Talk: Six-Day War
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
An event mentioned in this article is a June 5 selected anniversary
I feel that the Quasar modifications of Feb 8th should be reverted -- they have absolutely nothing to do with a neutral point of view. Anyone against this? --Markonen
- Hm. Those edits are pretty bad. But make sure you merge in the valid edits made since Quasar modifications. --mav
- since Israel continued to deny Palestinian rights as well as denying them any hope for national aspirations
What Palestinian right? West Bank and Gaza were under (illegal and internationally unrecognized) Jordanian and Egyptian control - so if anyone, it was Jordanians and Egyptians who denied Palestinian rights. Also LOL about Soviet support for Israel - was it in the form of hundreds of Egyptian MiGs or Syrian T-55s? --Uriyan
| Contents |
Why the NPOV dispute?
Why is this article NPOV disputed? Whoever disputes it just added the line and didn't give any clarification as to what he/she objects to. -- AdamRaizen 02:01, 2003 Aug 10 (UTC)
- It is unashamedly written from an Israeli point of view and should probably be rewritten from scratch.
- what sentences are written from an israeli point of view?
- Did the 56 war end with a defeat of the Israeli army? Or was there no pressure from US/USSR which made Israle withdraw from the sinai? Or had Egypt, Jordan or Syria recognized Israels right to exist? TeunSpaans
- I dont see it. Since the claim is over half a year old, and no proper motivation has been given, I will remove the non-npov remark. TeunSpaans
Why is quote belligerency here in return for the end of all states of "belligerency"....is the word being used in a non-conventional manner that quoting is necessary. OneVoice 01:38, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It seems like the majority of this article is dedicated to explaining why Israel started the war......Israeli apologism perhaps? Slizor
Slizor, your statement does not appear to be supported by the article. The majority of the paragraphs, sentances, words or seemingly another other measureable/countable aspect of the page is taken up with the battles and the aftermath of the war. Do you disagree with this statement? OneVoice 14:25, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
What is the point of asking a question about my position, when I have already stated my opinion? Anyhow, I will rephrase. The "background" section seems intent on Israeli apologism.
Slizor
There are difficulties with this article. The article fails to mention AT ALL that Israel began the war. Clearly, as the article does more than adequately demonstrate, Israel was provoked. But, it does not mention that Israel attacks first. Also, nothing is said about US involvement in ending the war, in threatening to end supplies for the Israelis. Basic facts are left out about the war being used stage for Cold War aggressions between the United States and the Soviet Union. The article is not NPOV, instead it has been written from an apologetic point of view in defense of Israeli actions during the conflict. Stargoat 9:30, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Well, I hate to put it this bluntly, but you are full of crap. The Egyptians blockaded the Tiran straits, Israel's only sea route. This is a long-recognized, very clear act of war. Furthermore, the UN peacekeeping force was ordered out of the country by Nasser, and Syrian and Egyptian troops were amassed along the borders to Israel. To say the Israelis "started the war" is very clearly a lie on your part, and it has nothing to do with your POV. If Canada blocked off all our seaports, amassed troops on our border, and announced they would soon drive us into the sea and annihilate our state, we would be perfectly justified in attacking Canada, just as Israel was justified in attacking Egypt and Syria in 1967. These things all happened, and if you say they didn't happen, you are not expressing a point of view, you are LYING. Cardshark
- Heh, you shouldn't make personal attacks. What's worse, you're wrong, on most of your facts, I'm afraid.
- 1 Even you say Israel attacked. Which it did. As I said, Israel was provoked. Which it was. But that doesn't mean that Israel did not attack first. This is an issue which the article fails to address. And when the war began, it began when Egyptian troops were being pulled back from the Israeli border.
- 2 As for this "we" stuff, speak for yourself.
- 3 If you're going to quote me, at least quote me correctly. I said "Israel began the war", you incorrectly quoted me when you said "the Israelis "started the war"". You might want to be more careful in the future. Have a nice day. :) Stargoat 23:34, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Okay, is it that dramatic a difference to quote you as saying "Israel started the war" vs "Israel began the war"? Neither one is true.
- Blockading the Straits of Tiran was an act of war. Period. The embargo has *long* been recognized as an act of war deserving of retaliation. Do you disagree? Which happened first? The embargo or the attack?
