The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Amr Abozeid Archive
Nasser and the 1967 War
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Gamal Abdel Nasser with pilots at a Sinai airbase along the border with Israel prior to the Six Day War in June 1967
Gamal Abdel Nasser with pilots at a Sinai airbase along the border with Israel prior to the Six Day War in June 1967

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

The June 1967 conflict was launched to destroy Gamal Abdel Nasser and eradicate Arab nationalism. The latter posed a serious threat to Western interests in the middle east. Nasser was not responsible for the outbreak of war and took significant steps to prevent it. He was aware that Egypt was in no position to defeat Israel. The blame lies with Israel, the West and its agents in the Arab world. The Arab defeat in 1967 has allowed Nasser’s enemies and in particular reactionary Islamist movements to discredit the entire Nasserite project in Egypt and the Arab world. This essay aims to help undermine a repulsive ignorance of the Nasser era and the 1967 war by wide segments of the Egyptian population who have been fed copious lies since the beginning of the Camp David period.

Background: The Nasserite threat to Western imperialism

Nasser believed that the Arabs were a single people that had to unite to fend off Western imperialism and the Zionist project. The Arab world had to eradicate all traces of Western imperialism and establish social justice in their countries. This could only be done by eliminating feudalism and nationalizing resources.[1]Salim Yaqub, Containing Arab Nationalism, (USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 32 “By enacting new land reform measures, Egypt had already begun to show the way. The implication was that oil-rich Arab states should now do their part by nationalizing oil installations and sharing the wealth with poor Arabs everywhere.”[2]Ibid.
(Salim Yaqub, Containing Arab Nationalism, (USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 32)
Nasser’s Egypt was also one of the pillars of the Non-aligned movement and advocated “positive neutralism”. These objectives were directly opposed to Western interests. The United States feared that the spread of Nasserism would deny the West access to Middle East oil and strategic positions.

In April 1964 British diplomat and private secretary to Prime Minister Harold Wilson Oliver Wright stated that “We have really only two interests in the Middle East. The first is access on reasonable terms to Middle East oil. The second is overflying rights across the Middle East barrier so that we may get to the other parts of the world where our presence is necessary.”[3]Mark Curtis, Unpeople: Britain’s Secret Human Rights Abuses, (London: Vintage, 2004), 127 In 1947 the British Foreign Office described the Middle East’s oil reserves as “a vital prize for any power interested in world influence or domination”.[4]Ibid.
(Mark Curtis, Unpeople: Britain’s Secret Human Rights Abuses, (London: Vintage, 2004), 127)
The United States aims in the region were similar. Like Truman and successive US administrations president Eisenhower viewed Western fundamental objectives as “maintaining Western access to the region’s oil reserves and strategic positions while denying them to the Soviet Union.”[5]Salim Yaqub, Containing Arab Nationalism, (USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 29

When Eisenhower took office the United States was not dependent on Middle East oil but its NATO allies were. In 1953 NATO countries were receiving 75% of their oil from the Persian Gulf.[6]Ibid., 282
(Salim Yaqub, Containing Arab Nationalism, (USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 29)
The United States, Britain and their conservative Arab client regimes were confronted by what one Foreign Office Official described as the “virus of Arab nationalism”[7]Mark Curtis, Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam, (London: Serpent’s Tail, 2010), 47 led by “the then leader of Third World nationalism” Gamal Abdel Nasser.[8]Mark Curtis, Unpeople, (London: Vintage, 2004), 136 Nasser had “secured widespread popular … support in the Middle East and has a certain popularity in parts of Africa” stated Britain’s Joint Intelligence Committee in 1959.[9]Ibid.
(Mark Curtis, Unpeople, (London: Vintage, 2004), 136)

In July 1958, when the entire Western project in the Middle East was about to collapse in the aftermath of the Iraqi revolution and the forces of Arab nationalism led by Nasser were ascendant, President Eisenhower informed Vice president Nixon that “Since 1945 we have been trying to maintain the opportunity to reach vitally needed petroleum supplies peaceably, without hindrance on the part of anyone” but now Nasser was attempting “to get control of these supplies – to get the income and the power to destroy the Western world.”[10]Salim Yaqub, Containing Arab Nationalism, (USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 228

Just how close Nasser came to defeating the West and the conservative Arab governments is rarely appreciated. The United States and Britain landed troops in Jordan, Lebanon and Libya to shore up their conservative Arab governments.[11]Salim Yaqub, Containing Arab Nationalism, (USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2004). Geoff Simons, Libya: The Struggle for Survival, (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996), 165. Said Aburish, Nasser: The Last Arab, (London: Duckworth, 2004), 170. The latter were terrified they would meet the same fate as Nuri Said and the Hashemites of Iraq.[12]Nuri Said, King Faisal and other members of the royal family were exterminated in the popular revolution of 14 July 1958. “There is little doubt” according to Aburish, “that [Lebanon and Jordan] would have fallen to pro-Nasser forces without the American and British presence. It was reoccupation, a commitment to underpin the states created after the First World War, or to continue to maintain them as indirect colonies.”[13]Said Aburish, Nasser, (London: Duckworth, 2004), 170. The British threatened to march on Baghdad to reverse the revolution of 14 July 1958 (led by Brigadier Abdel Karim Qassem) if Iraq joined the newly formed United Arab Republic led by Nasser. This was probably the real reason Qassem refused to join the UAR.[14]Said Aburish, A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite, (London: Indigo, 1998), 276-277. Said Aburish, Saddam: The Politics of Revenge, (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2000), 42 Had Iraq joined the UAR Nasser would have been handed a tremendous victory. The Conservative Arab regimes would most likely not have survived. Eisenhower was correct when he informed Nixon that “we have a campaign of hatred against us, not by the [Arab] governments but by the people. The people are on Nasser’s side.”[15]Salim Yaqub, Containing Arab Nationalism, (USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 228

Days after the Iraqi revolution US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles informed President Eisenhower: “We must regard Arab nationalism as a flood which is running strongly. We cannot successfully oppose it.”[16]Salim Yaqub, “Imperious Doctrines: US-Arab Relations from Dwight D. Eisenhower to George W. Bush,” Diplomatic History, 26, no.4 (Fall 2002): 578 “Since we are about to get thrown out of the area” said Eisenhower “we might as well believe in Arab nationalism.”[17]Ibid.
(Salim Yaqub, “Imperious Doctrines: US-Arab Relations from Dwight D. Eisenhower to George W. Bush,” Diplomatic History, 26, no.4 (Fall 2002): 578)

Egypt’s deployment of troops to Yemen in 1962 to support the Yemeni revolutionary government was bitterly opposed by the West, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. All of the aforementioned proceeded to arm the reactionary royalist forces fighting the Yemeni government. Speaking of the situation in Yemen UK cabinet secretary and former diplomat Oliver Wright sent foreign secretary Alec Douglas-Home a note in July 1964 in which he stated the following: “I think that we should recognize that Nasser has been able to capture the most dynamic and modern forces in the area while we have been left, by our own choice, backing the forces which are not merely reactionary, but shifty, unreliable and treacherous.”[18]Clive Jones, Britain and the Yemen Civil War, (Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2004), 110

“At his apogee” says David Korn, Nasser “inspired fanatic devotion among Arabs from Morocco to the Persian Gulf, most frequently to the discomfort of their own leaders … Nasser drew nourishment from the shouting, chanting unwashed masses and they idolized him and called him “the beloved of God.””[19]David Korn, Stalemate: The War of Attrition and Great Power Diplomacy in the Middle East, 1967-1970, (Boulder: Westview Press, 1992), 76-77 Nasser’s honest and simple lifestyle endeared him greatly to these masses. US ambassador to Egypt Raymond Hare recalled that Nasser was “clean as a whistle” and described him as “a great family man,” who was “very fond of his children, used to plan his vacations so he could take them to the beach.”[20]Salim Yaqub, Containing Arab Nationalism, (USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 15

Suez

Nasser’s decision to purchase weapons from the Soviet bloc in September 1955 led to a deterioration in his relations with the West. By early 1956 MI6 was working on plans to get rid of Nasser.[21]Douglas Little, “Mission Impossible: The CIA and the Cult of Covert Action in the Middle East,” Diplomatic History, 28, no. 5 (November 2004), 679 The United States was also considering “drastic measures” to overthrow Nasser by the summer of 1956.[22]Ibid.
(Douglas Little, “Mission Impossible: The CIA and the Cult of Covert Action in the Middle East,” Diplomatic History, 28, no. 5 (November 2004), 679)
After Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez canal in July 1956 Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and high ranking British officials began discussing plans for a pro-Western coup in Egypt.[23]Ibid., 680
(Douglas Little, “Mission Impossible: The CIA and the Cult of Covert Action in the Middle East,” Diplomatic History, 28, no. 5 (November 2004), 679)
“Eisenhower and Dulles preferred to bring Nasser down gradually with the help of the CIA and the MI6, while Eden, Lloyd and Macmillan preferred to proceed more swiftly with the help of the Israeli army and the Royal Navy.”[24]Ibid., 681
(Douglas Little, “Mission Impossible: The CIA and the Cult of Covert Action in the Middle East,” Diplomatic History, 28, no. 5 (November 2004), 679)
The United States had no qualms about getting rid of Nasser. It just preferred covert action to eliminate him over direct military force. It feared growing Soviet influence in the region. In September 1956 Eisenhower complained: “I just can’t understand why the British did not bump off Nasser. They have been doing it for years and then when faced with it they fumble.”[25]Ibid., 680
(Douglas Little, “Mission Impossible: The CIA and the Cult of Covert Action in the Middle East,” Diplomatic History, 28, no. 5 (November 2004), 679)
In December 1956 shortly after the Suez War ended Eisenhower wrote to Dulles saying: “While we share in general the British and French opinions of Nasser, we insisted they chose a bad time and incident to launch corrective measures.”[26]Salim Yaqub, “Imperious Doctrines: US-Arab Relations from Dwight D. Eisenhower to George W. Bush,” Diplomatic History, 26, no.4 (Fall 2002), 576 Although US officials did not believe the Soviet Union would follow up on its threat to launch missiles against Britain and France during the Suez War they feared the Soviets would send highly trained volunteers to fight alongside the Egyptians.[27]Salim Yaqub, Containing Arab Nationalism, (USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 64. “The Eisenhower administration believed that both aspects of the Soviet challenge – the growth of Soviet popularity in the Arab world and the potential for Soviet military intervention – could best be addressed by compelling Britain and France to withdraw from Egypt unconditionally.”[28]Ibid.
(Salim Yaqub, Containing Arab Nationalism, (USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 64.)

1967

Nasser regarded himself as a modern day Saladin who would lead a united Arab nation to victory over the modern day crusaders and liberate Palestine from the Zionist entity.[29]Robert Stephens, Nasser: A Political Biography, (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1971), 441. “There was,” says Robert Stephens “however, another side to Nasser’s analogy of the Crusades: it was a less painful way of telling the Arabs that the struggle with Israel would be a long-drawn-out affair. A matter of decades rather than years, it would depend for its success on avoiding premature military adventures and concentrating on a gradual building up of Arab strength through greater unity and the modernization of Arab society. The chief danger Nasser feared was that Israel might try to strike quickly before the Arab world had time to reorganize itself. While not giving up basic claims or rights, the Arabs should avoid a military confrontation with Israel.”[30]Ibid.
(Robert Stephens, Nasser: A Political Biography, (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1971), 441.)

Client regimes of the West like Jordan and Saudi Arabia were also eager to see Egypt embroiled in a premature fight with Israel. Egypt would most assuredly lose the battle at this stage and the threat of Arab nationalism and republicanism would be severely weakened. Beginning in the early 1960s the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian regimes began launching propaganda attacks on Nasser. They claimed Egyptian forces were hiding behind the United Nations Emergency Forces (UNEF) while Israel raided Syria and Jordan and continued to occupy Palestine. This undermined Nasser’s reputation as the leader of the Arab world, something he took very seriously.[31]Robert Stephens, Nasser: A Political Biography, (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1971), 449, 464. Patrick Seale, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989),129 On 17 December 1963 Nasser stated that “he believed Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia were trying to push Egypt in to war with Israel while standing back from the fight themselves. The UAR, he made it plain, was not going to fall in to the trap by embarking on any adventures. It would not let itself be pushed in to a battle with Israel before the attainment of unity among all Arab countries.”[32]Robert Stephens, Nasser: A Political Biography, (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1971), 449

In response to Syrian pressure on Egypt to ask for the withdrawal of UN troops from its territory Nasser stated in a speech on 31 May 1965: “They say ‘drive out UNEF’. Suppose that we do, is it not essential that we have a plan? If Israeli aggression takes place against Syria, shall I attack Israel? Then Israel is the one which determines the battle for me. It hits a tractor or two to force me to move. Is this a wise way? We have to determine the battle. Israel may wish us to enter a war with it now … Is it conceivable that I should attack Israel while there are 50,000 Egyptian troops in Yemen?”[33]Robert Stephens, Nasser: A Political Biography, (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1971), 454. On 14 May 1967 Nasser correctly stated that Israel and Jordan were coordinating “in trying to involve Arab forces in premature battle”[34]Ibid., 470.
(Robert Stephens, Nasser: A Political Biography, (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1971), 454.)
through propaganda attacks.

According to Said K. Aburish Jordan Radio was supported financially by the United States government in 1966 and early 1967 and CIA agent John Fistere “had considerable say over what it broadcast. Obeying the CIA, and with input from the Israelis, Jordan Radio launched bitter attacks on Nasser accusing him of being a paper tiger. According to these broadcasts, Nasser … was advocating a confrontation with Israel while sheltering behind UNEF,”[35]Said Aburish, A Brutal Friendship, (London: Indigo, 1998), 225 the exact opposite of the truth. The same author goes on to add that “the accusation undermined Nasser, forced him to call for UNEF’s withdrawal and paved the way towards the 1967 war.”[36]Ibid.
(Said Aburish, A Brutal Friendship, (London: Indigo, 1998), 225)
Hussein had a long, sordid history of collaboration with the imperial powers and the Zionist entity. He had already been praised by Golda Meir for “displaying real courage”[37]Salim Yaqub, Containing Arab Nationalism, (USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 132 and President Eisenhower for showing “spunk”[38]Ibid., 138
(Salim Yaqub, Containing Arab Nationalism, (USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 132)
when he crushed the popularly elected Nasserite government of Suleiman al-Nabulsi with help from the CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood in 1957.[39]Salim Yaqub, Containing Arab Nationalism, (USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2004). Said Aburish, A Brutal Friendship. On the Muslim Brotherhood see Mark Curtis, Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam, (London: Serpent’s Tail, 2010)

The Israelis and in particular Israeli defense minister Moshe Dayan were well aware that UNEF was there to protect Egypt from Israel and not the other way around. Before the onset of the crisis Dayan wrote: “It is doubtful that any of the other Arab leaders fail to understand that the UN soldiers are on Egyptian soil not to prevent Nasser from harming Israel, but to serve as a fig leaf over his naked weakness and his inability to do so.”[40]Tom Segev, 1967: Israel, the War and the Year that Transformed the Middle East, (London, Little, Brown, 2007), 229 Dayan had previously called for the UN forces to be removed.

In May 1967 the Israeli government issued a series of statements in which it threatened to attack Syria in a far reaching military operation.[41]Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East: A History of Western Disorder in Arab Lands, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 211 On May 12 1967 an Israeli government spokesman stated that Israel may invade and conquer Damascus.[42]Ibid.
(Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East: A History of Western Disorder in Arab Lands, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 211)
The Syrian and Egyptian governments did not require clandestine Soviet intelligence to believe that Israel was about to attack Syria. The Israelis were openly threatening to do so. “By the middle of May [1967] the only question that needed answering was not whether Israel was going to strike but when”.[43]Ibid.
(Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East: A History of Western Disorder in Arab Lands, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 211)
As Segev observes: “The USSR hardly needed an Israeli mole, and Arabs had no need of Soviet Intelligence to calculate that Israel might attack Syria. What one [Israeli] government minister called the “abundance of remarks” by Eshkol, Rabin and other Israeli spokespersons before Independence day left little room for doubt.”[44]Tom Segev, 1967, (London, Little, Brown, 2007), 231

In January 1967 the US ambassador to Syria was ordered to deliver the following warning to Damascus: “We believe Israel is on the brink of an attack and [the Syrians] cannot count on us to hold Israel back.”[45]Ibid., 202
(Tom Segev, 1967, (London, Little, Brown, 2007), 231)
Israel could deploy troops to the Syrian border “in a matter of hours” so “the absence of [Israeli] troop concentrations [along the Syrian border] was not conclusive evidence either way about her intentions towards Syria.”[46]Robert Stephens, Nasser: A Political Biography, (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1971), 469. A secret report by Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev at a plenary session of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party dated 20 June 1967 shows that the Soviets advised the Syrian and Egyptian governments to tone down their war rhetoric. The report also mentioned a letter to Nasser from the Soviet government on May 26 1967 in which the latter “stressed the need to do whatever was necessary to prevent armed conflict with Israel.”[47]Roland Popp, “Stumbling Decidedly into the Six-Day War,” Middle East Journal, 60, no. 2 (Spring 2006), 290 When the war started the Soviet Union refused to supply the Arabs with needed weaponry.[48]Ibid.
(Roland Popp, “Stumbling Decidedly into the Six-Day War,” Middle East Journal, 60, no. 2 (Spring 2006), 290)
During Israel’s war of aggression, on June 9 1967 the CIA’s Board of National Estimates stated that the Soviet government neither “planned nor initiated the Middle Eastern Crisis.”[49]Ibid.
(Roland Popp, “Stumbling Decidedly into the Six-Day War,” Middle East Journal, 60, no. 2 (Spring 2006), 290)
It went on to say that “The Israeli-Arab war and, more specifically, the defeat of the UAR in that war were developments which the USSR did not desire, initially did not foresee and, later, could not forestall. But it is clear that the Soviets were actively involved in the crisis from mid-May on.”[50]Ibid.
(Roland Popp, “Stumbling Decidedly into the Six-Day War,” Middle East Journal, 60, no. 2 (Spring 2006), 290)
The Egyptian and Syrian governments had every right to fear an Israeli attack and attempts to lay the blame for the outbreak of war on the Soviet Union are inspired by anticommunist ideology.

In order to deter Israel from attacking Syria Nasser increased the number of Egyptian troops in the Sinai on May 14th 1967 and on May 16 1967 requested a partial withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) troops that were deployed on the Egyptian side of the armistice line. UN Secretary General U Thant replied “that withdrawal had to be all or nothing.”[51]Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 212 Nasser, “his pride, prestige and standing across the Arab world on the line” was forced to ask for the total withdrawal of UN forces.[52]Ibid.
(Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 212)
The Israeli government refused to station UNEF on its side of the border because it would be seen as a defeat for Israel. If Israel had really believed its own lies about how it was outnumbered and outgunned by the Arabs it would have been glad to receive the UN forces on its side of the border. Instead it saw them as a hindrance to its plans to attack and decimate the Egyptian army.[53]Tom Segev, 1967, (London, Little, Brown, 2007), 227-228. UN Secretary General U Thant proposed that the Egyptian-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission (EIMAC) be reactivated. This proposal “was enthusiastically supported by Nasser … but firmly rejected by Israel.”[54]Norman Finkelstein, “Abba Eban with Footnotes,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 32, no. 3 (Spring 2003), 79 On the 17th of May 1967 Moshe Dayan, then a member of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, stated that Nasser was responding to a number of Israeli moves among which were Israel’s extension of its military service, its downing of 6 Syrian MIG fighter jets in April 1967, its bellicose statements against Syria and the November 1966 attack on the West Bank village of Samu.[55]Tom Segev, 1967, (London, Little, Brown, 2007), 228 According to the head of the Israeli military’s intelligence branch General Aharon Yariv: “Nasser’s [removal of UN forces] is a result of Syrian pressure, and the last straw was the Israeli declaration regarding possible action against Syria if [Fatah] acts of sabotage continue.”[56]Ibid., 228
(Tom Segev, 1967, (London, Little, Brown, 2007), 228)

Nasser threatened to intervene and destroy the Zionist entity if Israel attacked Syria but promised to leave Israel alone if it did not attack.[57]Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 213, 216 He promised Israel “a horrible fate only in the event of its starting a war.”[58]Patrick Seale, Asad of Syria (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989), 131 Again his words and actions were intended to deter Israel from attacking Syria not cause a war. Claims that Nasser’s threats to destroy Israel caused the conflict by forcing Israel to strike preemptively are untrue. The Israeli leadership, in particular the military, were itching for a fight they knew they would win. Behind them stood the United States and the reactionary Arab states. “Nasser” observed Patrick Seale, “knew that war was beyond his means and he did everything in his power to steer the Arabs away from it”[59]Ibid., 121
(Patrick Seale, Asad of Syria (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989), 131)
but he “could not stay out of the crisis. His battered reputation would not have survived: a champion loses his title if he does not enter the lists. He could afford to ignore a Syrian-Israeli border clash but not the threat of war, for if Syria were invaded, Egypt’s own strategic position would be gravely compromised. As Nasser himself put it: ‘Who starts with Syria will finish with Egypt.’”[60]Ibid., 129
(Patrick Seale, Asad of Syria (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989), 131)

Israel was responsible for the ongoing conflict over the demilitarized zones along the Israeli-Syrian border in the months leading up to the war. Israeli bulldozers destroyed Arab villages in the demilitarized zones and deliberately initiated hostilities with Syrian forces.[61]Norman Finkelstein, “Abba Eban with Footnotes,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 32, no. 3 (Spring 2003), 76 Moshe Dayan later stated:

“I know how at least 80 percent of all the incidents there started. In my opinion more than 80 percent, but let’s speak about 80 percent. It would go like this: we would send a tractor to plow … in the demilitarized area, and we would know ahead of time that the Syrians would start shooting. If they did not start shooting, we would inform the tractor to progress farther until the Syrians, in the end, would get nervous and would shoot. And then we would use guns, and later even the air force and that is how it went … We thought that we could change the lines of the cease-fire accords by military actions that were less than a war. That is, to seize some territory and hold it until the enemy despairs and gives it to us.”[62]Norman Finkelstein, “Abba Eban with Footnotes,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 32, no. 3 (Spring 2003), 76-77. Tom Segev, 1967, (London, Little, Brown, 2007), 193

Israel claimed that Syria was responsible for the Fatah attacks that were launched against it in the months leading up to the war but as the head of Israeli military intelligence General Ahron Yariv admitted before the Six Day War Syria backed Palestinian (largely ineffective) commando raids against Israel “because we are bent upon establishing … certain facts along the border.”[63]Norman Finkelstein, “Abba Eban with Footnotes,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 32, no. 3 (Spring 2003), 77 In other words, as Finkelstein asserts, Syria supported raids by dispossessed Palestinians “in retaliation for Israel’s land-grab in the DMZs [demilitarized zones].”[64]Ibid.
(Norman Finkelstein, “Abba Eban with Footnotes,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 32, no. 3 (Spring 2003), 77)
In any case these Palestinian raids can only be applauded. Let us attend once more to Moshe Dayan. When an Israeli was shot and killed by Palestinians from Gaza in April 1956 Dayan spoke thus at his funeral:

“Today, let us not hurl accusations at the murderers. How can we argue with their hatred of us? For eight years they have been living in the refugee camps of Gaza while in front of their very eyes we make our homes on the lands and villages where they and their forefathers lived.”[65]Tom Segev, 1967, (London, Little, Brown, 2007), 233.

Segev observes that: “relations between Syria and Fatah were ambiguous.” In December 1966 an Israeli foreign ministry official reported to the Israeli embassies that Syria was trying to reign in Fatah. “It was acting out of fear of Israeli retaliation, as well as in response to pressure from the Soviet Union … Fatah, wrote the official, still maintained a degree of independence, and it was unclear to what extent the Syrians could exert control.”[66]Ibid., 193-194
(Tom Segev, 1967, (London, Little, Brown, 2007), 233.)

