It was 45 years and one day ago when Israel launched the aerial preemptive strike that started the Six-Day War that ended with the Sinai Desert, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, the West Bank and East Jerusalem being under Israeli control. Today, there are riots in various cities in Israel launched by right-wing radicals, protesting the decision by PM Netanyahu to abide by the Supreme Court decision to demolish a few illegal buildings in the village of Beit-El, near Ramallah. So, as is so customary in Israel, past and present combine together.
Some historic context is in place here. The preemptive strike was in reaction to the Egyptian blocking of the Straights of Tiran, which by international law was a casus belli. On top of that, there were the troop concentrations on the borders of Israel with all its neighbors, and the mass demonstrations in Arab capitals, calling upon the Arab rulers to finish the job started by Adolph Hitler. The Gaza strip was then under military Egyptian occupation, which started in 1948. On October 21 of that fateful year, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al-Husseini, a protégé of the Egyptians, established his All-Palestine Government in Gaza, but the Egyptians decided, after a time, that they had no need for Al-Husseini, threw him out of Gaza, and blocked the establishment of an independent Palestinian state there.
The West bank and Jerusalem were, on June 4, 1967, illegally occupied by the Hashimite kingdom of Jordan, who under King Abdallah annexed them on April 24, 1950, an act which was never recognized by the Arab League or the UN. Only Great Britain and Pakistan recognized it. Parts of the Sinai Desert were occupied by Israel in the war of 1948-9, but were returned to Egypt as part of the cease Fire agreement signed in Rhodes in 1949. So, what can be learned from all that?
First, when pushed to the wall, with a deep, genuine fear of extinction, the Israelis act, even against the odds. In June of 1967, it seemed to the vast majority of Israelis that the Zionist venture was on the verge of destruction, so they acted, despite international pressures not to do so. Any possible relevance to the Iranian situation? Yes, though not inevitable. The talk in Israel about Iran being an existential threat is a reflection of a genuine sense of insecurity coupled with the burden of the past. Do all the Israelis view this situation in such a way? Clearly no, but a lot do, so no one should believe that the debate in Israel about the best possible way to deal with Iran is in itself an impediment to an independent Israeli action at some point in the foreseeable future. Yet the Israeli leadership is advised to remember that the decision to start the war of self-defense in 1967 was approved by a national unity government, supported by the vast majority of the people.
That is to say that crucial national decisions better be taken by a government enjoying this level of support. PM Netanyahu presides today over a coalition that includes over 90 out of 120 members of the Knesset. He may not have the same level of public support that the Israeli government enjoyed on June 5, 1967, but he has enough support to lead to big actions. Iran may not be the immediate number 1 priority on his list, but the Palestinian question could be.
His actions in recent days with regard to the controversy over Beit-El indicate that he is fully aware of the new political situation in Israel and the wide range of options which it opens to him. The developing confrontation between him and the settlers and their supporters is not going to be a light affair. This is, for all intents and purposes, a family feud, the type of situation that tends to be acrimonious and painful. The settlers are the ones, who push for a full-fledged confrontation with Netanyahu, who, by all accounts, is a PM who feels strongly about Jewish rights in the disputed lands. Yet if a confrontation is what is in store for him, there should be a winner, and Netanyahu can be the one, if he will continue to display leadership in actions, not just in words.
What is at stake here is a struggle over the final fate of the territories which Israel was forced to occupy in 1967. The lesson of this year is that the leaders that dare are the leaders that win.
facing Genocide at the hands of the Arab world. Great pride flows through my veins whenever I recall
those 6 glorious day in June 1967. God bless the IDF.
"In case of a new war, we must avoid the historic mistake of the War of Independence and, later, the Sinai Campaign. We must not cease fighting until we achieve the territorial fulfillment of the Land of Israel."
Yigal Allon, Haganah commander, Israeli politician, a commander of the Palmach, and a general in the IDF. He served as one of the leaders of Ahdut HaAvoda party and the Israeli Labor party, and acting Prime Minister of Israel, and was a member of the Knesset and government minister from the 10th through the 17th Governments.
U Thant elicited a "very significant" (his words) assent from Nasser to a new diplomatic initiative: the appointment of a special UN representative to mediate the crisis, and a two-week moratorium on all belligerent acts in the Straits. Israel rejected U Thant's proposals. Nasser's repeatedly expressed willingness to submit the Straits dispute to the World Court (for Israel inconceivable) is dispatched in a single, negatively charged phrase (SDW: pp. 126, 144; I&R, p. 129)
The U.S. also tried its hand at mediation in late May and early June. Nasser agreed to send his vice-president to Washington to explore a diplomatic settlement (SDW: p. 145). Just two days before the Egyptian's scheduled arrival, however, Israel attacked.
~SAS, David Stirling.
Must have slipped his mind
It's shameful how people like you keep using the Liberty because as one anti-Israel proudly boasted, "it works." In truth, however, it just makes you look like foolish parrots using a tragic event for your own diabolical agenda.
was it before the Israelis acknowledged that
indeed they were handling Pollard.
How long till they acknowledged their hand in the Lavon affair.
The motives were clear---in this case they calculated that it is best
never to fess up.
Except, of course, when the Arabs do it, as they tried in 1948 and 1967.
relax I understand, my comment was not directed towards a squatter sympathizer...
- In an interview published in Le Monde on 28 February 1968, Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin said this: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”
- On 4 April 1972, General Haim Bar-Lev, Rabin’s predecessor as chief of staff, was quoted in Ma’ariv as follows: “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six Days War, and we had never thought of such a possibility.”
- In the spring of 1972, General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command during the war and one of 12 members of Israel’s General Staff, addressed a political literary club in Tel Aviv. He said: “The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war.”
And finally, the truth:
- On 14 April 1971, a report in the Israeli newspaper Al-Hamishmar contained the following statement by Mordecai Bentov, a member of the wartime national government. “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”
The article seems in support of a false narrative. . .
Israel recognizes this, and protects itself accordingly.
And don't trot out that nonsense about the Right of Return objections: it was perfectly clear from the document that that particular issue was to be negotiated WITH Israel.
Israel, you had your chance and you blew it!
THANK YOU.
Egypt announced that it wouldn't allow Israeli-flagged ships from sailing through ITS territorial waters en route to Israel which, in all honesty, Egypt was perfectly entitled to do.
I'll point out something that neither you nor Olmert know i.e. there were **no** Israeli-flagged ships plying the "Eilat route".
Get it? Nasser announced something that was entirely symbolic, and in response the IDF attacked his forces.
Nope. It was an act of war and everyone acknowledges it. Except, apparently, those with an ax to grind against Israel.