Some interesting points made:

artbrooks 19 Jan 04 - 10:33 AM

A good point that can be taken generally.

"Anything can be "proven" by quoting from various Internet sites....., the fact that different sites say different things equates to unvalidated opinion."

Bush bashers should take note of the above when presenting their "facts".

GUEST,Frank Hamilton 19 Jan 04 - 03:55 PM

Unfortunately Frank you are looking at this period (1967) through 2004 eyes and from a 2004 perspective, purely in order to make the comparison with Iraq.

Nasser never ever made any pretension at leading any sort of "monolithic moslem" organisation. What Nasser projected himself as was the leader of Pan-Arabism (quite different). In 1967, Nasser, and his allies (practically the entire Arab world), had the military equipment and the promise of more, if required, on demand. Are you seriously trying to say that those countries with their wealth, backed 100% by the Soviet Union, could just be ignored. At the time, no-one in the West thought that, and the Israeli's certainly could not afford to.

Frank take a look at the language that was being used, remember the date is 1967:

"..never recognize the Jewish State."

"We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood."

"The national aim: the eradication of Israel."

"The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence. "

"..the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."

"Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel"

"The war with Israel is in effect since 1948."

"We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations."

"Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."

Now Frank, to any nation on earth, with the exception of Israel, the above threats could be shrugged of and dismissed as empty posturing. But for many Jews, within living memory in 1967, those threats had been heard before and the promise implicite in those threats had come alarmingly close to reality. You do not use words such as, "eradication", "extermination", "annihilation", to threaten Israel - because they mean more to Israelis, they unlike most nations on this earth, have actually experienced what those words mean when applied. Another thing that the Jews learned from the years 1939 to 1945 was that they must never ever put themselves in the position where their safety, security and well-being is entrusted to and reliant on the actions of others - No nation should. What the Arab nations backing Nasser knew full well was that the Soviet Union was 100% behind them, that was their counter to anything the USA and the West might have thought about doing. If this situation was not going to blow up into World War III, Israel and Israel alone, had to see off this threat.

No-one expects the Palestinians to convert to Judaism. What is expected is that the Palestinians and their Arab neighbours declare that they recognise the state of Israel, that they will guarantee Israels territory and that they will live in peace with their neighbours - SAY IT AND ACTUALLY MEAN IT.

Partition was offered during the British Mandate period 20% of Palestine to the Jews, 80% to the Arabs, 100% of the part of the Mandated territoty known as Trans-Jordan to the Arabs. The Jews accepted this, the Arabs did not.

The UN in 1948 offered a similar proposal, the Israeli's accepted it, the Arabs did not, they fought and lost. This resulted in a larger Israel, all of a sudden the territory offered by the UN became the Arabs source of grievance. Every single time the Arabs have been offered something it is rejected, they threaten and fight, they lose then they run back and attempt to revert to the status quo they turned down. They want to gamble only on the premise that the "house rules" state that they cannot lose what they have already been offered. That stand point in international relations is as ridiculous as it is unacceptable.

Given it's track record in conflict situations around the world, if you are waiting for the UN to act - don't hold your breath, and that track record was established long before Iraq.

CarolC 19 Jan 04 - 10:49 AM

It would be interesting to know when Weitzman and Begin expressed those opinions, and in what context they were given. Israel surrounded by enemies with her eastern trade and source of oil cut off, could only be described as a country under threat.

The Rabin quote centres entirely on Egypt and the Sinai, no mention is made of Rabin's assessment of the threat posed by the forces at Nasser's disposal in Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon. No commander in his right mind would launch an attack with a desert between his start off point and his main base of supply. The main Arab attack was to fall on Israel from the East and the North (The Arabs got much further employing the same plan in 1973).

On the point of, "The history of Israeli expansionism", the statement by Ben Gurion in 1936, relates to the partition offer proposed by the British which the Jews accepted. It has no bearing on the events of 1967, should anyone, as Noam Chomsky apparently does, want to bring this into the equation then a large number of other things must also be introduced and everything then viewed in context.

The quotation of Israel Shahak's is only a statement of HIS opinion it is not a fact and should not be presented as such, anyone is entitled to share his opinion but that again does not make it a fact.

The Livia Rokach reference to Moshe Sharatt's personal diaries, regarding the words of Moshe Dayan from May 1955, undoubtedly reflect Dayan's thoughts with regard to the situation in 1955 and the lead up to 1956, not to what happened in 1967.

The fact that Israel rejected Senator Fulbright's proposals in 1970 should come as no surprise. In 1948 the USA recognised the State of Israel, as did the United Nations, the USA also guaranteed Israel's security at that time, a commitment it has stood by, neither has prevented Arab attacks either directly or by terrorist groups based in those Arab countries. The UN has had peacekeeping forces in the area in the past and they have proved to have been totally ineffective. That Fulbright's plan garnered favourable editorial support in the USA, is neither here nor there. Fulbright's plan had to win the support of the Arabs and the Israelis, it didn't, both rejected it. The plan completely ignored the realities of the situation at the time it was proposed.

"What happened after the 1967 war ended?"

No mention of the homes built for Palestinian refugees by the Israelis.

No mention of continued terrorist attacks launched from Syria, Lebanon and Egypt.

No mention of the Yom Kippur War of 1973, launched by Egypt and Syria.

No mention of the Syrian occupation of Lebanon.

Wonder why? Obviously didn't suit the case being made by Messers Lockman and Beinin.