- Kicking out the UN peacekeepers was also an act of war. This one is perhaps less cut and dried than blockading all Israeli ships from delivering goods and services to Israel, but a reasonable person would agree that it was an act of war. How about you?
- Furthermore, Nasser said in a radio address that he would drive Israel into the sea and wipe it off the map.
- Even further, do you deny that Syria had been sitting on the Golan Heights lobbing shells at Israel for years before 1967? Was this not an act of war? To say "Israel began the war" sounds like a bully who continually hits someone on the arm, over and over and over again, until the victim gets fed up with it and pounds the bully unmercifully. Then the bully says "He started it".
- Did the Israelis launch the first battle in 1967? Yes. Did they "begin the war"? No. This is not a POV dispute, this is clear fact. You say I'm wrong on most of my facts, yet I note that you do not so much as mention which ones they are, and offer not a single shred of fact to support your assertion. I can offer authoritative sources for everything I said, and I will do so as soon as you tell me exactly what you believe I am wrong about.
- The only time I said we was when I said that we (Americans) would be justified in an attack if our seaports were blockaded by a foreign power. This is not a radical notion, and not only do I speak for myself, I'm quite sure I speak for the vast majority of Americans on this topic, and I certainly speak from a defensible historical viewpoint. Apparently you disagree and think such a situation calls for a diplomatic solution? This is typical liberal guilt mongering worthy of someone like Chomsky. A blockade *is* an attack.
- I'm a staunch liberal myself (as I suspect you are), but really, on this subject, you need to study the history from someone besides Noam Chomsky (as you seem to be repeating his mantras). He is incredibly biased when it comes to this topic.
- I withdraw my accusation that you are a liar, and instead would merely contend that you are ignorant. Cardshark
- And you yet insist with the name calling. Your vitriol towards this issue, and myself, is unsettling. I'm not sure you understand the concept of NPOV or No Personal Attacks. Perhaps you consider reading up on them. I've provided a link. :)
- Let's see here. You've called yourself an American, so I'm sure you're familar with this situation, but have only forgotten. By your logic, Cuba would be justified in attacking the US, as would have the former Soviet Union. The Americans have placed an embargo on Cuba for the past forty years. But Cuba has restrained itself.
- Furthermore, your history is erronous. By the time the war began, the blockade had been challenged and overcome. There was no blockage when Israel began the the war. The real reason that Israel was so mad wasn't the blockade of the Straits of Tiran, it was the closure of the Suez Canal to Israeli traffic.
- As for the Syrian audacity in attacking Israel, it is only matched by Israeli aggression in attacking Syria. Both sides, though Syria especially, were very guilty of firing at each other. Israel was making more of a land encroachment effort than Syria, but wasn't above sending in commandos to blow stuff up. Israel also liked to occasionally demonstrated her air superiority by shooting down Syrian planes over Damascus.
- You've claimed that Egypt's removal of the peacekeepers was a start of hostilities. If kicking out Peacekeepers was a pretext to war, it was removing peacekeepers designed to protect Egypt. Peacekeepers that were placed their since the '56 war, another war started by Israel. And I won't even bring up the assassination of Count Bernadotte.
- But I believe that Gamal's recent edits recify this matter more than satisfactorily. The article has taken a great leap towards a NPOV.Stargoat 20:29, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I didn't call you a name this time. I said you were apparently ignorant. You might take that as an insult, but it is not, prima facie, an insult, and certainly not a "name calling". No one can know everything, and we are all surely ignorant about one thing or another.
- You state that we have embargoed Cuba for years. While it is true that we will not trade with them, we do not prevent other countries from trading with them. That would be an act of war.
- Kennedy did blockade them for a short time during the missle crisis, however, and it *was* and act of war, and the Soviet Union, and/or Cuba *would* have been justified to give a military response. That they didn't is pretty lucky for everyone, is all.
- You claim the Straits of Tiran (Israel's only connection to Asia and the major artery for their oil) was reopened before the war. Nasser blockaded it on May 22nd. Israel attacked the Egyptians and Syrians on June 5th.
