separate section. I'm concerned here with making sure the wording is acceptable to all. First, I'd like to get editors to respond expressing whether they approve or disapprove of the sentence: "On June 5, 1967, Israel launched what it subsequently described as a preemptive attack on Egypt." JRHammond (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. It reads accurately and in a neutral manner. I'm content with this wording. Please approve or disapprove below this line -- if "disapprove", please explain your reasons and present a valid argument for why your own proposed wording would be better. JRHammond (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. Phersu (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. harlan (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. Shoplifter (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve/Modify The lead was looking OK on NPOV issues, but needs a rewrite on its prose and other other WP:LEAD issues. I actually have free time over the next few days; I may tackle it. if I do, I'll rewrite in user space then post the final version here on Article Talk. That way no one will be shocked by sudden changes. • Ling.Nut 03:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

On second thought.... with all due respect to both parties: JRHammond's version is modestly closer to the mark than JiujitsuGuy's. However, now that I have had time to let it sink in, I do see the point that JRHammond's version makes the non-preemptive argument just a little too quickly and too emphatically. I would opt for something that dials down that side just a bit more... I'm gonna stop fixing references. Looking at peoples' behavior, it seems that the lead issue is a bit more urgent. I hope to have time tomorrow to write a version in my user space. I bear no ill will to any sides that may exist. I want a lead that is quite nearly dry, almost boring in its impartiality. Or if not boring, then at least unbiased... I really really have to log out until tomorrow, though. • Ling.Nut 15:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions on wording. However, the facts I added, surely you can agree, are very relevant. And if the facts lead you to the conclusion that the attack was non-preemptive, that is your own conclusion, not one that I put forth. So I don't really know what you mean by saying I made the "non-preemptive argument just a little too quickly and too emphatically." Facts are facts. JRHammond (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve/Modify. It is certainly an improvement. However, I'd rather have the sentence split up into two sentences, like this:

On June 5, 1967, Israel launched an attack on Egypt; Israel subsequently described the attack as being preemptive.

I think it's easier to read this way. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Both are okay by me. JRHammond (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, I added: "Initially, Israel falsely claimed at the U.N. Security Council that the Israeli attack had been in response to an attack by "Egyptian land and air forces"... despite the fact that its own intelligence assessment was that, given Israel's military superiority, such an attack was highly unlikely; an assessment shared by the U.S. intelligence community." The bit where the ellipses is was not my work. Footnotes 31 and 32 are mine. I would refer people to the footnotes. Everyone here can verify the factual accuracy of my additions by going to the sources. Similarly, if anyone has any concerns or comments, please air them here before making changes. JRHammond (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. It is factual, neutral, and verifiable, and adds important information for the context of this paragraph dealing with the claim that Israel's attack was "preemptive". Please express your approval or disapproval below, along with explanation. JRHammond (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. Phersu (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. harlan (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Approve. Shoplifter (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutral/Approve See above. • Ling.Nut 03:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have invested a very large amount of time and energy fixing the format of the article in my user space – and have barely scratched the surface. I'm gonna move the whole thing en masse to article space when the block is lifted. Please do not edit in my user space... you can comment on my talk page. • Ling.Nut 05:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ling Nut, consensus is achieved through the editing process and the quality of the arguments made during community discussions which take place on various public pages. You are not discussing or addressing JRHammond's concerns. I'd suggest that you join the mediation case and hold off on moving "the whole thing en masse to article space". That sounds like you've been privately planning a replacement page during the period of sysop-imposed editing restrictions. harlan (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked at Ling Nuts edits in his (or her) sandbox, and as far as I can tell, all he did was to clean up the footnotes. I'm pretty sure he didn't mean to say in reply to JRHammond that he has an alternative version regarding the facts of the article to insert once the protected status is lifted. Just some good ol' house-cleaning that everyone can agree on. Shoplifter (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I thank Ling Nut for taking the time to help clean up footnotes. However, I also thank Harlan for pointing out that my concerns are not being addressed here. I believe Ling Nut mistakenly posted the above in this section when the section above was the intended place for it. I would REALLY appreciate it if other editors would kindly respond and express approval or disapproval of the wording in question in the 3rd paragraph. I REALLY would like to prevent any further edit warring by such means. Thanks. JRHammond (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC).

"Avoiding an edit war" is probably impossible, unless some blocks and bans are handed down. The positions of pro-Arab and pro-Israel editors are diametrically opposed, and set in stone... the best you can try to do is merely state that one side says it was preemptive and the other does not. Wikipedia does not have the ability (as other sources do) to take a stance. • Ling.Nut 14:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It might not be so "impossible" if you would actually just use this section according to its purpose and kindly comply with my request. Also, you appear to be unfamiliar with the discussion. Nobody -- NOBODY -- has suggested the article should state as fact that the attack was not preemptive. If you were familiar with the discussion, you would know that there is a majority of editors who agree both views should be presented neutrally, with neither expressed as fact, and there is a small fringe group of 2 or 3 editors who continually revert all attempts to implement the necessary changes to make the article NPOV compliant. Please familiarize with the discussion, and please express whether you approve or disapprove of the wording in question in the 3rd paragraph. Thanks. JRHammond (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Disapprove. Too much detail for the lead. --Frederico1234 (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The facts mentioned are in no way minor points to be made. They go right to the heart of the issue, so I think it's appropriate in the lede. I'd would to agree to a shorter 3rd para in the lede so long as this information is included in a discussion of the "preemptive" issue further in the article. I think it deserves its own section, so I propose we make that happen. I would write up a draft myself, but I won't have the time. Best I can do for now is contribute this bit from the current lede for it. JRHammond (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If Israel only maintained the view that it had been attacked for a day(?) or so, then how is that not a minor point? --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a minor point because if Israel felt it's attack was justifiably "preemptive", why would they feel it necessary to lie about being attacked first? They claimed a false pretense for their attack. That is by no means insignificant. JRHammond (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read the source carefully, you will see Israel did not even say it had been "attacked". Which makes your point even stronger. Marokwitz (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your grasping at straws, Marokwitz. It's uncontroversial that Israel initially claimed Egypt attacked first, as the U.N. record shows, as elsewhere in the documentary record, e.g.: "Each Side Accuses Other of Making First Assault", New York Times, June 5, 1967. JRHammond (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Disapprove The words "Israel falsely claimed..." are an original interpretation of a primary source. First of all the source doesn't say "attacked" , it says "moved against" which may refer to mobilization of troops. Secondly, the source doesn't say "falsly". If we add a strong word such as "falsly" , this must come with a proper citation. Also regarding the use of "claimed", see WP:CLAIM, especially in such volatile issues. Marokwitz (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not an interpretation. It's a demonstrable fact that Israel claimed Egypt initiated the attack. It's also a fact that that was false. This is not controversial. JRHammond (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

UNEF, Occupation of DMZs, Combat Operations inside Jordan and Syria

The material from the Secretary-General's report to the Security Council regarding UNEF has been removed from the article on a number of occasions:

An unclassified report to the Security Council from the Secretary General of the United Nations, S/7906, 26 May 1967,[6] explained:

6. It may be relevant to note here that UNEF functioned exclusively on the United Arab Republic side of the Line in a zone from which the armed forces of the United Arab Republic had voluntarily stayed away for over ten years. It was this arrangement which allowed UNEF to function as a buffer and as a restraint on infiltration. When this arrangement lapsed United Arab Republic troops moved up to the Line as they had every right to do.

