Talk:Six-Day War/Archive 1

message: It was later revealed that the Soviet Union had intentionally escalated the situation in the Middle East by sending false messages to the various Arab states that the Israelis were massing their forces at the border with Syria.
::Do you have a source for this? It's fascinating and I would like to know more. Stargoat 02:46, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: fascinating, what's the source?

message: This article mentions that Israel had air superiority.  To my knowledge, Israel has no jet fighter construction companies.  Where did those aircraft come from?  I ask because the article goes into detail about foreign support of Egypt, Syria, et al, but it doesn't mention any foreign support for Israel - and I doubt that Israel was operating without foreign support. Kainaw 20:05, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that Israel's aircraft was mostly French and American built, but exact aircraft should come from documentation. Stargoat 20:54, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Correct, they used French Mirage IIIs for air superiority.  After the war, the french cut them off and they started buying American jets, Douglas A-4 Skyhawks immediately and in 1969, F-4 Phantom II jets. Terrapin 21:10, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Superiority 

message: This article is very, very, very pro-Israeli. It needs to be neutralised, so to speak.
* I don't know how "pro-arab" you can get about a fact of history that completely humiliated and embarassed the three most powerful Arab armies in six days.
* It's not about being pro-Arab or pro-Israeli. It's about being neutral, fair and balanced. The Six-Day war ended in an Iraeli victory, sure, but this article completely neglects the actions of the arab armies and glorifies the actions of the Israeli army. For example "Brave Israeli tank commanders held of Dozens of Arab tanks", that's about the whole slant of the article. It glorifies the Israeli army calling their soldiers 'brave', 'corageous' and so on but completely neglects the efforts of the Arab armies. Neutralisation 09:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Dispute (again) 

message: During a discussion regarding the Six-Day War, an incident was related which I have been unable to verify and perhaps a reader of this can shed some light on the matter.  It seems that the opposing forces were maneuvering in the desert in an attempt to gain the superior position and military advantage.  A powerful sandstorm reduced viability to zero and, effectively, caused all movement (and hostilities) to cease.  The opposing forces did not move until the storm passed, after which, it was a clear and sunny day.  When they shook the sand off, they learned that the wind had uncovered and exposed a mine field which was directly in front of them blocking the route they taking.  The sandstorm saved many lives.  This is a lovely "story", but did it happen?  What source can I read that has an account of this?  Thank you,  Samuel C. Aurilio
:Apparently it's an urban legend:  . Jayjg 00:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE SAND STORM THAT UNCOVERED A MINEFIELD 

message: Allow me to back up my change that was recently reverted. I derived it from the main article. See here, the last two paragraphs (which I wrote). This was substantiated by me on its talk page. I’ll give you the chance to revert the change back again after reviewing the evidence presented, which, may I add, has yet to be challenged in the main article.
:I've reviewed the Liberty article, and the section you linked to, and see nothing there that justifies the removal of the sentence in this article.  Can you be more explicit please? Jayjg (talk) 17:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, let me point you to a link: http://usslibertyinquiry.com/arguments/American/israelidefenses/investigations/investigations.html. For reference, the phrase was - "Israel said the attack to be a case of mistaken identity, a claim subsequently supported by independent Israeli and U.S. inquiries and other investigations." I propose that it is changed to just "Israel said the attack to be a case of mistaken identity." Noting the article, none of the 'investigations' had anything to do with accident being a mistake.Liberty researcher 18:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, one side says the investigations prove it was a case of mistaken identity, the other side says that the investigations didn't attempt to prove that, or weren't proper investigations.  Is that it in a nutshell? Jayjg (talk) 18:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, in a nutshell that is what you can say. But "a claim subsequently supported by independent Israeli and U.S. inquiries and other investigations" does not say that. That phrase says much more than that. The phrase gives an assumption that the investigations susbstantiated Israel's claim and that the survivors are, in a nutshell, wrong. But that is not the case. The investigations *are* challenged. And I'm sorry, but it isn't even a challenge: if you read each of the 13 investigations, you'll know it to be a solid hard piece of evidence. I have read all 13 investigations (well, of the 13 that actually existed) and there is no way that any of them proved mistaken identity, or that they were even investigations that examined culpability of the attack. Liberty researcher 19:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think of the current wording?  I've tried to NPOV, stating the positions of both sides. Jayjg (talk) 21:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Perfect, definitely NPOV, perhaps more than my suggestion of removing it! Thanks, Liberty researcher 01:53, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement on the USS Liberty incident 