- When exactly was it reopened? Are you claiming it was reopened sometime between May 22nd and June 5th? What day was that exactly? What sources do you have? Sadly, I am afraid you are misinformed.
- I never said that Israel was blameless. Clearly they were not. Just as clearly, the blockade was the causus belli, and the start of the war.
- At risk of getting completely off topic, doesn't Helms-Burton attempt to create an embargo against Cuba? I remember Canada and Europe getting pretty annoyed with the US over it. Perhaps Canada would have been justified in making that blockade, as you suggest, or perhaps Europe should have viewed this as a declaration of war. !-) --Baggie 13:40, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
fascinating, what's the source?
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)
I saw this detailed the PBS DVD "The 50 Years War". Soviet officials are interviewed in the video and acknowldege it. What the Soviets did was truly evil. They instigated war so that they would emerge with greater influence in the region. alan196@aol.com
I question the presentation of select quotes introduced by "Here are some reflections by Israelis about the background". Assuming them to be fully accurate, they seem selected to demonstrate that this was not a defensive war. The issue of how imminent an attack was may be arguable, but certainly the situation was dangerous and unpredictable. Were not the straits of Tiran blockaded? According to Soviet officials interviewed in the PBS "50 Years War" video, the Egyptians were ready to strike first but were restrained by the Soviets so that America would not be brought into the conflict. There are numerous other quotes by Israeli officials of their certainty that Egypt was preparing an attack. I wish people would care about truth and balance before agenda. alan196@aol.com
A note to the paragraph reading
Here are some reflections by Israelis about the background:
"In June 1967, we again had a choice. 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." - Menachem Begin, Israeli Cabinet minister in 1967, in the New York Times, August 21, 1982
This is from an article in NYT that referes to a speach at National Defence College Aug 8, but continues:
"This 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."
[found at http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0794/9407073.htm]
To me this reads as irony: "we had a choice, to give up the future of our nation". In my view by omitting this sentence the editor has changed the meaning of what Begin said.
Liberty Incident and Gabby Bron
While the Liberty incident and Gabby Bron are hugely important to those who wish to "prove" Israel's perfidy, in reality they are minor in the context of the whole war. The article is already 31K long; it doesn't need two separate paragraphs in two separate sections discussing the Liberty, and the combined paragraph gives all the relevant facts. Detail on the incident, and the various theories surrounding it, belong on the Liberty Incident page. Jayjg 16:34, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The Gabby Bron claim is not even primarily relevant to the Liberty incident. I quote:
- Gabby Bron, an Israeli reservist at the time, now a journalist, said he witnessed the execution of POWs in the airport area of al-Arish in the Sinai peninsula on June 8th. He says he watched them dig their own graves, and were then shot dead with Uzis. The American naval ship the USS Liberty, which was attacked by Israel during the Six-Day war, resulting in the death of 34 American sailors, was less than 13 miles off al-Arish. Some have speculated that Israel attacked the American naval ship to cover up the execution of POWs in al-Arish that Gabby Bron said he witnessed.