7. If UNEF had been deployed on both sides of the Line as originally envisaged in pursuance of the General Assembly resolution, its buffer function would not necessarily have ended. However, its presence on the Israel side of the Line has never been permitted. The fact that UNEF was not stationed on the Israel side of the Line was a recognition of the unquestioned sovereign right of Israel to withhold its consent for the stationing of the Force. The acquiescence in the request of the United Arab Republic for the withdrawal of the Force after ten and a half years on United Arab Republic soil was likewise a recognition of the sovereign authority of the United Arab Republic. In no official document relating to UNEF has there been any suggestion of a limitation of this sovereign authority'.... ...'President Nasser and Foreign Minister Riad assured me that the United Arab Republic would not initiate offensive action against Israel. Their general aim, as stated to me, was for a return to the conditions prevailing prior to 1956 and to full observance by both parties of the provisions of the General Armistice Agreement between Egypt and Israel.'

Occupation of the DMZ's and Combat Operations in Jordan and Syria

• Michael B. Oren's Six Days of War describes the catalysts that started the war (page 33 & etc.). His narrative begins with the massive raid that crossed the West Bank border in order to attack Samua. He says that it was the largest Israeli strike force that had been assembled since the 1956 war, and that it backfired. In the aftermath Palestinians rioted and called for King Hussein's overthrow; the UN condemned the raid and threatened to take action to prevent a repetition; and the US administration was appalled the Israel had destroyed its relationship with the only Arab leader with whom it enjoyed a modus vivendi.[7]
• The Government of Israel Yearbook 5728 (1967-68) starts its narrative of the Six Day War with a summary of events from 1966. It covers the 13 November raid on Samua and the condemnation of that raid by the UN Security Council. See for example page 7 [8]
• The British Cabinet published the declassified "Conclusion" it had reached at a meeting held on the 23rd of May, 1967. It said that "the present critical situation in the Middle East had developed from retaliatory action undertaken by Israel in Jordan because of terrorist [Al Fatah] attacks from both Jordan and Syria." See UK National Archives, CAB/128/42 (formerly CC (67) 31) [9]
• The FRUS reflects the fact that Special Assistants to President Johnson, Komer and Rostow, both blamed Israel for destabilizing the Jordanian government and putting it in an untenable position because of the raid on Samua. [10]
• Israel had complained about border clashes (which are mentioned in the lede). But, the FRUS and the Yearbook of the United Nations mention that Egypt and Syria had complained about the occupation by Israel of the DMZs and the liquidation of the rights of the indigenous Arab cultivators. Israel continued to cross the border to conduct strikes that killed Jordanians. Jordan and the Mixed Armistice Commission condemned Israeli authorities for crossing the Armistice Demarcation Line into the Latrun no-man's land and for ploughing areas situated in Jordan and in no-man's land in April of 1967 long after the Samua raid. See for example paragrapgh 2 of the introduction and etc. [11]
• Tom Segev's "1967" says Eshkol's Aide-de-Camp, General Yisrael Lior, wrote about the 7 April dogfight over Damascus saying "From my point of view, the Six Day War had begun. see 1967, page 212.

The occupation of the DMZs and the major combat operations conducted deep inside Syrian and Jordanian territory are not mentioned in the lede. Many reliable sources say they were the spark that ignited the war. harlan (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It's a major oversight not to include any mention of Samu in the lede. Israel's mobilization is mentioned, but it states it was a response to the Egyptian buildup in Sinai. I'd like verification of the sources given. They're not online references, so I personally have no way to verify those. Perhaps if someone is near a library this might be possible? Or, alternatively, I would suggest further sources be given for this assertion. After all, the military buildup for Samu was described by Oren as "the largest Israeli strike force assembled since the 1956 war" (p. 33). So, again, I agree 100% it is a grievous oversight for the lede not to mention these very relevant facts. JRHammond (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added links to Oren's Six Days of War at Google books and a link to a copy of the CAB Conclusion.

I'm probably stupid for getting involved in this conversation, but color me stupid. I have no horse in this race. With all due respect to those who lost their lives etc (and I mean that), I don't give a flying darn whether one POV or the other is correct... Eh, I'm not gonna jump to all the various threads; I'll just say here 1) I agree that Samu absolutely must be in lead 2) I have thoughts about the preemptive issue, but can't be arsed to expose myself to the resulting flames. Let's just say I strongly support an article that does NOT grant Wikipedia an editorial voice on the issue. Collect your BEST sources (the current artillery barrage approach is unwieldy and unprofessional, IMHO) and present sources that take both positions. Done. • Ling.Nut 15:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

editprotected

• {{editprotected}} Hi. We've had a number of new threads in a short time; I apologize for this newest. It's a little warm in here. Harlan said, "That sounds like you've been privately planning a replacement page during the period of sysop-imposed editing restrictions.". Yep, that's EXACTLY what I've done, see User:Ling.Nut/Sandbox. There are a very, very, very large number of changes. However, the changes are 99.99% copy editing. I fixed a very large number of broken links. I fixed a very large number of refs (and am nowhere near finished). Etc. I added exactly one phrase of content. Please, please consider adding my changes BEFORE changing anything else. If you guys start edit warring the moment.. the block is lifted, adding my changes will be a huge headache. I;m asking that my page in user space be moved en masse to the article, then replace all fair-use images and all templates etc...• Ling.Nut 16:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like an unassailable benefaction to me. Great work. What is the one line of content that you added? Shoplifter (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• "and later came to the conclusion that the genesis of the cable was Rabin's indecisive state of mind.". It's from the source, but if it is a deal-breaker then it can be rmvd. • Ling.Nut 17:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I, for one, won't make any edits until you've implemented your replacement. Hope others will also agree. Thanks for the hard work. JRHammond (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This sounds rude, which isn't my intention, but is there any reason this can;t wait for the 20-odd hours left of the protection? At least that would allow more time for feedback on the changes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Under all normal circumstances, you would be correct, and I wouldn't even bother to EditProtect. But in this case we have edit warriors camped out over their keyboards, waiting to make massive changes. Etc. • Ling.Nut 02:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Which still doesn't convince me that this change needs to be made through full protection. Also, if things are as extreme as you say they are, surely "your" version wouldn't "survive", for want of a better phrasing, once the protection expires? I'm going to bed now, so feel free to put the template back up- I'm sure if another admin gets to it before I return (which is far from guaranteed, I'm afraid), I trust they'll do what they think is best. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