message: Right, a NPOV article needs to include the research of American-Israeli Cooperative....  OK, go head and read this (reminds me of Scientology evangelists- Myth - Fact!):
* I wonder why doesn't your "research" include the following:
MYTH 
"Arab governments were prepared to accept Israel after the Suez War."
FACT
Israel consistently expressed a desire to negotiate with its neighbors. In an address to the UN General Assembly on October 10, 1960, Foreign Minister Golda Meir challenged Arab leaders to meet with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to negotiate a peace settlement. Nasser answered on October 15, saying that Israel was trying to deceive the world, and reiterating that his country would never recognize the Jewish State.
The Arabs were equally adamant in their refusal to negotiate a separate settlement for the refugees. As Nasser told the United Arab Republic National Assembly March 26, 1964:
"Israel and the imperialism around us, which confront us, are two separate things. There have been attempts to separate them, in order to break up the problems and present them in an imaginary light as if the problem of Israel is the problem of the refugees, by the solution of which the problem of Palestine will also be solved and no residue of the problem will remain. The danger of Israel lies in the very existence of Israel as it is in the present and in what she represents."
Meanwhile, Syria used the Golan Heights, which tower 3,000 feet above the Galilee, to shell Israeli farms and villages. Syria's attacks grew more frequent in 1965 and 1966, while Nasser's rhetoric became increasingly bellicose: "We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand," he said on March 8, 1965. "We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood."
Again, a few months later, Nasser expressed the Arabs' aspiration: "...the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel."
MYTH 
"Israel's military strike in 1967 was unprovoked."
FACT
A combination of bellicose Arab rhetoric, threatening behavior and, ultimately, an act of war left Israel no choice but preemptive action. To do this successfully, Israel needed the element of surprise. Had it waited for an Arab invasion, Israel would have been at a potentially catastrophic disadvantage.
While Nasser continued to make speeches threatening war, Arab terrorist attacks grew more frequent. In 1965, 35 raids were conducted against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched.
Meanwhile, Syria's attacks on Israeli kibbutzim from the Golan Heights provoked a retaliatory strike on April 7, 1967, during which Israeli planes shot down six Syrian MiGs. Shortly thereafter, the Soviet Union — which had been providing military and economic aid to both Syria and Egypt — gave Damascus information alleging a massive Israeli military buildup in preparation for an attack. Despite Israeli denials, Syria decided to invoke its defense treaty with Egypt.
On May 15, Israel's Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai and massing near the Israeli border. By May 18, Syrian troops were prepared for battle along the Golan Heights.
Nasser ordered the UN Emergency Force, stationed in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw on May 16. Without bringing the matter to the attention of the General Assembly, as his predecessor had promised, Secretary-General U Thant complied with the demand. After the withdrawal of the UNEF, the Voice of the Arabs proclaimed (May 18, 1967):
"As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."
An enthusiastic echo was heard May 20 from Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad:
"Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."
On May 22, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping and all ships bound for Eilat. This blockade cut off Israel's only supply route with Asia and stopped the flow of oil from its main supplier, Iran. The following day, President Johnson expressed the belief that the blockade was illegal and unsuccessfully tried to organize an international flotilla to test it.
Nasser was fully aware of the pressure he was exerting to force Israel's hand. The day after the blockade was set up, he said defiantly: "The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war."
Nasser challenged Israel to fight almost daily. "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight," he said on May 27.
The following day, he added: "We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948."
King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30. Nasser then announced:
"The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations."
President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined in the war of words: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."
On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
The Arab rhetoric was matched by the mobilization of Arab forces. Approximately 250,000 troops (nearly half in Sinai), more than 2,000 tanks and 700 aircraft ringed Israel.
By this time, Israeli forces had been on alert for three weeks. The country could not remain fully mobilized indefinitely, nor could it allow its sea lane through the Gulf of Aqaba to be interdicted. Israel's best option was to strike first. On June 5, the order was given to attack Egypt.
-Danny
:Be that as it may, inserting the postion of the Jewish Virtual Library verbatim, is not only  likely a Copyright violation, but is POV is well. Jayjg (talk) 17:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reasons that led Israel to attack first 

message: I wonder why does Wikipedia continue deleting my edits while I am not passing over copyright rules more than other users?
From the Jewish virtual library:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/copyright.html
"We ask that any of our material that is reprinted carry the following tagline with a link back to the Jewish Virtual Library:
Copyright American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, Reprinted with permission."
I have done it by linking to their site on "external links".
What is the problem then?
Regards,
Danny
:It hasn't been released under the GFDL, and it's POV as well. Jayjg (talk) 16:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Six Day War editing 