- It's an allegation of a war crime committed in the Six-Day War. Connecting it to the Liberty Attack is mere speculation, but its connection to the Six-Day War is direct. - Mustafaa 17:55, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The whole Gabby Bron incident is questionable, and it appears to be intimately tied to the Liberty Incident. I haven't been able to find any primary sources for the Bron claim; rather, a small number of Liberty Incident, pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic sites carry a claim that Gabby Bron stated he witnessed the massacre of 150 Egyptians, likely based on a book by James Bamford about the Liberty Incident in which he first makes this claim. Other sites, however, point out that Gabby Bron himself denies any such massacre took place. For example:
- But there appears to be no verifiable evidence that such a massacre ever took place, and Bamford's description of events at El Arish doesn't hold up. Thus, he attributes to Israeli journalist Gabi Bron a claim that 150 prisoners were executed there. But Bron himself denies that and says "there were no mass murders." http://www.occupationalhazard.org/article.php?IDD=540
- and
- Why, for instance, would Israel massacre a thousand Egyptian POWs? Israel took tens of thousands of prisoners during the Six Day War; most of them, it quickly let go. So why kill a thousand? Because, one supposes, that is just the sort of thing Israelis do; they kill people for sport, in the manner that one hunts ducks for sport. (For the record, the principal sources of the massacre story – Israeli journalist Gabi Bron and scholar Aryeh Yitzhaki – both insist no massacres took place and that they were misquoted in an Associated Press dispatch out of which the El-Arish story arose. Their denials, a matter of public record, go unmentioned in "Dead in the Water." http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1088046788934&p=1006953079897
- The whole Gabby Bron incident is questionable, and it appears to be intimately tied to the Liberty Incident. I haven't been able to find any primary sources for the Bron claim; rather, a small number of Liberty Incident, pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic sites carry a claim that Gabby Bron stated he witnessed the massacre of 150 Egyptians, likely based on a book by James Bamford about the Liberty Incident in which he first makes this claim. Other sites, however, point out that Gabby Bron himself denies any such massacre took place. For example:
- From what I can see the whole "al-Arish" incident is so poorly attested to that it would be irresponsible to even mention it, as it seems to be just another of hundreds of propagandistic conspiracy theories that pop up whenever Jews and Israel are involved in anything. However, in the interests of avoiding a Wikipedia war, I left the questionable claim in the article. Jayjg 21:01, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Their claim about being misquoted seems to be pretty flatly contradicted by a highly pro-Israeli (and highly detailed) article on the question, which says:
- For the AP article of the next day, August 17, revealed that Yitzhaki, a member of a far-right political party in Israel, admitted he came out with his charges to protect the leader of his party, who had just been indirectly implicated in some genuine killings of Egyptian POWs in the 1956 Middle-East war. According to the AP, Yitzhaki “acknowledged that he spoke out mainly to shift attention ... from Tzomet leader Raphael Eitan ... to leading government officials, including Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.” That Yitzhaki’s credibility was therefore shaky at best is another fact kept from readers by Bamford.
- although it of course gives a different reason to mistrust the story.
- This set of quotes adds some interesting details, though (unlike the previous) from a pro-Palestinian stance:[1]
- "Egypt said today that it had discovered two mass graves in the Sinai [near El Arish] containing the remains of Egyptian prisoners of war and unarmed civilians shot by Israeli soldiers during the 1967 war. . . . At the same time, an Israeli historian said that as many as 300 unarmed Egyptian were killed in both the 1967 war and in the war of 1956. Those reports led to other allegations and revelations. . . . "I saw a line of prisoners, civilians and military, and they opened fire at them all at once," Mr. [Abdelsalam] Moussa was quoted as saying. "When they were dead, they told us to bury them. . . Al Ahram [an Egyptian newspaper] also quoted a bedouin, Suleman Moghnem Salameh, who said he saw Israelis kill about 30 Egyptian soldiers and officers after they surrendered, leaving them for the Bedouins to bury. . . . President Mubarak has called for an investigation in Israel and punishment of those responsible. Israel responded by sending Elli Dayan, a Deputy Foreign Minister, to discuss the matter. During his visit here, he offered compensation to the victims but noted Israel's 20-year statute of limitations." (The New York Times on September 21, 1995)
- OK, looking at the original article [2] I conclude that he did make the claim that some number of POWs (about 10 that he saw) were killed, on specific charges of being "fedayeen". This claim was made in relation to a separate issue - the retracted Aryeh Yitzhaki claims about 1000 POWs - and was only later picked up by the USS Liberty theorists. Gabi has denied that there was a massacre - and, indeed, 10 people is not a massacre - but I have seen no claim that he has retracted what he actually said, as opposed to what he was misquoted as saying. Such a claim certainly needs to be in the article, but does not need to be linked to the USS Liberty - in fact, looking at the original I think such a linkage is completely implausible, and not worthy of this article. Any thoughts?- Mustafaa 06:33, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Sigh. I typed in a long response a while ago which apparently has disappeared. Well, you've added more stuff since then anyway, so perhaps it's for the best. Regarding the [3] webpage, I would be quite cautious about its accuracy for a number of reasons. To begin with, it's obviously a translation, but we don't know who translated it, or how accurate the translation is. Second, there appear to be editorial comments included in the text, though they are not differentiated well from the main text (if, indeed, they are editorial comments). Third, the page refers to Israel Shahak, and that alone is enough to reduce its credibility, though I can't figure out how the Shahak sentence relates to the article itself. Fourth, the editorial comments are highly-biased; for example, they say that the Yitzhaki claims are "well-authenticated", when we know he himself admitted spreading these rumours to deflect negative attention from people he was trying to protect. I've been to the Yediot Aharanot website, but I don't have a Hebrew keyboard to type in searches. In any event, I doubt that an article from 1995 would still be online, and I doubt I would find it if it was.