But HJ Mitchell, Ling Nut's changes are, as already pointed out, not in substance, but format. I see no reason why the single place where a substantive change was made should constitute cause to not comply with Ling Nut's most reasonable request, and surely everybody can agree that the fixes to the format, including cleaning up the messiness of the footnotes, is a very positive development. Ling Nut is to be supported in this endeavor and congratulated for the hard work. Why the resistance? I see no reason for it. JRHammond (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's just wait. I hereby give ANYONE permission to copy/paste my entire workpage to article space, if I'm not online. The only thing you'll need to remember is to replace all the fair use images (you can see which ones are missing here), and replace any templates that I removed from the top of the article. I don't think anything else is missing. Cheers! • Ling.Nut 07:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks very good. Since I'm leaving for vacation, I once again want to point out the importance to any and all editors that other articles dicussing the attack must be changed to comport with the consensus reached. I've noted a few instances of these above, the central one being the Preemptive war article which is linked in the lead. Shoplifter (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"Occupied Government House" starkly conflicting accounts

• Our account states that Jordainian forces occupied the Government House. However, in this source:

The United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine (UNISPAL). 1347 Security Council MEETING : 5 June 1967. Provisional agenda.

... we have two statements. The first affirms the "occupied" account, but a footnote explicitly and reliably refutes it:

<large section of text snipped>

...Letter dated 29 May 1967 from the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/7910)

<large section of text snipped>

...United Nations Headquarters lost radio contact with UNTSO headquarters in Jerusalem at 0852 hours New York time, at which time Jordanian troops occupied Government House1/. This also means that United Nations Headquarters has lost direct contact with headquarters UNEF, whose messages are routed through UNTSO.

<large section of text snipped>

Footnote:

1/ In the interest of historical accuracy, it is to be noted that the report that Jordanian troops had "occupied" Government House was originally based on incomplete information owing to a communicaitons [sic] breakdown caused by the events in the Government House area. On the basis of a review of events and a checking with the Chief of Staff of UNTSO, it was later determined that the actual facts as regards the reported entry of Jordanian troops into Government House on 5 June 1967 were as follows: at approximately 1445 hours local time, three Jordanian soldiers entered Government House over the protest of UNTSO, but were persuaded by UNTSO staff to leave the building after about ten minutes.

• • Ling.Nut 07:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Good observation and addition to the article. JRHammond (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is a case where Odd Bull's book would be extremely useful... I have no access to it. • Ling.Nut 08:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

intro

After all our discussions and much good and detailed work by editors, I see that we're now back to people reverting to earlier, less neutral versions of the intro. Please discuss proposed changes and seek consensus before making controversial changes to the article. Phersu (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

By "people" I see you mean Jiujitsuguy. I don't know the procedure, but it's high time we got together and made sure punitive action is taken against Jiujitsuguy if he continues this behavior. JRHammond (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, I am looking into the issue. I will avoid sudden changes to the article, though I think it needs nontrivial changes. • Ling.Nut 06:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm mostly interested in sports and tried to steer clear of the IP area because I have a life and have no intereset in getting dragged into the mud with petty disputes over symantics. But i've been watching this back and forth argument and I gotta say that the third para of lead, under JRHammond's version is now pretty biased and unencyclopedic and it also reads poorly, Eric--Ericsmeer (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

<rant>Flagged revisions now.</rant> I'm working on the article, but not posting to Wikipedia yet. • Ling.Nut 04:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ericsmeer, I reverted your changes as there is no consensus for them. Regarding the sentence "On June 5, 1967, Israel launched what is widely described as a preemptive attack on Egypt", please see the discussion here. Regarding the footnotes, please see this discussion. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ericsmeer, you speak of "consensus", so let me fill you in: There is agreement among a majority of editors that asserting one POV with regard to Israel's attack being "preemptive" as fact violates WP:NPOV. So this majority of editors have agreed that both views should be presented, with Wikipedia not endorsing either. So your explanation that you reverted it because there is no "consensus" is fallacious. One simply need to observe the fact that there is no consensus that the article should endorse the pro-Israeli POV -- quite the contrary -- in order to demonstrate your error, and to illustrate your double-standard. JRHammond (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus to delete the fact that it is widely described as a preventive strike. This is well established as it is amply stated by numerous international authoritative sources. Your biased version argues in the lede with this popular view of long standing. This is quite inappropriate for Wikipedia's rules and standards and in no way enjoys the support of editors.

As a matter of fact, as reported in the New York Times, Nasser said in his resignation speech during the war: "Early in May, our friends in the Soviet Union delivered intelligence information of a calculated intention by Israel to invade Syria. Acting on this information, we mobilized our forces in Sinai. But then on May 26 he added the Soviet Ambassador in Cairo at 3:30 AM delivered an urgent message from the Soviet government strongly requesting that the UAR not open an attack." Do you think that Kosygin was concerned over Israel's security? He was rather troubled that Nasser was gaining prestige and creating internal difficulties that would force the pro-Soviet Syrian government to rejoin the UAR. 79.177.97.225 (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You just acknowledged it is a "popular view". That's quite right. It's a "view", not a fact. Therefore, stating it as fact blatantly violates WP:NPOV. If you have objections, state your objections here first and seek consensus or majority support for changes, as per WP:TALK and the guidelines for resolving disputes such as with the edit warring on 3rd para. JRHammond (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

My preliminary rewrite of the WP:LEAD is in my userspace

• My preliminary rewrite of the WP:LEAD is temporarily in my userspace at User:Ling.Nut/Sandbox. My main complaint with the current lead is that it.. really.. doesn't offer a bird's eye view; it gets way, way too bogged down in the minutiae of the "preemptive" debate from the very beginning. Those of us who are not preoccupied with whether or not the war was preemptive (I say that with sincerest apologies to all who hold strong personal beliefs on the subject, and sincerely ask your forgiveness if I have offended anyone) exit the lead feeling.. baffled by the sound and fury, and disappointed by the lack of clear summary.