On May 22 1967 Nasser announced that Egypt had closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. In reality Egypt did not close the straits. Days after the announcement ships using the straits were not being searched by the Egyptians.[67]Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 213. Norman Finkelstein, “Abba Eban with Footnotes,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 32, no. 3 (Spring 2003), 79 Beginning in 1957 Israeli ships passing through the straits had lowered their flags and raised the flags of other countries “in a fig-leaf gesture to Egyptian national sensitivities.”[68]Patrick Seale, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989), 132 This was kept secret by both the Egyptian and Israeli governments. In early June 1967, before the outbreak of war, Egyptian diplomats at the UN informed the UN Secretariat that Egypt was prepared to revive this tacit agreement “so long as Israel did not insist on spelling out the terms. In other words, Nasser was signaling that he was ready to compromise on the crucial question of the Straits.”[69]Patrick Seale, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989), 132 Nasser also ordered the Egyptian army not to fire on any vessel accompanied by US warships. The Israeli leadership was aware of this but chose not to publicize the fact.[70]Tom Segev, 1967, (London, Little, Brown, 2007), 242-243 Egypt was also prepared to submit the dispute over the Straits to the International Court of Justice. Israel rejected this.[71]Norman Finkelstein, “Abba Eban with Footnotes,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 32, no. 3 (Spring 2003), 80 Also noteworthy is the fact that Nasser agreed to a diplomatic initiative put forward by U Thant which required appointing a UN representative to mediate the crisis, “and a two week moratorium on all belligerent acts in the straits.” Israel rejected both proposals.[72]Ibid., 79
(Norman Finkelstein, “Abba Eban with Footnotes,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 32, no. 3 (Spring 2003), 80)
As Jeremy Salt observes: “What comes through with great clarity from all the documents is that while Nasser was seeking to avoid open hostilities the Israelis could hardly be held back. They were not interested in a negotiated settlement.”[73]Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 220

The Balance of Forces

The United States government was well aware that the Israeli military had an absolute quantitative and qualitative military advantage over all the Arab armies facing it combined. 280,000 Israeli troops faced 117,000 Arab soldiers, 50,000 of whom were Egyptian according to the CIA.[74]Roland Popp, “Stumbling Decidedly into the Six-Day War,” Middle East Journal, 60, no. 2 (Spring 2006), 299-300 The Israelis had 256 “operationally assigned fighter aircraft” while the combined Arab armies possessed 222.[75]Roland Popp, “Stumbling Decidedly into the Six-Day War,” Middle East Journal, 60, no. 2 (Spring 2006), 299 Israeli forces were better trained, motivated and led than their Arab counterparts. The CIA also stated that the 50,000 Egyptian forces in the Sinai were deployed defensively and did not believe that “the Arabs intend an all out attack on Israel.”[76]Ibid., 300. Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 219
(Roland Popp, “Stumbling Decidedly into the Six-Day War,” Middle East Journal, 60, no. 2 (Spring 2006), 299)
On May 23 1967 the CIA informed President Johnson that “The Judgment of the intelligence community is that Israeli ground forces “can maintain internal security, defend successfully against simultaneous Arab attacks on all fronts, launch limited attacks simultaneously on all fronts, or hold on any three fronts while mounting successfully a major offensive on the fourth.” In the air the judgment is less clear: the Israelis “probably could defeat the Egyptian air force if Israel’s air facilities were not damaged beyond repair.”[77]Roland Popp, “Stumbling Decidedly into the Six-Day War,” Middle East Journal, 60, no. 2 (Spring 2006), 299. Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 218 The CIA also believed that: “the UAR is acting in this crisis essentially to put pressure on Israel short of an attack on Israeli soil.”[78]Ibid., 219.
(Roland Popp, “Stumbling Decidedly into the Six-Day War,” Middle East Journal, 60, no. 2 (Spring 2006), 299. Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 218)

The CIA station chief in Israel John Hadden was confident that Israel would win a war with the Arabs within 6 to 10 days. His assessment of the situation was “prevalent in Washington and accepted by the [US] administration. US analysts gave Israel complete military superiority over every combination of Arab forces, and they assumed this imbalance would hold for at least another five years.”[79]Tom Segev, 1967, (London, Little, Brown, 2007), 253 In a meeting with president Johnson on May 26 1967 the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Wheeler stated that there was no sign that the Egyptians intended to attack Israel.[80]Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 219 On the same day in a meeting with Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban president Johnson informed his guest that in the event of war “You’ll whip the hell out of them.”[81]Tom Segev, 1967,(London, Little, Brown, 2007), 256. Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 220

On May 25 1967 Israeli Prime Minister Eshkol toured the southern front where he met General Sharon who informed him that the Israeli military would crush the Egyptians. “This is a historical opportunity” said Sharon.[82]Tom Segev, 1967,(London, Little, Brown, 2007)., 255 Israeli minister of labor Yigal Allon was also confident the Israeli military would decimate its Arab counterparts. On 2 June 1967 he stated that “There is not the slightest doubt about the outcome of this war and of each of its stages, and we are not forgetting the Jordanian and the Syrian fronts either.”[83]Robert Stephens, Nasser: A Political Biography, (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1971), 486 On 29 May 1967 General Narkiss of the Israeli army’s central command described the Arab armies thus: “They’re a bubble of soap, and with one pin-prick they’ll burst.”[84]Tom Segev, 1967,(London, Little, Brown, 2007), 295 According to Segev Israel’s top military leadership “were like adolescent boys or bulls in rut. They believed in force and they wanted war. War was their destiny.”[85]Ibid.
(Tom Segev, 1967,(London, Little, Brown, 2007), 295)
Menachem Begin, who joined the Israeli cabinet days before the outbreak of war, admitted that: “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.”[86]Norman Finkelstein, “Abba Eban with Footnotes,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 32, no. 3 (Spring 2003), 81

The American Green Light

Israeli expansionist leaders aimed to destroy Nasser and the United States gave them the green light to do so. Although Johnson informed Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban that “Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go it alone” on 26 May 1967 he did not veto any military action by Israel.[87]Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 221-223. Tom Segev, 1967,(London, Little, Brown, 2007), 266 Had Johnson wanted to prevent a war he would have threatened to sanction Israel if it started a war before all diplomatic options were exhausted. He could also have halted the supply of American loans and arms to Israel.[88]Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 223 “At no stage did [Johnson] involve the power and authority of the world’s most powerful country against a government dependent on US aid and presenting a case for war based on obvious untruths and exaggerations.”[89]Ibid.
(Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 223)

Although at this point in time Eshkol disagreed, the head of Israeli military intelligence Ahron Yariv stated on 27 May 1967: “The Americans view a preemptive strike on our part as reasonable, as long as they themselves are not required to take action. They will act only in the case of a defeat of our side.”[90]Tom Segev, 1967,(London, Little, Brown, 2007), 276 After meeting with US Defense Secretary McNamara in early June 1967 the head of Mossad Meir Amit “reported back to Israel that his impression was that the Americans would give their blessing to an Israeli strike “crushing Nasser”… Amit said they might even assist Israel in such a strike.”[91]Ibid., 331
(Tom Segev, 1967,(London, Little, Brown, 2007), 276)
Meir Amit’s report, submitted after he returned from Washington, convinced Eshkol that Israel had been given the green light by the United States.[92]Ibid., 333-334
(Tom Segev, 1967,(London, Little, Brown, 2007), 276)

The head of the superpowers desk at Israeli military intelligence concurred. In late May 1967 he informed his superior Yariv: “we, in Branch 3, have gathered together reports [from the last two days] and opened a file which we named “Greenlight.” These reports prove, that essentially, the Americans have given us a green light to start the war. They do not understand why we are hoping that they would organize an armada that would open up the straits; they do not understand why we are pressing them to get an authorization to launch our offensive. The Americans do not want in any way to be seen as if they are pushing us to war or colluding with us against Egypt … The American assessment is that we will defeat the Egyptians and [the Americans] wonder why we hesitate.”[93]Guy Laron, The Six-Day War: The Breaking of the Middle East, (Great Britain: Yale University Press, 2017), 211-212 The Head of counterespionage at the CIA James Jesus Angleton was particularly enthusiastic about Nasser’s coming defeat. “For the first time in the history of the middle east, there was the possibility of solving the region’s problems, making it less vulnerable to intrigue and extortion, safer for capital investment and development.”[94]Tom Segev, 1967,(London, Little, Brown, 2007), 331. Guy Laron, The Six-Day War, (Great Britain: Yale University Press, 2017), 303 President Johnson’s national security adviser Walt Rostow sent the president a memo on June 4 1967 in which he argued that “Just beneath the surface is the potentiality for a new phase in the Middle East of moderation; a focusing on economic development; regional collaboration; and an acceptance of Israel as part of the Middle East … But all of this depends on Nasser’s being cut down to size.”[95]Ibid.
(Tom Segev, 1967,(London, Little, Brown, 2007), 331. Guy Laron, The Six-Day War, (Great Britain: Yale University Press, 2017), 303)

Nasser and Amer

Given the balance of forces Israel’s victory was unsurprising but the incompetence and corruption of the Egyptian armed forces under Abdel Hakim Amer contributed greatly to Egypt’s defeat. Nasser and Amer were involved in a power struggle years before the 1967 war. The latter was “more the leader of a gang than a commander-in-chief” and he proceeded to sideline competent officers in favor of his own corrupt cronies.[96]Ibid., 67
(Tom Segev, 1967,(London, Little, Brown, 2007), 331. Guy Laron, The Six-Day War, (Great Britain: Yale University Press, 2017), 303)
“Publicly” says Korn, “Nasser and Amer were the truest of friends, but behind this façade of harmony lurked an intense rivalry known to only a few Egyptians and unsuspected by foreigners.”[97]David Korn, Stalemate, (Boulder: Westview Press, 1992), 79 In the aftermath of the Suez war Nasser demanded that Amer remove incompetent officers from their positions. Amer refused.[98]Guy Laron, The Six-Day War, (Great Britain: Yale University Press, 2017), 67. Nasser tried to get rid of Amer in 1961 after Syria’s secession from the United Arab Republic but failed. Amer “was not going anywhere.

In the struggle that ensued between September 1961 and December 1962, Nasser discovered he was no longer Egypt’s strongman. In January 1962, his intelligence agency uncovered a plot by pro-Amer officers to launch a coup against Nasser if he tried to remove Amer. The president decided to bide his time and wait for a better opportunity. Meanwhile he complained to his associates that the military had become a state within a state.”[99]Ibid.
(Guy Laron, The Six-Day War, (Great Britain: Yale University Press, 2017), 67.)
In November 1962 Nasser tried to get rid of Amer once more. He created a presidential council in order to gain control over military promotions and transfers. Amer responded with a letter of resignation that was leaked to army units on 1 December 1962. The letter called for free elections and democracy “as if this were the cause of conflict between him and Nasser.”[100]Ibid.
(Guy Laron, The Six-Day War, (Great Britain: Yale University Press, 2017), 67.)
Amer’s troops arrived at Nasser’s residence and a senior commander warned that if the air force, which was loyal to Nasser, intervened he would destroy the president’s house.[101]Ibid., 67-68
(Guy Laron, The Six-Day War, (Great Britain: Yale University Press, 2017), 67.)
On December 11 1962 Nasser and Amer met face to face for a 9 hour meeting. “The outcome, however, was a foregone conclusion. Nasser had only theatrics on his side; Amer had the army.” Amer’s control over the army was secured and he was appointed vice president as well as deputy supreme commander. “Amer had successfully concluded a silent coup.”[102]Ibid.
(Guy Laron, The Six-Day War, (Great Britain: Yale University Press, 2017), 67.)
According to Korn: Amer “took exclusive control of the armed forces and their budgets and even dictated such matters as the number of soldiers to be assigned to the presidential guard.”[103]David Korn, Stalemate, (Boulder: Westview Press, 1992), 79

Amer’s continued control over the armed forces ensured that Egypt was poorly prepared to meet the Israeli challenge in June 1967. When he was finally deposed and executed in the aftermath of the war Egyptian military performance improved markedly. This was particularly evident during the War of Attrition. The war in Yemen also contributed to the Egyptian army’s weakness in Sinai. In 1965 70,000 Egyptian troops, almost half the army, were stationed in Yemen.[104]Guy Laron, The Six-Day War, (Great Britain: Yale University Press, 2017), 59

Aftermath

On 9 June 1967 Nasser accepted full responsibility for the defeat and announced his resignation. Hundreds of thousands filled the streets of Egypt demanding that he rescind his resignation. Nasser agreed. His detractors like to claim the demonstrations were organized by Ali Sabri and the Arab Socialist Union. The demonstrations were unquestionably genuine because Nasser was genuinely popular. They erupted throughout the Arab world and not just in Egypt.[105]Said Aburish, Nasser, 269 As Korn observes: “The enormous outpouring of public grief on the evening of 9 Jun 1967 and the pleas for [Nasser] to stay were unquestionably spontaneous and genuine.”[106]David Korn, Stalemate, (Boulder: Westview Press, 1992), 77 Jeremy Salt describes the demonstrations in support of Nasser as “the most extraordinary… in Egypt’s modern history.”[107]Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 233

Conclusion

Nasser’s enemies like to claim that his popularity and fame are based on lies, fabrications and propaganda yet this is not the case. Nasser broke the Western monopoly on arms in the Middle East in 1955 by purchasing weapons from the Soviet bloc. Under his rule the Egyptian economy witnessed substantial economic growth and wealth redistribution. Robert Stephens observes that “it was primarily on acts not words that Nasser built his Arab reputation: other Arab leaders had radio stations, and some were better speakers. Nasser’s main asset was not the ‘Voice of the Arabs’ but the economic and social reforms in Egypt, the Soviet arms deal, the nationalizing of the Suez Canal Company, the building of the High Dam and the union with Syria.”[108]Robert Stephens, Nasser: A Political Biography, (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1971), 562

Nasser is often portrayed as a paranoid fanatic by western bourgeois historians. It is as if one could match the fanaticism of American politicians like John Foster Dulles who saw an international communist conspiracy behind every disturbance in the Third World or at least pretended to. The evidence clearly demonstrates that Nasser was in no way paranoid or using “imperialist bogeymen” to frighten his people. Rather the threat of imperialism was very real and remains so today. Soviet leader Brezhnev quite accurately described the 1967 war to his colleagues in the Central Committee as “an attempt by American-led Western imperialism to suppress progressive Arab regimes which had taken the path to socio-political transformation.”[109]Roland Popp, “Stumbling Decidedly into the Six-Day War,” Middle East Journal, 60, no. 2 (Spring 2006), 292 The conflict in the Middle East was never between the Arabs on one hand and Israel on the other. It was and remains between those Arabs who chose the path of dignity and independence from western hegemony and imperialism on the one hand and Israel, the West and its Arab agents on the other.

Notes

[1] Salim Yaqub, Containing Arab Nationalism, (USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 32

[2] Ibid.

[3] Mark Curtis, Unpeople: Britain’s Secret Human Rights Abuses, (London: Vintage, 2004), 127

[4] Ibid.

[5] Salim Yaqub, Containing Arab Nationalism, (USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 29

[6] Ibid., 282

[7] Mark Curtis, Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam, (London: Serpent’s Tail, 2010), 47

[8] Mark Curtis, Unpeople, (London: Vintage, 2004), 136

[9] Ibid.

[10] Salim Yaqub, Containing Arab Nationalism, (USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 228

[11] Salim Yaqub, Containing Arab Nationalism, (USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2004). Geoff Simons, Libya: The Struggle for Survival, (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996), 165. Said Aburish, Nasser: The Last Arab, (London: Duckworth, 2004), 170.

[12] Nuri Said, King Faisal and other members of the royal family were exterminated in the popular revolution of 14 July 1958.

[13] Said Aburish, Nasser, (London: Duckworth, 2004), 170.

[14] Said Aburish, A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite, (London: Indigo, 1998), 276-277. Said Aburish, Saddam: The Politics of Revenge, (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2000), 42

[15] Salim Yaqub, Containing Arab Nationalism, (USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 228

[16] Salim Yaqub, “Imperious Doctrines: US-Arab Relations from Dwight D. Eisenhower to George W. Bush,” Diplomatic History, 26, no.4 (Fall 2002): 578

[17] Ibid.

[18] Clive Jones, Britain and the Yemen Civil War, (Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2004), 110

[19] David Korn, Stalemate: The War of Attrition and Great Power Diplomacy in the Middle East, 1967-1970, (Boulder: Westview Press, 1992), 76-77

[20] Salim Yaqub, Containing Arab Nationalism, (USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 15

[21] Douglas Little, “Mission Impossible: The CIA and the Cult of Covert Action in the Middle East,” Diplomatic History, 28, no. 5 (November 2004), 679

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid., 680

[24] Ibid., 681

[25] Ibid., 680

[26] Salim Yaqub, “Imperious Doctrines: US-Arab Relations from Dwight D. Eisenhower to George W. Bush,” Diplomatic History, 26, no.4 (Fall 2002), 576

[27] Salim Yaqub, Containing Arab Nationalism, (USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 64.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Robert Stephens, Nasser: A Political Biography, (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1971), 441.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Robert Stephens, Nasser: A Political Biography, (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1971), 449, 464. Patrick Seale, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989),129

[32] Robert Stephens, Nasser: A Political Biography, (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1971), 449

[33] Robert Stephens, Nasser: A Political Biography, (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1971), 454.

[34] Ibid., 470.

[35] Said Aburish, A Brutal Friendship, (London: Indigo, 1998), 225

[36] Ibid.

[37] Salim Yaqub, Containing Arab Nationalism, (USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 132

[38] Ibid., 138

[39] Salim Yaqub, Containing Arab Nationalism, (USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2004). Said Aburish, A Brutal Friendship. On the Muslim Brotherhood see Mark Curtis, Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam, (London: Serpent’s Tail, 2010)

[40] Tom Segev, 1967: Israel, the War and the Year that Transformed the Middle East, (London, Little, Brown, 2007), 229

[41] Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East: A History of Western Disorder in Arab Lands, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 211

[42] Ibid.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Tom Segev, 1967, (London, Little, Brown, 2007), 231

[45] Ibid., 202

[46] Robert Stephens, Nasser: A Political Biography, (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1971), 469.

[47] Roland Popp, “Stumbling Decidedly into the Six-Day War,” Middle East Journal, 60, no. 2 (Spring 2006), 290

[48] Ibid.

[49] Ibid.

[50] Ibid.

[51] Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 212

[52] Ibid.

[53] Tom Segev, 1967, (London, Little, Brown, 2007), 227-228.

[54] Norman Finkelstein, “Abba Eban with Footnotes,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 32, no. 3 (Spring 2003), 79

[55] Tom Segev, 1967, (London, Little, Brown, 2007), 228

[56] Ibid., 228

[57] Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 213, 216

[58] Patrick Seale, Asad of Syria (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989), 131

[59] Ibid., 121

[60] Ibid., 129

[61] Norman Finkelstein, “Abba Eban with Footnotes,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 32, no. 3 (Spring 2003), 76

[62] Norman Finkelstein, “Abba Eban with Footnotes,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 32, no. 3 (Spring 2003), 76-77. Tom Segev, 1967, (London, Little, Brown, 2007), 193

[63] Norman Finkelstein, “Abba Eban with Footnotes,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 32, no. 3 (Spring 2003), 77

[64] Ibid.

[65] Tom Segev, 1967, (London, Little, Brown, 2007), 233.

[66] Ibid., 193-194

[67] Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 213. Norman Finkelstein, “Abba Eban with Footnotes,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 32, no. 3 (Spring 2003), 79

[68] Patrick Seale, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989), 132

[69] Patrick Seale, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989), 132

[70] Tom Segev, 1967, (London, Little, Brown, 2007), 242-243

[71] Norman Finkelstein, “Abba Eban with Footnotes,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 32, no. 3 (Spring 2003), 80

[72] Ibid., 79

[73] Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 220

[74] Roland Popp, “Stumbling Decidedly into the Six-Day War,” Middle East Journal, 60, no. 2 (Spring 2006), 299-300

[75] Roland Popp, “Stumbling Decidedly into the Six-Day War,” Middle East Journal, 60, no. 2 (Spring 2006), 299

[76] Ibid., 300. Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 219

[77] Roland Popp, “Stumbling Decidedly into the Six-Day War,” Middle East Journal, 60, no. 2 (Spring 2006), 299. Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 218

[78] Ibid., 219.

[79] Tom Segev, 1967, (London, Little, Brown, 2007), 253

[80] Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 219

[81] Tom Segev, 1967,(London, Little, Brown, 2007), 256. Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 220

[82] Tom Segev, 1967,(London, Little, Brown, 2007)., 255

[83] Robert Stephens, Nasser: A Political Biography, (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1971), 486

[84] Tom Segev, 1967,(London, Little, Brown, 2007), 295

[85] Ibid.

[86] Norman Finkelstein, “Abba Eban with Footnotes,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 32, no. 3 (Spring 2003), 81

[87] Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 221-223. Tom Segev, 1967,(London, Little, Brown, 2007), 266

[88] Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 223

[89] Ibid.

[90] Tom Segev, 1967,(London, Little, Brown, 2007), 276

[91] Ibid., 331

[92] Ibid., 333-334

[93] Guy Laron, The Six-Day War: The Breaking of the Middle East, (Great Britain: Yale University Press, 2017), 211-212

[94] Tom Segev, 1967,(London, Little, Brown, 2007), 331. Guy Laron, The Six-Day War, (Great Britain: Yale University Press, 2017), 303

[95] Ibid.

[96] Ibid., 67

[97] David Korn, Stalemate, (Boulder: Westview Press, 1992), 79

[98] Guy Laron, The Six-Day War, (Great Britain: Yale University Press, 2017), 67.

[99] Ibid.

[100] Ibid.

[101] Ibid., 67-68

[102] Ibid.

[103] David Korn, Stalemate, (Boulder: Westview Press, 1992), 79

[104] Guy Laron, The Six-Day War, (Great Britain: Yale University Press, 2017), 59

[105] Said Aburish, Nasser, 269

[106] David Korn, Stalemate, (Boulder: Westview Press, 1992), 77

[107] Jeremy Salt, The Unmaking of the Middle East, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008), 233

[108] Robert Stephens, Nasser: A Political Biography, (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1971), 562

[109] Roland Popp, “Stumbling Decidedly into the Six-Day War,” Middle East Journal, 60, no. 2 (Spring 2006), 292

 
• Category: History • Tags: Egypt, Israel, Six Day War 
Hide 100 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    This,

    The Israelis and in particular Israeli defense minister Moshe Dayan were well aware that UNEF was there to protect Egypt from Israel and not the other way around.

    contradicts this,

    In order to deter Israel from attacking Syria Nasser increased the number of Egyptian troops in the Sinai on May 14th 1967 and on May 16 1967 requested a partial withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) troops that were deployed on the Egyptian side of the armistice line.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Not necessarily.
    , @ohmy
    Not really. Nasser was buying for time and, trying to placate Israel, 1st by trying to have UNEF move to the Israeli side of the border, when Israel refused to agree to that Nasser asked UNEF to remove 50% of their force. This plan was rejected by UNEF which said 100% remain or nothing. Nasser had been outfoxed. The deck was stacked against him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. @Dave Pinsen
    This,

    The Israelis and in particular Israeli defense minister Moshe Dayan were well aware that UNEF was there to protect Egypt from Israel and not the other way around.
     
    contradicts this,

    In order to deter Israel from attacking Syria Nasser increased the number of Egyptian troops in the Sinai on May 14th 1967 and on May 16 1967 requested a partial withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) troops that were deployed on the Egyptian side of the armistice line.
     

    Not necessarily.

    Read More
    • Agree: RobinG, byrresheim
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    The conflict in the Middle East was never between the Arabs on one hand and Israel on the other. It was and remains between those Arabs who chose the path of dignity and independence from western hegemony and imperialism on the one hand and Israel, the West and its Arab agents on the other.

    To an extent yes. But in a way, Nasser failed because he also thought hegemonically.

    While we can understand his pan-Arabism, he should have just focused on Egypt. His playing the role of Leader of the Arab World needlessly embroiled tensions. It’s like Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavicism both brought upon WWI. Germans should have minded their own business. Russians too. But Germans sided with Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Russia played the role of defender of Slavs everywhere. Bad idea.

    By playing the Pan-Arab game, Nasser got one part of the Arab world overly enthused about him and another part of the Arab world overly hostile to him. One thing for sure, the Egypt-Syria unity didn’t last long. Pan-Arabism was as ludicrous as Pan-Latin-Americanism of Simon Bolivar. Though all Arabs share something in common, there is a great deal of diversity among them along racial, regional, and cultural lines. The Arabic language and Islam are the only things they have in common. Nasser’s secularism was bound to be divisive. He won over modernizers but alienated religious Arabs(just like secularist line of Gandhi pissed off many Hindus). Likewise, even though all Hispanic Latin-American regions have something in common, they also developed different demographics, narratives, and systems. One unified Latin American polity wasn’t possible.

    Hussein later made the same problem. He should have kept it strictly nationalist. He should not have attacked Iran. That war made him into client state of the West that used his regime in the most cynical manner. After that war, he should learned his lesson and focused on building his own nation. But he got cocky from ‘victory’ and took Kuwait(possibly baited by the US). He fell into a trap. He could have avoided all of that by sticking with nationalism than hegemonism.

    Same with Gaddafi. He would have done so much better by just focusing on Libya. But his megalomania made him posture as champion of Africa and all the peoples/nations at war with the West. He wasted so much time and energy on this nonsense. He made too many enemies over the years. So, despite his peace-deal with the West, he was taken out when the opportunity arose, not least because he floated a neo-hegemonic idea of creating an African currency.

    Lesson: Keep it nationalist. Avoid hegemonism and megalomania. Sukarno messed up too because, at one point, he made war on the creation of Malaysia. He wasted so much good will by cooking up hare-brained scheme to ‘unite’ the two nations together.

    https://thediplomat.com/2016/09/the-war-that-gave-birth-to-asean/

    The problem is complicated because there was always more than one kind of imperialism. Because the West became SO predominant around the world, we tend to see the past in terms of Western Imperialism vs non-Western Subjects. But local/regional imperialism in the non-West was common before, during, and after Western Imperialism. Indeed, what we know of as modern nationalism hardly existed in the non-Western world. When the West left, there were so many local wars because regional imperialist ambitions(that had been suppressed by Western Imperialism) re-emerged. Consider the war between Vietnam and Cambodia, in which China also got involved.

    When the West left the Middle East, the best way would have been for nationalism for every newly made nation. In many ways, Nasser was an admirable man, but his neo-hegemonic way was unfortunate. Instead of focusing his energies on Egypt, his own nation, he wasted too much energy on thinking (too) big. This template spread to Iraq and Libya as well. Partly to Iran but it was limited because it’s Shia brand of Islam had limited appeal to Middle East that is mostly Sunni. Also, Iranians are Farsi.

    I wager Hussein and Gaddafi could still be in power if they had kept it nationalist and stopped acting too big for their britches. And now Saudis are acting foolish by getting involved in Syria and Yemen. And what a mess that moron Erdogan made by trying to be the new Nasser, the grand poobah of Muslims everywhere.
    And Israel too. Zionists decided to mess up the entire Middle East and increase tensions with Iran. Even swallow up West Bank. Thanks to the backing of the US, Israel has been far more successful in its sinister ambitions. But if Israel keeps up with this neo-imperialism and creates more havoc in the region, it can boomerang big time in the long run.