message: Nobody but me see a problem with this?: (been in the article a long time, but people should look where they put what they cut and paste):
"Moreover, the Egyptian blockade prior to the 1956 Suez War violated the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, which was adopted by the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on 27 April 1958."  :) --John Z 06:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It could not possibly have been in violation of the Vienna Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contigious Zone), so I will replace it with a reference to international customomary law instead, which probably is applicable (but I wont give any 100% guarantee). Oh, and Egypt never signed the 1958 conventions either. --Cybbe 22:54, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
My other edits consisted of replacing possibly controversial, perhaps POV phrases with direct quotes, which cannot be POV.  Return is accurate, purely factual, says nothing about sovereignty and used universally.  In particular it is the word used by Israel itself!  and is thus essentially another case of NPOV direct quoting.  Relinquished is just plain peculiar.--John Z 06:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmmmmm

message: The introduction has been changed to read "following the massing of Arab troops near its borders and an Egyptian blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat". However, I understand that troops were not "massing" on the borders, but were deployed for deep defense. Additionally, although a blockade was announced it wasn't enforced and in any case Eilat was a minor port at the time and the only import of strategic importance, oil, could be imported via Haifa. Can anyone else comment? Regarding the "war box" showing Arab forces at a total strength of 465,000, Egypt had a strength of c. 150,000 with 50,000 deployed in the Yemen, Jordan had c. 55,000 and Syria c. 75,000. The IDF deployed c. 264,000 troops, not 50,000. Comments? --Ian Pitchford 01:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced "massing" with the more neutral term "deployment".  Benny Morris supports your contention that the deployment was defensive in nature (Righteous Victims, page 302).  Also reworded the description of the Straits action.  Actually Egypt never used the word "blockade" to describe the closure.  From their way of looking at it, they were just stopping the transit of enemy shipping through their territorial waters, the navigable portion of the Straits being within three miles of the Egyptian coast.  The fact that this was the only means of passage for ships sailing to Eilat was just tough cookies. Brian Tvedt 02:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's irrelevent how Egypt termed their action. Under international law, the closure of the Straits was a blockade. We are not looking at the conflict through the prism of "how Egypt saw it." Aiden Cathasaigh 21:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We are supposed to be presenting both sides, neutrally. I have no problem with the article stating that Israel VIEWED it a blockade. Brian Tvedt 01:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Troop Numbers and Deployment

message: Reading from a position of total ignorance, I'm left wondering who and of what significance this 'Nasser' is. The first mention of the term is in P3 of 'Background', where it is used unintroduced and unlinked: "(2) to bring the Syrians under Nasser’s moderate influence.". The term not being defined (or linked to) before being used hinders my understanding of the article when reading it from top to bottom.
I assume it refers to Gamal Abdel Nasser, but this is not obvious. In my opinion, it would benefit the article to introduce/link him early in the article, rather than assume the reader's knowledge. I can't be the only person with no prior knowledge of the six-day-war: it happened forty years ago, in an area of the world that's never in the news, except when a new atrocity happens.
I'd make this change myself, but I don't know enough about the issue to feel confident that I'm not just spreading misinformation.
:Thanks, I've fixed it. Jayjg (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't know who Nasser was?  Rogue 9 23:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Who or what is this 'Nasser'?

