Talk:Israel/Israel and the Occupied Territories-6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Summary of the Six-day war 2 Summary of the Six-day War: Part 2 3 Summary of the Six-day War: Part 3 4 Summary of the Six-day War: Part 4

[edit] Summary of the Six-day war

My proposed changes:

 Egypt ordered United Nations peacekeeping forces to leave the Sinai, and in their
 place, Egyptian tanks and troops were concentrated on the border with Israel.

To:

 Egypt ordered United Nations peacekeeping forces to leave the Sinai, and in their
 place, Egyptian forced were stationed there.

Because Egyptian forces were entrenched in the whole of Sinai. Egypt was preparing for a defensive war and there was no plan to invade Israel. There is already an article about the Six-day War, so every detail can't be written here too. But those facts that are written here, should reflect the truth.

Um, Egypt poured troops into the Sinai in order to prepare for a "defensive war"? And Nasser certainly said he was going to invade Israel. In fact, on May 25th Nasser announced to the Egyptian parliament: "The problem before the Arab countries is not whether the port of Eilat should be blockaded or how to blockade it – but how totally to exterminate the State of Israel for all time." That doesn't sound very defensive to me. Jayjg 03:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not willing to discuss all the aspects of the conflict with you or anyone else here. If you so desire, use my talk page. Here we try to find the best wordings. My argument is that the sentence ending with "... concentrated on the border with Israel." Is factually wrong because Egyptian troops were stationed all over Sinai. Palestine-info 09:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you don't intend to discuss something, then don't bring it up in the first place. Egypt's tanks and troops may have been all over the Sinai, but they were concentrated on the border with Israel. The current wording is factual and accurate. Jayjg 17:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Can you find a source that backs your claim up? The current wording gives the reader the impression that Nasser intended to invade Israel. That is not true:

"... There is a general agreement among commentators that Nasser neither wanted nor planned to go to war with Israel. What he did was to embark on an exercise in brinkmanship that was to carry him over the brink.

Nasser took three steps that were intended to impress Arab public opinion rather than be a conscious prelude to war with Israel. The first step was to send a large number of troops into Sinai. The second was to ask for the removal of the UN Emergency Force from Sinai. The third and most fateful step, taken on 22 May, was to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. For Israel this constituted a casus belli. It canceled the main achievement of the Sinai Campaign." (Avi Shalim, The Iron Wall, p.237)

Palestine-info 08:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're certainly free to state that some believe Nasser was only sabre rattling to appease the Egyptian public, but stating it as fact when he gave every indication that he actually wanted war is going way too far. Jayjg 13:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of the Six-day War: Part 2

My proposed changes:

 In accordance with international law, Israel considered the blockade of 
 its port an act of war, and launched an attack on Egypt, especially the Egyptian
 Air Force.

To:

 Israel considered this a valid pretext for going to war against Egypt.

Have anyone written that the Soviet Union's blockade of East Berlin would have allowed the United States, in accordance with international law, to launch a war? Can someone give me a quotation (and not an interpretation) of the "international law" that says that Israel was allowed to attack Egypt? No, there is no such law. Therefore the incorrect statement should be exchanged with the correct one.

Berlin is not a sea-port. Egypt's actions violated the 1957 declaration of 17 maritime powers at the UN, that stated that Israel had the right of transit through the Straits of Tiran, as well as the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone. Also have a look at this: [1] Jayjg 03:55, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Referring to Israeli government sites does not bolster your case. Law is a matter of interpretation.

I repeat, Egypt's actions violated the 1957 declaration of 17 maritime powers at the UN, that stated that Israel had the right of transit through the Straits of Tiran, as well as the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone. Jayjg 19:37, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What is not agreed upon, is that Israel had a valid pretext for going to war against Egypt. Therefore the article must not say that Israel had a valid pretext for going to war against Egypt. But what is agreed upon, is that Israel claim that it had a valid pretext for going to war against Egypt. Therefore, the latter wording is preferable. See also: [2] Palestine-info 09:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The American president agreed, and Israel warned Egypt years before that a further blockade would be considered as such. Jayjg 17:44, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

True. But that an American president and the Israeli government agrees on something, doesn't mean that the whole world does it. :) All those details that we have discussed should be extensively explained at Six-day war. We cannot afford to waste much space to lengthy explanations here and has to go with brief descriptions. But those brief descriptions must reflect the truth. Palestine-info 08:54, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, you'll have to find a wording that a) notes that many other countries felt the same way as Israel, and b)that it did violate all sorts of International norms, and c) doesn't use the word "pretext", which implies that Israel had a different "real" reason for attacking Egypt. Something with the phrase Casus belli in it. Jayjg 13:03, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of the Six-day War: Part 3

My proposed changes:

 Hostilities came to include Jordan (after Jordan reluctantly chose to dismiss 
 Israeli appeals for neutrality and undertook shelling of Tel Aviv - in adherence
 with the its defence treaty with Egypt), Syria, and the Iraqi air force.