    Keep it nationalist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Main article: I think Nasser's big mistake was that he grossly got wrong the effect that his rhetoric and military maneuvers would have on his opponent, whose collective generational leadership at the time survived the greatest genocide in modern history and probably had its fair share of members with what would now be diagnosed as PTSD. He expected that it would cow them into being more reasonable. Instead, he got a preemptive attack that would end up being an even bigger debacle for the Arabs than 1948. As for the article, this isn't really my specialty area, so I'll just stick to saying that I agree with some things (Nasser was genuinely popular) and disagree with others (the United States did not have that kind of control over Israel, then or now).

    What I wish the author got into more was the long-term effect that the Six-Day War would have on Egyptian politics. One big one was the rise of Islam as a political force after Nasser had suppressed it for decades. Though it would become more apparent in the 1970s after Sadat's Corrective Revolution and Egypt flipping to the US camp in the Cold War, the genesis of that was 1967-Nasser needed a new basis of support, no matter how personally popular with the masses he was.

    Anon:

    I agree that Saddam made some highly questionable PR moves in the late 1990s and early 2000s that, while not excusing IRAQI FREEDOM in the slightest, certainly did not help his own case in the hothouse that was Washington in 2002. But, really, Gaddafi's only mistake was trusting us to keep our word, and also thinking that the "human rights" crowd had the ability to be persuaded by mere logical arguments about Europe getting flooded with African refugees. Gaddafi wasn't stupid: he'd lost kids at the hands of Reagan in 1986 and knew that the US could strike out painfully when annoyed. George W. Bush was clear: you give up the nuke program, we'll leave your regime alone. And whatever Dubya's other (legion) faults, he kept his word on Libya. But Obama allowed himself to be pressured into making what proved to be a disastrous foreign policy move for the United States by Hillary Clinton and others who failed to learn anything from previous interventions, especially in Iraq. If Iraq didn't explicitly signal that the US wasn't to be trusted to Iran, North Korea, and all the rest, Libya certainly nailed that lesson home.

    (Not to mention Libya becoming far worse in terms of "human rights", contrary to pretty much everything the triumphalist rhetoric incessantly parroted by our media about the Arab Spring implied would happen. Say what you will about Gaddafi, no slave auctions when he was in power.)

    , @Momus

    I wager Hussein and Gaddafi could still be in power if they had kept it nationalist and stopped acting too big for their britches. And now Saudis are acting foolish by getting involved in Syria and Yemen. And what a mess that moron Erdogan made by trying to be the new Nasser, the grand poobah of Muslims everywhere.
    And Israel too. Zionists decided to mess up the entire Middle East and increase tensions with Iran. Even swallow up West Bank. Thanks to the backing of the US, Israel has been far more successful in its sinister ambitions. But if Israel keeps up with this neo-imperialism and creates more havoc in the region, it can boomerang big time in the long run.

    Keep it nationalist.
     

    Iran is the country in the region with imperialist ambition, not Israel.

    Why would Israel want more unruly Arabs to babysit?

    , @Sean

    Germans should have minded their own business.
     
    They did just that in 1905 when Russia was in chaos, Britain had a tiny army and Germany could have won a war against France, thereby making it a European hegemon. The Kaiser really should have been shot for not fighting in 1905 when there was such a prospect. Israel should get the US to attack Iran and expel the west Bank Arabs. The Jewish state is the Prussia of the Middle East, subsidized into inertia and waiting too long to strike.
    , @UncommonGround
    Keep it nationalist? What happened to Congo and Lumumba? What is happening to Venezuela? What happened to Nicaragua? What happened to Chile and Allende?
    , @peterAUS
    Good post.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Druid says:

    I don’t see a contradiction

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. ” As Jeremy Salt observes: “What comes through with great clarity from all the documents is that while Nasser was seeking to avoid open hostilities the Israelis could hardly be held back. They were not interested in a negotiated settlement.”[73] ”

    Correct.
    The ideas of Jabotinski of 1923 still exist even today, it seems.
    Something like ‘force is our ethic, we have no other ethic’.
    Uri Avnery agrees: force is the only language zionists understand.
    The Khazar genes ?
    Kevin Alan Brook, ‘The Jews of Khazaria’, Northvale NJ, 1999

    Read More
    • Replies: @Momus

    ” As Jeremy Salt observes: “What comes through with great clarity from all the documents is that while Nasser was seeking to avoid open hostilities the Israelis could hardly be held back. They were not interested in a negotiated settlement.”[73] ”

    Correct.
    The ideas of Jabotinski of 1923 still exist even today, it seems.
    Something like ‘force is our ethic, we have no other ethic’.
    Uri Avnery agrees: force is the only language zionists understand.
    The Khazar genes ?
    Kevin Alan Brook, ‘The Jews of Khazaria’, Northvale NJ, 1999

     

    They play both games and play it well don't they?
    , @Sam Shama
    Nasser's overarching, long-term goal was to destroy Israel, upon achieving Arab unity under his command. He failed on all fronts. I'm reduced to tears.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Let us remember that it was MacMillion and the Israeli president who wanted to invade Egypt and Eisenhower colluded with Nasser in preventing them from doing so.

    Odd, considering that the Zionists nearly went to war against the Brits when it was a Palestine was a British Protectorate less than a decade earlier.

    It has to be said that Yankee/Irish-Catholic influence over congress and the lobbies of the 1950′s has waned considerably. Nowadays an overgrown Sikh cheerleader can withdraw the US from the UN Human Rights Commission because of scrutiny but there was a time when the Irish-Catholics and Ivy League WASPS (Sometimes from German families like Eisenhower) did not care a whit about the Zio interests.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man
    Those were the days my friend
    We thought they'd never end
    We'd sing and dance forever and a day
    We'd live the life we choose
    We'd fight and never lose
    For we were young and sure to have our way
    La la la la la la
    La la la la la la
    La la la la La la la la la la



    The Anglo Saxon Empire has been conquered by the Kazars without even a shot!
    , @nebulafox
    It'd be the 1970s when the Israeli-American alliance really solidified. The formative work on the Israeli nuclear program in previous decades at Dimona was done with the assistance of the French, from what I recall. By the time the bomb project was complete in the late 1960s, there was really nothing the US-just coming around to a closer relationship with Israel-could do about it. I seem to recall that the "you don't test, we don't ask questions" arrangement came about in the early days of the Nixon Administration, though I could be wrong.

    Ironically, none of the three Presidents of the United States in the 1970s would have ever endorsed the kind of Israel worship that has ended up being reality in Washington, and all three expected to be able to enforce some kind of overall solution with a proviso for the Palestinians by the end of the decade-or the early 1980s, in the case of Jimmy Carter. The essential idea was "Support and we'll ally with you against any mass Soviet-backed attack, but no blank checks, and we get cooperation in peace talks in return." Yet... well, history has a funny way of evolving not according to plan. Going forward, however, the Israel mania that animated the post-Six Day War generation of American Jews definitely does not seem to be the case with native born (non-Soviet background) Millennial Jews. Even though Israel is the liberal democracy of the region, it is also unapologetically nationalist in a way that the alt-right might condone, so...

    (Matter of fact, with the exception of Dubya, our Presidents have tended to be far less Israel-philic than Congress, and up until recently, the American people as a whole. I know the AIPAC crowd made a big deal about Obama, and he certainly was far more explicit about his frustration and occasional disdain than his predecessors, but it wasn't as if Reagan or Clinton were always big fans of their Israeli counterparts. And of course, the proto-neocon revolt in the GOP of 1992 was caused in no small part because of what Bush I did in Madrid.)

    , @anonymous
    Jeff Stryker says:

    "It has to be said that Yankee/Irish-Catholic influence over congress and the lobbies of the 1950′s has waned considerably. Nowadays an overgrown Sikh cheerleader can withdraw the US from the UN Human Rights Commission because of scrutiny but there was a time when the Irish-Catholics and Ivy League WASPS (Sometimes from German families like Eisenhower) did not care a whit about the Zio interests."

    I respond:

    That was a long, long time ago - the United States was a completely different country, different society - might as well compare that to Southerners in 1960s fondly remembering the Confederate South when it was....

    "Gone with the Wind".

    In Eikes WASP, Irish Catholic 1950s, pre 1967 there were strict laws against pornography, there was a Catholic Legion of Decency and the Hayes Code Bob and Laura Pettrie a married couple couldn't even be filmed in single bed.

    Communists in academia and Hollywood were on the defensive afraid they might lose their jobs, now it's completely reversed.

    We're an occupied country now - we are dispossessed and persecuted. I'm considering trying to get some minimum wage job at Starbucks, hiding my politics and religion and getting some type of health care as I can't afford private health care to pay for all the Obama voters in my Zip code getting everything for free.

    If I was in my 20s I would try to immigrate to Poland, Hungary or Russia. I root for Eastern European national teams in World Cup soccer and the Olympics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. In my understanding, in 1954-5, Nasser first turned to the US for arms. It was Secretary of State John Foster Dulles who somehow forced him to turn to the Soviets, by making it a condition that Nasser enter a formal alliance with the United States. That was unacceptable to Nasser, and would not be understandable by his people. Although ideologically anti-communist, Nasser was compelled to accept the competing offer from the Soviets, which was generous and theoretically unconditional.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    I don't know if that's true or not, but I'd believe it. What I do know is that the Russians just don't do unconditional help (who does?), then or now. The Egyptians learned this the hard way.

    By the early 1970s, the Soviet presence in Egypt was distinctly unpopular to the point that once Sadat took care of a few particularly prominent pro-Soviet Nasserite figures in the Corrective Revolution (one was Gomaa, the secret police chief), when he expelled them in 1972, there was no serious push-back in the government. This was even when he was planning for Operation Badr the next year.

    Of course, you could say that things have since reversed once more. Putin being welcomed in Cairo in 2014 much like Nixon was in 1974 shows how much history has a sense of irony.

    , @RobinG
    There was another factor. IDK what came first (arms or water) but after the US refused to help Egypt build the Aswan High Dam, they turned to the Soviets.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Kirt says:

    This doesn’t quite work as a whitewash of Nasser. Basically he had the ambition of being ruler of the Arab world and tried to implement it by relentless interference in the affairs of other countries, even sending 50,000 troops to fight in Yemen. He thought he could play with the big boys and beat them at their own game only to find out they were badder and smarter than he was. I don’t endorse American or Israeli imperialism, but I also don’t sympathize with Che Guevara or Yasser Arafat.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Z-man says:
    @Jeff Stryker
    Let us remember that it was MacMillion and the Israeli president who wanted to invade Egypt and Eisenhower colluded with Nasser in preventing them from doing so.

    Odd, considering that the Zionists nearly went to war against the Brits when it was a Palestine was a British Protectorate less than a decade earlier.

    It has to be said that Yankee/Irish-Catholic influence over congress and the lobbies of the 1950's has waned considerably. Nowadays an overgrown Sikh cheerleader can withdraw the US from the UN Human Rights Commission because of scrutiny but there was a time when the Irish-Catholics and Ivy League WASPS (Sometimes from German families like Eisenhower) did not care a whit about the Zio interests.

    Those were the days my friend
    We thought they’d never end
    We’d sing and dance forever and a day
    We’d live the life we choose
    We’d fight and never lose
    For we were young and sure to have our way
    La la la la la la
    La la la la la la
    La la la la La la la la la la

    The Anglo Saxon Empire has been conquered by the Kazars without even a shot!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    That is so because Oliver Cromwell took the logic of the Judaizing heresy that was Anglo-Saxon Puritanism to its logical political and cultural staging point and made alliance with Jews. Jews became partners of WASP Empire at that point. Therefore, what we have today is best understood as the Junior partners swapping places with the Senior partners.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Momus says:
    @jilles dykstra
    " As Jeremy Salt observes: “What comes through with great clarity from all the documents is that while Nasser was seeking to avoid open hostilities the Israelis could hardly be held back. They were not interested in a negotiated settlement.”[73] "

    Correct.
    The ideas of Jabotinski of 1923 still exist even today, it seems.
    Something like 'force is our ethic, we have no other ethic'.
    Uri Avnery agrees: force is the only language zionists understand.
    The Khazar genes ?
    Kevin Alan Brook, 'The Jews of Khazaria', Northvale NJ, 1999

    ” As Jeremy Salt observes: “What comes through with great clarity from all the documents is that while Nasser was seeking to avoid open hostilities the Israelis could hardly be held back. They were not interested in a negotiated settlement.”[73] ”

    Correct.
    The ideas of Jabotinski of 1923 still exist even today, it seems.
    Something like ‘force is our ethic, we have no other ethic’.
    Uri Avnery agrees: force is the only language zionists understand.
    The Khazar genes ?
    Kevin Alan Brook, ‘The Jews of Khazaria’, Northvale NJ, 1999

    They play both games and play it well don’t they?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. nebulafox says:
    @Anon
    The conflict in the Middle East was never between the Arabs on one hand and Israel on the other. It was and remains between those Arabs who chose the path of dignity and independence from western hegemony and imperialism on the one hand and Israel, the West and its Arab agents on the other.

    To an extent yes. But in a way, Nasser failed because he also thought hegemonically.

    While we can understand his pan-Arabism, he should have just focused on Egypt. His playing the role of Leader of the Arab World needlessly embroiled tensions. It's like Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavicism both brought upon WWI. Germans should have minded their own business. Russians too. But Germans sided with Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Russia played the role of defender of Slavs everywhere. Bad idea.

    By playing the Pan-Arab game, Nasser got one part of the Arab world overly enthused about him and another part of the Arab world overly hostile to him. One thing for sure, the Egypt-Syria unity didn't last long. Pan-Arabism was as ludicrous as Pan-Latin-Americanism of Simon Bolivar. Though all Arabs share something in common, there is a great deal of diversity among them along racial, regional, and cultural lines. The Arabic language and Islam are the only things they have in common. Nasser's secularism was bound to be divisive. He won over modernizers but alienated religious Arabs(just like secularist line of Gandhi pissed off many Hindus). Likewise, even though all Hispanic Latin-American regions have something in common, they also developed different demographics, narratives, and systems. One unified Latin American polity wasn't possible.

    Hussein later made the same problem. He should have kept it strictly nationalist. He should not have attacked Iran. That war made him into client state of the West that used his regime in the most cynical manner. After that war, he should learned his lesson and focused on building his own nation. But he got cocky from 'victory' and took Kuwait(possibly baited by the US). He fell into a trap. He could have avoided all of that by sticking with nationalism than hegemonism.

    Same with Gaddafi. He would have done so much better by just focusing on Libya. But his megalomania made him posture as champion of Africa and all the peoples/nations at war with the West. He wasted so much time and energy on this nonsense. He made too many enemies over the years. So, despite his peace-deal with the West, he was taken out when the opportunity arose, not least because he floated a neo-hegemonic idea of creating an African currency.

    Lesson: Keep it nationalist. Avoid hegemonism and megalomania. Sukarno messed up too because, at one point, he made war on the creation of Malaysia. He wasted so much good will by cooking up hare-brained scheme to 'unite' the two nations together.

    https://thediplomat.com/2016/09/the-war-that-gave-birth-to-asean/

    The problem is complicated because there was always more than one kind of imperialism. Because the West became SO predominant around the world, we tend to see the past in terms of Western Imperialism vs non-Western Subjects. But local/regional imperialism in the non-West was common before, during, and after Western Imperialism. Indeed, what we know of as modern nationalism hardly existed in the non-Western world. When the West left, there were so many local wars because regional imperialist ambitions(that had been suppressed by Western Imperialism) re-emerged. Consider the war between Vietnam and Cambodia, in which China also got involved.

    When the West left the Middle East, the best way would have been for nationalism for every newly made nation. In many ways, Nasser was an admirable man, but his neo-hegemonic way was unfortunate. Instead of focusing his energies on Egypt, his own nation, he wasted too much energy on thinking (too) big. This template spread to Iraq and Libya as well. Partly to Iran but it was limited because it's Shia brand of Islam had limited appeal to Middle East that is mostly Sunni. Also, Iranians are Farsi.

    I wager Hussein and Gaddafi could still be in power if they had kept it nationalist and stopped acting too big for their britches. And now Saudis are acting foolish by getting involved in Syria and Yemen. And what a mess that moron Erdogan made by trying to be the new Nasser, the grand poobah of Muslims everywhere.
    And Israel too. Zionists decided to mess up the entire Middle East and increase tensions with Iran. Even swallow up West Bank. Thanks to the backing of the US, Israel has been far more successful in its sinister ambitions. But if Israel keeps up with this neo-imperialism and creates more havoc in the region, it can boomerang big time in the long run.

    Keep it nationalist.

    Main article: I think Nasser’s big mistake was that he grossly got wrong the effect that his rhetoric and military maneuvers would have on his opponent, whose collective generational leadership at the time survived the greatest genocide in modern history and probably had its fair share of members with what would now be diagnosed as PTSD. He expected that it would cow them into being more reasonable. Instead, he got a preemptive attack that would end up being an even bigger debacle for the Arabs than 1948. As for the article, this isn’t really my specialty area, so I’ll just stick to saying that I agree with some things (Nasser was genuinely popular) and disagree with others (the United States did not have that kind of control over Israel, then or now).

    What I wish the author got into more was the long-term effect that the Six-Day War would have on Egyptian politics. One big one was the rise of Islam as a political force after Nasser had suppressed it for decades. Though it would become more apparent in the 1970s after Sadat’s Corrective Revolution and Egypt flipping to the US camp in the Cold War, the genesis of that was 1967-Nasser needed a new basis of support, no matter how personally popular with the masses he was.

    Anon:

    I agree that Saddam made some highly questionable PR moves in the late 1990s and early 2000s that, while not excusing IRAQI FREEDOM in the slightest, certainly did not help his own case in the hothouse that was Washington in 2002. But, really, Gaddafi’s only mistake was trusting us to keep our word, and also thinking that the “human rights” crowd had the ability to be persuaded by mere logical arguments about Europe getting flooded with African refugees. Gaddafi wasn’t stupid: he’d lost kids at the hands of Reagan in 1986 and knew that the US could strike out painfully when annoyed. George W. Bush was clear: you give up the nuke program, we’ll leave your regime alone. And whatever Dubya’s other (legion) faults, he kept his word on Libya. But Obama allowed himself to be pressured into making what proved to be a disastrous foreign policy move for the United States by Hillary Clinton and others who failed to learn anything from previous interventions, especially in Iraq. If Iraq didn’t explicitly signal that the US wasn’t to be trusted to Iran, North Korea, and all the rest, Libya certainly nailed that lesson home.

    (Not to mention Libya becoming far worse in terms of “human rights”, contrary to pretty much everything the triumphalist rhetoric incessantly parroted by our media about the Arab Spring implied would happen. Say what you will about Gaddafi, no slave auctions when he was in power.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @UncommonGround
    You write:

    I think Nasser’s big mistake was that he grossly got wrong the effect that his rhetoric and military maneuvers would have on his opponent, whose collective generational leadership at the time survived the greatest genocide in modern history
     
    No, this doesn't explain the war of 1967 at all. Already in 1929 Berl Katznelson had said: "The Zionist enterprise is an enterprise of conquest" (quoted by Max Blumenthal, Goliath, p. 351). What some historians say is that the conquest of the Westbank was simply to finish the business that hadn't been completed in 1948. Ilan Pappe says that already in 1948 Israel tried to conquer the Westbank, but that the Jordanian troops were well trained at that time and could resist. This wasn't the case anymore in 1967.
    , @Anon
    But, really, Gaddafi’s only mistake was trusting us to keep our word, and also thinking that the “human rights” crowd had the ability to be persuaded by mere logical arguments about Europe getting flooded with African refugees.

    Gaddy was foolish to trust the West but he'd made a lot of noise and trouble in the 1970s and 1980s by promoting himself as the champion of global struggle against the US and Israel.
    He was playing with fire against far stronger forces.
    , @ohmy
    What genocide? Get your facts straight. There wasn't one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Momus says:
    @Anon
    The conflict in the Middle East was never between the Arabs on one hand and Israel on the other. It was and remains between those Arabs who chose the path of dignity and independence from western hegemony and imperialism on the one hand and Israel, the West and its Arab agents on the other.

    To an extent yes. But in a way, Nasser failed because he also thought hegemonically.

    While we can understand his pan-Arabism, he should have just focused on Egypt. His playing the role of Leader of the Arab World needlessly embroiled tensions. It's like Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavicism both brought upon WWI. Germans should have minded their own business. Russians too. But Germans sided with Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Russia played the role of defender of Slavs everywhere. Bad idea.

    By playing the Pan-Arab game, Nasser got one part of the Arab world overly enthused about him and another part of the Arab world overly hostile to him. One thing for sure, the Egypt-Syria unity didn't last long. Pan-Arabism was as ludicrous as Pan-Latin-Americanism of Simon Bolivar. Though all Arabs share something in common, there is a great deal of diversity among them along racial, regional, and cultural lines. The Arabic language and Islam are the only things they have in common. Nasser's secularism was bound to be divisive. He won over modernizers but alienated religious Arabs(just like secularist line of Gandhi pissed off many Hindus). Likewise, even though all Hispanic Latin-American regions have something in common, they also developed different demographics, narratives, and systems. One unified Latin American polity wasn't possible.

    Hussein later made the same problem. He should have kept it strictly nationalist. He should not have attacked Iran. That war made him into client state of the West that used his regime in the most cynical manner. After that war, he should learned his lesson and focused on building his own nation. But he got cocky from 'victory' and took Kuwait(possibly baited by the US). He fell into a trap. He could have avoided all of that by sticking with nationalism than hegemonism.

    Same with Gaddafi. He would have done so much better by just focusing on Libya. But his megalomania made him posture as champion of Africa and all the peoples/nations at war with the West. He wasted so much time and energy on this nonsense. He made too many enemies over the years. So, despite his peace-deal with the West, he was taken out when the opportunity arose, not least because he floated a neo-hegemonic idea of creating an African currency.

    Lesson: Keep it nationalist. Avoid hegemonism and megalomania. Sukarno messed up too because, at one point, he made war on the creation of Malaysia. He wasted so much good will by cooking up hare-brained scheme to 'unite' the two nations together.

    https://thediplomat.com/2016/09/the-war-that-gave-birth-to-asean/

    The problem is complicated because there was always more than one kind of imperialism. Because the West became SO predominant around the world, we tend to see the past in terms of Western Imperialism vs non-Western Subjects. But local/regional imperialism in the non-West was common before, during, and after Western Imperialism. Indeed, what we know of as modern nationalism hardly existed in the non-Western world. When the West left, there were so many local wars because regional imperialist ambitions(that had been suppressed by Western Imperialism) re-emerged. Consider the war between Vietnam and Cambodia, in which China also got involved.

    When the West left the Middle East, the best way would have been for nationalism for every newly made nation. In many ways, Nasser was an admirable man, but his neo-hegemonic way was unfortunate. Instead of focusing his energies on Egypt, his own nation, he wasted too much energy on thinking (too) big. This template spread to Iraq and Libya as well. Partly to Iran but it was limited because it's Shia brand of Islam had limited appeal to Middle East that is mostly Sunni. Also, Iranians are Farsi.

    I wager Hussein and Gaddafi could still be in power if they had kept it nationalist and stopped acting too big for their britches. And now Saudis are acting foolish by getting involved in Syria and Yemen. And what a mess that moron Erdogan made by trying to be the new Nasser, the grand poobah of Muslims everywhere.
    And Israel too. Zionists decided to mess up the entire Middle East and increase tensions with Iran. Even swallow up West Bank. Thanks to the backing of the US, Israel has been far more successful in its sinister ambitions. But if Israel keeps up with this neo-imperialism and creates more havoc in the region, it can boomerang big time in the long run.

    Keep it nationalist.

    I wager Hussein and Gaddafi could still be in power if they had kept it nationalist and stopped acting too big for their britches. And now Saudis are acting foolish by getting involved in Syria and Yemen. And what a mess that moron Erdogan made by trying to be the new Nasser, the grand poobah of Muslims everywhere.
    And Israel too. Zionists decided to mess up the entire Middle East and increase tensions with Iran. Even swallow up West Bank. Thanks to the backing of the US, Israel has been far more successful in its sinister ambitions. But if Israel keeps up with this neo-imperialism and creates more havoc in the region, it can boomerang big time in the long run.

    Keep it nationalist.

    Iran is the country in the region with imperialist ambition, not Israel.

    Why would Israel want more unruly Arabs to babysit?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Z-man says:

    Nasser, must be turning in his grave with Sisi and that idiot savant bin Salman in charge of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Momus
    Eh? He's
    be happy. Both those are moderate reformers, as Nasser was.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. nebulafox says:
    @Jeff Stryker
    Let us remember that it was MacMillion and the Israeli president who wanted to invade Egypt and Eisenhower colluded with Nasser in preventing them from doing so.

    Odd, considering that the Zionists nearly went to war against the Brits when it was a Palestine was a British Protectorate less than a decade earlier.

    It has to be said that Yankee/Irish-Catholic influence over congress and the lobbies of the 1950's has waned considerably. Nowadays an overgrown Sikh cheerleader can withdraw the US from the UN Human Rights Commission because of scrutiny but there was a time when the Irish-Catholics and Ivy League WASPS (Sometimes from German families like Eisenhower) did not care a whit about the Zio interests.

    It’d be the 1970s when the Israeli-American alliance really solidified. The formative work on the Israeli nuclear program in previous decades at Dimona was done with the assistance of the French, from what I recall. By the time the bomb project was complete in the late 1960s, there was really nothing the US-just coming around to a closer relationship with Israel-could do about it. I seem to recall that the “you don’t test, we don’t ask questions” arrangement came about in the early days of the Nixon Administration, though I could be wrong.