- Regarding your second link, I first note that it too comes from a Liberty Incident conspiracy website; the link between the two seems as strong as ever (that is, the people who promote this idea are mostly Liberty Incident conspiracy theorists). Second, most of it is about the Yitzhaki claim, which we have already discussed (I realize the parts you excerpted are an exception to that). Another site that you linked to has this to say about the Moussa/Liberty claim:
- The New York Times story, by Youseff Ibrahim and dated September 21, 1995, does contain the quote from Abdelsalam Moussa, who claimed to be an eyewitness to the killing of 30 to 60 POWs. But – and this is crucial – the report does not indicate when the killings described by Moussa took place, before the Liberty arrived, or while it was on station off El Arish. However, a Reuters dispatch published in the Jerusalem Post (September 21, 1995), reports Moussa as saying that the killings he claims to have seen took place on June 7, which was before the Liberty arrived! Thus, contrary to Bamford’s charge, the attack on the Liberty could not have been to prevent the ship from discovering the Israeli slaughter alleged by Moussa.
- Mr. Bamford also takes from Ibrahim’s report the story of the Israelis supposedly gunning down 30 more prisoners and then ordering some Bedouins to bury them. According to Ibrahim however, these episodes took place on June 6 and June 7, two days and one day before the Liberty even arrived off El Arish. So, again, Bamford deceptively cites this episode even though it clearly offers no support for his thesis.
- Ibrahim also notes the curious fact that Moussa had not come forward sooner, attributing this to the Egyptian government’s supposed desire not to delve into such issues after it recovered the Sinai from Israel in the early 1980’s, but this certainly does not explain why the Egyptians would not have trumpeted Moussa’s claims in the twelve years between the war and the peace treaty with Israel in 1979. Deceptively, Bamford keeps this too from his readers.
- The AP story which Bamford cites to support his claims in this paragraph (dated August 16, 1995; it ran in Newsday the following day), actually has nothing to do with the details of the paragraph. There is no mention of Abdelsalam Moussa and no mention of the Bedouins. While the article does mention killings in El Arish, it dates them to June 9-10, after the attack on the Liberty. If Bamford considers this article a credible source, then whatever happened in the episode it describes clearly had nothing to do with the attack on the Liberty. But Bamford deceptively keeps this from his readers as well. And, so eager is he to paint the Israelis as latter-day Nazis, he also hides from readers another relevant passage in this AP article, which stated that the alleged killings of Egyptians occurred when “some of the prisoners opened firing after surrendering and shot dead two Israeli soldiers.”
- Regarding the numbers killed in the "Bron" incident, while the "translation" of the Yediot Aharonot article indicates 10, every other link I've seen (including the second one you brought) indicates at most 5. For example (again from the earlier long article you linked to):
- However, another AP article dated August 17, 1995, which Bamford seems not to quote, gives the number of killed according to Gabi Brun (the spelling is slightly different) as five, not 150. In addition, according to the article, Brun’s commanding officer, who was also there at the time, denied that there were any executions at all.