Please do note:

1. As I said, it's preliminary. It ain't finished. For example, I need to tack on a reference or three (e.g., the bit about "preemptive" and "preventative" and "inadvertent" needs cites... I have them, just haven't finished yet...). Maybe other stuff too.
2. However, it's already kinda long. In theory there are still many more things that could be mentioned, but I'm reluctant to add any more info.
3. The whole "preemptive" issue is deferred until a later point in the article's body. Speaking frankly, I think much of the article needs to be rewritten.
4. This preliminary version severely disturbs the references in the article, creating a parade of red "cite error" warnings at the very bottom of the page. I left them unfixed. If people agree to copy this version to the article, it will also involve fixing many broken references.
5. Note the new image and caption in the infobox. That image of the soldiers by the wall will still be effective elsewhere in the article.

• That's all. Your input solicited.
• Mostly approve, as proposing editor. Forgive me for saying so, but it's much closer to the spirit of WP:LEAD than the current version. • Ling.Nut 18:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment you are talking about Israeli warning about closing the Straits of Tiran, but you never mentioned it was closed. That's why this text should be added to the lead:

"In May 1967 President Nasser ordered the UN peacekeeping forces out of the Sinai Peninsula, including the Suez Canal area. Despite Israeli objections in the United Nations, the peacekeepers were withdrawn and the Egyptian army took up positions on the Israeli border, closing the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. These actions were key factors in the Israeli decision to launch a pre-emptive attack on Egypt in June 1967, and to capture the Sinai Peninsula to the Suez Canal." --Mbz1 (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oops.. I was doing that while you were doing this. Look again. Thanks... oh the text you want added is too long and forms conclusions about causation. Conclusions are for the body text... if at all.. • Ling.Nut 19:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. How about taking the word "hawkish" out of description of Moshe Dayan.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

In order to shorten the lead, we could drop the mention of Moshe Dayan altogether. Others may disagree, but I don't see the appointment of Dayan as that critical for neither the eruption nor the outcome of the war. Regarding the decision to go to war, there were simply other hawks in the Israeli government either way (not to mention the pressure from the generals). As for his impact on the outcome of the war —as an example— he ordered the IDF to avoid capturing the Gaza Strip and the Suez canal, but the IDF did so anyway. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Mostly approve I think the choice to defer the preemtion-issue to the body of the text is a wise one. The issue is difficult to treat in a WP:NPOV manner, and additionally we really need to cut down on the length of the lead. The length is probably the biggest issue right now. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've had a second look at your sandbox. Some suggestions about how to reduce the length of the lead:

• Possibly remove the Samu incident or mention it very briefly.
• The claim that Israel was "hoping for a resolution without war" is dubious and should be removed. There were various voices in the Israeli government, some hoping to avoid the war, some pressing for immediate action and then some arguing for first acquiring the green light from Washington before making the attack.
• Drop "purely" in the sentence that say that Israel made "purely defensive military adjustments", as it is disputable.

Other suggestions:

• Move the sentence "Israel officially stated in 1957 that it would consider any miltary act closing the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping as a justification for war" down so it immediately precedes the related sentence "Between 18 and 20 May Israel repeated to the leading maritime powers, including France and Britain, its statement that it considered any closing of the Straits as cassus [sic] belli."

And an addition:

• Extend the sentence "On 14 May Nasser sent the first of what was to be a steady stream of Egyptian soldiers into the Sinai Peninsula" by stating that Nasser most probably believed (erroneously) that an Israeli attack on Syria was imminent. I believe this is pretty important in order to understand his subsequent actions.--Frederico1234 (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Lede

I was going to suggest changes to current lede, but then noticed Ling.Nut has a proposed sweeping rewrite of it going, so chose to go with that version instead. My comments are lengthy, so I thought it deserved a new section so as not to clutter the section Ling.Nut began on that. My two cents:

• These territorial gains left Israel three and half times larger than its original size, and greatly reduced its geographic vulnerability to attack from neighboring states.

As the idea is to be general in the lede and more specific further into the article, as User:Frederico1234 has suggested, I think the current version is better. Additionally, I don't think it's fitting to mention a major consequence for Israel without stating the consequence of those same land gains for the inhabitants of those occupied territories. This is currently: "The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day." However, I don't like this either, as it's a sever understatement as is. Suggest:

"The war is considered a watershed event and has had consequences that continue to greatly affect the geopolitics of the region."

• In addition to "the loss of territories, military hardware, human life and economic resources," Arabs and the Islamic world were "sunk with a feeling of shame, humiliation, frustration that followed the defeat."[13]

If this was a journal article, I'd have no problem with this, but I don't think it's appropriate to dirctly quote in this manner. For a Wiki page, I would suggest no reader should ever have to click to see the footnote to know where the quote comes from. Yet here, I'm sure we'd all agree adding a "writes so-and-so" would be silly. So suggest paraphrasing:

"The loss of lives, territory, military hardware, and economic resources was a humiliating defeat."

• The defeat and humiliation of the war, along with "the sacred history of the terrain on which it was fought" and "the failure of the international order to bring about what Arabs considered a just solution to the conflict", are cited by militant groups (including Hamas) and scholars alike as a significant spur to the growth of Islamism in the Arab world.[14]

Following on above comment, suggest this be removed altogether. Such discussion can follow later in article.

• Israel officially stated in 1957 that it would consider any miltary act closing the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping as a justification for war.[15]

This is an abrupt shift back in time, with no segue. Suggest:

"The geopolitical conditions leading to war had been set in place many years beforehand."

Following on that suggestion, I suggest 57 is not an appropriate starting point, because it neglects the British, French, Israeli attack on Egypt just the year prior, which is extremely important, including in regard to Egyptian decisionmaking. This would also do, because the next sentence refers to "the 1956 war", without explanation as to what that was. Suggest:

"In 1956, Britain, France, and Israel conspired to attack Egypt after Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. During the war tha ensured, Israel invaded and occupied the Sinai Peninsula, but was forced to withdraw the following year under pressure from the U.S. and international community."

Then can follow the sentence about Israel's warning on Tiran

• Though surrounded by nations hostile to its existence, its primary military antagonist in the years following the 1956 war was Syria, whereas Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt pursued a "policy of virtual withdrawal" from the Arab-Israeli conflicts.[16]

Disapprove. Strongly suggest deletion or revision and removal to body. First of all, this neglects the issue of Fatah attacks for which Israel held Jordan responsible, leading up to Samu, etc. And discussion of details of Egypt's mililtary strategy should be in body, not lede.

• Nine days later, Israel attacked the city of Samu in Jordan, a stronghold of the Palestinian group Fatah, which Syria had been using as a military proxy, and which had been carrying out its attacks through Jordanian territory.

Disapprove. Strongly. Following on above comment, any reader unfamiliar would read this and go, "Whaa...???" First of all, what evidence is there the Fatah raids were backed by the Syrian government? I'm very familir with the claim, but know of no evidence for it. It would be fine to say Israel held Syria responsible for the raids or that Israel accused Syria of backing the raids.

