6 ms·

Israel launched what it said was a preemptive strike [0] against Egypt, destroying virtually the entire Egyptian air force on the ground. Lacking air cover, Egy

Israel launched what it said was a preemptive strike [0] against Egypt, destroying virtually the entire Egyptian air force on the ground. Lacking air cover, Egyptian ground forces in the Sinai peninsula retreated, but were destroyed by the Israeli air force on the roads. Not having a clear picture of what was going on [1], the Jordanians and Syrians entered the war on Egypt's side, only to suffer a similar fate as Egypt. Israel ended up conquering the Sinai peninsula, East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. It's hotly debated whether the war really was a preemptive strike to head off an impending Arab invasion, or whether it was a war of aggression by Israel. In any case, as a consequence of the war, millions of Palestinians came under Israeli rule. The Israelis were faced with a conundrum: they wanted to keep the land (especially the West Bank and East Jerusalem), but they didn't want millions more Arab citizens, who would shift the demographic balance, ending Israel as a Jewish state. That's why Israel has kept the Palestinians in limbo for more than half a century. They live under Israeli control, but they aren't Israeli citizens. 0. Israel initially claimed that it had been attacked first, but it soon admitted that it had attacked first. 1. Egyptian propaganda in the first hours claimed that Egypt had scored major victories.

tptacek 3y ago
I don't think it's very hotly debated at all. There seems to be a consensus that whether they were right to be so concerned or not, Israel's motives in preempting Egypt were about security, not territorial expansion. Before the war, Egypt administered Gaza but did not claim it (Palestinians needed something like passports to transit between Gaza and Egypt proper). Jordan was almost kicked out of the Arab League for annexing the West Bank, which it claimed as territory until 1988(!). There's no question that since the war, Israel has abused its position with respect to the West Bank in particular (it dispossessed Gazan settlers during the disengagement, but has tacitly allowed continued settlement in the West Bank). But the history here is complicated and it's important to get it right.
- DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
  > I don't think it's very hotly debated at all. There seems to be a consensus that whether they were right to be so concerned or not, Israel's motives in preempting Egypt were about security, not territorial expansion. The issue is actually hotly debated. To this day, former Egyptian generals say that they only placed a force in the Sinai in order to discourage the Israelis from attacking Syria, which the Egyptians thought the Israelis were doing. Additionally, the Israeli government itself does not seem to have viewed Egyptian forces in the Sinai as a serious threat. The Israelis planned and trained for their air operation against Egypt long in advance, which means they were considering a first strike for a long time. At the very least, the simple story the Israelis like to tell ("We were attacked and defended ourselves") does not hold water. > But the history here is complicated and it's important to get it right. The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories is not really that complicated. Fundamentally, Israel wants to keep East Jerusalem, the West Bank and, to a lesser extent, Gaza. As long as Israelis think they can hold onto those territories at an acceptable price, they will. The US, by giving Israel unconditional backing, has abetted the occupation.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    In response to false Soviet intelligence reports that claimed Israel had mobilized on the Syrian border, Egypt and Syria mobilized on the Israeli border. Egypt blockaded the Strait of Tiran. They overflew the Israeli nuclear weapons facilities at Dimona. They expelled the UNEF from Sinai --- troops whose presence had been established by the UN in large part to assure Israel that Egypt wasn't going to attack. And, of course, as we now know, Egypt had an actual plan to invade, with the intent of eradicating Israel; it's disputed whether Nasser knew about it or how serious that planning was, but it's not disputed that it existed --- it created a diplomatic incident between the US and the Soviet Union. It's very difficult to make an argument that Israel wasn't threatened, existentially, or that its actions were motivated by anything other than self-defense. The whole crisis was a shitshow of poor intelligence and bad faith (Israel's hands weren't clean either; some of the escalation, and Jordan's involvement in the conflict, probably stemmed from the Samu raid). But Israel hit Egypt because Egypt made war inevitable. I don't think West Bank and Gaza occupation is all that complicated. We probably agree about it. Palestinians should have sovereignty and self-determination in those territories. Israeli West Bank settlements should be dismantled. But that's obviously not all people are talking about when they talk about the "occupation". We're on a thread about the "from the river to the sea". The motte is the West Bank. The bailey is Tel Aviv.
rayiner 3y ago
> Israel launched what it said was a preemptive strike [0] against Egypt So it was just a coincidence that Egypt had massed troops on the border, closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and ejected UN security forces two weeks before that?
- DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
  There was a build-up of tensions in the lead-up to the war, not just on the Egyptian side, but also on the Israeli side. The Egyptians believed that the Israelis were preparing an invasion of Syria, so the Egyptians moved their own force into the Sinai peninsula, in order to deter Israel. However, the Egyptian force was nowhere near sufficient to launch an invasion of Israel. The closing of the Straits of Tiran was politically significant, but not very economically significant. Only a tiny fraction of Israel's trade went through the straits. The Israelis had been planning a first strike on Egypt for a long time. Whether they actually feared an imminent Egyptian invasion in June 1967 is questionable. The Israeli military was very confident of its superiority over the Arab forces, and it may have simply taken advantage of the situation to land a devastating blow against the Arabs.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    The Israelis were not preparing an invasion of Syria. They were led to believe so by the Soviets; the Soviets were wrong. Egypt and Syria thus mobilized unilaterally.