message: I removed the Cheryl Rubenberg quote about Israel's enthusiasm to go to war. The man is only a an associate professor, and thus far from being a mayor player in the conflict. He is also biased towards pro-arabic POV as a member of 'Deir Yassin Remembered'. His opinions therefore have to be taken with caution, especially when he claims that "...from the outset of the conflict Israel favoured war and rejected multilateral diplomacy or the use of the United Nations". If his opinions are to be presented in the article, it has to be indicated that it is his opinions. In any case, he is only an associate professor. There are thousands like him and I don't see why his opinion should be mentioned in an encyclopedia.
::Cheryl is a women's name, the analysis is accurate and even in accord with that of Oren, who is on the opposite side of the spectrum. I put up the Rubenberg page to make her affiliation clear. PLease try to add something to the article! --Ian Pitchford 21:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a task of an encyclopedia to decide accuracy of an analysis, it is its importence I question. Her importance certainly does not come from her position as an assosiate professor. Neither is her affilation stated in the article. Oren writes that "...Israelis inflating the Egyptian threat", something I would consider typical for Israelis, who do not usually endeavor in self-boasting. It is very very far from "Israel favoured war". --Heptor 22:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Rubenberg quote has been agreed by SEVERAL people (JohnZ, Heptor, Myself) except for Ian to be a POV argument. Not only does it blatantly try to paint the picture of Israel as a blood-thirsty aggressor who "favoured war", it attempts to portray Nasser as a peace seeker, when I can show you literally hundreds of quotes such as "The Arab people want to fight," "We will drive the Jews into the sea," etc., that say the exact opposite. Like I've said a million times, Ian, it's not about adding more POV sources to counter your POV sources--it seems you're the only one who wants to play that game--it's about providing a factual account of events for the reader.  Aiden Cathasaigh 00:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a serious misunderstanding of Wikipedia here. The opinions of editors unsupported by references to the scholarly literature are just that, the opinions of editors, and as such count for nothing. All you are doing here is substituting your own opinions for that of a scholar working in the area. If you want to challenge what Rubenberg says then do the research and cite your sources. What she says is accurate, i.e. "US officials assured Israel that Egypt's troop movements were demonstrative and without military intent, and Israel's own government and intelligence officials concurred in this analysis"- compare with Oren "The Americans said their intelligence sources could not corroborate the claim; that the Egyptian positions in the Sinai remained defensive" and "Eban was livid. Unconvinced that Nasser was either determined or even able to attack, he now saw Israelis inflating the Egyptian threat". Rubenberg says "from the outset of the conflict Israel favoured war and rejected multilateral diplomacy or the use of the United Nations.", Oren says '"On 30 May Nasser responded to Johnson's request of eleven days earlier and agreed to send his vice-president, Zakkariya Muhieddin, to Washington on 7 June to explore a diplomatic settlement in "precisely the opening the White House had sought". US Secretary of State Dean Rusk was bitterly disappointed by Israel's pre-emptive strike on 5 June as he had been certain he would have been able to find a diplomatic solution if the meeting had gone ahead. Oren writes that Rusk was "mad as hell" and that Johnson later wrote "I have never concealed my regret that Israel decided to move when it did".' What exactly are you challenging here? --Ian Pitchford 09:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheryl Rubenberg quote 

message: My impression that the message Menachem Begin is was trying to convey in his speach was that Israel could not be certain that Egypt was about to attack. Still, if they did attack, it would mean an unacceptable cost in Israeli lifes and a risk of defeat. Because of that, Begin meant that the strike was an act of self-defence, despite the possibility that Egypt never intended to follow up on its threats. I maybe presented it in a wrong way in my edit to the page. John Z, do you agree with my analysis of Begin's speech? --Heptor 21:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on which versions you compare John. If you go back as recently as 8 September  the article could only be described as a false, or at least a very partisan, representation of events. Wikipedia should aspire to far better than this. --Ian Pitchford 14:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean.  I agree that the earlier versions are not balanced, what I meant is that the article has been more readable at times, though getting more neutral.  I hope we can get agreement on something else I suggested a while back - getting rid of or at least spinning off the section on Arab revisionism or whatever it is called nowadays - it is far too long relative to the importance.  I'll drastically reduce it in the next couple days I guess. The ideal article on the 6 day war should be longer - it is one of the two most complicated A-I wars; the background is very complex and still debated - i.e. was there a green light or not? - and the article simply needs that space.  What I meant also is that there should be and usually is a basic skeleton of events which everyone agrees happened, however they describe them, and then there are the disputed territories, which one side or another might succeed in occupying in the article at one time or another.  This article is deficient even in the basic skeleton that keeps it from degenerating into chaos, and could do with some quiet reorganization.  For instance, with the disappearance of the NF quote, there was nothing on Israeli DMZ activities (and the shelling), so it definitely did contribute to the factual information provided in the article.  Also, as I mentioned earlier, there is nothing on the raid on Samu.  I think a good rule might be that we should at least mention, usually chronologically, anything that has a whole chapter on it in a book on the war.  I know I generally err on the side of caution and being too patient, but not everyone does; it would be good if people tried a bit to make their edits permanent and non-argumentatively fit in with the flow of the article rather than be absolutely right.John Z 16:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree on the question of readability: the article doesn't flow so well now. A chronological approach of agreed facts is best I think, and certainly Samu must be mentioned. Re "green light" I read the other day that the US covered the cost of the mobilization of Israel's reservists, but I haven't tracked down the source yet. --Ian Pitchford 22:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Menachem Begin speech 