    Ironically, none of the three Presidents of the United States in the 1970s would have ever endorsed the kind of Israel worship that has ended up being reality in Washington, and all three expected to be able to enforce some kind of overall solution with a proviso for the Palestinians by the end of the decade-or the early 1980s, in the case of Jimmy Carter. The essential idea was “Support and we’ll ally with you against any mass Soviet-backed attack, but no blank checks, and we get cooperation in peace talks in return.” Yet… well, history has a funny way of evolving not according to plan. Going forward, however, the Israel mania that animated the post-Six Day War generation of American Jews definitely does not seem to be the case with native born (non-Soviet background) Millennial Jews. Even though Israel is the liberal democracy of the region, it is also unapologetically nationalist in a way that the alt-right might condone, so…

    (Matter of fact, with the exception of Dubya, our Presidents have tended to be far less Israel-philic than Congress, and up until recently, the American people as a whole. I know the AIPAC crowd made a big deal about Obama, and he certainly was far more explicit about his frustration and occasional disdain than his predecessors, but it wasn’t as if Reagan or Clinton were always big fans of their Israeli counterparts. And of course, the proto-neocon revolt in the GOP of 1992 was caused in no small part because of what Bush I did in Madrid.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Z-man says:

    Ah, if only the Egyptian armed forces (especially the air force) had been given a 12 hour heads up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. nebulafox says:
    @Laurent Guyénot
    In my understanding, in 1954-5, Nasser first turned to the US for arms. It was Secretary of State John Foster Dulles who somehow forced him to turn to the Soviets, by making it a condition that Nasser enter a formal alliance with the United States. That was unacceptable to Nasser, and would not be understandable by his people. Although ideologically anti-communist, Nasser was compelled to accept the competing offer from the Soviets, which was generous and theoretically unconditional.

    I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I’d believe it. What I do know is that the Russians just don’t do unconditional help (who does?), then or now. The Egyptians learned this the hard way.

    By the early 1970s, the Soviet presence in Egypt was distinctly unpopular to the point that once Sadat took care of a few particularly prominent pro-Soviet Nasserite figures in the Corrective Revolution (one was Gomaa, the secret police chief), when he expelled them in 1972, there was no serious push-back in the government. This was even when he was planning for Operation Badr the next year.

    Of course, you could say that things have since reversed once more. Putin being welcomed in Cairo in 2014 much like Nixon was in 1974 shows how much history has a sense of irony.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Sean says:
    @Anon
    The conflict in the Middle East was never between the Arabs on one hand and Israel on the other. It was and remains between those Arabs who chose the path of dignity and independence from western hegemony and imperialism on the one hand and Israel, the West and its Arab agents on the other.

    To an extent yes. But in a way, Nasser failed because he also thought hegemonically.

    While we can understand his pan-Arabism, he should have just focused on Egypt. His playing the role of Leader of the Arab World needlessly embroiled tensions. It's like Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavicism both brought upon WWI. Germans should have minded their own business. Russians too. But Germans sided with Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Russia played the role of defender of Slavs everywhere. Bad idea.

    By playing the Pan-Arab game, Nasser got one part of the Arab world overly enthused about him and another part of the Arab world overly hostile to him. One thing for sure, the Egypt-Syria unity didn't last long. Pan-Arabism was as ludicrous as Pan-Latin-Americanism of Simon Bolivar. Though all Arabs share something in common, there is a great deal of diversity among them along racial, regional, and cultural lines. The Arabic language and Islam are the only things they have in common. Nasser's secularism was bound to be divisive. He won over modernizers but alienated religious Arabs(just like secularist line of Gandhi pissed off many Hindus). Likewise, even though all Hispanic Latin-American regions have something in common, they also developed different demographics, narratives, and systems. One unified Latin American polity wasn't possible.

    Hussein later made the same problem. He should have kept it strictly nationalist. He should not have attacked Iran. That war made him into client state of the West that used his regime in the most cynical manner. After that war, he should learned his lesson and focused on building his own nation. But he got cocky from 'victory' and took Kuwait(possibly baited by the US). He fell into a trap. He could have avoided all of that by sticking with nationalism than hegemonism.

    Same with Gaddafi. He would have done so much better by just focusing on Libya. But his megalomania made him posture as champion of Africa and all the peoples/nations at war with the West. He wasted so much time and energy on this nonsense. He made too many enemies over the years. So, despite his peace-deal with the West, he was taken out when the opportunity arose, not least because he floated a neo-hegemonic idea of creating an African currency.

    Lesson: Keep it nationalist. Avoid hegemonism and megalomania. Sukarno messed up too because, at one point, he made war on the creation of Malaysia. He wasted so much good will by cooking up hare-brained scheme to 'unite' the two nations together.

    https://thediplomat.com/2016/09/the-war-that-gave-birth-to-asean/

    The problem is complicated because there was always more than one kind of imperialism. Because the West became SO predominant around the world, we tend to see the past in terms of Western Imperialism vs non-Western Subjects. But local/regional imperialism in the non-West was common before, during, and after Western Imperialism. Indeed, what we know of as modern nationalism hardly existed in the non-Western world. When the West left, there were so many local wars because regional imperialist ambitions(that had been suppressed by Western Imperialism) re-emerged. Consider the war between Vietnam and Cambodia, in which China also got involved.

    When the West left the Middle East, the best way would have been for nationalism for every newly made nation. In many ways, Nasser was an admirable man, but his neo-hegemonic way was unfortunate. Instead of focusing his energies on Egypt, his own nation, he wasted too much energy on thinking (too) big. This template spread to Iraq and Libya as well. Partly to Iran but it was limited because it's Shia brand of Islam had limited appeal to Middle East that is mostly Sunni. Also, Iranians are Farsi.

    I wager Hussein and Gaddafi could still be in power if they had kept it nationalist and stopped acting too big for their britches. And now Saudis are acting foolish by getting involved in Syria and Yemen. And what a mess that moron Erdogan made by trying to be the new Nasser, the grand poobah of Muslims everywhere.
    And Israel too. Zionists decided to mess up the entire Middle East and increase tensions with Iran. Even swallow up West Bank. Thanks to the backing of the US, Israel has been far more successful in its sinister ambitions. But if Israel keeps up with this neo-imperialism and creates more havoc in the region, it can boomerang big time in the long run.

    Keep it nationalist.

    Germans should have minded their own business.

    They did just that in 1905 when Russia was in chaos, Britain had a tiny army and Germany could have won a war against France, thereby making it a European hegemon. The Kaiser really should have been shot for not fighting in 1905 when there was such a prospect. Israel should get the US to attack Iran and expel the west Bank Arabs. The Jewish state is the Prussia of the Middle East, subsidized into inertia and waiting too long to strike.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Oh well, on top of your ridiculous claim re. Philby, you make it obvious that your name is not 'Sean' and that you are an insane Zionist.

    Sorry, many others here, including moi are much further to the right on the Bell curve than you, but as far as I can recall, I never post fake info., here or elsewhere.

    In bad faith little Schlomo, in bad faith..

    Does it pay well?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Sean says:

    Nasser’s son was a billionaire, but spied for Israel. That is how they knew the 1973 attack was coming.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Israel is continuing to destroy the ME using the Zionist controlled U.S. gov to do their fighting in Iraq and Syria and Libya and Yemen and eventually to be Iran and then Russia and the U.S. military will be used as the IDF proxy in all of this, all for the Zionist NWO.

    America is under Zionist control and one proof of this is the fact that Israel and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911 and every thinking American knows it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. Heros says:

    No mention of the Liberty or the jew-nukes and Dimona. There was a lot more going on during that war than just Nasser and jewish land grabs.

    The real point is that Israel can conduct aggressive war in a fashion that would have made Hitler and Himmler blush, yet Israel gets away with it. Again and again and again, and they project their crimes onto their victims again and again and again.

    Why? Jewish Power. The same kind of Jewish power that got the Morgenthau plan implemented and the Balfour declaration declared. The same kind of Jewish Power that got Churchill to guarantee Polish sovereignty against Hitler but not Stalin. The same kind of Jewish Power that got Israel US nuclear technology and hundreds of tested US nuclear weapons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    The same kind of Jewish Power that forced Anglo-Saxons to adopt the Judaizing heresy of Puritanism, which was the final formation of what became best identified as WASP culture. The same kind of Jewish power that forced archetypal WASP Oliver Cromwell to make alliance with Jews, allowing them back into England with special rights and privileges, in order to have the money to wage war to exterminate non-WASP white Christian cultures and identities.

    Jewish Power is what it is because roughly a third of Europe rebelled against Christendom and used Jewish alliances to make that kulturkampf permanent. Most specifically, Jewish Power is tied directly to WASP Power.
    , @renfro

    No mention of the Liberty or the jew-nukes and Dimona. There was a lot more going on during that war than just Nasser and jewish land grabs.
     
    You need to read thru Johnson's diary and some of his papers at his library to see what a piece of trash he really was. According to his secretary Grace Hasell he left everything on israel to the jews in his adm and other jews outside the WH and partcular jewish reporters in the NYT and WP that he wanted to help get elected. Johnson really really was garbage.
    After being informed of the attack on the USS Liberty on the 8th he spent the rest of the day meeting with some business friends and a prince.
    On the second day the 9th after one meeting wth his advisors and some congressmen on Israel he spent the rest his time on who to invite on a boat trip that aftenoon.
    On the third day the 10th he accepted Israel's apology for the 'accident' and discussed their ongoing fighting and a truce.
    No where in his diary or papers does he mention or give one shit about the American sailors killed and wounded on the Liberty


    http://www.lbjlibrary.net/collections/daily-diary.html

    June 8 12: 20p | "hot line"-- Kosygin to Johnson - USS Liberty
    In Out Lo ! LD 3:36p Johnson to Kosygin - via "hot line" - re USS Liberty
    June 9
    The President to the Cabinet Room w/
    The Vice President
    t ^- Sen. Joseph Clark
    the President telling Sen. Clark in whispers "just say - here's what I think
    \ our country ought to do. . . "
    joined
    6:53p - 7:53pm Meeting of Special Committee of National Security Council
    w/ _
    _ Sf*r.y Dftan T^nsk
    • 7:38pm Secy Robert McNamara
    UnderSecy Katzenbach
    Chairman of JCS - Gen. Earl Wheeler
    ; Director Richard Helms
    Mr. Clark Clifford
    UnderSecy Eugene Rostow
    Asst Secy of State - Lucius D. Battle
    Jeffrey Kitchen -
    yb to Lounge Office where the PresidenrmrE House Date June 9, 1967€NT LYNDON B. JOHNSONThe President read three items from Mr. Rostow 1) a memo regarding Bob Anderson
    having spoken with Walt Rostow this afternoon about Panamanian negotiations.
    Mr. Rostow recommends the President calling Bob Anderson this evening, directly.
    President said "I'll have to do that tonight -- which I'll do. " .
    2) Memo fm Rostow re Eshkol's offer for retribution with respect to the '
    1 families of the men on the LIBERTY. The President read this and handed paper
    to Hugh Sidey.
    The President commented to Mr. Sidey ......."imagine what would happen
    if we bombed an Israeli ship by mistake? " Mr. Sidey then said "well imagine what
    would've happened if the Soviets had bombed it? " - both men chuckled.

    3) President read the Arab-Israeli Situation Report as of 7:30pm today.
    Handed the above back to yb and said "that's all for right now. " and yb departed.

    June 10
    9:30a "ho t line" - Johnson to Kosygin - assurances from Israel
    9:44a "ho t line" - Kosygin to Johnson - fighting continuing
    10:50a "ho t line" - Johnson to Kosygin - status of ceasefire
    11:31a "ho t line" - Kosygin to Johnson - next steps
    11:54a "ho t line" - Johnson to Kosygin - military action ending
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. There is only one leader, who managed to unify diverse tribes & clans into an unstoppable force.

    Ghenkis Khan

    Everyone else failed, including Nasser.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ibn Issam
    Prophet Muhammad (sws) was more successful at unifying diverse tribes, clans, people, nations into an unstoppable force than even Genghis Khan could have ever imagined. Unlike the Great Khan, whose empire collapsed immediately after his own death, the unity that was forged among peoples by Prophet Muhammad (sws) lasted for many centuries after his passing. At its height, the Islamic empire stretched further and wider than the Roman empire.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Momus says:
    @Z-man
    Nasser, must be turning in his grave with Sisi and that idiot savant bin Salman in charge of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

    Eh? He’s
    be happy. Both those are moderate reformers, as Nasser was.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man
    Really? They are selling out Palestine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. anonymous[739] • Disclaimer says:

    Yeah, well I look at this in the same way as I do to say

    The Organization of African Unity – where all Black Africans in Africa and in the United States, Brazil, college students at Oxford will supposedly UNITE, listen to Bob Marley Black Nationalist songs, pose in Black Panther leather jackets and shout about ending all forms of Western colonialism, Apartheid, racism and bring about a glorious New World where Black Africa takes the lead and the United Nations is led by eloquent Black African men married to Nordic Blond Swedish models.

    In reality – Black Africa gets led by the likes of Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe, Nigerian oil plutocrats and what was the richest man in the entire world – that Black Africa military guy who did the coup against

    Patrice Lumumba in the Congo?

    Mbutto?

    The Only thing all Arabs all Muslims in the world will unite about is the supposedly inalienably right for all low IQ, unskilled Arabs/Muslims or fat filthy oil rich Saudi Arab Muslims to up and move to England, Sweden Western Europe or New York City, Southern California and chase blonds like the worst Hollywood J media moguls.

    Egypt, Syria or Palestine and Jerusalem were really only safe, civilized places when they were populated and ruled by Classical Greek Helens in Palmyra Syria or by the Romans.

    “What have the Romans ever done for us? Ahhhhhh – the Aqueducts…. and”

    Monty Python the Life of Brian

    This is the reality of what Arab Muslims want do now;

    “What ISIS Really Wants” Graeme Wood The Atlantic Magazine

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

    There is simply no way we as healthy, positive Western European oriented people can get along with these people – no way to make them live and work with us in multi cultural societies.

    Arab Muslims or Pakistani Muslims simply do not do multi culturalism – ask any remaing Pied Noir left in Algeria.

    These Arab Muslims and various “stan” Muslim societies have their own countries, many, many of their own countries. Some of these Islamic societies/countries were once our Western European populated countries – modern day Islamic Turkey was once populated by Greeks – the site of Troy. As late as 100 years ago Istanbul/Constantinople was populated by majority Greek/European people – same goes for French coastal cities in what was then French Algeria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    "Egypt, Syria or Palestine and Jerusalem were really only safe, civilized places when they were populated and ruled by Classical Greek Helens in Palmyra Syria or by the Romans."

    I think I would rephrase it this way: the western Levant of Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria was only truly civilized after the forces of Alexander the Great brought Hellenic culture to overlay Semitic and other non-European cultures. The Romans made that Hellenic-defined culture more stable with traditional Latin order in law as well as useful public building. The Christianization of the area added a new form of mercy and hope to the already bright civilization. Then the Mohammedans came terrorizing from the desert and reverted the area over a couple of centuries back to brutal and brutalizing Semitic culture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. I stopped reading after this line… Just how close Nasser came to defeating the West… say what?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. A very interesting article. I hope Unz publishes more like it.

    Meanwhile [Nasser] complained to his associates that the military had become a state within a state.

    I think that was true long before Nasser’s time. Hadn’t Egypt been run by Mamluks for centuries?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk

    Also: since Egypt was so big in terms of population, why was their army so small? Were they afraid to implement conscription or something? I just can’t figure how the IDF could outnumber both the Egyptian and Syrian armies at same time. Weird …

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. Jake says:

    “The blame lies with Israel, the West and its agents in the Arab world. The Arab defeat in 1967 has allowed Nasser’s enemies and in particular reactionary Islamist movements to discredit the entire Nasserite project in Egypt and the Arab world.”

    More terrible blowback caused by Uncle Sam, the self-righteous WASP globalist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. Jake says:
    @Heros
    No mention of the Liberty or the jew-nukes and Dimona. There was a lot more going on during that war than just Nasser and jewish land grabs.

    The real point is that Israel can conduct aggressive war in a fashion that would have made Hitler and Himmler blush, yet Israel gets away with it. Again and again and again, and they project their crimes onto their victims again and again and again.

    Why? Jewish Power. The same kind of Jewish power that got the Morgenthau plan implemented and the Balfour declaration declared. The same kind of Jewish Power that got Churchill to guarantee Polish sovereignty against Hitler but not Stalin. The same kind of Jewish Power that got Israel US nuclear technology and hundreds of tested US nuclear weapons.

    The same kind of Jewish Power that forced Anglo-Saxons to adopt the Judaizing heresy of Puritanism, which was the final formation of what became best identified as WASP culture. The same kind of Jewish power that forced archetypal WASP Oliver Cromwell to make alliance with Jews, allowing them back into England with special rights and privileges, in order to have the money to wage war to exterminate non-WASP white Christian cultures and identities.

    Jewish Power is what it is because roughly a third of Europe rebelled against Christendom and used Jewish alliances to make that kulturkampf permanent. Most specifically, Jewish Power is tied directly to WASP Power.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Sean says:

    All too predictable that Amer would ordered a retreat to try to keep the army intact because it was the basis for his power, and were it mauled he would be vulnerable. Israeli politician Abie Nathan had already made a highly publicized unauthorised fight from Israel to Egypt without detection by Egyptian radar.Nathan simply took a detour by going out over the med and then swinging into the Egyptian coast. That is exactly what the Israeli air force did not long afterwards in 1967.

    After the limited military success of the limited war of 1973 against a nuclear armed Israel achieved the intended aim of getting Israel to take Egypt seriously and getting the US to pay Egypt billions to not attack Israel, thereby freeing it to attack Lebanon over and over again (what Begun got a Nobel for agreeing to at Camp David) Egypt got out of the conflict and its generals got to be rich.

    Nasser had to lose the Sinai in 1967 for Egypt to cross the canal in 1973, and thus show Egyptians needed to be paid off. Without American money ,Egypt is merely 100 million paupers. Nasser’s political/ military incomprehension has enabled Egypt to find itself a place in the world, and its generals to become as rich as Nasser’s son (the Israeli spy).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. Jake says:
    @anonymous
    Yeah, well I look at this in the same way as I do to say

    The Organization of African Unity - where all Black Africans in Africa and in the United States, Brazil, college students at Oxford will supposedly UNITE, listen to Bob Marley Black Nationalist songs, pose in Black Panther leather jackets and shout about ending all forms of Western colonialism, Apartheid, racism and bring about a glorious New World where Black Africa takes the lead and the United Nations is led by eloquent Black African men married to Nordic Blond Swedish models.

    In reality - Black Africa gets led by the likes of Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe, Nigerian oil plutocrats and what was the richest man in the entire world - that Black Africa military guy who did the coup against

    Patrice Lumumba in the Congo?

    Mbutto?

    The Only thing all Arabs all Muslims in the world will unite about is the supposedly inalienably right for all low IQ, unskilled Arabs/Muslims or fat filthy oil rich Saudi Arab Muslims to up and move to England, Sweden Western Europe or New York City, Southern California and chase blonds like the worst Hollywood J media moguls.

    Egypt, Syria or Palestine and Jerusalem were really only safe, civilized places when they were populated and ruled by Classical Greek Helens in Palmyra Syria or by the Romans.

    "What have the Romans ever done for us? Ahhhhhh - the Aqueducts.... and"

    Monty Python the Life of Brian

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvPbj9NX0zc

    This is the reality of what Arab Muslims want do now;

    "What ISIS Really Wants" Graeme Wood The Atlantic Magazine

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

    There is simply no way we as healthy, positive Western European oriented people can get along with these people - no way to make them live and work with us in multi cultural societies.

    Arab Muslims or Pakistani Muslims simply do not do multi culturalism - ask any remaing Pied Noir left in Algeria.

    These Arab Muslims and various "stan" Muslim societies have their own countries, many, many of their own countries. Some of these Islamic societies/countries were once our Western European populated countries - modern day Islamic Turkey was once populated by Greeks - the site of Troy. As late as 100 years ago Istanbul/Constantinople was populated by majority Greek/European people - same goes for French coastal cities in what was then French Algeria.

    “Egypt, Syria or Palestine and Jerusalem were really only safe, civilized places when they were populated and ruled by Classical Greek Helens in Palmyra Syria or by the Romans.”

    I think I would rephrase it this way: the western Levant of Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria was only truly civilized after the forces of Alexander the Great brought Hellenic culture to overlay Semitic and other non-European cultures. The Romans made that Hellenic-defined culture more stable with traditional Latin order in law as well as useful public building. The Christianization of the area added a new form of mercy and hope to the already bright civilization. Then the Mohammedans came terrorizing from the desert and reverted the area over a couple of centuries back to brutal and brutalizing Semitic culture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    This.
    , @Ibn Issam
    @Jake
    Ignorant and Bigoted remarks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. appreciated this article — informative and thought provoking, It was a very small band of enlightened arabs and africans who finally began to “untie” colonial rule – for better or worse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. What kind of ridiculous name is “AMR ABOZEID”?

    Do foreigners understand how completely ridiculous they are?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Do foreigners understand how completely ridiculous they are?
     
    Yes, but they'd appreciate you telling them. Especially if you ride in on the fins of Thor.
    , @Ibn Issam
    What kind of ridiculous name is “AMR ABOZEID”?

    Do foreigners understand how completely ridiculous they are?

    From a foreign guy who calls himself Thorfinnson.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Sam Shama says:
    @jilles dykstra
    " As Jeremy Salt observes: “What comes through with great clarity from all the documents is that while Nasser was seeking to avoid open hostilities the Israelis could hardly be held back. They were not interested in a negotiated settlement.”[73] "

    Correct.
    The ideas of Jabotinski of 1923 still exist even today, it seems.
    Something like 'force is our ethic, we have no other ethic'.
    Uri Avnery agrees: force is the only language zionists understand.
    The Khazar genes ?
    Kevin Alan Brook, 'The Jews of Khazaria', Northvale NJ, 1999

    Nasser’s overarching, long-term goal was to destroy Israel, upon achieving Arab unity under his command. He failed on all fronts. I’m reduced to tears.

    Read More
    • Agree: Momus
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Z-man says:
    @Momus
    Eh? He's
    be happy. Both those are moderate reformers, as Nasser was.

    Really? They are selling out Palestine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Momus

    Really? They are selling out Palestine.
     
    Real politik has reached the Arabs. The Hashemites are in on it as well.

    The Palestinians are the barrier to many good things and turning themselves into a ridiculous caricature.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    What kind of ridiculous name is "AMR ABOZEID"?

    Do foreigners understand how completely ridiculous they are?

    Do foreigners understand how completely ridiculous they are?

    Yes, but they’d appreciate you telling them. Especially if you ride in on the fins of Thor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. anonymous[739] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jeff Stryker
    Let us remember that it was MacMillion and the Israeli president who wanted to invade Egypt and Eisenhower colluded with Nasser in preventing them from doing so.

    Odd, considering that the Zionists nearly went to war against the Brits when it was a Palestine was a British Protectorate less than a decade earlier.

    It has to be said that Yankee/Irish-Catholic influence over congress and the lobbies of the 1950's has waned considerably. Nowadays an overgrown Sikh cheerleader can withdraw the US from the UN Human Rights Commission because of scrutiny but there was a time when the Irish-Catholics and Ivy League WASPS (Sometimes from German families like Eisenhower) did not care a whit about the Zio interests.

    Jeff Stryker says:

    “It has to be said that Yankee/Irish-Catholic influence over congress and the lobbies of the 1950′s has waned considerably. Nowadays an overgrown Sikh cheerleader can withdraw the US from the UN Human Rights Commission because of scrutiny but there was a time when the Irish-Catholics and Ivy League WASPS (Sometimes from German families like Eisenhower) did not care a whit about the Zio interests.”

    I respond:

    That was a long, long time ago – the United States was a completely different country, different society – might as well compare that to Southerners in 1960s fondly remembering the Confederate South when it was….

    “Gone with the Wind”.

    In Eikes WASP, Irish Catholic 1950s, pre 1967 there were strict laws against pornography, there was a Catholic Legion of Decency and the Hayes Code Bob and Laura Pettrie a married couple couldn’t even be filmed in single bed.

    Communists in academia and Hollywood were on the defensive afraid they might lose their jobs, now it’s completely reversed.

    We’re an occupied country now – we are dispossessed and persecuted. I’m considering trying to get some minimum wage job at Starbucks, hiding my politics and religion and getting some type of health care as I can’t afford private health care to pay for all the Obama voters in my Zip code getting everything for free.

    If I was in my 20s I would try to immigrate to Poland, Hungary or Russia. I root for Eastern European national teams in World Cup soccer and the Olympics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    Rooting for Eastern European sports teams means nothing. Become Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Rite Catholic, or Traditional Latin Mass Catholic.
    , @anon
    How Lace Curtain Irish allowed the Roman Catholic church to be subverted by WASPs and Jews

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ohzS7m0nec
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Momus says:
    @Z-man
    Really? They are selling out Palestine.

    Really? They are selling out Palestine.

    Real politik has reached the Arabs. The Hashemites are in on it as well.

    The Palestinians are the barrier to many good things and turning themselves into a ridiculous caricature.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man
    Caricature? It's ethnic cleansing in Palestine and like I said they're all corrupted by ZOG Buck$, even King Abdullah but truth and justice will prevail either in this life or the next. May the Lord Jesus be with you, Allah Akbar!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Anon
    The conflict in the Middle East was never between the Arabs on one hand and Israel on the other. It was and remains between those Arabs who chose the path of dignity and independence from western hegemony and imperialism on the one hand and Israel, the West and its Arab agents on the other.