• King Hussein of Jordan, who until that time had avoided direct confrontation with Nasser of Egypt, then began a propaganda campaign (in conjunction with Faisal of Saudi Arabia) marked by "[relentless] verbal assault" against Nasser.[17][18]

I disapprove of describing rhetoric as "propaganda campaign". If we use such descriptions, it would have to apply universally -- such as by similiarly describing Israel's rhetoric about the imminent threat of destruction. I certainly agree with this, but would nevertheless suggest this violates WP:NPOV. The point could be made without directly describing it as such. Suggest:

"King Hussein of Jordan publically accused Nasser of failing to come to Jordan's defense, a humiliation which Nasser responded to by increasing his bellicose rhetoric towards Israel."

• On 14 May Nasser sent the first of what was to be a steady stream of Egyptian soldiers into the Sinai Peninsula, approaching Israel's southern border.

Disapprove. Strongly to: "...approaching Israel's southern border". Naturally, any move of troops from west of the canal into the Sinai is movement towards the border with Israel. This goes without saying. It unnecessarily implies aggressive intent.

• Israel then began a period of elevated tension that was to last for three weeks, known as Ha-Hamtana ("the waiting"), making no provocative statements, and purely defensive military adjustments, while hoping for a resolution without war.[19]

Disapprove. STRONGLY. Oren is, to say the least, a questionable source for supporting such a judgment (it's a judgment, not a fact). As Norman Finkelstein has observed:

Even as Oren claims that Israel never "even contemplated" anything beyond neutralizing the Egyptian military threat, he reports that in the weeks leading up to the June War (or before hostilities actually broke out on the Jordanian and Syrian fronts), different IDF commanders expected to "conquer Gaza"; "strike Egypt, and then we'll fight Syria and Jordan as well"; "advanc[e] into Sinai and ... to the Jordan headwaters in the north and the Latrun corridor leading to Jerusalem"...

Oren goes on offering from Oren's own account where his own facts contradict his conclusions ("Abba Eban With Footnoes", Journal of Palestine Studies). Wikipedia should not be giving the Israeli ambassador to the U.S.'s version of the '67 war. It's fine to use facts from his book, but using his judgments and presenting those as facts is absolutely a violation of WP:NPOV.

• Two days later Nasser requested and rapidly obtained the withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from Egyptian soil, and the following day Egyptian forces replaced UN positions at the strategically vital point of Sharm el-Sheikh, which overlooks the Straits of Tiran.

Disapprove. Overly detailed. State the main point in lede, that Nasser expelled UNEF. Discussion of details can follow in body. Also, it needs to be mentioned that Israel rejected suggestiosn to have UNEF stationed on its side of the border. This is a serious omission.

• On 1 June Israel formed a National Unity Government by widening the cabinet to include members of the opposition parties, and the hawkish Moshe Dayan was made Israeli Defense Minister.

Disapprove. Agree with I believe it was User:Frederico1234 that "hawkish" should be deleted here.

• On 4 June the decision was made to go to war, followed the next day by Operation Focus, a large-scale surprise airstrike by Israel that was the opening of the Six-Day War.

Suggest "next morning" rather than "next day". The attack was launched at around 7am.

• Though few material facts of the war are in dispute, the motivations of the national leaders (particularly Nasser) has been the subject of much speculation.

Disapprove. STRONGLY. First clause questionable. And why are the motivations of Nasser particularly more subject to debate than Israel's?

• Both sides denied wishing to initiate armed conflict, and yet both have been described as carrying out plans to conquer the other.

Disapprove. Weak wording. Suggest: "Both sides denied aggressive intent while accused the other of instigating hostilities"

• In addition, the Six Day War has been described as a preemptive war, a preventative war, and an "inadvertent war".

Disapprove. Both "preemptive" and "preventative" (should be "preventive") are Israeli POV. It's doesn't do to mention two versions of the Israeli POV without also mentioning the other POV, which is that it was "aggressive" war. Why is "inadvertent war" in quotation marks but the other descriptions not?

• The end bit on other names for the war typically is something that goes right at the beginning of the lede in most WP articles, and I suggest moving it there, both for this reason and because "Six Day War" is actually the Israeli name for it -- Arabs don't call it that. Not saying article title needs changing, but if the article itself is going to be called "Six Day War", it would do to add this caveat right up front, as is typical for WP articles. JRHammond (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'll try to take the time to examine the details of your objections, but suffice it to say that I probably disagree with most or perhaps even all of the objections that pertain to the general approach taken.. I will (tentatively) grant you all factual disagreements, and try to examine them. But the WP:LEAD should function almost as a stand-alone article. To repeat myself a bit more clearly, even at the risk of being perhaps a bit impolite (although that is not my intention, and I hope it is not perceived that way), the current version is a nearly-incoherent grab- bag of shtuff that leaves the uninitiated, uninformed reader with basically no idea whatsoever what the Six Day War was, why it happened, and what its consequences were. Before a few days or perhaps a week ago, I had little or no idea what the Six Day War was. Rather than being a weakness, I would suggest that it is my greatest strength in this discussion. I believe I bring the reader's perspective to the table, rather than the dedicated editor's. I strongly believe that all of the participants in this discussion are over-familiar with this topic, and have fallen into the trap of skipping over or barely mentioning extremely important general facts because you take them for granted as common knowledge, and instead, obsessing on finer-grained points that are far more controversial. • Ling.Nut 04:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I would respectfully suggest, however, that those with extensive knowledge of the subject should put together the basic draft. Your input, as a more recent study, would be very helpful to point out where any confusion arises to the general reader due to lack of background knowledge and context. I'm not suggesting to start from scratch again, but as a person whose been studying it off and on for many years, I think my suggestions are valuable and my objections to certain things valid. JRHammond (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it (I hope), but I'm afraid that by asking me to take a secondary role and letting others (by implication, that is, yourself) draft the changes you've backed me into a corner and forced me to be blunt. Just as JujitsuGuy operates from a patently pro-Israel POV, it seems to me that your comments always and everywhere defend and exculpate Arab individuals and nations. I'm afraid that sitting back and letting you outline the lead would quite likely result in a subtle pro-Arab POV, mainly by selection of topics to leave in a take out, but also by degree of emphasis placed on various events etc. Please forgive me for pointing this out. I sincerely apologize if it offends you. I intend to continue working, and am very open to input from everyone (I intend to incorporate some of your comments and suggestions in my workspace; I've just been overwhelmed with real-life responsibilities). I look forward to working together with you to create a truly NPOV article that meets Wikipedia's needs. • Ling.Nut 08:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• In addition to the general reply above, I have attempted a point-by-point treatment, first of Frederico's remarks, then JRHammond's. Sorry so long-winded.
• Frederico1234:

• drop "hawkish" from Dayan (JRHammond agrees), or rmv Dayan alogther.