message: I think that closure of the straits (to Israeli shipping) is the best term, especially for the introduction.  It is the most common - do a google test, and most neutral.  Blockade of Eilat is bad because it wrongly implies that the Egyptians tried to prevent the Israelis from leaving the port of Eilat, is nonspecific and less common. (At one point this sentence read as if Egypt was blockading Haifa!)  When the Arabs closed/blockaded the Bab-el-Mandeb straits to Israeli shipping below the then Israeli-held Straits of Tiran in the 1973 war , should that also be called a blockade of Eilat?  Of course other nations' cargo could go through the straits, that goes without saying especially when you use the word blockade - you only blockade against enemies.  "Blockade" is somewhat POV and less common, closure is better although I am not going to go crazy about one word in the introduction.  My statement about strategic goods on non-Israel ships plus Israeli-flag ships is more accurate than the current statement.  See this  and here is a quote, the first sentence of Carl F. Salans "Gulf of Aqaba and Strait of Tiran:Troubled waters" US Naval Institute Proceedings v 94, p12 12/68, reprinted in Moore's collection on the international law of the conflict:  "On 23 May 1967, President Gamal Abdel Nasser of the United Arab Republic announced to the world that the Straits of Tiran would be closed to Israeli flag vessels and to vessels of other countries carrying strategic cargoes, including oil, to Israel."John Z 09:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is not neutrality, it is accuracy - it is misleading.  It could sound like there were Egyptian warships outside the port preventing shipping coming in and out.  It is not the usual term for the Egyptian action, and is imprecise.John Z 10:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You're forgetting the fact that the Straits of Tiran are within Egypt's territorial waters.  The term "blockade" implies that they are using force in the other guy's territorial waters, or international waters.  Israel's claim was based on the idea that the Straits "connected" two international waterways, but whether this is true (i.e., whether the Gulf of Aqaba is an international waterway), and whether it is relevant (i.e., whether the 1958 Convention applied to the Arab countries, who didn't sign it), were very much debatable.  In fact there was much talk in the sixties about settling the matter in the International Court of Justice, but Israel chose not to go that route, starting a war instead. Brian Tvedt 02:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For one, the Strait is internationally recognized as an international strait, as in the 1957 declaration at the UN backing Israel's right to navigate the Strait. Secondly, there are other straits linking the Gulf of Aqaba to the Red Sea, though the Strait of Tiran is the only international waterway to do so. Nasser himself knew this and thus declared not just that he was closing the Strait of Tiran, but blockading the the entire Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping, stating, "Under no circumstances can we permit the Israeli flag to pass through the Gulf of Aqaba." Again, how is this not a blockade? Aiden Cathasaigh 04:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: closure of the straits

message: Ian, you could convert the weblinks to footnotes as well, in this sort of format:
# "Occupied Territories" to "Disputed Territories" by Dore Gold, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, January 16, 2002.  Retrieved September 28, 2005.
Once you did so, you could insert them all into the list of notes, and then you could make that list self-numbering. Jayjg (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good idea. Thank you. --Ian Pitchford 18:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: I'll leave the quote from the 2002 NPR story for now because simply deleting it messes up the paragraph flow.  But I do think it should be removed, and it's not just to make a WP:POINT.  I genuinely believe the article would be better without it.  There has been enough written about this war, and it occured long enough ago, that we should be able to write a good article on it using only as sources: (1) Academically recognized historians and Middle East specialists; (2) Experts in international law; (3) People like James Reston who were acquainted first-hand with the events and personalities involved.  I have no problem with using Michael Oren as a source, despite his biases (though he shouldn't be the only source).  But to drop in a biased potboiler summary produced 35 years after the fact is pathetic.  If it is true that the Syrian Baath party was "constantly issuing threats to push Israel into the sea" there has to be better evidence than this. Brian Tvedt 02:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NPR is a respected source, but I will gladly find corroborating sources to Shuster's reporting, which shouldn't be hard to do at all considering it's pretty common knowledge that both the Baathists and Nasser repeatedly threatened to "drive the Jews into the sea." Further, how come we don’t see you complaining about Rikhye's 13-years-after-the-fact recollection of a conversation he had with the Egyptian PM--hearsay--which describes Nasser as a "moderate influence"? Aiden Cathasaigh 07:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aiden, Rikhye was the commanding general of UNEF. He's highly respected as an eyewitness source. --Ian Pitchford 13:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What's more, Rikhye clearly falls into category (3) above.  Shuster did not witness any of the events or know any of the people involved first-hand.  All he is doing is repeating what he has learned elsewhere; why not present those sources themselves?  As to "drive the Jews into the sea", I don't believe that any Syrian or Egyptian leaders said that.  It certainly requires documentation, which should be easy to find if those really were their words.  There were statements made in Syria and Egypt about the "liberation of Palestine", and if you want to bring those into the article and point out that Israel considered them threatening, that's fine. Brian Tvedt 23:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using Mike Shuster as an authority 

