Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (3049)	9/1/2001 9:12:51 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

Your article repeats Egyptian Field Marshal Abd al-Hakim Amer's statements of 14 May, 1967, that Egypt was responding to "reliable reports" of Israeli troop movements on the Syrian border. Those reports came from the Soviets and were completely false. All the historians agree on this. There were no Israeli troop movements. Nasser's intelligence wasn't the best but he must have known this. Syria and the Soviet Union were trying to provoke the war. The Soviet Union thought that the Arabs would win and its own prestige in the region would be greatly enhanced thereby. Nasser decided to go along with the war movement, both to keep in the good graces of his Soviet patrons and keep leadership of the Arab states. The UNEF forces were the buffer between Egypt and Israel. Telling them to scram is not a peaceful action. What does it matter what side of the border they were on? Moving 100,000 troops and 900 tanks into the Sinai is not a peaceful action either, it's the clear prelude to an attack. I will agree that Egypt's purposes were clearly stated. Gamel Abdel Nasser said on 26 May 1967 "Our general goal is the total destruction of Israel". That is indeed quite clear. There were some in Israel who argued that Israel should not strike preemptively, that it should let the Arabs strike first so the world could see that Israel had not chosen the war. Those who argued that Israeli lives should not be sacrificed in the interests of of a PR campaign won the day. They were right, and you're a case in point. Have you made any distinction between the War of Independence, when Israel accepted the U.N. partition, but was attacked by six Arab armies, and the Six Day War, when Israel struck first? You have not. For you, both wars illustrate Israel's "expansionist philosophy". Would anything short of Israel's destruction placate you? Would you admit its right to exist inside any borders?