• I dropped "hawkish"... Oren 2002 states that none of Israeli preparations for war was so pivotal as the appointment of Dayan, on page 148 (perhaps largely for morale reasons). Other sources repeatedly refer to this. I can drop Dayan, but I think it bears discussion.

• remove or shorten text about Samu.

• I disagree. Samu probably was not directly the cause of the war, but it was probably the cause of the heightened tensions that funneled into the war.

• drop "hoping for a resolution without war"; "purely defensive" is disputable/dubious.

• dropped "hoping for a resolution without war"; changed " purely defensive military adjustments" to "no overtly aggressive military adjustments". I realize that the latter may still be unacceptable, but I am trying to move in a more moderate direction. It is clear to me that Israel wanted to avoid at least the appearance of wanting to go to war (and at least at that time its leaders may in fact have wanted to avoid war altogether ; note inner disagreements etc.).

• "Nasser most probably believed (erroneously) that an Israeli attack on Syria was imminent". Oh, in additon to granting Wikipedia an unwarranted and unacceptable omniscience, this assertion is highly disputable (although it is in fact what Nasser himself repeatedly asserted). Closing the Straits was, in my mind, the same as starting the war. Why did Nasser do it? He may have wanted war, thinking his Egyptian forces (supplemented by others) would prevail. He may have thought war would not come, possibly (but not likely) because he thought the Israelis had no stomach for it, but far more likely because he thought the US would intervene and prevent it. Other explanations may be suggested as well.

I withdrew the suggestion. It was original research from my side. Sorry for that. --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• JRHammond:

• "As the idea is to be general in the lede", drop the following:

1. "These territorial gains left Israel..."
2. "The defeat and humiliation of the war, along with"

• Strongly disagree. Please do make a nice cup of something pleasant to drink, find a quiet place to sit, and try a thought experiment: imagine that you are a highly intelligent but utterly uninformed newbie to this topic. You click on the link to Six Day War. What do you want to see? I would suggest that by far the most important fact that you are craving is a clear explanation of the consequences of the war. The consequences are (by another name) the bulk of the relevance to today's uninformed and uninvolved reader.

• "'Israel officially stated in 1957' is an abrupt shift back in time..."

• Mildly disagree. It is very important to clearly establish context, albeit with going all the way back into ancient history. I think the issue of the Straits bears more immediate relevance than the Suez Crisis (note however that because of your objections, I added a wikilink to the Suez Crisis article, to help unpack it a bit)... I will think about this passage, though. Another possibility is that this paragraph may need to be moved en masse to another position.

• Add ""In 1956, Britain, France, and Israel conspired..."

• Strongly disagree, though I am not taking any position on whether your statement is factually correct or incorrect. Rather, I again think that the Straits issue is the touchstone for the lead's historical context.

• Dispute "Fatah, which Syria had been using as a military proxy"

• Granted. I think this issue of "Fatah as Syrian proxy" requires more research, and tentatively feel that saying "Israel held Syria responsible for the raids" is probably acceptable.

• "'policy of virtual withdrawal' is a discussion of details of Egypt's military strategy, and should be in body text"

• Mildly disagree, on two points. First, I was quite taken aback when I read that Nasser essentially wasn't heavily involved in engaging the Israelis — neither verbally nor militarily — before mid-1967, almost wholly because he was preoccupied with Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc. This point is very counter-intuitive; the thought runs something like, "Don't people who go to war probably have a lot of friction beforehand?" Second, the statement in my lead is not referring to military strategy, though I probably did not make that at all clear. I am more referring to the lack of a "war of words" until very late in the sequence (although the war of words became, from the Israeli perspective, bitter indeed at about that time... the Burrowes & Douglas article, and Cohen as well, are fascinating reads... and many, many sources note Nasser's bombastic pre-war speeches as a crucial pre-war point.. so much so that I think these things may need to be mentioned; will consider).

• Disapprove Strongly of: "...approaching Israel's southern border". Naturally, any move of troops from west of the canal into the Sinai is movement towards the border with Israel. This goes without saying; doesn't imply aggression"

• Disagree again. Once again, I suggest that uninformed readers may have no idea of the geography of the region. The troop movements may not have had aggressive intent, but this question of intent is not mentioned. It will be discussed in body text.

• Disapprove STRONGLY of "Israel then began a period of elevated tension.. the waiting... defensive"

• See my remarks in the context (above) of Frederico's similar statements.

• needs to be mentioned that Israel rejected suggestions to have UNEF stationed on its side of the border

• That can be done.

• Though few material facts of the war are in dispute, the motivations of the national leaders (particularly Nasser) has been the subject of much speculation.

• The only dispute of material facts regards the size of the Egyptian forces in the Sinai; see "Stumbling Decidedly into the Six-Day War" by Roland Popp as a key text. This issue, however, is very clearly meat that must be deferred until body text. As for singling out Nasser, everyone is puzzled as to why the hell he closed the Straits in the face of explicit statements that doing so would be cassus belli. See my response to Frederico above. But... I think... it my be possible to omit singling out Nasser. Yes.

• "Both sides denied wishing to initiate" is weak wording.

• This is an implementation detail, and certainly open to improvement.

• Hey, did I miss anything? If so, it was unintentional. Your input solicited. • Ling.Nut 06:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Will read discussion and get back, but for now explaining my edit just now: I've repeatedly invited editors to state any objections to the wording of the 3rd para, and to avoid edit warring to get majority approval for edits before making them, as per WP:TALK. Editors making changes have not done so, and I've restored to a version that had approval, pending discussion of revisions.

It is an uncontroversial fact that Israel falsely claimed that Egypt had attacked first. Israel officially informed the U.N. that "Egyptian land and air forces have moved against Israel and Israel forces are now engaged in repelling the Egyptian forces." (S/PV.1347/Rev.1, June 5, 1967).

As for the suggestion that a source needs to be provided that states Egypt did not attack first, this is a request to prove a negative. It's unnecessary, because absolutely nobody argues that Egypt did so. Which is understandable, since there's no evidence otherwise. It's completely uncontroversial that Egypt did not do so, that this claim is false. If Merkowitz wants to challenge that, let him present evidence of his affirmative assertion that Egypt attacked first. It's not my burden of proof to prove a negative. This is uncontroversial.

On WP:CLAIM, I'm fine with "Israel subsequently said it had taken preemptive action because it believed an Egyptian attack was imminent", so left that edit without reverting it. JRHammond (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for taking the time to thoroughly go through my suggestions, Ling.Nut. I think we're close to agreement on most points, so I'll just reiterate a few things where I see we may be in disagreement:

• Samu should remain in the lede. It would be a greivous omission not to mention it, at the very least briefly.