message: Article states:
" As soon as Eban arrived, he was handed a cable from the Israeli government, and in it the false information that Israel had learned of an Egyptian and Syrian plan to launch a war of annihilation against Israel within the next 48 hours." 
It is not clear what the source of this description of  "false" information is. As far as Israel knew, it was true. The cable actually said, according to Oren (102) - "The Arabs are planning a large scale offensive. The question is no longer the Straits of Tiran but Israel's very existence." This was based on various intercepts and in fact the Egyptians had planned to launch Operation Dawn on May 27 or 28 and were stopped by Kosygin according to Oren. See page 119 - 120. MEW 15:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Amer had a plan to cut off Eilat - not to launch a "war of annihilation" in a large scale offensive. Nasser vetoed the plan. It's not thought that the cable Eban received refers to this plan. Israel's existence was not in danger at any point and Meir Amit, the Mossad chief, told the CIA that Israel expected victory in two days. British intelligence thought seven days; American intelligence ten. --Ian Pitchford 15:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your source for this information about Amer's plan? "Beyond air strikes at strategic targets and the detachment of Eilat, 'Amer now broadened the objective to include the entire Negev" - Oren p 92 and ref.  Even assuming it was so, what would have been the effect of cutting off Eilat? "It's not thought that" - who thinks it besides you? Israel had detected a lot of activity and air chatter, including an overflight of the Dimona reactor. If you insist on precise references, you will need to give them yourself. Stating that the info was false, without any reference, is giving a gratuitous POV. It makes it look as though the Israelis were deliberately deceiving Eban, especially in conjunction with the rest of the quotes. There are no grounds at all for assuming that is the case. USSR Ambassador to Jordan told Burns he expected the Arabs to win. Nasser told the trade unionists "We knew that closing the Gulf of Aqaba meant war with Israel" (Oren P 93 and many other references) - so it is fairly clear he didn't get dragged into this assuming he would lose.  MEW 18:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: My sources are Oren and the U.S. Department of State. Eban didn't believe the content of the cable (as the article already makes clear, drawing on Oren's account) and neither did the Americans. You can also read the US intelligence assessments of 26 May in the links given, e.g. "The UAR's dispositions are defensive and do not look as if they are preparatory to an invasion of Israel".  --Ian Pitchford 14:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I have edited the words 'false information'. It is very vague. Who and when knew that it was false? Did the sender know it was false? Did the receipient think or know (BTW it's not the same thing) it was false? I would say Eban may have suspected it was false, but could not possibly know for sure. And given the gravity of the claim, could he afford to ignore it? If you want to say it was false, say it in a separate sentence in a precise way and cite your sources.--15:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: False Information?

message: Following is probably not accurate:
" On 5 June at 7:45 Israeli time, as air alarms sounded all over Israel, the Israeli Air Force left the skies of Israel, sending all but twelve of its jets in a mass attack against Egypt's airfields." 
7:45 is probably the time of the first attack. According to Oren the first planes left at 7:10 AM. "At 7:30 Israel time, the first targets came into view" Oren p 174. By about 10 past 8 A.M. we knew that the first wave had been successful in our kibbutz, because someone had returned from a nearby airbase. According to Oren p 171 Israel had 250 aircraft: 65 Mirage, 35 Supre Mystere, 35 Mystere Mark IV 50 Ouragan  20 Vatour and 45 Fougas, about 200 hundred participated, including some of the Fougas Magisters. Therefore, Israel did not use "all but 12 of its jets."
:Hod says there were 197 planes operational that morning and four were left in Israeli air space, so 193 attacked Egypt. I've added the source. Incidentally Hod says the attack had been planned for a year and he expected victory over the Egyptian Air Force in six hours. --Ian Pitchford 21:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I believe you're right. I've changed the article and have cited a source. --Ian Pitchford 21:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: 100,000 is the figure most often used, but it all depends on what you count and when you count them. --Ian Pitchford 21:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous errors

message: There is a heading 'Operation Focus' but that term is not explained in the section.
There is a heading 'Sinai Peninsula' but that term is not explained in the section.
Can somebody revise the sections and/or the heading? Bobblewik 19:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mysterious headings 

message: When did this take place, Ian? Several paragraphs describe events in November 1967--after the Six-Day War--while Israeli military operations are noted as taking place in May. Are your dates incorrect? Should it be Nov 1966 through May 1967? Aiden Cathasaigh 04:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Samu Incident" 