To:

 In response, Egypt activated its defense treaty with Jordan, Syria and 
 Iraq who reluctantly entered the war.

Israel made ONE appeal. And it was more like "stay out of this or suffer the consequences!" than an appeal. Israel knew about the defense treaty and knew Jordan was forced to attack, or its king would most likely have been beheaded. And to explain why Jordan had to enter the war and how it entered it despite Israel's threat requires to much text. Better not mentioning the threat at all. And Jordan shelled East Jerusalem not Tel Aviv, mortars doesn't reach all the way to Tel Aviv you see. No Jordanian troops entered Israeli territory either.

I have a hard time understanding this. How do you know Hussein was going to be beheaded? And why does it make a difference anyway, Jordan still attacked. Jayjg 03:57, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Jordan did fire artillery from the Tul-Kharem area towards Israeli costal cities, as well as shelling of West Jerusalem and later on invading the "Armon HaNatziv" location, all those are clearly non-defenive acts. It doesn't mean why Jordan entered the war, but the simple fact that they did despite Israeli warning to "stay out".

Jayig and anon, what you are debating has nothing to do with the proposed wording. Palestine-info 09:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of course it does, and the questions raised about the new wording have not been answered yet. Jayjg

Then please explain why you prefer the old wording instead of the new one. Palestine-info 08:56, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Because a) Israel appealed to Jordan to stay out of the conflict, b) Jordan started shelling, c) Iraq and Syria certainly did not "reluctantly enter the war", as your wording implies, and d) it's not even clear that Jordan "reluctantly" entered the war; that's just editorializing. Jayjg 13:00, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of the Six-day War: Part 4

My proposed changes:

 populated mostly by Palestinians with some Israeli population

To:

 populated mostly by Palestinians with some Israeli settlers

"some Israeli settlers" is grammatically correct, "some Israeli population" is not.

How about "some Israelis"; parallel usage and avoids controversy. Jayjg 03:57, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Because it is disingenuous. Even (thinking) Israelis acknowledge that they are settlers.

"Settlers" adds nothing but excess verbiage and potential controversy in this case, unless you are simply trying to use the sentence to make a political point. Jayjg 19:40, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Changing "Israeli population" to "Israeli settlers" implies that there is no legitimacy in the Israeli population in the West-Bank area. Under the Mandate entity rule (& under the resolution of the League of Nations - later U.N) - Jews were permitted to inhabit in every place they wanted in Palestine. (remember - the "west bank" did not exist then). Since following the 1948 war Jordan occupied & annexed the West Bank, formerly part of Palestine, an annexation that was not internationaly recognized, (since Jordan had no legitimacy in going passed the Jordan river into Palestine, after living with the Jordan-river as a border since the 1920's) the West-Bank area did not fall under any sovereignity since the british mandate. (again - Jordan unilaterally forced annexation (=soverignity) was an inlegitimate and illegal act according to international law - and thus null and void) and therefore Jews are still permitted to inhabit those areas. Until the area (obviously it will be spilitted for both) is not allocated for the State of Israel and future Palestinian state (which should be in a mutual-agreement, and thus will be also internationaly recognized, although the former is the important one) - Israeli population ( & Palestinian Arab population) is legitmate. -Anon 21:45, 14 Oct 2004 UTC.

"settlers" doesn't imply anything at all. Those persons are generally referred to as settlers, both by themselves and by others. "Israeli settlers" could also be replaced with "Jewish Israeli citizens". Palestine-info 09:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about "Jewish Israelis"? Jayjg 17:42, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I prefer "Jewish Israeli citizens". It need to be emphasized that the territory they live in is not a part of the state that they belong to. Palestine-info 08:58, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And how does adding "citizens" do that? Israelis means they are Israeli citizens, you're just using two words to say the same thing that one does already. Jayjg 12:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)