- There are many other articles like this, all saying five (not ten) people were killed. In any event, I don't think the a link to such dubious evidence should be given, I think the number should be adjusted to refect 5, and I think the fact that there are competing theories as to why Israel would have knowingly attacked an American vessel should all be in the article. I'll make adjustments based on this, please let me know what you think. Jayjg 18:18, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The Journal of Palestine Studies has a translation of the article of Bron in Vol 25, no. 3, p154. It seems to be identical to this one and clearly says that he watched 10 executions while implying they were only 10 personally witnessed out of a longer sequence. Personlly I don't think this belongs here in relation to Liberty, though conceivably (doubtfully, imho) it could be mentioned as an example of an alleged atrocity. This theory about the Liberty frankly sucks. It is nowhere good enough an explanation for Israel to attack a US ship. These executions (assuming they really happened) were not strategically important enough for Israel to take such massive risks - if they were so fearful about the Liberty watching the executions, they would have stopped the executions rather than attacking the Liberty. Btw, the claim that Bron retracted needs a lot better evidence than a mere unsourced claim in JP. --Zero 19:44, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, that specific page makes the claim that Bron witnessed 10 executions, but every other reference refers to five, not ten. As for the claim he "retracted", it is actually a claim that he denied that there was a "massacre" or "mass murders", not that he retracted his original claim that he had witnessed 5 executions. And I gave more than one source for it. As for the Yediot Aharanot reference, I'm willing to leave it in the interests of compromise. Jayjg 20:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Judging historical questions according to the number of web pages that support each view is a completely useless method. Writers of web pages rarely do any original research, they just copy of other sources (especially each other), so counting web pages only determines how popular a story is and does not say anything about whether it is true or not. The real issue is where the information came from originally and the accuracy of the transport of that information from the original source to us. So far I think that the YA article is the only one quoted which originates from Bron himself. We don't have the original Hebrew article but we have a translation published by an academic journal. That puts the "10" version way ahead of all your web pages. --Zero 12:00, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The issue is not the number of webpages, but the sources they quote, vis:
- "another AP article dated August 17, 1995... gives the number of killed according to Gabi Brun (the spelling is slightly different) as five"
- "One day after Yitzhaki's charge came a first-person account by Gabi Brun of Yedioth Aharonoth, the country's most widely read tabloid. He wrote of watching Israeli troops execute five Egyptian prisoners in the Sinai Desert town of El Arish in 1967." Washington Post, August 19, 1995
- "I watched as the man dug a hole for about 15 minutes. Afterwards, the (Israeli military) policeman told him to throw the shovel away, and then one of them leveled an Uzi at him and shot two short burst, each of three or four bullets. Another prisoner was brought to the same hole a few minutes later, forced to enter and also shot." (Gabi Brun, an Israeli journalist, in Yediot Ahronot, August 17, 1995, as reported in the Toronto Sun, August 18, 1995)
- "Israelis could read a first-person account of just one of the smaller of such incidents by writer Gabi Brun of Yediot Ahronot, Israel's largest-circulation daily. He watched as Israeli troops seized five Egyptian soldiers in the town of Al Arish, only a few miles from the Israeli border, where they could have been interned. Instead, one of the five was forced to dig a grave and then lie down in it, where he was shot. Each of the other prisoners, in turn, was forced to lie down and be shot in the same grave, which then was filled in. Washington Post readers who looked very hard could find the same account on page 18 of the Aug. 19 edition." Washington Report, September 1995
- So according to you The Journal of Palestine Studies translated the number killed as 10, but according to AP, the Washington Post, and Washington Report the number was 5, and apparently according to the Toronto Sun it was 2. Of course, it's possible they're all relying on the same translation, but we have no way of knowing that. By the way, the Toronto Sun claim comes from the virulently antisemitic Zundelsite, which would normally be discounted as a reliable source of information about Jews and Israel. However, in this case it is interesting that it does not try to use any higher figure of deaths. Jayjg 19:14, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, almost certainly a common source (probably AP), but anyway I asked my library to locate the original article. Dunno how long it will take. --Zero 19:43, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Air Superiority
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)
- 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)
- 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)
NPOV Image
What's up with the NPOV cartoon? Why not produce a region map or leader photos instead?
- the cartoon becomes funny when you read the result ;-) Terrapin 14:24, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NPOV Dispute (again)
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)
- Outside of a sentence about the airfoce attacking the "helpless" arab armies (which I changed), I fail to see any other kind of mention like that. There is no use of "brave" or "courageous" anywhere in the article. As for "efforts of the arab armies", it mentioned them. It just mentions them getting pummeled, which is fact, not POV. Terrapin 16:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, Neutralisation. Jayjg 16:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Terrapin, I apologise for the NPOV dispute, I was mixing up this article with another article relating to the military history of the IDF/ISF. Thanks for the welcome Jayjg. Neutralisation 21:13, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
THE SAND STORM THAT UNCOVERED A MINEFIELD
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