tptacek 3y ago

I don't think it's very hotly debated at all. There seems to be a consensus that whether they were right to be so concerned or not, Israel's motives in preempting Egypt were about security, not territorial expansion. Before the war, Egypt administered Gaza but did not claim it (Palestinians needed something like passports to transit between Gaza and Egypt proper). Jordan was almost kicked out of the Arab League for annexing the West Bank, which it claimed as territory until 1988(!). There's no question that since the war, Israel has abused its position with respect to the West Bank in particular (it dispossessed Gazan settlers during the disengagement, but has tacitly allowed continued settlement in the West Bank). But the history here is complicated and it's important to get it right.

DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
> I don't think it's very hotly debated at all. There seems to be a consensus that whether they were right to be so concerned or not, Israel's motives in preempting Egypt were about security, not territorial expansion. The issue is actually hotly debated. To this day, former Egyptian generals say that they only placed a force in the Sinai in order to discourage the Israelis from attacking Syria, which the Egyptians thought the Israelis were doing. Additionally, the Israeli government itself does not seem to have viewed Egyptian forces in the Sinai as a serious threat. The Israelis planned and trained for their air operation against Egypt long in advance, which means they were considering a first strike for a long time. At the very least, the simple story the Israelis like to tell ("We were attacked and defended ourselves") does not hold water. > But the history here is complicated and it's important to get it right. The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories is not really that complicated. Fundamentally, Israel wants to keep East Jerusalem, the West Bank and, to a lesser extent, Gaza. As long as Israelis think they can hold onto those territories at an acceptable price, they will. The US, by giving Israel unconditional backing, has abetted the occupation.
- tptacek 3y ago
  In response to false Soviet intelligence reports that claimed Israel had mobilized on the Syrian border, Egypt and Syria mobilized on the Israeli border. Egypt blockaded the Strait of Tiran. They overflew the Israeli nuclear weapons facilities at Dimona. They expelled the UNEF from Sinai --- troops whose presence had been established by the UN in large part to assure Israel that Egypt wasn't going to attack. And, of course, as we now know, Egypt had an actual plan to invade, with the intent of eradicating Israel; it's disputed whether Nasser knew about it or how serious that planning was, but it's not disputed that it existed --- it created a diplomatic incident between the US and the Soviet Union. It's very difficult to make an argument that Israel wasn't threatened, existentially, or that its actions were motivated by anything other than self-defense. The whole crisis was a shitshow of poor intelligence and bad faith (Israel's hands weren't clean either; some of the escalation, and Jordan's involvement in the conflict, probably stemmed from the Samu raid). But Israel hit Egypt because Egypt made war inevitable. I don't think West Bank and Gaza occupation is all that complicated. We probably agree about it. Palestinians should have sovereignty and self-determination in those territories. Israeli West Bank settlements should be dismantled. But that's obviously not all people are talking about when they talk about the "occupation". We're on a thread about the "from the river to the sea". The motte is the West Bank. The bailey is Tel Aviv.

rayiner 3y ago

> Israel launched what it said was a preemptive strike [0] against Egypt So it was just a coincidence that Egypt had massed troops on the border, closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and ejected UN security forces two weeks before that?

DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
There was a build-up of tensions in the lead-up to the war, not just on the Egyptian side, but also on the Israeli side. The Egyptians believed that the Israelis were preparing an invasion of Syria, so the Egyptians moved their own force into the Sinai peninsula, in order to deter Israel. However, the Egyptian force was nowhere near sufficient to launch an invasion of Israel. The closing of the Straits of Tiran was politically significant, but not very economically significant. Only a tiny fraction of Israel's trade went through the straits. The Israelis had been planning a first strike on Egypt for a long time. Whether they actually feared an imminent Egyptian invasion in June 1967 is questionable. The Israeli military was very confident of its superiority over the Arab forces, and it may have simply taken advantage of the situation to land a devastating blow against the Arabs.
- tptacek 3y ago
  The Israelis were not preparing an invasion of Syria. They were led to believe so by the Soviets; the Soviets were wrong. Egypt and Syria thus mobilized unilaterally.