    To an extent yes. But in a way, Nasser failed because he also thought hegemonically.

    While we can understand his pan-Arabism, he should have just focused on Egypt. His playing the role of Leader of the Arab World needlessly embroiled tensions. It's like Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavicism both brought upon WWI. Germans should have minded their own business. Russians too. But Germans sided with Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Russia played the role of defender of Slavs everywhere. Bad idea.

    By playing the Pan-Arab game, Nasser got one part of the Arab world overly enthused about him and another part of the Arab world overly hostile to him. One thing for sure, the Egypt-Syria unity didn't last long. Pan-Arabism was as ludicrous as Pan-Latin-Americanism of Simon Bolivar. Though all Arabs share something in common, there is a great deal of diversity among them along racial, regional, and cultural lines. The Arabic language and Islam are the only things they have in common. Nasser's secularism was bound to be divisive. He won over modernizers but alienated religious Arabs(just like secularist line of Gandhi pissed off many Hindus). Likewise, even though all Hispanic Latin-American regions have something in common, they also developed different demographics, narratives, and systems. One unified Latin American polity wasn't possible.

    Hussein later made the same problem. He should have kept it strictly nationalist. He should not have attacked Iran. That war made him into client state of the West that used his regime in the most cynical manner. After that war, he should learned his lesson and focused on building his own nation. But he got cocky from 'victory' and took Kuwait(possibly baited by the US). He fell into a trap. He could have avoided all of that by sticking with nationalism than hegemonism.

    Same with Gaddafi. He would have done so much better by just focusing on Libya. But his megalomania made him posture as champion of Africa and all the peoples/nations at war with the West. He wasted so much time and energy on this nonsense. He made too many enemies over the years. So, despite his peace-deal with the West, he was taken out when the opportunity arose, not least because he floated a neo-hegemonic idea of creating an African currency.

    Lesson: Keep it nationalist. Avoid hegemonism and megalomania. Sukarno messed up too because, at one point, he made war on the creation of Malaysia. He wasted so much good will by cooking up hare-brained scheme to 'unite' the two nations together.

    https://thediplomat.com/2016/09/the-war-that-gave-birth-to-asean/

    The problem is complicated because there was always more than one kind of imperialism. Because the West became SO predominant around the world, we tend to see the past in terms of Western Imperialism vs non-Western Subjects. But local/regional imperialism in the non-West was common before, during, and after Western Imperialism. Indeed, what we know of as modern nationalism hardly existed in the non-Western world. When the West left, there were so many local wars because regional imperialist ambitions(that had been suppressed by Western Imperialism) re-emerged. Consider the war between Vietnam and Cambodia, in which China also got involved.

    When the West left the Middle East, the best way would have been for nationalism for every newly made nation. In many ways, Nasser was an admirable man, but his neo-hegemonic way was unfortunate. Instead of focusing his energies on Egypt, his own nation, he wasted too much energy on thinking (too) big. This template spread to Iraq and Libya as well. Partly to Iran but it was limited because it's Shia brand of Islam had limited appeal to Middle East that is mostly Sunni. Also, Iranians are Farsi.

    I wager Hussein and Gaddafi could still be in power if they had kept it nationalist and stopped acting too big for their britches. And now Saudis are acting foolish by getting involved in Syria and Yemen. And what a mess that moron Erdogan made by trying to be the new Nasser, the grand poobah of Muslims everywhere.
    And Israel too. Zionists decided to mess up the entire Middle East and increase tensions with Iran. Even swallow up West Bank. Thanks to the backing of the US, Israel has been far more successful in its sinister ambitions. But if Israel keeps up with this neo-imperialism and creates more havoc in the region, it can boomerang big time in the long run.

    Keep it nationalist.

    Keep it nationalist? What happened to Congo and Lumumba? What is happening to Venezuela? What happened to Nicaragua? What happened to Chile and Allende?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Keep it nationalist? What happened to Congo and Lumumba? What is happening to Venezuela? What happened to Nicaragua? What happened to Chile and Allende?

    Nationalism was impossible for Congo. Too big and too many tribes. Many tribes saw Lumumba as a local imperialist.

    Venezuela is a clear case of a nation failing by rejecting nationalism. Hugo Chavez, like Gaddafi, wanted to a world player. He promoted Bolivarism. He gave money all around to other nations, esp Cuba. He wanted to the spiritual leader of all of Latin America. Chavez should have focused on problems at home.

    Nicaragua and Chile were part of Cold War struggle in favor of Marxism. In retrospect, I rather sympathize with the Sandinistas and think the US should have left Latin America alone. But during the Cold War, many leftist Latin-American nations spoke of spreading the revolution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @nebulafox
    Main article: I think Nasser's big mistake was that he grossly got wrong the effect that his rhetoric and military maneuvers would have on his opponent, whose collective generational leadership at the time survived the greatest genocide in modern history and probably had its fair share of members with what would now be diagnosed as PTSD. He expected that it would cow them into being more reasonable. Instead, he got a preemptive attack that would end up being an even bigger debacle for the Arabs than 1948. As for the article, this isn't really my specialty area, so I'll just stick to saying that I agree with some things (Nasser was genuinely popular) and disagree with others (the United States did not have that kind of control over Israel, then or now).

    What I wish the author got into more was the long-term effect that the Six-Day War would have on Egyptian politics. One big one was the rise of Islam as a political force after Nasser had suppressed it for decades. Though it would become more apparent in the 1970s after Sadat's Corrective Revolution and Egypt flipping to the US camp in the Cold War, the genesis of that was 1967-Nasser needed a new basis of support, no matter how personally popular with the masses he was.

    Anon:

    I agree that Saddam made some highly questionable PR moves in the late 1990s and early 2000s that, while not excusing IRAQI FREEDOM in the slightest, certainly did not help his own case in the hothouse that was Washington in 2002. But, really, Gaddafi's only mistake was trusting us to keep our word, and also thinking that the "human rights" crowd had the ability to be persuaded by mere logical arguments about Europe getting flooded with African refugees. Gaddafi wasn't stupid: he'd lost kids at the hands of Reagan in 1986 and knew that the US could strike out painfully when annoyed. George W. Bush was clear: you give up the nuke program, we'll leave your regime alone. And whatever Dubya's other (legion) faults, he kept his word on Libya. But Obama allowed himself to be pressured into making what proved to be a disastrous foreign policy move for the United States by Hillary Clinton and others who failed to learn anything from previous interventions, especially in Iraq. If Iraq didn't explicitly signal that the US wasn't to be trusted to Iran, North Korea, and all the rest, Libya certainly nailed that lesson home.

    (Not to mention Libya becoming far worse in terms of "human rights", contrary to pretty much everything the triumphalist rhetoric incessantly parroted by our media about the Arab Spring implied would happen. Say what you will about Gaddafi, no slave auctions when he was in power.)

    You write:

    I think Nasser’s big mistake was that he grossly got wrong the effect that his rhetoric and military maneuvers would have on his opponent, whose collective generational leadership at the time survived the greatest genocide in modern history

    No, this doesn’t explain the war of 1967 at all. Already in 1929 Berl Katznelson had said: “The Zionist enterprise is an enterprise of conquest” (quoted by Max Blumenthal, Goliath, p. 351). What some historians say is that the conquest of the Westbank was simply to finish the business that hadn’t been completed in 1948. Ilan Pappe says that already in 1948 Israel tried to conquer the Westbank, but that the Jordanian troops were well trained at that time and could resist. This wasn’t the case anymore in 1967.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Fighting in an urban area would have entailed very high casualties unless the defenders were to withdraw. The Jordanian army was not really organised to fight Israel. The troops were ordered to fight in 1967 because the Jordanians were fooled by Egyptian propaganda that Israel was suffering heavy defeats. When the Jordanian leadership discovered the truth (that Egypt was suffering an ongoing and calamitous defeat) Jordanian troops were ordered to withdraw and that is what they did. As with the Egyptian head of the armed forces (who had ambitions to overthrow Nasser) the Jordanian family dictatorship were primarily concerned with keeping their army intact as a guarantee of their position in the country. Half of the Israeli casualties in 1967 were against Jordan.
    , @jilles dykstra
    Indeed
    Avi Shlaim, ‘The Iron Wall, Israel and the Arab world’, London, 2001
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Moi says:

    Here’s the key point–that in all the years following their humiliating defeat, the Arabs still haven’t learned anything. In fact, they are even more corrupt, with their “leaders” managing to stay in power by aligning either with the US or Russia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. Che Guava says:
    @Sean

    Germans should have minded their own business.
     
    They did just that in 1905 when Russia was in chaos, Britain had a tiny army and Germany could have won a war against France, thereby making it a European hegemon. The Kaiser really should have been shot for not fighting in 1905 when there was such a prospect. Israel should get the US to attack Iran and expel the west Bank Arabs. The Jewish state is the Prussia of the Middle East, subsidized into inertia and waiting too long to strike.

    Oh well, on top of your ridiculous claim re. Philby, you make it obvious that your name is not ‘Sean’ and that you are an insane Zionist.

    Sorry, many others here, including moi are much further to the right on the Bell curve than you, but as far as I can recall, I never post fake info., here or elsewhere.

    In bad faith little Schlomo, in bad faith..

    Does it pay well?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Read Knightley's introduction to the book Philby wrote My Secret War. Philby married an Austrian Communist in the 30's. At first his his controller thought Philby must have joined another organisation, not Britain's real secret intelligence service.There were many in the KGB who, even after he defected to live in Moscow, continued to think Philby was too good to be true, because it could not be that easy to get into MI6 and get access to secrets that had nothing to do with his officially assigned tasks. The record of what he had been accessing while employed at MI6 were not kept long enough to catch up with him. It was only because Philby made the mistake of putting Burgess up at his house he was forced out by the Americans when Burgess unexpectedly left with MacLean for the Soviet Union. It was Bedell Smith, who Philby feared because Smith was razor sharp, that demanded MI6 sack Philby. Philby had no worries about the skeletal James Angleton,

    MI6 thought Philby was innocent and continued to employ him freelance in Beruit. ,While he was working in Lebanon as a journalist he wrote articles critical of Israel and a woman from his past (Jewish like his first wife) revealed to Victor Rothschild that Philby had tried to recruit her as a Soviet agent decades before. Many people thought Rothschild was the great uncaught Soviet spy given how close he was to MacLean (who he lived with for a time I think) and Anthony Blunt. Rothschild was largely responsible for orchestrating the publication of the book Spycatcher, which suggested Roger Hollis , once head of MI5, had been a Soviet agent, not Rothschild. Maybe so, but in that case an awful lot of smoke without fire.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Sean says:
    @UncommonGround
    You write:

    I think Nasser’s big mistake was that he grossly got wrong the effect that his rhetoric and military maneuvers would have on his opponent, whose collective generational leadership at the time survived the greatest genocide in modern history
     
    No, this doesn't explain the war of 1967 at all. Already in 1929 Berl Katznelson had said: "The Zionist enterprise is an enterprise of conquest" (quoted by Max Blumenthal, Goliath, p. 351). What some historians say is that the conquest of the Westbank was simply to finish the business that hadn't been completed in 1948. Ilan Pappe says that already in 1948 Israel tried to conquer the Westbank, but that the Jordanian troops were well trained at that time and could resist. This wasn't the case anymore in 1967.

    Fighting in an urban area would have entailed very high casualties unless the defenders were to withdraw. The Jordanian army was not really organised to fight Israel. The troops were ordered to fight in 1967 because the Jordanians were fooled by Egyptian propaganda that Israel was suffering heavy defeats. When the Jordanian leadership discovered the truth (that Egypt was suffering an ongoing and calamitous defeat) Jordanian troops were ordered to withdraw and that is what they did. As with the Egyptian head of the armed forces (who had ambitions to overthrow Nasser) the Jordanian family dictatorship were primarily concerned with keeping their army intact as a guarantee of their position in the country. Half of the Israeli casualties in 1967 were against Jordan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Jake says:
    @Z-man
    Those were the days my friend
    We thought they'd never end
    We'd sing and dance forever and a day
    We'd live the life we choose
    We'd fight and never lose
    For we were young and sure to have our way
    La la la la la la
    La la la la la la
    La la la la La la la la la la



    The Anglo Saxon Empire has been conquered by the Kazars without even a shot!

    That is so because Oliver Cromwell took the logic of the Judaizing heresy that was Anglo-Saxon Puritanism to its logical political and cultural staging point and made alliance with Jews. Jews became partners of WASP Empire at that point. Therefore, what we have today is best understood as the Junior partners swapping places with the Senior partners.

    Read More
    • Agree: Z-man
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Jake says:
    @anonymous
    Jeff Stryker says:

    "It has to be said that Yankee/Irish-Catholic influence over congress and the lobbies of the 1950′s has waned considerably. Nowadays an overgrown Sikh cheerleader can withdraw the US from the UN Human Rights Commission because of scrutiny but there was a time when the Irish-Catholics and Ivy League WASPS (Sometimes from German families like Eisenhower) did not care a whit about the Zio interests."

    I respond:

    That was a long, long time ago - the United States was a completely different country, different society - might as well compare that to Southerners in 1960s fondly remembering the Confederate South when it was....

    "Gone with the Wind".

    In Eikes WASP, Irish Catholic 1950s, pre 1967 there were strict laws against pornography, there was a Catholic Legion of Decency and the Hayes Code Bob and Laura Pettrie a married couple couldn't even be filmed in single bed.

    Communists in academia and Hollywood were on the defensive afraid they might lose their jobs, now it's completely reversed.

    We're an occupied country now - we are dispossessed and persecuted. I'm considering trying to get some minimum wage job at Starbucks, hiding my politics and religion and getting some type of health care as I can't afford private health care to pay for all the Obama voters in my Zip code getting everything for free.

    If I was in my 20s I would try to immigrate to Poland, Hungary or Russia. I root for Eastern European national teams in World Cup soccer and the Olympics.

    Rooting for Eastern European sports teams means nothing. Become Eastern Orthodox or Eastern Rite Catholic, or Traditional Latin Mass Catholic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. nickels says:

    In 1953, father Miles [Copeland] Jr. was loaned by the C.I.A. to Gamal Abdul Nasser (President of Egypt) to organize the Egyptian secret intelligence, The Muhabarat. He soon became Nasser’s closest western advisor. It was here that Lorraine Copeland took up archeology and Miles III took up an interest in collecting anything ancient, from mummy parts to coins. It was also here that young Miles became friends with Col. Hasan Tuhami, Nasser’s machine gun toting bodyguard who lived next door. In later years, this friendship became extremely useful as Mr. Tuhami became Vice Prime Minister of Egypt and came to the rescue of The Police, whose equipment was stuck in Egyptian customs, jeopardizing a concert at the Cairo University that night.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/miles-copeland

    Which brought us that supposed ‘reggae’ sound:

    200%: In the documentary “Does Everyone Stare” about The Police you say your style comes from Lebanon. Can you tell a little more about that?
    Stewart Copeland: Yes, the Baladi rhythm. It’s not like reggae, it comes from a completely different cultural source and in the roots there are no overlaps with the beginning of American music. Baladi and reggae, though, have two aspects in common. They share the use of ‘negative’ space, which is when the rhythm is constructed in a certain way – in that there is a gap in the construction which the drummer can fill with his own interpretation. The other aspect they share is that they emphasize the third beat in the bar – to which they gravitate – not emphasizing the second or fourth beat.

    And the rest is history:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. @Jake
    "Egypt, Syria or Palestine and Jerusalem were really only safe, civilized places when they were populated and ruled by Classical Greek Helens in Palmyra Syria or by the Romans."

    I think I would rephrase it this way: the western Levant of Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria was only truly civilized after the forces of Alexander the Great brought Hellenic culture to overlay Semitic and other non-European cultures. The Romans made that Hellenic-defined culture more stable with traditional Latin order in law as well as useful public building. The Christianization of the area added a new form of mercy and hope to the already bright civilization. Then the Mohammedans came terrorizing from the desert and reverted the area over a couple of centuries back to brutal and brutalizing Semitic culture.

    This.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. RobinG says:
    @Laurent Guyénot
    In my understanding, in 1954-5, Nasser first turned to the US for arms. It was Secretary of State John Foster Dulles who somehow forced him to turn to the Soviets, by making it a condition that Nasser enter a formal alliance with the United States. That was unacceptable to Nasser, and would not be understandable by his people. Although ideologically anti-communist, Nasser was compelled to accept the competing offer from the Soviets, which was generous and theoretically unconditional.

    There was another factor. IDK what came first (arms or water) but after the US refused to help Egypt build the Aswan High Dam, they turned to the Soviets.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Anon[364] • Disclaimer says:
    @UncommonGround
    Keep it nationalist? What happened to Congo and Lumumba? What is happening to Venezuela? What happened to Nicaragua? What happened to Chile and Allende?

    Keep it nationalist? What happened to Congo and Lumumba? What is happening to Venezuela? What happened to Nicaragua? What happened to Chile and Allende?

    Nationalism was impossible for Congo. Too big and too many tribes. Many tribes saw Lumumba as a local imperialist.

    Venezuela is a clear case of a nation failing by rejecting nationalism. Hugo Chavez, like Gaddafi, wanted to a world player. He promoted Bolivarism. He gave money all around to other nations, esp Cuba. He wanted to the spiritual leader of all of Latin America. Chavez should have focused on problems at home.

    Nicaragua and Chile were part of Cold War struggle in favor of Marxism. In retrospect, I rather sympathize with the Sandinistas and think the US should have left Latin America alone. But during the Cold War, many leftist Latin-American nations spoke of spreading the revolution.

    Read More
    • Agree: Tyrion 2
    • Replies: @Jack Ryan
    Viva Pinochet!

    Chile is now enjoying Chicago School of Economics “The Chicago Boys” implemented by a tough no nonsense South American Catholic patriot

    Viva Pinochet !

    Which place is better now Chile or Venezuela?
    , @UncommonGround
    What you say makes no sense at all. You said "keep it nationalist". When I said that Lumumba kept it nationalist you answered: "Nationalism was impossible for Congo." You don't seem to have noticed that Lumumba was murdered and who was behind what was happening in Congo at that time: Belgium and the US. Lumumba had even been in the US and asked for support. The German article about him in wikipedia tells the rest of the story. I try to translate: ".... the director of the CIA in Congo, Lawrence Devlin got the task of killing Lumunba, clearly by order of the President of the US personally, Dwight D. Eisenhower." The rest of your points are equally flawed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Anon[364] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    Main article: I think Nasser's big mistake was that he grossly got wrong the effect that his rhetoric and military maneuvers would have on his opponent, whose collective generational leadership at the time survived the greatest genocide in modern history and probably had its fair share of members with what would now be diagnosed as PTSD. He expected that it would cow them into being more reasonable. Instead, he got a preemptive attack that would end up being an even bigger debacle for the Arabs than 1948. As for the article, this isn't really my specialty area, so I'll just stick to saying that I agree with some things (Nasser was genuinely popular) and disagree with others (the United States did not have that kind of control over Israel, then or now).

    What I wish the author got into more was the long-term effect that the Six-Day War would have on Egyptian politics. One big one was the rise of Islam as a political force after Nasser had suppressed it for decades. Though it would become more apparent in the 1970s after Sadat's Corrective Revolution and Egypt flipping to the US camp in the Cold War, the genesis of that was 1967-Nasser needed a new basis of support, no matter how personally popular with the masses he was.

    Anon:

    I agree that Saddam made some highly questionable PR moves in the late 1990s and early 2000s that, while not excusing IRAQI FREEDOM in the slightest, certainly did not help his own case in the hothouse that was Washington in 2002. But, really, Gaddafi's only mistake was trusting us to keep our word, and also thinking that the "human rights" crowd had the ability to be persuaded by mere logical arguments about Europe getting flooded with African refugees. Gaddafi wasn't stupid: he'd lost kids at the hands of Reagan in 1986 and knew that the US could strike out painfully when annoyed. George W. Bush was clear: you give up the nuke program, we'll leave your regime alone. And whatever Dubya's other (legion) faults, he kept his word on Libya. But Obama allowed himself to be pressured into making what proved to be a disastrous foreign policy move for the United States by Hillary Clinton and others who failed to learn anything from previous interventions, especially in Iraq. If Iraq didn't explicitly signal that the US wasn't to be trusted to Iran, North Korea, and all the rest, Libya certainly nailed that lesson home.

    (Not to mention Libya becoming far worse in terms of "human rights", contrary to pretty much everything the triumphalist rhetoric incessantly parroted by our media about the Arab Spring implied would happen. Say what you will about Gaddafi, no slave auctions when he was in power.)

    But, really, Gaddafi’s only mistake was trusting us to keep our word, and also thinking that the “human rights” crowd had the ability to be persuaded by mere logical arguments about Europe getting flooded with African refugees.

    Gaddy was foolish to trust the West but he’d made a lot of noise and trouble in the 1970s and 1980s by promoting himself as the champion of global struggle against the US and Israel.
    He was playing with fire against far stronger forces.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Sean says:
    @Che Guava
    Oh well, on top of your ridiculous claim re. Philby, you make it obvious that your name is not 'Sean' and that you are an insane Zionist.

    Sorry, many others here, including moi are much further to the right on the Bell curve than you, but as far as I can recall, I never post fake info., here or elsewhere.

    In bad faith little Schlomo, in bad faith..

    Does it pay well?

    Read Knightley’s introduction to the book Philby wrote My Secret War. Philby married an Austrian Communist in the 30′s. At first his his controller thought Philby must have joined another organisation, not Britain’s real secret intelligence service.There were many in the KGB who, even after he defected to live in Moscow, continued to think Philby was too good to be true, because it could not be that easy to get into MI6 and get access to secrets that had nothing to do with his officially assigned tasks. The record of what he had been accessing while employed at MI6 were not kept long enough to catch up with him. It was only because Philby made the mistake of putting Burgess up at his house he was forced out by the Americans when Burgess unexpectedly left with MacLean for the Soviet Union. It was Bedell Smith, who Philby feared because Smith was razor sharp, that demanded MI6 sack Philby. Philby had no worries about the skeletal James Angleton,

    MI6 thought Philby was innocent and continued to employ him freelance in Beruit. ,While he was working in Lebanon as a journalist he wrote articles critical of Israel and a woman from his past (Jewish like his first wife) revealed to Victor Rothschild that Philby had tried to recruit her as a Soviet agent decades before. Many people thought Rothschild was the great uncaught Soviet spy given how close he was to MacLean (who he lived with for a time I think) and Anthony Blunt. Rothschild was largely responsible for orchestrating the publication of the book Spycatcher, which suggested Roger Hollis , once head of MI5, had been a Soviet agent, not Rothschild. Maybe so, but in that case an awful lot of smoke without fire.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Z-man says:
    @Momus

    Really? They are selling out Palestine.
     
    Real politik has reached the Arabs. The Hashemites are in on it as well.

    The Palestinians are the barrier to many good things and turning themselves into a ridiculous caricature.

    Caricature? It’s ethnic cleansing in Palestine and like I said they’re all corrupted by ZOG Buck$, even King Abdullah but truth and justice will prevail either in this life or the next. May the Lord Jesus be with you, Allah Akbar!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Ibn Issam says:
    @Another German Reader
    There is only one leader, who managed to unify diverse tribes & clans into an unstoppable force.

    Ghenkis Khan

    Everyone else failed, including Nasser.

    Prophet Muhammad (sws) was more successful at unifying diverse tribes, clans, people, nations into an unstoppable force than even Genghis Khan could have ever imagined. Unlike the Great Khan, whose empire collapsed immediately after his own death, the unity that was forged among peoples by Prophet Muhammad (sws) lasted for many centuries after his passing. At its height, the Islamic empire stretched further and wider than the Roman empire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    51 Ibn Issam > Prophet Muhammad (sws) was more successful at unifying diverse tribes, clans, people, nations

    i'lll mention that to all the next-of-kin of those who now sleep in cemeteries, due to shiite-sunni interfighting


    > Unlike the Great Khan, whose empire collapsed immediately after his own death, the unity that was forged among peoples by Prophet Muhammad (sws) lasted for many centuries after his passing

    Fact: Shortly after he died, his followers were killing each other, in attempts to be the one who became the next Caliph

    PS: fact: there was no new war in June 1967, as there was no "peace"; there was an armistice

    fact: Nassar violated the contractual terms of the armistice, by closing the Straits of Tiran at Sharm-el-Sheikh, thus blockading the Israeli port of Eilat

    fact: Israel tried, for TWO WEEKS, to get the world to turn that blockade off.

    fact: conclusion - Nassar re-started a fight; Israel finished it

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Ibn Issam says:
    @Jake
    "Egypt, Syria or Palestine and Jerusalem were really only safe, civilized places when they were populated and ruled by Classical Greek Helens in Palmyra Syria or by the Romans."

    I think I would rephrase it this way: the western Levant of Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria was only truly civilized after the forces of Alexander the Great brought Hellenic culture to overlay Semitic and other non-European cultures. The Romans made that Hellenic-defined culture more stable with traditional Latin order in law as well as useful public building. The Christianization of the area added a new form of mercy and hope to the already bright civilization. Then the Mohammedans came terrorizing from the desert and reverted the area over a couple of centuries back to brutal and brutalizing Semitic culture.


    Ignorant and Bigoted remarks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Ibn Issam says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    What kind of ridiculous name is "AMR ABOZEID"?

    Do foreigners understand how completely ridiculous they are?

    What kind of ridiculous name is “AMR ABOZEID”?

    Do foreigners understand how completely ridiculous they are?