message: I was under the impression that these articles were supossed to be neutral and truth full i dont think an explination that many Arabs belived that Britain and the U.S activley fought in the six day war is correct and I dont think that including school text books should count as a source. And there needs to be an explination that British and American Policy conserning the Middle East was shaped by the cold war not an anti Arab stance because thats what comes across. I also dont think that there is any proof off half the claims in that section encyclopedia's arnt a place for allergations Joey1986 21:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  British military  Intervention 

message: It appears Altmany has condensed the article, something that I agree needs to be done. However, in doing so, he seems to have altered the balance of the article. For example, in his condensation of the "IDF killings of Egyptian prisoners of war" section, he summarizes Yitzhaki's claims, but omits information about Yitzhaki that could potentially discredit him. In the section "U.S. and British combat support," he includes claims by Arabs of US/British support for Israel but omits the US/British denials of such claims. I have reverted the changes. Aiden 17:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with your claim of my edits not being neutral. I have actually spent considerable time trying to condense the remarks while keeping NPOV. I have indeed included the US/UK denials of the "Big Lie", as well as the UK telegram to that effect. Instead of reverting, why don't you simply fix the wording, if you see fit? altmany 18:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I feel before you make such drastic changes to the article you should in the least propose your changes in this dicussion. And I can clearly discern a shift in the neutrality of the article, especially relating to IDF killing of Egyptian POWs since your revision. Aiden 00:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I've looked over your modified revision and added a bit to it. I feel it is satisfactory now. Aiden 00:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Ian Pitchford 13:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Altmany's Edits 

message: The western wall image was taken from the Knesset Web site.  That site's copyright explicitly states: "Copyrights with regards to historical photographs
It is prohibitted to copy or distribute an historical photograph, photographs or parts of a photograph, which appear in this site, in any form or by any means, including electronic or technical means, without written permission from the Government Press Office." 
: I'm not the uploader and don't see the evidence of it being a PD. I would argue that this is a world-famous image and qualifies for . I've changed its lic. accordingly. Even though this particllar file is from Knesset website, the historical image may be found in thousands of books, magazines, and webpages other than knesset.gov.il. It would be good to provide another source for it, or write them for permission. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks as though it qualifies under the Historic Photo rule.  I wasn't aware that that was legal. Lokiloki 05:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for being reasonable, Lokiloki. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Wall Image: Dispute about copyright 

message: I have recently added to an already existing sentence a first name and a date. In 1967 in an effort to to resolve the issue peacefully the U.S. Did arrange for Egyptian Envoy Zakaria Mohieddin to travel to the United States to negotiate. However I added the 1st name of Mr.Mohieddin and later the correct spelling and position in Egyptian Government. Also I added the Date on which he was going to depart. Now About that date I will not add this to the text but I have a certain idea I would like to present to you and hear ur reactions if one of them is to erase what I changed then so be it. Since Egypt was expecting to send a top level government employee deemed neutral and the most diplomatic choice since Nasser obviously wasn't then, The Egyptians were most likely not going to attack at that specific time and were not expecting an attack. So even if Egypt Started the hostilities apparently there was some understanding that they were or "might have been" willing to solve it diplomatically and Yet Israel attacked and thus ensued an actual war from an "act" of war. 
In my own personal belief which I do not use academically, I was surprised but I have found very little evidence to conclude that Israel and Israeli's are peaceful or truly desire it the same in an even more outspoken way of Arabs as is already known, however Egypt has initiated it first so One point in their favour.
This is obvious original research, you haven't provided any sources to back up any of your claims.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Addition to reasons! 

message: I seek a clarification of "newly", since I have no (easy) way of knowing when that part of the article was written. Meneth 15:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEWLY declassified? 

message: "During the Six-Day War, the IAF demonstrated the crucial importance of air superiority during the course of a modern desert conflict."
Just a little analretentive change, but air superiority significantly decreases in importance with a change of terrain. While this holds true again - to a degree - with the first Gulf War, the Nato bombing campaign of Serbia was largely viewed as a failure; given the use of various tactics to help defend against interdiction attacks, and significantly hinder Bomb Damage assessement that are unavailable in a desert conflict. Chpetzu 10:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Correction to War in the air Section 