• It's fine to list consequences, but it's not fine to list consequence for Israel (territorial expansion) but not for Palestinians (under illegal military occupation for over 4 decades). So include consequences from both POV.

• It is a greivous omission to start the background to the war at 1957, because this ignores Israel's attack on Egypt the year before, which was EXTREMELY relevant for understanding Egypt's decision making process and otherwise EXTREMELY crucial context for understanding '67. I'm fine with revising my suggested wording if you don't like it, but this information absolutely should be in the lede's brief historical background of the war. JRHammond (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have made some changes to my version of the lead, to reflect the comments above by JRHammond & Frederico1234. One sticking point that I haven't touched is the verbiage about Fatah being a Syrian proxy. Don't misunderstand. I'm not putting my foot down and saying that it must stay; I just have had absolutely no time to look into the matter enough to satisfy myself. Please consider that passage in particular to be tentative. Your input welcomed. • Ling.Nut 05:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

effects on US-Israel relationship

There should be something on the war's effects on the US-Israel relationship. Before 1967, the U.S. did support Israel in some ways, but the support was still kind of at arms length -- and the U.S. government was especially careful to avoid any appearance of a direct US-Israel military alliance. The war changed all that, and the previous U.S. reluctance to be seen to be too close to Israel vanished. Also, the general American opinion of the Arabs in "front-line" states declined precipitously, since the contrast between their grandiose bombastic bloodthirsty threats before the war (about how they would easily and effortlessly throw the Jews into the sea etc. etc.) and their overall rather pathetic combat performance during the war was not considered too impressive... AnonMoos (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course the impact on the US relationship will be in there somewhere... eventually... thanks... • Ling.Nut 19:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Following on the above suggestion, I would add that Johnson's renewal of arms shipments to Israel and some of the Arab states and the reasons for that decision should be discussed. JRHammond (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Lameness

I see that the metaphor wars are continuing. That's unfortunate given the amount of effort people are clearly making on the talk page and elsewhere to improve the article, hammer out issues etc. Maybe the article needs protection again, I don't know, but what I will say is "On June 5, 1967, the powder keg exploded when "....we're not having powder kegs surely ?

Also, this may have been discussed and I missed it but is the Reiter quote below used in Note 4 the best there is from that paper ? It's intriguing as a quote but I want to know more. I don't have access to the entire article.

• "While he and I agree that World War I and the Six Day War are preemptive, we code six cases differently." Reiter, Dan. "Exploding the Powder Keg Myth: Preemptive Wars Almost Never Happen", International Security, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 5–34.

I mention it because in the same paper he also says the following which expands on it a bit and seems clearer. He may have said even more elsewhere. I can't tell.

• "Of all interstate wars since 1816, only three are preemptive: World War I, Chinese intervention in the Korean War, and the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Moreover, these cases indicate that the conditions hypothesized to lead to preemptive war, especially beliefs in the military advantages of attacking first and hostile images of the adversary, are associated with the occurrence of preemptive war only when they are present to a very high degree and when the attacker also has other motives for war.

Sean.hoyland - talk 13:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'll look at Reiter... though perhaps eventually... Thanks! • Ling.Nut 19:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Caution To Editors Regarding Edit Warring

As noted at the top of this talk page, editors on this article are subject to general sanctions for edit warring here. In essence a prior arbitration case found constant edit wars on articles concerning Israel and Palestine. Namely, outside influences and conflict carry their way onto Wikipedia where the conflict continues. Wikipedia is not a battleground.

It appears the latest dispute here on a generally stable article started about a week ago. I would encourage all editors to work together in good faith to work out the dispute. Do not just make changes without discussing them with others here. Also, edit comments don't qualify as discussion, the discussion should be here where all can participate. One editor here has asked for informal mediation on this matter I would direct you to that mediation page if you are interested in participating.

That said all editors here should consider this a warning: if you continue to edit war here (i.e. revert without discussion, make substantive changes without discussion), fail to assume good faith and fail to work out your differences you are subject to sanctions which includes a block, a ban from editing the article at all or a topic ban if it extends to other articles. It also can lead to protection of the article. Thanks. --Wgfinley (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a dozen or so editors who oppose the POV push by JRHammond. Several mainstream, neutral RSs state that the attack was preemptive and a classic example of premption. Hammonds claim of consensus is untrue and in addition, mainsteam sources contradict his marginal view.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, rash actions are being taken by both sides in this debate. Slowly, folks! This article... is in desperate need of a major overhaul (though it contains tons of stuff that can be saved and used). It is also an edit war magnet. Slowly, people, please. Step by step, or else all will come to naught. • Ling.Nut 19:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. But this is not an intellectual dispute. This is an attempt to revise history. The sources cited for preemption are numerous (much more so than the other side), mainstream and reliable. And what's this bullshit about "Israel falsely stated." That's not POV pushing? and as Marokwitz correctly points out, that a distortion of the source. Looks like Hammond views this debate as zero sum where winner takes all.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy is 100% right. First of everybody has to stop violating WP:NPOV, and then we could talk how to improve the article. Enough of re-writing the history already. Ling.Nut is working on the lead. Let them finish, and then we will see what to do next.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What's false, Jiujitsuguy, is to say I ever said there was a consensus. In fact, what I've said is that since there's no consensus that the attack was either preemptive or not preemptive, the obvious solution, as per Wikipedia policy, is to have it read neutrally, noting both views, but endorsing neither. It's you pushing for an un-neutral POV in this case, my friend.

A solution to this edit warring has been discussed at LENGTH here, and an agreement made among editors that the solution is to retain the wording in question until objections and alternative suggested wordings have been heard and agreed upon, and only then the changes made. This is a perfectly reasonable solution which you, indeed, have rejected. Yet you offer no alternative solution, indeed, than reverting the changes with NO discussion, and in total disregard to the agreed-upon solution of a majority of editors.

I've gone out of my way to try to end this edit warring through discussion and consensus. Yet you make NO effort to participate through this kind of contribution, preferring instead to revert with NO discussion, and in total disregard to the agreed upon solution.

As for the "falsely claimed" wording, this is a fact. It's not a judgment or a view or an opinion. It's a fact. It's a fact that Israel claimed Egypt had attacked first. It's a fact that that was false. This is completely uncontroversial. If you really want to dispute that, good luck trying to put together an argument. You'll need it. JRHammond (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all I remind you that Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth. Secondly, this is NOT a fact, it's your original interpretation, and a grossly distorted one. I read the source, and it only says "moved against", not "attacked". This can be interpreted as referring to the troops mobilization. And I found no mention of the word "falsely" in the source. The text you proposed was a blatant violation of WP:V and WP:SYNTH. Marokwitz (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I need no reminding, Marokwitz, that Wikipedia cares about verifiability. I never suggested otherwise.