    From a foreign guy who calls himself Thorfinnson.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. peterAUS says:
    @Anon
    The conflict in the Middle East was never between the Arabs on one hand and Israel on the other. It was and remains between those Arabs who chose the path of dignity and independence from western hegemony and imperialism on the one hand and Israel, the West and its Arab agents on the other.

    To an extent yes. But in a way, Nasser failed because he also thought hegemonically.

    While we can understand his pan-Arabism, he should have just focused on Egypt. His playing the role of Leader of the Arab World needlessly embroiled tensions. It's like Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavicism both brought upon WWI. Germans should have minded their own business. Russians too. But Germans sided with Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Russia played the role of defender of Slavs everywhere. Bad idea.

    By playing the Pan-Arab game, Nasser got one part of the Arab world overly enthused about him and another part of the Arab world overly hostile to him. One thing for sure, the Egypt-Syria unity didn't last long. Pan-Arabism was as ludicrous as Pan-Latin-Americanism of Simon Bolivar. Though all Arabs share something in common, there is a great deal of diversity among them along racial, regional, and cultural lines. The Arabic language and Islam are the only things they have in common. Nasser's secularism was bound to be divisive. He won over modernizers but alienated religious Arabs(just like secularist line of Gandhi pissed off many Hindus). Likewise, even though all Hispanic Latin-American regions have something in common, they also developed different demographics, narratives, and systems. One unified Latin American polity wasn't possible.

    Hussein later made the same problem. He should have kept it strictly nationalist. He should not have attacked Iran. That war made him into client state of the West that used his regime in the most cynical manner. After that war, he should learned his lesson and focused on building his own nation. But he got cocky from 'victory' and took Kuwait(possibly baited by the US). He fell into a trap. He could have avoided all of that by sticking with nationalism than hegemonism.

    Same with Gaddafi. He would have done so much better by just focusing on Libya. But his megalomania made him posture as champion of Africa and all the peoples/nations at war with the West. He wasted so much time and energy on this nonsense. He made too many enemies over the years. So, despite his peace-deal with the West, he was taken out when the opportunity arose, not least because he floated a neo-hegemonic idea of creating an African currency.

    Lesson: Keep it nationalist. Avoid hegemonism and megalomania. Sukarno messed up too because, at one point, he made war on the creation of Malaysia. He wasted so much good will by cooking up hare-brained scheme to 'unite' the two nations together.

    https://thediplomat.com/2016/09/the-war-that-gave-birth-to-asean/

    The problem is complicated because there was always more than one kind of imperialism. Because the West became SO predominant around the world, we tend to see the past in terms of Western Imperialism vs non-Western Subjects. But local/regional imperialism in the non-West was common before, during, and after Western Imperialism. Indeed, what we know of as modern nationalism hardly existed in the non-Western world. When the West left, there were so many local wars because regional imperialist ambitions(that had been suppressed by Western Imperialism) re-emerged. Consider the war between Vietnam and Cambodia, in which China also got involved.

    When the West left the Middle East, the best way would have been for nationalism for every newly made nation. In many ways, Nasser was an admirable man, but his neo-hegemonic way was unfortunate. Instead of focusing his energies on Egypt, his own nation, he wasted too much energy on thinking (too) big. This template spread to Iraq and Libya as well. Partly to Iran but it was limited because it's Shia brand of Islam had limited appeal to Middle East that is mostly Sunni. Also, Iranians are Farsi.

    I wager Hussein and Gaddafi could still be in power if they had kept it nationalist and stopped acting too big for their britches. And now Saudis are acting foolish by getting involved in Syria and Yemen. And what a mess that moron Erdogan made by trying to be the new Nasser, the grand poobah of Muslims everywhere.
    And Israel too. Zionists decided to mess up the entire Middle East and increase tensions with Iran. Even swallow up West Bank. Thanks to the backing of the US, Israel has been far more successful in its sinister ambitions. But if Israel keeps up with this neo-imperialism and creates more havoc in the region, it can boomerang big time in the long run.

    Keep it nationalist.

    Good post.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. that area is what connects the world island. usa got something out of it. what the jews got is also obvious. what can nasser do against usa at the time without unwavering and unconditional support from ussr? because he was up against usa not just mere jews.

    the only losers are the arabs. and yet, they are still allowing the divide and conquer tactics to work on them, shia and sunni. the saudis are reduced to mere servants and proud of it :))) bending over backwards trying to please their new masters :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. This is VERY good. People may differ on the viewpoint and opinion but it is succinct, concise, well-written, well-researched history. Who is Amr Abozeid and what else has he written?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    I agree with your assessment even if I think the article is quite often probably wrong and, sometimes, a bit silly. It is a huge step up on every other article I've read that comes from the same perspective. Amr Abozeid must be an interesting person.
    , @Amr Abozeid
    Thank you Johnny for your kind words.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @Johnny Rico
    This is VERY good. People may differ on the viewpoint and opinion but it is succinct, concise, well-written, well-researched history. Who is Amr Abozeid and what else has he written?

    I agree with your assessment even if I think the article is quite often probably wrong and, sometimes, a bit silly. It is a huge step up on every other article I’ve read that comes from the same perspective. Amr Abozeid must be an interesting person.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Amr Abozeid
    Thank you
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. renfro says:
    @Heros
    No mention of the Liberty or the jew-nukes and Dimona. There was a lot more going on during that war than just Nasser and jewish land grabs.

    The real point is that Israel can conduct aggressive war in a fashion that would have made Hitler and Himmler blush, yet Israel gets away with it. Again and again and again, and they project their crimes onto their victims again and again and again.

    Why? Jewish Power. The same kind of Jewish power that got the Morgenthau plan implemented and the Balfour declaration declared. The same kind of Jewish Power that got Churchill to guarantee Polish sovereignty against Hitler but not Stalin. The same kind of Jewish Power that got Israel US nuclear technology and hundreds of tested US nuclear weapons.

    No mention of the Liberty or the jew-nukes and Dimona. There was a lot more going on during that war than just Nasser and jewish land grabs.

    You need to read thru Johnson’s diary and some of his papers at his library to see what a piece of trash he really was. According to his secretary Grace Hasell he left everything on israel to the jews in his adm and other jews outside the WH and partcular jewish reporters in the NYT and WP that he wanted to help get elected. Johnson really really was garbage.
    After being informed of the attack on the USS Liberty on the 8th he spent the rest of the day meeting with some business friends and a prince.
    On the second day the 9th after one meeting wth his advisors and some congressmen on Israel he spent the rest his time on who to invite on a boat trip that aftenoon.
    On the third day the 10th he accepted Israel’s apology for the ‘accident’ and discussed their ongoing fighting and a truce.
    No where in his diary or papers does he mention or give one shit about the American sailors killed and wounded on the Liberty

    http://www.lbjlibrary.net/collections/daily-diary.html

    [MORE]

    June 8 12: 20p | “hot line”– Kosygin to Johnson – USS Liberty
    In Out Lo ! LD 3:36p Johnson to Kosygin – via “hot line” – re USS Liberty
    June 9
    The President to the Cabinet Room w/
    The Vice President
    t ^- Sen. Joseph Clark
    the President telling Sen. Clark in whispers “just say – here’s what I think
    \ our country ought to do. . . ”
    joined
    6:53p – 7:53pm Meeting of Special Committee of National Security Council
    w/ _
    _ Sf*r.y Dftan T^nsk
    • 7:38pm Secy Robert McNamara
    UnderSecy Katzenbach
    Chairman of JCS – Gen. Earl Wheeler
    ; Director Richard Helms
    Mr. Clark Clifford
    UnderSecy Eugene Rostow
    Asst Secy of State – Lucius D. Battle
    Jeffrey Kitchen -
    yb to Lounge Office where the PresidenrmrE House Date June 9, 1967€NT LYNDON B. JOHNSONThe President read three items from Mr. Rostow 1) a memo regarding Bob Anderson
    having spoken with Walt Rostow this afternoon about Panamanian negotiations.
    Mr. Rostow recommends the President calling Bob Anderson this evening, directly.
    President said “I’ll have to do that tonight — which I’ll do. ” .
    2) Memo fm Rostow re Eshkol’s offer for retribution with respect to the ‘
    1 families of the men on the LIBERTY. The President read this and handed paper
    to Hugh Sidey.
    The President commented to Mr. Sidey …….”imagine what would happen
    if we bombed an Israeli ship by mistake? ” Mr. Sidey then said “well imagine what
    would’ve happened if the Soviets had bombed it? ” – both men chuckled.

    3) President read the Arab-Israeli Situation Report as of 7:30pm today.
    Handed the above back to yb and said “that’s all for right now. ” and yb departed.

    June 10
    9:30a “ho t line” – Johnson to Kosygin – assurances from Israel
    9:44a “ho t line” – Kosygin to Johnson – fighting continuing
    10:50a “ho t line” – Johnson to Kosygin – status of ceasefire
    11:31a “ho t line” – Kosygin to Johnson – next steps
    11:54a “ho t line” – Johnson to Kosygin – military action ending

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Jack Ryan says: • Website
    @Anon
    Keep it nationalist? What happened to Congo and Lumumba? What is happening to Venezuela? What happened to Nicaragua? What happened to Chile and Allende?

    Nationalism was impossible for Congo. Too big and too many tribes. Many tribes saw Lumumba as a local imperialist.

    Venezuela is a clear case of a nation failing by rejecting nationalism. Hugo Chavez, like Gaddafi, wanted to a world player. He promoted Bolivarism. He gave money all around to other nations, esp Cuba. He wanted to the spiritual leader of all of Latin America. Chavez should have focused on problems at home.

    Nicaragua and Chile were part of Cold War struggle in favor of Marxism. In retrospect, I rather sympathize with the Sandinistas and think the US should have left Latin America alone. But during the Cold War, many leftist Latin-American nations spoke of spreading the revolution.

    Viva Pinochet!

    Chile is now enjoying Chicago School of Economics “The Chicago Boys” implemented by a tough no nonsense South American Catholic patriot

    Viva Pinochet !

    Which place is better now Chile or Venezuela?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Viva Pinchot
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. anon[107] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous
    Jeff Stryker says:

    "It has to be said that Yankee/Irish-Catholic influence over congress and the lobbies of the 1950′s has waned considerably. Nowadays an overgrown Sikh cheerleader can withdraw the US from the UN Human Rights Commission because of scrutiny but there was a time when the Irish-Catholics and Ivy League WASPS (Sometimes from German families like Eisenhower) did not care a whit about the Zio interests."

    I respond:

    That was a long, long time ago - the United States was a completely different country, different society - might as well compare that to Southerners in 1960s fondly remembering the Confederate South when it was....

    "Gone with the Wind".

    In Eikes WASP, Irish Catholic 1950s, pre 1967 there were strict laws against pornography, there was a Catholic Legion of Decency and the Hayes Code Bob and Laura Pettrie a married couple couldn't even be filmed in single bed.

    Communists in academia and Hollywood were on the defensive afraid they might lose their jobs, now it's completely reversed.

    We're an occupied country now - we are dispossessed and persecuted. I'm considering trying to get some minimum wage job at Starbucks, hiding my politics and religion and getting some type of health care as I can't afford private health care to pay for all the Obama voters in my Zip code getting everything for free.

    If I was in my 20s I would try to immigrate to Poland, Hungary or Russia. I root for Eastern European national teams in World Cup soccer and the Olympics.

    How Lace Curtain Irish allowed the Roman Catholic church to be subverted by WASPs and Jews

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. renfro says:

    This really is an excellent article, concise and according to all my own searches of US records it is very accurate.

    One can verify most of it in the transcripts, memos, telegrams, calls, meetings of those involved in these two archives:

    https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19

    https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol49no1/html_files/arab_israeli_war_1.html

    It was known by all that Nasser did not want to go to war or attack Israel.
    It was known that Israel would likely attack Egypt…although not admitted by the US to other countries.
    It was NOT known that in May the US got together a weapons ‘aid’ package for Israel.

    /2/Rusk’s memorandum of May 22, attached, recommended approval of the aid package for Israel on a secret basis. It commented that the $16 million credit for military spare parts was of particular importance. Concerning the package of military and economic assistance to Israel that was under discussion prior to the outbreak of the crisis, see Foreign Relations, 1964-1968, volume XVIII.

    It was known that Egyptians were near starving due to US congress sanctions imposed in ’63 and that this figured in Nasser’s choices of war or no war.

    ‘I asked him for any observations on the present scene. He says he doesn’t believe the Arab nations want war. Nasser, however, faces a “terrible internal problem.” His people are very close to starvation. A month ago when a food ship came into harbor, shopkeepers were instructed to put a sack of flour in front of their shops to prevent food riots. He believes we made a serious mistake in cutting off Nasser without food as we did. He said that he found no obstacle in his conversations in the Senate. When I said that the problem appeared to be in the House, he said: “No one asked me to talk to anyone in the House.”

    It was known that Russia was taking a moderate approach not wanting to become physically involved in the standoff.

    [However that changed]
    On 10 June, as Israeli victory appeared near, the White House received a message over the “Hot Line” from Soviet premier Alexei Kosygin. The Kremlin foresaw a “grave catastrophe” and threatened to take “necessary actions . . . including military” if the Israelis did not halt their advance across the Golan Heights.[12] Helms was in the Situation Room with several other presidential advisers when the message from the Kremlin came over from the Pentagon, where the Hot Line teletype was located. Helms remembered the setting as “unlike the Hollywood versions of situation rooms . . . there were no flashing lights, no elaborate projections of maps and photographs on a silver screen, or even any armed guards rigidly at attention beside the doorway. The room itself was painted a bleak beige and furnished simply with an oval conference table and an assortment of comfortable chairs.”

    Helms recalled the hush and chill that fell over the room after the translation of Kosygin’s message was checked. “The room went silent as abruptly as if a radio had been switched off . . . The conversation was conducted in the lowest voices I have ever heard . . . It seemed impossible to believe that five years after the missile confrontation in Cuba, the two superpowers had again squared off.” On the recommendation of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara (endorsed by all present), Johnson dispatched the Sixth Fleet to the eastern Mediterranean—a move intended to convey American resolve without backing the Soviets into a corner. Helms told the president that Russian submarines monitoring the fleet’s movement would immediately report that it had changed course. Moscow got the message, and a cease-fire later that day restored an uneasy peace to the region.

    It was known with fair certainty when Israel would attack Egypt. But that was not shared with Egypt or any other countries.

    Having answered one crucial question of the president’s—how would the war end?—Helms also was able to warn him when it was about to begin. Helms met on 1 June with a senior Israeli official who hinted that Israel could no longer avoid a decision. Its restraint thus far was due to American pressure, but, he said, the delay had cost Israel the advantage of surprise. Helms interpreted the remarks as suggesting that Israel would attack very soon. Moreover, according to Helms, the official stated clearly that although Israel expected US diplomatic backing and the delivery of weapons already agreed upon, it would request no additional support and did not expect any. The official abruptly left the United States on 2 June along with the Israeli ambassador. That morning, according to published accounts, Helms wrote an “Eyes Only” letter to President Johnson, forewarning that Israel probably would start a war within a few days

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Is there some reason Egypt couldn’t feed itself?

    It’s got millions of square miles of the most fertile flattest farm land in the world with plenty of water, an *excellent irrigation system, plenty of animal manure, year long growing season and everything needed to feed itself.

    It’s farm land is equivalent toArgentina, the American Midwest, Central Valley of California Ukraine and France.

    So what’s wrong???

    * Irrigation system built long before the Muslim conquest and nothing done to improve it between 650 Ad and building of the Aswan dam.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. ohmy says:

    Now, 51 years on from the 1967 war, the middle east is in the same position. Arab countries divided, Israel stronger and continues expanding it’s territory at the expense of Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and, Egypt. Amer has been reincarnated as General Sisi. Syria is left alone to fight Western Zionist imperialism, while the same Arab nation back stabbers of the 60′s, i.e. Jordan and Saudi Arabia at the behest of Israel and the West continue to create chaos in the region. Lybia, Yemen and, Somalia are examples of what the future holds for every Arab country whether or not they collude with Israel, and the West today; they will be destroyed tomorrow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    Somalia is Africa.
    , @Tyrion 2

    Arab countries divided
     
    Are they? They seem quite united by historical standards. Can you name one time in the last thousand years when "Arab countries" have been more united?

    Israel stronger and continues expanding it’s territory at the expense of Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and, Egypt
     
    Is it? Where is it expanding? The settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights can hardly be said to be Israel expanding if those areas are already long classified as "occupied territory".

    Middle Easterners are wont to substitute rational argument for emotionally charged rhetoric. This is hardly the most egregious example but I still find it exhausting.

    Amer has been reincarnated as General Sisi.
     
    Surely that should be Nasser? Sisi seems to want to leave Israel alone to focus on building an Arab nation. Which was Nasser too, according to this article. The difference is that Sisi has sensibly chosen Egypt only, rather than trying to herd together the huge and incredibly diverse Greater Arabia. The latter seems like it would be a louder version of the EU and I can safely say that the EU has been a catastrophe for Europeans.

    Syria is left alone to fight Western Zionist imperialism
     
    I'm certain none of the opposition to Assad would describe themselves as Zionist. I'm also close to certain that none of those with weapons would describe themselves as having a Western agenda.

    Your vision of Arabs is so depressing. You give them zero moral agency.

    while the same Arab nation back stabbers of the 60′s, i.e. Jordan and Saudi Arabia at the behest of Israel and the West continue to create chaos in the region
     
    Only at the 'behest', eh? See...zero moral agency.

    Lybia, Yemen and, Somalia are examples of what the future holds for every Arab country whether or not they collude with Israel, and the West today; they will be destroyed tomorrow
     
    Good use of word of the moment 'collude'. But it seems that Yemen and Somalia are examples of exactly the opposite of what you argue. While Libya was a deranged adventure born out of Gaddafi's past actions but undertaken when he was being entirely reasonable, hence 'deranged'.

    Do understand our progressive leaders - they've lost their collective minds.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. ohmy says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    This,

    The Israelis and in particular Israeli defense minister Moshe Dayan were well aware that UNEF was there to protect Egypt from Israel and not the other way around.
     
    contradicts this,

    In order to deter Israel from attacking Syria Nasser increased the number of Egyptian troops in the Sinai on May 14th 1967 and on May 16 1967 requested a partial withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) troops that were deployed on the Egyptian side of the armistice line.
     

    Not really. Nasser was buying for time and, trying to placate Israel, 1st by trying to have UNEF move to the Israeli side of the border, when Israel refused to agree to that Nasser asked UNEF to remove 50% of their force. This plan was rejected by UNEF which said 100% remain or nothing. Nasser had been outfoxed. The deck was stacked against him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. ohmy says:
    @nebulafox
    Main article: I think Nasser's big mistake was that he grossly got wrong the effect that his rhetoric and military maneuvers would have on his opponent, whose collective generational leadership at the time survived the greatest genocide in modern history and probably had its fair share of members with what would now be diagnosed as PTSD. He expected that it would cow them into being more reasonable. Instead, he got a preemptive attack that would end up being an even bigger debacle for the Arabs than 1948. As for the article, this isn't really my specialty area, so I'll just stick to saying that I agree with some things (Nasser was genuinely popular) and disagree with others (the United States did not have that kind of control over Israel, then or now).

    What I wish the author got into more was the long-term effect that the Six-Day War would have on Egyptian politics. One big one was the rise of Islam as a political force after Nasser had suppressed it for decades. Though it would become more apparent in the 1970s after Sadat's Corrective Revolution and Egypt flipping to the US camp in the Cold War, the genesis of that was 1967-Nasser needed a new basis of support, no matter how personally popular with the masses he was.

    Anon:

    I agree that Saddam made some highly questionable PR moves in the late 1990s and early 2000s that, while not excusing IRAQI FREEDOM in the slightest, certainly did not help his own case in the hothouse that was Washington in 2002. But, really, Gaddafi's only mistake was trusting us to keep our word, and also thinking that the "human rights" crowd had the ability to be persuaded by mere logical arguments about Europe getting flooded with African refugees. Gaddafi wasn't stupid: he'd lost kids at the hands of Reagan in 1986 and knew that the US could strike out painfully when annoyed. George W. Bush was clear: you give up the nuke program, we'll leave your regime alone. And whatever Dubya's other (legion) faults, he kept his word on Libya. But Obama allowed himself to be pressured into making what proved to be a disastrous foreign policy move for the United States by Hillary Clinton and others who failed to learn anything from previous interventions, especially in Iraq. If Iraq didn't explicitly signal that the US wasn't to be trusted to Iran, North Korea, and all the rest, Libya certainly nailed that lesson home.

    (Not to mention Libya becoming far worse in terms of "human rights", contrary to pretty much everything the triumphalist rhetoric incessantly parroted by our media about the Arab Spring implied would happen. Say what you will about Gaddafi, no slave auctions when he was in power.)

    What genocide? Get your facts straight. There wasn’t one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @ohmy
    Now, 51 years on from the 1967 war, the middle east is in the same position. Arab countries divided, Israel stronger and continues expanding it's territory at the expense of Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and, Egypt. Amer has been reincarnated as General Sisi. Syria is left alone to fight Western Zionist imperialism, while the same Arab nation back stabbers of the 60's, i.e. Jordan and Saudi Arabia at the behest of Israel and the West continue to create chaos in the region. Lybia, Yemen and, Somalia are examples of what the future holds for every Arab country whether or not they collude with Israel, and the West today; they will be destroyed tomorrow.

    Somalia is Africa.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @UncommonGround
    You write:

    I think Nasser’s big mistake was that he grossly got wrong the effect that his rhetoric and military maneuvers would have on his opponent, whose collective generational leadership at the time survived the greatest genocide in modern history
     
    No, this doesn't explain the war of 1967 at all. Already in 1929 Berl Katznelson had said: "The Zionist enterprise is an enterprise of conquest" (quoted by Max Blumenthal, Goliath, p. 351). What some historians say is that the conquest of the Westbank was simply to finish the business that hadn't been completed in 1948. Ilan Pappe says that already in 1948 Israel tried to conquer the Westbank, but that the Jordanian troops were well trained at that time and could resist. This wasn't the case anymore in 1967.

    Indeed
    Avi Shlaim, ‘The Iron Wall, Israel and the Arab world’, London, 2001

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @ohmy
    Now, 51 years on from the 1967 war, the middle east is in the same position. Arab countries divided, Israel stronger and continues expanding it's territory at the expense of Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and, Egypt. Amer has been reincarnated as General Sisi. Syria is left alone to fight Western Zionist imperialism, while the same Arab nation back stabbers of the 60's, i.e. Jordan and Saudi Arabia at the behest of Israel and the West continue to create chaos in the region. Lybia, Yemen and, Somalia are examples of what the future holds for every Arab country whether or not they collude with Israel, and the West today; they will be destroyed tomorrow.

    Arab countries divided

    Are they? They seem quite united by historical standards. Can you name one time in the last thousand years when “Arab countries” have been more united?

    Israel stronger and continues expanding it’s territory at the expense of Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and, Egypt

    Is it? Where is it expanding? The settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights can hardly be said to be Israel expanding if those areas are already long classified as “occupied territory”.

    Middle Easterners are wont to substitute rational argument for emotionally charged rhetoric. This is hardly the most egregious example but I still find it exhausting.

    Amer has been reincarnated as General Sisi.

    Surely that should be Nasser? Sisi seems to want to leave Israel alone to focus on building an Arab nation. Which was Nasser too, according to this article. The difference is that Sisi has sensibly chosen Egypt only, rather than trying to herd together the huge and incredibly diverse Greater Arabia. The latter seems like it would be a louder version of the EU and I can safely say that the EU has been a catastrophe for Europeans.

    Syria is left alone to fight Western Zionist imperialism

    I’m certain none of the opposition to Assad would describe themselves as Zionist. I’m also close to certain that none of those with weapons would describe themselves as having a Western agenda.

    Your vision of Arabs is so depressing. You give them zero moral agency.

    while the same Arab nation back stabbers of the 60′s, i.e. Jordan and Saudi Arabia at the behest of Israel and the West continue to create chaos in the region

    Only at the ‘behest’, eh? See…zero moral agency.

    Lybia, Yemen and, Somalia are examples of what the future holds for every Arab country whether or not they collude with Israel, and the West today; they will be destroyed tomorrow

    Good use of word of the moment ‘collude’. But it seems that Yemen and Somalia are examples of exactly the opposite of what you argue. While Libya was a deranged adventure born out of Gaddafi’s past actions but undertaken when he was being entirely reasonable, hence ‘deranged’.

    Do understand our progressive leaders – they’ve lost their collective minds.

    Read More
    • Replies: @UncommonGround
    Your arguments are weak. You say that Israel cannot be said to be expanding because the Westbank is already occupyed by Israel since a long time. Yes, but the occupation cannot succeed completely without controlling the Palestinians, without encircling them in smaller Bantustans, without encouraging them to leave and giving up resistance to their dispossession. This is what is meant by expantion. Expantion means now also to weaken all potential enemies in the region like Syria, Irak, Libya which could challenge Israeli further effective expantion to occupyed territories and defend the rights of the Palestinians.

    One decisive difference between Nasser an Sisi which you din't mention was that Israel gave up the Sinai a few years after the war in 1973 while Egypt gave up support for the Palestinians and for Syria. But why should they do that?

    You say also that the enemies of Assad wouldn't say of themselves that they represent an Western agenda. So what? Some of them may be close to the West while others may be supported by the West even if they are not allies. What matters are the results that the West and Israel wants. Israel wants the devastation of Syria and has even given medical aid to Syrian Islamists. They cannot say this, but they can make propaganda against Assad in Western countries.