message: Moshe & I seem to agree on reprisal/incursion and maybe the longstanding & necessary "what it described as" neutrality issues, so I put them back in. Not wedded to Golan shelling, perhaps it doesn't belong, but didn't want to change the "balance" too much before- Perhaps better without it, as it  may be too imbalanced anti-Arab with it.  Saying the fedayeen were led/supported by Egypt is simply wrong.  If it is "well documented and sourced elsewhere" - someone  please point it out - it is not in the body of this or related articles. It is not in Oren, who basically says the opposite:  "Behind the scenes, though, the Egyptians labored to persuade their hosts [the Syrians] to desist from further support of al-Fatah." p.47 (talking about April 67) and Shlaim's Iron Wall p. 232-233 also explicitly contradicts this:  "[Fatah] tried to use all the confrontation states as staging bases for their operations against Israel, but Syria was the only country that gave the Fatah fighters assistance and encouragement.  The Egyptian authorities firmly prevented Fatah from operating against Israel from the Gaza Strip and Sinai..."   Perhaps Fatah guerilla should be used instead of fedayeen here.  The person who put this in may have thus been thinking of the fedayeen before the 1956 war, not this one.  I do not think we should go beyond Oren's or Shlaim's sponsored, supported, assisted or encouraged to "led." 4.234.102.142 10:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro & Casus Belli 

message: Six-Day_War#Preliminary_air_attack : All but four of its 197 operational jets left the skies of Israel in a mass attack against Egypt's airfields.
Operation_Focus#June_5.2C_1967 : Nearly all of Israel's 196 combat aircraft were committed to the airstrike, with only twelve being held back to patrol Israeli airspace.
Need to get the two sets of numbers right. Tintin (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked Michael Oren's book Six Days of War, which I believe is considered to be the definitive history of the conflict. On page 172 he says "All but twelve of the country's jets were thrown into the attack", as for the total number of planes sent out, he only says "close to 200." Does anyone have a source that contradicts this? GabrielF 18:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Israeli aircrafts 

message: The text says "The war was initiated by an Israeli response to Egyptian aggression" whereas the footnotes would imply the wording "perceived Egyptian aggression" might be more NPOV. I have no idea whether the footnotes are balanced... well before my time! --BozMo talk 13:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I note the "Egyptian aggression" bit was inserted a few days ago by an anonymous user who has since been blocked. Anyhow, I've reverted to an earlier, more NPOV version. Gatoclass 08:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text versus footnotes 

message: Near the middle of the article there is a picture of an Israeli soldier (apparently future General Yossi Ben Hanan) "cooling off" in the Suez.  In the caption for the picture, the author claims that "Israeli soldiers often traded their unreliable FALs and short ranged Uzis for captured AK-47s".  I am an avid gun fan so I do know a good bit about the FAL.  I have never heard a serious complaint about the FAL's reliability, in fact, I haven't heard many complaints about the FAL at all (save it's weight, but it does fire the 7.62mm NATO round fully automatically, so it must be a little hefty).  If is was so unreliable, then why did over 90 nations (and countless rebel military formations) adopt or field it for combat , several producing it under license (the United Kingdom, Australia, Brazil, etc.).  Desert nations, such as Australia, and of course Israel, have adopted or fielded the FAL and used it successfully for many years (Australia only fully replacing it several years ago).  Why would so many nations entrust their soldiers lives to an unreliable rifle?  Furthermore, I do not believe that any military command condones picking up captured enemy weapons and actively employing them in battle for the long term, unless they themselves are hard pressed for weapons.  Such practices form logistical nightmares.  The only exception I can think of are the special forces units, whose mission profiles may require the use of foriegn weapons.  I would like a source for this caption.
:I always thought it had to do with the AK's resistence to jamming in sandy conditions. Similairly, I've heard stories of American soldiers using AKs in Iraq. I'm no avid gun fan or owner for that matter so I honestly have no idea. —Aiden 21:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Caption 

message: after all Pakistan Air Force sent their pilots (who claim 3 "kills") in aid of the Islamic nations. And what role exactly did Canada play in the war, since it is listed under the participants column.
P.S.: someone archive the talk page, it's getting lengthy. --Idleguy 04:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't Pakistan mentioned in the participants list? 

message: Ian, I've noticed you've included an Arab "casus belli" in the info box alongside the Israeli one. This doesn't make much sense to me as it was the Israelis who started the war. They are the only side who need to supply a casus belli.
I think your points would better be made in the body of the article, wouldn't they? Gatoclass 14:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Israelis claimed originally that the Egyptians started the war by invading Israel. That's rather significant. Some of the material does belong in the body of the article, but I doubt that it will survive there, given that the entire "background" section has already been removed, references, images and all. --Ian Pitchford 07:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, the latter. --Ian Pitchford 15:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casus Belli - Ian Pitchford