It is an UNCONTROVERSIAL fact that Israel initially claimed that Egypt had "moved against" Israel (I'm not interested in debating semantics, and already revised my original wording to contain the exact quote rather than the paraphrase you objected to). Any editor here can verify that from the source I provided (also, "Each Side Accuses Other of Making First Assault", New York Times, June 5, 1967).

It is also an UNCONTROVERSIAL fact that no such aggression by Egypt occurred. If you disagree, you are welcome to present evidence from the documentary record that Israel was telling the truth. You'll find that you are not able to. And you'll find that nobody makes that claim. One would surely think that if this had actually been true it might have found its way into, say, Oren's book, no? JRHammond (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In all my studies of the Six Day War I've never read anything to contradict the widely-reported statement that Israel initially claimed Egypt attacked first and subsequently changed its account to one in which it claimed the attack was preemptive. If anyone is questioning this, they will have to provide clear and solid sources. The following sources in support of the mainstream view (ie that Israel changed its story from "Egypt attacked first" to "we attacked first but it was preemptive") are currently available on the article page and have been for some time:

‘In the Security Council on June 5 Egypt charged Israel with aggression, as did the USSR. But Israel claimed that Egypt had struck first. It told the council that “in the early hours of this morning Egyptian armoured columns moved in an offensive thrust against Israel’s borders. At the same time Egyptian planes took off from airfields in Sinai and struck out towards Israel. Egyptian artillery in the Gaza strip shelled the Israel villages of Kissufim, Nahal-Oz and Ein Hashelosha..." In fact, Egypt had not attacked by land or air and none of its aircraft had approached Israel.’ The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective; John B Quigley, p. 163

The US Office of Current Intelligence "...soon concluded that the Israelis - contrary to their claims - had fired first." Robarge, 2007.

If those who objected to these accounts are unable to find solid sources refuting them, I would be grateful if they would put the information they removed back into the article. Phersu (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the further input, Phersu. I've already restored the information removed without prior discussion or sourcing that would demonstrate that this is in even the least bit controversial. JRHammond (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• The question is not what's true or false; the question is the WP:WEIGHT applied to any given fact or set of facts. Foregrounding the Israeli flip-flop by placing it in the lead might work to create a patina of culpability that may or may not be appropriate in an NPOV article. One particularly subtle way of framing POV in an article is through the organization of the text... particularly troubling if it were but one in a string of facts that seems to lay culpability on one side only... Perhaps it's appropriate to place that fact in the lead; perhaps not (though certainly it should be in the article).... we will see whether or not it goes in the lead, but I must stress that its presence is certainly negotiable. • Ling.Nut 10:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's an important fact that should be included in the lede. Like the Suez Crisis, Samu, the troop buildup, the closing of the straits, the expulsion of UNEF, etc., I think to omit it from the lede would be an oversight. However, I'm open to moving out of lede to body, and would suggest a new section dealing with the preemption vs. aggression issues. JRHammond (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel did not claim that there was a general attack by Egypt. See Prime Minister Eshkol's statement to the Knesset on June 5, in which he said:

"In Sinai, opposite our frontier, there were deployed until this morning five divisions of infantry and two armored divisions, with 900 tanks along the frontier 200 of them opposite Eilat, with the obvious intention of cutting off the southern Negev; Iraqi troops and Egyptian commando units reached Jordan; the Jordanian army was placed under Egyptian command. During the past ten days, Egyptian air sorties have been carried out in Israeli skies."

http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.hsJPK0PIJpH/b.2715653/k.C82A/Statement_to_the_Knesset_by_Prime_Minister_Eshkol_5_June_1967.htm

79.177.132.249 (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's an uncontroversial fact that Israel claimed Egypt attacked first. Israel gave a statement of this claim at the United Nations the day of the attack. Sources have already been given. Are you trying to "unprove" that or something? This quote is irrelevant. JRHammond (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that Egypt did attack first, when it closed the strait for Israeli shipping. It was an act of war, and Israel warned she will consider it as an act of war, and she did.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Folks, probably better to stay focused on the source's accounts or else someone will wander in here and start talking closing borders elsewhere, acts of war, so on and so forth and it will end in tears. I'm just saying. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Additions

I'm not interested in editing warring. I put the POV tag on the article long ago because editors were introducing arguments into the lede about subjects that were not mentioned in the article and deleting attempts to add relevant sourced material to the article.

Editors were trying to justify the total exclusion of opposing views on the basis overly-long cherry-picked lists of references they employed to support the inclusion of their favorite verb. Most of those editors have long-since been topic banned. I've reached agreements here on several occasions that this article needs a subsection, at the very start, containing the various views of "all the interested parties to the conflict" on the so-called preemptive strike. It is hard to summarize something that the article doesn't discuss in the first place.

Here is some well sourced material I want to add to the article: A major oversight is the lack of a section on Operation Rotem.[12] In 1960, the Russians had told Egypt that Israel was about to attack Syria. Egypt deployed their entire army into the Sinai before Israel found out what had happened. There were no Israeli forces in place to prevent them from invading. Ben Gurion used the military censors to keep the information from the public. He let it be known that Israel would not launch a first strike, and decided not to mobilize the reserves. He deployed a skeleton force under the name Operation Rotem and the situation eventually died down. The Egyptian units had all returned to their garrisons within a few months.

Rabin wrote in his memoirs that, in 1967 GHQ intelligence believed that Israel was facing a repetition of Operation Rotem and that the Egyptian Army would eventually withdraw from the Sinai.[13] Rabin (and Ben Gurion) record that the former Prime Minister was furious with the General for mobilizing the reserves and bringing the country to the brink of war. According to Michael Oren, Prime Minister Eshkol had told the General Staff that the IDF was not established to fight wars of choice, and that the mere presence of the Egyptian Army in the Sinai was not grounds for launching a preemptive attack.[14] Prime Minister Begin said the presence of the Egyptian Army was not a casus belli and that the Six Day War had been a war of choice. [15]

According to the Commander of UNEF, the blockade of the Straits of Tiran was staged for the benefit of U Thant's visit to Cairo. Nasser announced that he had inspected two ships and immediately accepted a UN proposal for a moritorium.[16] The Secretary General reported to the Security Council that Nasser had provided assurances that Egypt would not launch a first strike, and that he only wanted to restore the status quo ante conditions that had existed under the 1949 Armistice Agreements.[17] Israel had declared its sovereignty over the DMZs and said the Armistice agreements were null and void. Syria complained to the Security Council that the Arab cultivators living in the DMZs had been dispossessed by Israel and replaced by Jewish settlers.[18] harlan (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)