    Your talk of the Arabs having moral agency is typical of Zionists. Of course, someone who acts under pressure, or who was fooled by propaganda may still be said to have moral agency.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Anon
    Keep it nationalist? What happened to Congo and Lumumba? What is happening to Venezuela? What happened to Nicaragua? What happened to Chile and Allende?

    Nationalism was impossible for Congo. Too big and too many tribes. Many tribes saw Lumumba as a local imperialist.

    Venezuela is a clear case of a nation failing by rejecting nationalism. Hugo Chavez, like Gaddafi, wanted to a world player. He promoted Bolivarism. He gave money all around to other nations, esp Cuba. He wanted to the spiritual leader of all of Latin America. Chavez should have focused on problems at home.

    Nicaragua and Chile were part of Cold War struggle in favor of Marxism. In retrospect, I rather sympathize with the Sandinistas and think the US should have left Latin America alone. But during the Cold War, many leftist Latin-American nations spoke of spreading the revolution.

    What you say makes no sense at all. You said “keep it nationalist”. When I said that Lumumba kept it nationalist you answered: “Nationalism was impossible for Congo.” You don’t seem to have noticed that Lumumba was murdered and who was behind what was happening in Congo at that time: Belgium and the US. Lumumba had even been in the US and asked for support. The German article about him in wikipedia tells the rest of the story. I try to translate: “…. the director of the CIA in Congo, Lawrence Devlin got the task of killing Lumunba, clearly by order of the President of the US personally, Dwight D. Eisenhower.” The rest of your points are equally flawed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Tyrion 2

    Arab countries divided
     
    Are they? They seem quite united by historical standards. Can you name one time in the last thousand years when "Arab countries" have been more united?

    Israel stronger and continues expanding it’s territory at the expense of Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and, Egypt
     
    Is it? Where is it expanding? The settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights can hardly be said to be Israel expanding if those areas are already long classified as "occupied territory".

    Middle Easterners are wont to substitute rational argument for emotionally charged rhetoric. This is hardly the most egregious example but I still find it exhausting.

    Amer has been reincarnated as General Sisi.
     
    Surely that should be Nasser? Sisi seems to want to leave Israel alone to focus on building an Arab nation. Which was Nasser too, according to this article. The difference is that Sisi has sensibly chosen Egypt only, rather than trying to herd together the huge and incredibly diverse Greater Arabia. The latter seems like it would be a louder version of the EU and I can safely say that the EU has been a catastrophe for Europeans.

    Syria is left alone to fight Western Zionist imperialism
     
    I'm certain none of the opposition to Assad would describe themselves as Zionist. I'm also close to certain that none of those with weapons would describe themselves as having a Western agenda.

    Your vision of Arabs is so depressing. You give them zero moral agency.

    while the same Arab nation back stabbers of the 60′s, i.e. Jordan and Saudi Arabia at the behest of Israel and the West continue to create chaos in the region
     
    Only at the 'behest', eh? See...zero moral agency.

    Lybia, Yemen and, Somalia are examples of what the future holds for every Arab country whether or not they collude with Israel, and the West today; they will be destroyed tomorrow
     
    Good use of word of the moment 'collude'. But it seems that Yemen and Somalia are examples of exactly the opposite of what you argue. While Libya was a deranged adventure born out of Gaddafi's past actions but undertaken when he was being entirely reasonable, hence 'deranged'.

    Do understand our progressive leaders - they've lost their collective minds.

    Your arguments are weak. You say that Israel cannot be said to be expanding because the Westbank is already occupyed by Israel since a long time. Yes, but the occupation cannot succeed completely without controlling the Palestinians, without encircling them in smaller Bantustans, without encouraging them to leave and giving up resistance to their dispossession. This is what is meant by expantion. Expantion means now also to weaken all potential enemies in the region like Syria, Irak, Libya which could challenge Israeli further effective expantion to occupyed territories and defend the rights of the Palestinians.

    One decisive difference between Nasser an Sisi which you din’t mention was that Israel gave up the Sinai a few years after the war in 1973 while Egypt gave up support for the Palestinians and for Syria. But why should they do that?

    You say also that the enemies of Assad wouldn’t say of themselves that they represent an Western agenda. So what? Some of them may be close to the West while others may be supported by the West even if they are not allies. What matters are the results that the West and Israel wants. Israel wants the devastation of Syria and has even given medical aid to Syrian Islamists. They cannot say this, but they can make propaganda against Assad in Western countries.

    Your talk of the Arabs having moral agency is typical of Zionists. Of course, someone who acts under pressure, or who was fooled by propaganda may still be said to have moral agency.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Tyrion 2 says: • Website

    Your talk of the Arabs having moral agency is typical of Zionists. Of course, someone who acts under pressure, or who was fooled by propaganda may still be said to have moral agency.

    Obviously, Arabs and Muslims have moral agency. My point was that the Occidentalist, third worldist PoMo brigade argue as if they don’t. Which is typical of those who can only find value in (supposed) victimisation.

    One decisive difference between Nasser an Sisi which you din’t mention was that Israel gave up the Sinai a few years after the war in 1973 while Egypt gave up support for the Palestinians and for Syria. But why should they do that?

    Because the Egyptians have their own interests: Egypt First.

    You say also that the enemies of Assad wouldn’t say of themselves that they represent an Western agenda. So what? Some of them may be close to the West while others may be supported by the West even if they are not allies. What matters are the results that the West and Israel wants.

    Only if you’re obsessed with and exult in your hatred for either the West or Israel or both. Otherwise, you can assume, while supported by their own words, that specific Middle Eastern countries are more than capable of identifying their own interests and acting on them.

    Israel wants the devastation of Syria and has even given medical aid to Syrian Islamists. They cannot say this, but they can make propaganda against Assad in Western countries

    I disagree and I don’t you think you provide strong evidence for this. The Syrian-Israeli border had long been peaceful before the Syrian civil war.

    You say that Israel cannot be said to be expanding because the Westbank is already occupyed by Israel since a long time. Yes, but the occupation cannot succeed completely without controlling the Palestinians, without encircling them in smaller Bantustans, without encouraging them to leave and giving up resistance to their dispossession.

    I don’t believe that Israel wants more than a tiny fraction of the West Bank and only that because their lunatic settlers have probably forced their government’s hand. I do wonder what Israel should do though?

    Expantion means now also to weaken all potential enemies in the region like Syria, Irak, Libya which could challenge Israeli further effective expantion to occupyed territories and defend the rights of the Palestinians.

    I don’t believe that Israel is responsible for those countries’ problems. Most of the responsibility lies with their own people. Regardless, you are saying that Israel is weakening those countries because those countries were working to wealen it. You just can’t admit it because it doesn’t fit your victim mentality.

    Also, that is not the definition of expansion but whatever…

    Read More
    • Replies: @UncommonGround
    Yes, the Egypts have their own interestes, but why should this exclude solidariety with the Palestinans and Syria? You may have arguments for Egypt giving them up. But in this case, why doesn't the US do the same with Israel? After all the US have their own interests. US first.

    You write further: "Only if you’re obsessed with and exult in your hatred for either the West or Israel or both." This makes no sense what so ever and cannot be justfied by what I wrote. All your arguments are either bad, sophistical or fuzzy. Try to understand what I wrote.

    You disagree with the fact that Israel favours the destruction of Syria? Why don't you think this is right? How do you explain Israel's medical aide to Islamists in Syria, why has Israel been attacking Syria weekly? I could also quote Israelis saying outright that the best outcome of the war is if both sides destroy each other.

    You don't believe that Israel wants only more than a tiny fraction of the Westbank? You must be the only one. Read the book by Ilan Pappe "Ten Myths about Israel". If they only wanted a tiny fraction, they would have presented a peace plan a long time ago. The Palestinians were always ready to make territorial concessions. Read the Palestinian Papers. Everybody knows that Likud (the official ideology of the land) demands the whole Westbank. If you don't know that, it's not worth while discussing with you because maybe you also don't know that the Earth isn't flat.

    You say that you don't believe that Israel is responsible for the problems of some countries in the region. That's not exactly what I had said. But there is evidence that Israel promoted wars in the region, among others wars the wars against Iraq which left one million dead people. Without Israel the West also wouldn't care very much about Assad. And who made and makes propaganda for a war against Iran?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Tyrion 2

    Your talk of the Arabs having moral agency is typical of Zionists. Of course, someone who acts under pressure, or who was fooled by propaganda may still be said to have moral agency.
     
    Obviously, Arabs and Muslims have moral agency. My point was that the Occidentalist, third worldist PoMo brigade argue as if they don't. Which is typical of those who can only find value in (supposed) victimisation.

    One decisive difference between Nasser an Sisi which you din’t mention was that Israel gave up the Sinai a few years after the war in 1973 while Egypt gave up support for the Palestinians and for Syria. But why should they do that?
     
    Because the Egyptians have their own interests: Egypt First.

    You say also that the enemies of Assad wouldn’t say of themselves that they represent an Western agenda. So what? Some of them may be close to the West while others may be supported by the West even if they are not allies. What matters are the results that the West and Israel wants.
     
    Only if you're obsessed with and exult in your hatred for either the West or Israel or both. Otherwise, you can assume, while supported by their own words, that specific Middle Eastern countries are more than capable of identifying their own interests and acting on them.

    Israel wants the devastation of Syria and has even given medical aid to Syrian Islamists. They cannot say this, but they can make propaganda against Assad in Western countries
     
    I disagree and I don't you think you provide strong evidence for this. The Syrian-Israeli border had long been peaceful before the Syrian civil war.

    You say that Israel cannot be said to be expanding because the Westbank is already occupyed by Israel since a long time. Yes, but the occupation cannot succeed completely without controlling the Palestinians, without encircling them in smaller Bantustans, without encouraging them to leave and giving up resistance to their dispossession.
     
    I don't believe that Israel wants more than a tiny fraction of the West Bank and only that because their lunatic settlers have probably forced their government's hand. I do wonder what Israel should do though?

    Expantion means now also to weaken all potential enemies in the region like Syria, Irak, Libya which could challenge Israeli further effective expantion to occupyed territories and defend the rights of the Palestinians.
     
    I don't believe that Israel is responsible for those countries' problems. Most of the responsibility lies with their own people. Regardless, you are saying that Israel is weakening those countries because those countries were working to wealen it. You just can't admit it because it doesn't fit your victim mentality.

    Also, that is not the definition of expansion but whatever...

    Yes, the Egypts have their own interestes, but why should this exclude solidariety with the Palestinans and Syria? You may have arguments for Egypt giving them up. But in this case, why doesn’t the US do the same with Israel? After all the US have their own interests. US first.

    You write further: “Only if you’re obsessed with and exult in your hatred for either the West or Israel or both.” This makes no sense what so ever and cannot be justfied by what I wrote. All your arguments are either bad, sophistical or fuzzy. Try to understand what I wrote.

    You disagree with the fact that Israel favours the destruction of Syria? Why don’t you think this is right? How do you explain Israel’s medical aide to Islamists in Syria, why has Israel been attacking Syria weekly? I could also quote Israelis saying outright that the best outcome of the war is if both sides destroy each other.

    You don’t believe that Israel wants only more than a tiny fraction of the Westbank? You must be the only one. Read the book by Ilan Pappe “Ten Myths about Israel”. If they only wanted a tiny fraction, they would have presented a peace plan a long time ago. The Palestinians were always ready to make territorial concessions. Read the Palestinian Papers. Everybody knows that Likud (the official ideology of the land) demands the whole Westbank. If you don’t know that, it’s not worth while discussing with you because maybe you also don’t know that the Earth isn’t flat.

    You say that you don’t believe that Israel is responsible for the problems of some countries in the region. That’s not exactly what I had said. But there is evidence that Israel promoted wars in the region, among others wars the wars against Iraq which left one million dead people. Without Israel the West also wouldn’t care very much about Assad. And who made and makes propaganda for a war against Iran?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2

    Yes, the Egypts have their own interestes, but why should this exclude solidariety with the Palestinans and Syria
     
    What have the Palestinians done with 70 years of Egyptian, Syrian and general Arab and Muslim support? Have they made their lives better? Has the support made their lives better?

    And, at what cost has said support come at to the greater Arab and Muslim worlds? It has lodged a poisonous narrative of passive victimhood, pointless martyrdom and has resulted with the repeated disgrace of your people again and again and again.

    You can say what you want about how you're somehow the innocent, helpless, (useless?) targets of Machiavellian Israelis and Western aggression but any objective observer can see nothing but extreme dysfunction when they look at your countries.

    Does this have to be the case? Perhaps you might try something different? Are you happy that your people live such lives?

    You disagree with the fact that Israel favours the destruction of Syria? Why don’t you think this is right? How do you explain Israel’s medical aide to Islamists in Syria, why has Israel been attacking Syria weekly? I could also quote Israelis saying outright that the best outcome of the war is if both sides destroy each other.
     
    I can quote endless Syrians and other Middle Easterners saying outright they want to kill all of the Jews.

    Also, medical aid delivered to anyone who turns up, no questions asked, is a kind thing. While, those attacks are on Iranian and Hezbollah targets which clearly Israel cannot have settling in Syria. This is obviously why Putin acquiesces and Assad, who probably doesn't want it either long-term, also goes along.

    You don’t believe that Israel wants only more than a tiny fraction of the Westbank? You must be the only one
     
    Actually, the majority of Israelis agree with me. And that is obviously the most important fact.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-most-israelis-opposed-to-annexing-parts-of-west-bank/?fb_comment_id=1431803963528873_1432251706817432#f2ba2fcc2824e4c

    But there is evidence that Israel promoted wars in the region, among others wars the wars against Iraq which left one million dead people. Without Israel the West also wouldn’t care very much about Assad. And who made and makes propaganda for a war against Iran
     
    Iraqis slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Syrians slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Turks slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Yemenis slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Lebanese slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Libyans slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Algerians slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Egyptians slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Jordanians slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

    You know when Hitler tried to invade Britain, we Brits did not instantly try to slaughter each other. Nor, when we invaded Germany, did the Germans instantly start murdering their cousins. Indeed, despite the Arab world repeatedly trying to destablise, invade or otherwise work out a way to destroy Israel, the Israelis haven't devolved into internecine warfare.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @UncommonGround
    Yes, the Egypts have their own interestes, but why should this exclude solidariety with the Palestinans and Syria? You may have arguments for Egypt giving them up. But in this case, why doesn't the US do the same with Israel? After all the US have their own interests. US first.

    You write further: "Only if you’re obsessed with and exult in your hatred for either the West or Israel or both." This makes no sense what so ever and cannot be justfied by what I wrote. All your arguments are either bad, sophistical or fuzzy. Try to understand what I wrote.

    You disagree with the fact that Israel favours the destruction of Syria? Why don't you think this is right? How do you explain Israel's medical aide to Islamists in Syria, why has Israel been attacking Syria weekly? I could also quote Israelis saying outright that the best outcome of the war is if both sides destroy each other.

    You don't believe that Israel wants only more than a tiny fraction of the Westbank? You must be the only one. Read the book by Ilan Pappe "Ten Myths about Israel". If they only wanted a tiny fraction, they would have presented a peace plan a long time ago. The Palestinians were always ready to make territorial concessions. Read the Palestinian Papers. Everybody knows that Likud (the official ideology of the land) demands the whole Westbank. If you don't know that, it's not worth while discussing with you because maybe you also don't know that the Earth isn't flat.

    You say that you don't believe that Israel is responsible for the problems of some countries in the region. That's not exactly what I had said. But there is evidence that Israel promoted wars in the region, among others wars the wars against Iraq which left one million dead people. Without Israel the West also wouldn't care very much about Assad. And who made and makes propaganda for a war against Iran?

    Yes, the Egypts have their own interestes, but why should this exclude solidariety with the Palestinans and Syria

    What have the Palestinians done with 70 years of Egyptian, Syrian and general Arab and Muslim support? Have they made their lives better? Has the support made their lives better?

    And, at what cost has said support come at to the greater Arab and Muslim worlds? It has lodged a poisonous narrative of passive victimhood, pointless martyrdom and has resulted with the repeated disgrace of your people again and again and again.

    You can say what you want about how you’re somehow the innocent, helpless, (useless?) targets of Machiavellian Israelis and Western aggression but any objective observer can see nothing but extreme dysfunction when they look at your countries.

    Does this have to be the case? Perhaps you might try something different? Are you happy that your people live such lives?

    You disagree with the fact that Israel favours the destruction of Syria? Why don’t you think this is right? How do you explain Israel’s medical aide to Islamists in Syria, why has Israel been attacking Syria weekly? I could also quote Israelis saying outright that the best outcome of the war is if both sides destroy each other.

    I can quote endless Syrians and other Middle Easterners saying outright they want to kill all of the Jews.

    Also, medical aid delivered to anyone who turns up, no questions asked, is a kind thing. While, those attacks are on Iranian and Hezbollah targets which clearly Israel cannot have settling in Syria. This is obviously why Putin acquiesces and Assad, who probably doesn’t want it either long-term, also goes along.

    You don’t believe that Israel wants only more than a tiny fraction of the Westbank? You must be the only one

    Actually, the majority of Israelis agree with me. And that is obviously the most important fact.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-most-israelis-opposed-to-annexing-parts-of-west-bank/?fb_comment_id=1431803963528873_1432251706817432#f2ba2fcc2824e4c

    But there is evidence that Israel promoted wars in the region, among others wars the wars against Iraq which left one million dead people. Without Israel the West also wouldn’t care very much about Assad. And who made and makes propaganda for a war against Iran

    Iraqis slaughter each other like maniacs…and Israel is at fault.

    Syrians slaughter each other like maniacs…and Israel is at fault.

    Turks slaughter each other like maniacs…and Israel is at fault.

    Yemenis slaughter each other like maniacs…and Israel is at fault.

    Lebanese slaughter each other like maniacs…and Israel is at fault.

    Libyans slaughter each other like maniacs…and Israel is at fault.

    Algerians slaughter each other like maniacs…and Israel is at fault.

    Egyptians slaughter each other like maniacs…and Israel is at fault.

    Jordanians slaughter each other like maniacs…and Israel is at fault.

    Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

    You know when Hitler tried to invade Britain, we Brits did not instantly try to slaughter each other. Nor, when we invaded Germany, did the Germans instantly start murdering their cousins. Indeed, despite the Arab world repeatedly trying to destablise, invade or otherwise work out a way to destroy Israel, the Israelis haven’t devolved into internecine warfare.

    Read More
    • Replies: @UncommonGround
    Sorry, Middle East countries aren't my country in any way. Let me give short answers. If Israel doesn't want the West Bank, why has Israel never presented publicly a peace plan and made clear what are their borders? Why Israel keeps preventing Palestinians from building in their own territories? It's clear anyway that Israel wants the whole Jordan Valley because they have said that. There is historical evidence for the fact that Israel wants the whole West Bank. There is also a lot of other evidence for that: "“We are guarding Samaria [the Israeli name for the West Bank] against those who want to uproot us. We will deepen our roots, build, strengthen and settle,” the premier (Netanyahu) added." (quote from The Independent).

    Medical aid? You have nothing against medical aid to terrorists who belong to groups close to Al Kaida? Are you a sympatisant of them? Why at the same time Israel lets Palestinians die without medical assistence, some times waiting months for medical help to treat cancer? Israel kills journalists, medical personal, children but helps Islamists? And never would help any Syrian soldier.

    Your answer about possible support for Palestinians show that you don't really view them as humans. This is also typical of ideological Zionists.

    You didn't explain why so many Zionists make propaganda and push for wars and sanction which caused millions of deaths. You assumed something about me which was wrong. I'm sure you work for a propaganda buro. Couldn' you tell your chef to send someone who is competent to discuss such matters?

    , @Them Guys
    Here is how your good pals the Zio-Jews deal with their Own Jews based on their belief of: The End justifies the Means! Read closely as it well describes Zio-Jewish Tactics used on Jews.

    “Terrorism and ‘revenge’ were…to be glorified as the ‘moral… and even sacred’ values of Israeli society. . . . [T]he military symbol was now Unit 101, led by Arik [Ariel] Sharon. …The lives of Jewish victims…had to be sacrificed to create provocations justifying subsequent reprisals. … A hammering, daily propaganda, controlled by the censors, was directed to feed the Israeli population with images of the monstrosity of the Enemy.”
    — from the dairy of Moshe Sharett, Prime Minister of Israel, in Livia Rokach’s "Israels Sacred Terrorism", p. 44 (1980). Rokach’s father was Sharett’s minister of the Interior and had access to inside information. She was later found dead in a hotel room in Rome under mysterious circumstances.

    Jews and Zios always cry and whine of how "All jews desire is Peace! World of Peace"

    However as those that are jewized up know, the jewish have a way with abject Lies eh.

    “The Jewish Question is being discussed by statesmen in a way more acute and compelling than ever before in the history of the world. They can do whatever they want, but the nations of the earth well never be able to get away from this question. The Jewish serpent will show its hydra’s heads everywhere, blocking the way to a relaxation of international tensions. We Jews will not allow peace in the world, however hard statesmen and peace advocates try to bring it about.”
    — London Jewish Chronicle, March 3, 1939

    Whom were the Biggest/ Most/ONLY Victims that ever Matter in and since, WWII? Why international Jewry of Course! Just ask any jew! Ask a jew... Who caused WWII?

    “We Jews are going to bring war on Germany.”
    — David Brown, President of American Hebrew, in 1934, quoted in Edmonson’s I Testify, page 188.

    “The Second World War is being fought for the defense of the fundamentals of Judaism.”
    — The Chicago Jewish Sentinel, October 8, 1942.

    “World War II was a Zionist plot to make way for the foundation of the Jewish State in Palestine.”
    — Joseph Burg, an anti-Zionist Jew

    Remember: Those early prior to WWII war, quotes were LONG before even one single hair on a single jewish head was ever yet harmed!...LONG before!

    It's Long past time for jewry as a whole to finally admit to every crime, every nefarious action, and all else the entire worlds nation's and people's have so suffered from, By and From so many members of their Self Chozens bad, evil, wrong deed's.
    , @Anon
    Iraqis slaughter each other like maniacs…and Israel is at fault.
    Syrians slaughter each other like maniacs…and Israel is at fault.


    Political peace is precarious in diverse nations.

    Iraq, Syria, and Libya blew up because Zionist-globalists in the exploited the diversity in those nations to set off one tribe against another.

    So, yes, Arabs did kill Arabs and Muslims did kill Muslims, but the violence was set off by US invasion(led by Neocons) and US aid to insurgents in Libya and to terrorists in Syria.
    , @Greasy William

    Actually, the majority of Israelis agree with me. And that is obviously the most important fact.
     
    Self serving nonsense.

    Israelis don't want to annex Judea and Samaria (not the "West Bank") only because they don't want more Arabs. There is 0 interest in Israel today in returning any territory to the Arabs. This isn't 2005.

    Most Israelis, today, oppose official annexation, preferring the current status of de facto annexation. In 15 years, however, as Israel becomes increasingly religious, you will have majority support for official annexation.

    , @Kolo
    What utter zio garbage
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack Ryan
    Viva Pinochet!

    Chile is now enjoying Chicago School of Economics “The Chicago Boys” implemented by a tough no nonsense South American Catholic patriot

    Viva Pinochet !

    Which place is better now Chile or Venezuela?

    Viva Pinchot

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @renfro
    This really is an excellent article, concise and according to all my own searches of US records it is very accurate.

    One can verify most of it in the transcripts, memos, telegrams, calls, meetings of those involved in these two archives:

    https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19

    https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol49no1/html_files/arab_israeli_war_1.html

    It was known by all that Nasser did not want to go to war or attack Israel.
    It was known that Israel would likely attack Egypt...although not admitted by the US to other countries.
    It was NOT known that in May the US got together a weapons 'aid' package for Israel.

    /2/Rusk's memorandum of May 22, attached, recommended approval of the aid package for Israel on a secret basis. It commented that the $16 million credit for military spare parts was of particular importance. Concerning the package of military and economic assistance to Israel that was under discussion prior to the outbreak of the crisis, see Foreign Relations, 1964-1968, volume XVIII.

    It was known that Egyptians were near starving due to US congress sanctions imposed in '63 and that this figured in Nasser's choices of war or no war.

    'I asked him for any observations on the present scene. He says he doesn't believe the Arab nations want war. Nasser, however, faces a "terrible internal problem." His people are very close to starvation. A month ago when a food ship came into harbor, shopkeepers were instructed to put a sack of flour in front of their shops to prevent food riots. He believes we made a serious mistake in cutting off Nasser without food as we did. He said that he found no obstacle in his conversations in the Senate. When I said that the problem appeared to be in the House, he said: "No one asked me to talk to anyone in the House."

    It was known that Russia was taking a moderate approach not wanting to become physically involved in the standoff.

    [However that changed]
    On 10 June, as Israeli victory appeared near, the White House received a message over the “Hot Line” from Soviet premier Alexei Kosygin. The Kremlin foresaw a “grave catastrophe” and threatened to take “necessary actions . . . including military” if the Israelis did not halt their advance across the Golan Heights.[12] Helms was in the Situation Room with several other presidential advisers when the message from the Kremlin came over from the Pentagon, where the Hot Line teletype was located. Helms remembered the setting as “unlike the Hollywood versions of situation rooms . . . there were no flashing lights, no elaborate projections of maps and photographs on a silver screen, or even any armed guards rigidly at attention beside the doorway. The room itself was painted a bleak beige and furnished simply with an oval conference table and an assortment of comfortable chairs.”

    Helms recalled the hush and chill that fell over the room after the translation of Kosygin's message was checked. “The room went silent as abruptly as if a radio had been switched off . . . The conversation was conducted in the lowest voices I have ever heard . . . It seemed impossible to believe that five years after the missile confrontation in Cuba, the two superpowers had again squared off.” On the recommendation of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara (endorsed by all present), Johnson dispatched the Sixth Fleet to the eastern Mediterranean—a move intended to convey American resolve without backing the Soviets into a corner. Helms told the president that Russian submarines monitoring the fleet's movement would immediately report that it had changed course. Moscow got the message, and a cease-fire later that day restored an uneasy peace to the region.


    It was known with fair certainty when Israel would attack Egypt. But that was not shared with Egypt or any other countries.

    Having answered one crucial question of the president's—how would the war end?—Helms also was able to warn him when it was about to begin. Helms met on 1 June with a senior Israeli official who hinted that Israel could no longer avoid a decision. Its restraint thus far was due to American pressure, but, he said, the delay had cost Israel the advantage of surprise. Helms interpreted the remarks as suggesting that Israel would attack very soon. Moreover, according to Helms, the official stated clearly that although Israel expected US diplomatic backing and the delivery of weapons already agreed upon, it would request no additional support and did not expect any. The official abruptly left the United States on 2 June along with the Israeli ambassador. That morning, according to published accounts, Helms wrote an “Eyes Only” letter to President Johnson, forewarning that Israel probably would start a war within a few days

    Is there some reason Egypt couldn’t feed itself?

    It’s got millions of square miles of the most fertile flattest farm land in the world with plenty of water, an *excellent irrigation system, plenty of animal manure, year long growing season and everything needed to feed itself.

    It’s farm land is equivalent toArgentina, the American Midwest, Central Valley of California Ukraine and France.

    So what’s wrong???

    * Irrigation system built long before the Muslim conquest and nothing done to improve it between 650 Ad and building of the Aswan dam.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bjondo
    Hebrews stole fertile soil, seeds, animal manure, well, everything. Their god, Satan, said to. Hebrews did leave tons of their turds and sweat in the Nile murdering it for at least a millennia. Now Yid pretend to be Hebr so continue tradition of stealing and lying and deceiving. They pass the test to be Hebrew.

    Nasser a great man, great leader.

    Easy to know by the number of jealous Jew scurrying like rats to keyboards to pollute sites like UR.

    Now we know another component of Jew skunk water: Jew jealousy to go with Jew sweat and Jew breath.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Tyrion 2

    Yes, the Egypts have their own interestes, but why should this exclude solidariety with the Palestinans and Syria
     
    What have the Palestinians done with 70 years of Egyptian, Syrian and general Arab and Muslim support? Have they made their lives better? Has the support made their lives better?

    And, at what cost has said support come at to the greater Arab and Muslim worlds? It has lodged a poisonous narrative of passive victimhood, pointless martyrdom and has resulted with the repeated disgrace of your people again and again and again.

    You can say what you want about how you're somehow the innocent, helpless, (useless?) targets of Machiavellian Israelis and Western aggression but any objective observer can see nothing but extreme dysfunction when they look at your countries.

    Does this have to be the case? Perhaps you might try something different? Are you happy that your people live such lives?

    You disagree with the fact that Israel favours the destruction of Syria? Why don’t you think this is right? How do you explain Israel’s medical aide to Islamists in Syria, why has Israel been attacking Syria weekly? I could also quote Israelis saying outright that the best outcome of the war is if both sides destroy each other.
     
    I can quote endless Syrians and other Middle Easterners saying outright they want to kill all of the Jews.

    Also, medical aid delivered to anyone who turns up, no questions asked, is a kind thing. While, those attacks are on Iranian and Hezbollah targets which clearly Israel cannot have settling in Syria. This is obviously why Putin acquiesces and Assad, who probably doesn't want it either long-term, also goes along.

    You don’t believe that Israel wants only more than a tiny fraction of the Westbank? You must be the only one
     
    Actually, the majority of Israelis agree with me. And that is obviously the most important fact.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-most-israelis-opposed-to-annexing-parts-of-west-bank/?fb_comment_id=1431803963528873_1432251706817432#f2ba2fcc2824e4c

    But there is evidence that Israel promoted wars in the region, among others wars the wars against Iraq which left one million dead people. Without Israel the West also wouldn’t care very much about Assad. And who made and makes propaganda for a war against Iran
     
    Iraqis slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Syrians slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Turks slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Yemenis slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Lebanese slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Libyans slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Algerians slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Egyptians slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Jordanians slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

    You know when Hitler tried to invade Britain, we Brits did not instantly try to slaughter each other. Nor, when we invaded Germany, did the Germans instantly start murdering their cousins. Indeed, despite the Arab world repeatedly trying to destablise, invade or otherwise work out a way to destroy Israel, the Israelis haven't devolved into internecine warfare.

    Sorry, Middle East countries aren’t my country in any way. Let me give short answers. If Israel doesn’t want the West Bank, why has Israel never presented publicly a peace plan and made clear what are their borders? Why Israel keeps preventing Palestinians from building in their own territories? It’s clear anyway that Israel wants the whole Jordan Valley because they have said that. There is historical evidence for the fact that Israel wants the whole West Bank. There is also a lot of other evidence for that: ““We are guarding Samaria [the Israeli name for the West Bank] against those who want to uproot us. We will deepen our roots, build, strengthen and settle,” the premier (Netanyahu) added.” (quote from The Independent).

    Medical aid? You have nothing against medical aid to terrorists who belong to groups close to Al Kaida? Are you a sympatisant of them? Why at the same time Israel lets Palestinians die without medical assistence, some times waiting months for medical help to treat cancer? Israel kills journalists, medical personal, children but helps Islamists? And never would help any Syrian soldier.

    Your answer about possible support for Palestinians show that you don’t really view them as humans. This is also typical of ideological Zionists.

    You didn’t explain why so many Zionists make propaganda and push for wars and sanction which caused millions of deaths. You assumed something about me which was wrong. I’m sure you work for a propaganda buro. Couldn’ you tell your chef to send someone who is competent to discuss such matters?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2

    Sorry, Middle East countries aren’t my country in any way.
     
    Apologies, I assumed so after your spelling mistakes. They do not seem like typos as they were repeated.

    If Israel doesn’t want the West Bank, why has Israel never presented publicly a peace plan and made clear what are their borders? Why Israel keeps preventing Palestinians from building in their own territories?
     
    Negotiation.

    If they wanted it all, they could have taken it decades ago. Who would have stopped them?

    Medical aid? You have nothing against medical aid to terrorists who belong to groups close to Al Kaida? Are you a sympatisant of them? Why at the same time Israel lets Palestinians die without medical assistence, some times waiting months for medical help to treat cancer? Israel kills journalists, medical personal, children but helps Islamists? And never would help any Syrian soldier
     
    The medical aid is given with no questions asked. So anyone can turn up and get it.

    Our doctrine in Afghanistan was to treat wounded Taliban soldiers, even those wounded by us, as equal priority to our own casualties. That doesn't mean we supported the Taliban, obviously.

    Your answer about possible support for Palestinians show that you don’t really view them as humans. This is also typical of ideological Zionists
     
    Nonsense, I assigned them moral agency. You want them as pets to pursue your bizarre obsessive hatreds.

    You didn’t explain why so many Zionists make propaganda and push for wars and sanction which caused millions of deaths.
     
    It seems that Muslims killing Muslims is the number one cause of death through conflict in the world. You can continue with your kooky theory of blaming Zionists but I can quite easily see who is doing the slaughtering. I imagine that it would be Muslims killing other religions, but they've all been killed or run away already.

    I’m sure you work for a propaganda buro. Couldn’ you tell your chef to send someone who is competent to discuss such matters?
     
    That always seems to be the final argument when all else fails your type,but you should realise that all of my points that you could not answer would remain valid and unaswerable even if I were "Hasbara".

    What would you do if you were Palestinian and Israel is as malevolent as you project?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @UncommonGround
    Sorry, Middle East countries aren't my country in any way. Let me give short answers. If Israel doesn't want the West Bank, why has Israel never presented publicly a peace plan and made clear what are their borders? Why Israel keeps preventing Palestinians from building in their own territories? It's clear anyway that Israel wants the whole Jordan Valley because they have said that. There is historical evidence for the fact that Israel wants the whole West Bank. There is also a lot of other evidence for that: "“We are guarding Samaria [the Israeli name for the West Bank] against those who want to uproot us. We will deepen our roots, build, strengthen and settle,” the premier (Netanyahu) added." (quote from The Independent).

    Medical aid? You have nothing against medical aid to terrorists who belong to groups close to Al Kaida? Are you a sympatisant of them? Why at the same time Israel lets Palestinians die without medical assistence, some times waiting months for medical help to treat cancer? Israel kills journalists, medical personal, children but helps Islamists? And never would help any Syrian soldier.

    Your answer about possible support for Palestinians show that you don't really view them as humans. This is also typical of ideological Zionists.

    You didn't explain why so many Zionists make propaganda and push for wars and sanction which caused millions of deaths. You assumed something about me which was wrong. I'm sure you work for a propaganda buro. Couldn' you tell your chef to send someone who is competent to discuss such matters?

    Sorry, Middle East countries aren’t my country in any way.

    Apologies, I assumed so after your spelling mistakes. They do not seem like typos as they were repeated.

    If Israel doesn’t want the West Bank, why has Israel never presented publicly a peace plan and made clear what are their borders? Why Israel keeps preventing Palestinians from building in their own territories?

    Negotiation.

    If they wanted it all, they could have taken it decades ago. Who would have stopped them?

    Medical aid? You have nothing against medical aid to terrorists who belong to groups close to Al Kaida? Are you a sympatisant of them? Why at the same time Israel lets Palestinians die without medical assistence, some times waiting months for medical help to treat cancer? Israel kills journalists, medical personal, children but helps Islamists? And never would help any Syrian soldier

    The medical aid is given with no questions asked. So anyone can turn up and get it.

    Our doctrine in Afghanistan was to treat wounded Taliban soldiers, even those wounded by us, as equal priority to our own casualties. That doesn’t mean we supported the Taliban, obviously.

    Your answer about possible support for Palestinians show that you don’t really view them as humans. This is also typical of ideological Zionists

    Nonsense, I assigned them moral agency. You want them as pets to pursue your bizarre obsessive hatreds.

    You didn’t explain why so many Zionists make propaganda and push for wars and sanction which caused millions of deaths.

    It seems that Muslims killing Muslims is the number one cause of death through conflict in the world. You can continue with your kooky theory of blaming Zionists but I can quite easily see who is doing the slaughtering. I imagine that it would be Muslims killing other religions, but they’ve all been killed or run away already.

    I’m sure you work for a propaganda buro. Couldn’ you tell your chef to send someone who is competent to discuss such matters?

    That always seems to be the final argument when all else fails your type,but you should realise that all of my points that you could not answer would remain valid and unaswerable even if I were “Hasbara”.

    What would you do if you were Palestinian and Israel is as malevolent as you project?

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Good posts.

    Hehe....perhaps too good.
    As:

    You want them as pets to pursue your bizarre obsessive hatreds.

     

    and

    That always seems to be the final argument when all else fails your type,but you should realise that all of my points that you could not answer would remain valid and unaswerable even if I were “Hasbara”.
     
    You use hard facts and employ reason.
    Facts, in most topics here, ME in particular, don't matter much. Reason even less so.

    Besides, your approach disturbs the "online therapy".
    Unfriendly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Them Guys says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Yes, the Egypts have their own interestes, but why should this exclude solidariety with the Palestinans and Syria
     
    What have the Palestinians done with 70 years of Egyptian, Syrian and general Arab and Muslim support? Have they made their lives better? Has the support made their lives better?

    And, at what cost has said support come at to the greater Arab and Muslim worlds? It has lodged a poisonous narrative of passive victimhood, pointless martyrdom and has resulted with the repeated disgrace of your people again and again and again.

    You can say what you want about how you're somehow the innocent, helpless, (useless?) targets of Machiavellian Israelis and Western aggression but any objective observer can see nothing but extreme dysfunction when they look at your countries.

    Does this have to be the case? Perhaps you might try something different? Are you happy that your people live such lives?

    You disagree with the fact that Israel favours the destruction of Syria? Why don’t you think this is right? How do you explain Israel’s medical aide to Islamists in Syria, why has Israel been attacking Syria weekly? I could also quote Israelis saying outright that the best outcome of the war is if both sides destroy each other.
     
    I can quote endless Syrians and other Middle Easterners saying outright they want to kill all of the Jews.

    Also, medical aid delivered to anyone who turns up, no questions asked, is a kind thing. While, those attacks are on Iranian and Hezbollah targets which clearly Israel cannot have settling in Syria. This is obviously why Putin acquiesces and Assad, who probably doesn't want it either long-term, also goes along.

    You don’t believe that Israel wants only more than a tiny fraction of the Westbank? You must be the only one
     
    Actually, the majority of Israelis agree with me. And that is obviously the most important fact.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-most-israelis-opposed-to-annexing-parts-of-west-bank/?fb_comment_id=1431803963528873_1432251706817432#f2ba2fcc2824e4c

    But there is evidence that Israel promoted wars in the region, among others wars the wars against Iraq which left one million dead people. Without Israel the West also wouldn’t care very much about Assad. And who made and makes propaganda for a war against Iran
     
    Iraqis slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Syrians slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Turks slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Yemenis slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Lebanese slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Libyans slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Algerians slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Egyptians slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Jordanians slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

    You know when Hitler tried to invade Britain, we Brits did not instantly try to slaughter each other. Nor, when we invaded Germany, did the Germans instantly start murdering their cousins. Indeed, despite the Arab world repeatedly trying to destablise, invade or otherwise work out a way to destroy Israel, the Israelis haven't devolved into internecine warfare.

    Here is how your good pals the Zio-Jews deal with their Own Jews based on their belief of: The End justifies the Means! Read closely as it well describes Zio-Jewish Tactics used on Jews.

    “Terrorism and ‘revenge’ were…to be glorified as the ‘moral… and even sacred’ values of Israeli society. . . . [T]he military symbol was now Unit 101, led by Arik [Ariel] Sharon. …The lives of Jewish victims…had to be sacrificed to create provocations justifying subsequent reprisals. … A hammering, daily propaganda, controlled by the censors, was directed to feed the Israeli population with images of the monstrosity of the Enemy.”
    — from the dairy of Moshe Sharett, Prime Minister of Israel, in Livia Rokach’s “Israels Sacred Terrorism”, p. 44 (1980). Rokach’s father was Sharett’s minister of the Interior and had access to inside information. She was later found dead in a hotel room in Rome under mysterious circumstances.

    Jews and Zios always cry and whine of how “All jews desire is Peace! World of Peace”

    However as those that are jewized up know, the jewish have a way with abject Lies eh.

    “The Jewish Question is being discussed by statesmen in a way more acute and compelling than ever before in the history of the world. They can do whatever they want, but the nations of the earth well never be able to get away from this question. The Jewish serpent will show its hydra’s heads everywhere, blocking the way to a relaxation of international tensions. We Jews will not allow peace in the world, however hard statesmen and peace advocates try to bring it about.”
    — London Jewish Chronicle, March 3, 1939

    Whom were the Biggest/ Most/ONLY Victims that ever Matter in and since, WWII? Why international Jewry of Course! Just ask any jew! Ask a jew… Who caused WWII?

    “We Jews are going to bring war on Germany.”
    — David Brown, President of American Hebrew, in 1934, quoted in Edmonson’s I Testify, page 188.

    “The Second World War is being fought for the defense of the fundamentals of Judaism.”
    — The Chicago Jewish Sentinel, October 8, 1942.

    “World War II was a Zionist plot to make way for the foundation of the Jewish State in Palestine.”
    — Joseph Burg, an anti-Zionist Jew

    Remember: Those early prior to WWII war, quotes were LONG before even one single hair on a single jewish head was ever yet harmed!…LONG before!

    It’s Long past time for jewry as a whole to finally admit to every crime, every nefarious action, and all else the entire worlds nation’s and people’s have so suffered from, By and From so many members of their Self Chozens bad, evil, wrong deed’s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Tyrion 2 says: • Website

    Do you have a text file of out of context, irrelevant and entirely fictitious quotes that you spam as much as you can?

    Why?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. bjondo says:
    @Anon
    Is there some reason Egypt couldn’t feed itself?

    It’s got millions of square miles of the most fertile flattest farm land in the world with plenty of water, an *excellent irrigation system, plenty of animal manure, year long growing season and everything needed to feed itself.

    It’s farm land is equivalent toArgentina, the American Midwest, Central Valley of California Ukraine and France.

    So what’s wrong???

    * Irrigation system built long before the Muslim conquest and nothing done to improve it between 650 Ad and building of the Aswan dam.

    Hebrews stole fertile soil, seeds, animal manure, well, everything. Their god, Satan, said to. Hebrews did leave tons of their turds and sweat in the Nile murdering it for at least a millennia. Now Yid pretend to be Hebr so continue tradition of stealing and lying and deceiving. They pass the test to be Hebrew.

    Nasser a great man, great leader.

    Easy to know by the number of jealous Jew scurrying like rats to keyboards to pollute sites like UR.

    Now we know another component of Jew skunk water: Jew jealousy to go with Jew sweat and Jew breath.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Karl says:
    @Ibn Issam
    Prophet Muhammad (sws) was more successful at unifying diverse tribes, clans, people, nations into an unstoppable force than even Genghis Khan could have ever imagined. Unlike the Great Khan, whose empire collapsed immediately after his own death, the unity that was forged among peoples by Prophet Muhammad (sws) lasted for many centuries after his passing. At its height, the Islamic empire stretched further and wider than the Roman empire.

    51 Ibn Issam > Prophet Muhammad (sws) was more successful at unifying diverse tribes, clans, people, nations

    i’lll mention that to all the next-of-kin of those who now sleep in cemeteries, due to shiite-sunni interfighting

    > Unlike the Great Khan, whose empire collapsed immediately after his own death, the unity that was forged among peoples by Prophet Muhammad (sws) lasted for many centuries after his passing

    Fact: Shortly after he died, his followers were killing each other, in attempts to be the one who became the next Caliph

    PS: fact: there was no new war in June 1967, as there was no “peace”; there was an armistice

    fact: Nassar violated the contractual terms of the armistice, by closing the Straits of Tiran at Sharm-el-Sheikh, thus blockading the Israeli port of Eilat

    fact: Israel tried, for TWO WEEKS, to get the world to turn that blockade off.

    fact: conclusion – Nassar re-started a fight; Israel finished it

    Read More
    • Replies: @bjondo
    There is a smell about you and your ilk. A bad smell of desperation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. peterAUS says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Sorry, Middle East countries aren’t my country in any way.
     
    Apologies, I assumed so after your spelling mistakes. They do not seem like typos as they were repeated.

    If Israel doesn’t want the West Bank, why has Israel never presented publicly a peace plan and made clear what are their borders? Why Israel keeps preventing Palestinians from building in their own territories?
     
    Negotiation.

    If they wanted it all, they could have taken it decades ago. Who would have stopped them?

    Medical aid? You have nothing against medical aid to terrorists who belong to groups close to Al Kaida? Are you a sympatisant of them? Why at the same time Israel lets Palestinians die without medical assistence, some times waiting months for medical help to treat cancer? Israel kills journalists, medical personal, children but helps Islamists? And never would help any Syrian soldier
     
    The medical aid is given with no questions asked. So anyone can turn up and get it.

    Our doctrine in Afghanistan was to treat wounded Taliban soldiers, even those wounded by us, as equal priority to our own casualties. That doesn't mean we supported the Taliban, obviously.

    Your answer about possible support for Palestinians show that you don’t really view them as humans. This is also typical of ideological Zionists
     
    Nonsense, I assigned them moral agency. You want them as pets to pursue your bizarre obsessive hatreds.

    You didn’t explain why so many Zionists make propaganda and push for wars and sanction which caused millions of deaths.
     
    It seems that Muslims killing Muslims is the number one cause of death through conflict in the world. You can continue with your kooky theory of blaming Zionists but I can quite easily see who is doing the slaughtering. I imagine that it would be Muslims killing other religions, but they've all been killed or run away already.

    I’m sure you work for a propaganda buro. Couldn’ you tell your chef to send someone who is competent to discuss such matters?
     
    That always seems to be the final argument when all else fails your type,but you should realise that all of my points that you could not answer would remain valid and unaswerable even if I were "Hasbara".

    What would you do if you were Palestinian and Israel is as malevolent as you project?

    Good posts.

    Hehe….perhaps too good.
    As:

    You want them as pets to pursue your bizarre obsessive hatreds.

    and

    That always seems to be the final argument when all else fails your type,but you should realise that all of my points that you could not answer would remain valid and unaswerable even if I were “Hasbara”.

    You use hard facts and employ reason.
    Facts, in most topics here, ME in particular, don’t matter much. Reason even less so.

    Besides, your approach disturbs the “online therapy”.
    Unfriendly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bjondo
    Yid 1 to Yid 2: "Pat my crepe brother Yid and I'll pat yours. We be so slick."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Anon[121] • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @Tyrion 2

    Yes, the Egypts have their own interestes, but why should this exclude solidariety with the Palestinans and Syria
     
    What have the Palestinians done with 70 years of Egyptian, Syrian and general Arab and Muslim support? Have they made their lives better? Has the support made their lives better?

    And, at what cost has said support come at to the greater Arab and Muslim worlds? It has lodged a poisonous narrative of passive victimhood, pointless martyrdom and has resulted with the repeated disgrace of your people again and again and again.

    You can say what you want about how you're somehow the innocent, helpless, (useless?) targets of Machiavellian Israelis and Western aggression but any objective observer can see nothing but extreme dysfunction when they look at your countries.

    Does this have to be the case? Perhaps you might try something different? Are you happy that your people live such lives?

    You disagree with the fact that Israel favours the destruction of Syria? Why don’t you think this is right? How do you explain Israel’s medical aide to Islamists in Syria, why has Israel been attacking Syria weekly? I could also quote Israelis saying outright that the best outcome of the war is if both sides destroy each other.
     
    I can quote endless Syrians and other Middle Easterners saying outright they want to kill all of the Jews.

    Also, medical aid delivered to anyone who turns up, no questions asked, is a kind thing. While, those attacks are on Iranian and Hezbollah targets which clearly Israel cannot have settling in Syria. This is obviously why Putin acquiesces and Assad, who probably doesn't want it either long-term, also goes along.

    You don’t believe that Israel wants only more than a tiny fraction of the Westbank? You must be the only one
     
    Actually, the majority of Israelis agree with me. And that is obviously the most important fact.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-most-israelis-opposed-to-annexing-parts-of-west-bank/?fb_comment_id=1431803963528873_1432251706817432#f2ba2fcc2824e4c

    But there is evidence that Israel promoted wars in the region, among others wars the wars against Iraq which left one million dead people. Without Israel the West also wouldn’t care very much about Assad. And who made and makes propaganda for a war against Iran
     
    Iraqis slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Syrians slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Turks slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Yemenis slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Lebanese slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Libyans slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Algerians slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Egyptians slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Jordanians slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

    You know when Hitler tried to invade Britain, we Brits did not instantly try to slaughter each other. Nor, when we invaded Germany, did the Germans instantly start murdering their cousins. Indeed, despite the Arab world repeatedly trying to destablise, invade or otherwise work out a way to destroy Israel, the Israelis haven't devolved into internecine warfare.

    Iraqis slaughter each other like maniacs…and Israel is at fault.
    Syrians slaughter each other like maniacs…and Israel is at fault.

    Political peace is precarious in diverse nations.

    Iraq, Syria, and Libya blew up because Zionist-globalists in the exploited the diversity in those nations to set off one tribe against another.

    So, yes, Arabs did kill Arabs and Muslims did kill Muslims, but the violence was set off by US invasion(led by Neocons) and US aid to insurgents in Libya and to terrorists in Syria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Do you not find it bizarre how it is taken as a matter of faith that somehow the vibrant people slaughtering each other are always innocent, whereas, if anyone of less colour so much as looked at the diverse chaos, then it is somehow their fault?

    Again, no one is forcing them to murder each other. Nor is their murdering each other an understandable reaction to anything the West or Israel has done.

    The way in which people in the West want to make it all about us is pathetic. The way some here want to make it all about scheming Jews is gross.

    Were I Iraqi, I would have seen the toppling of Saddam Hussein as fortuitous and a great opportunity (a gift) to Make Iraq, Great Again.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. bjondo says:
    @Karl
    51 Ibn Issam > Prophet Muhammad (sws) was more successful at unifying diverse tribes, clans, people, nations

    i'lll mention that to all the next-of-kin of those who now sleep in cemeteries, due to shiite-sunni interfighting


    > Unlike the Great Khan, whose empire collapsed immediately after his own death, the unity that was forged among peoples by Prophet Muhammad (sws) lasted for many centuries after his passing

    Fact: Shortly after he died, his followers were killing each other, in attempts to be the one who became the next Caliph

    PS: fact: there was no new war in June 1967, as there was no "peace"; there was an armistice

    fact: Nassar violated the contractual terms of the armistice, by closing the Straits of Tiran at Sharm-el-Sheikh, thus blockading the Israeli port of Eilat

    fact: Israel tried, for TWO WEEKS, to get the world to turn that blockade off.

    fact: conclusion - Nassar re-started a fight; Israel finished it

    There is a smell about you and your ilk. A bad smell of desperation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. bjondo says:
    @peterAUS
    Good posts.

    Hehe....perhaps too good.
    As:

    You want them as pets to pursue your bizarre obsessive hatreds.

     

    and

    That always seems to be the final argument when all else fails your type,but you should realise that all of my points that you could not answer would remain valid and unaswerable even if I were “Hasbara”.
     
    You use hard facts and employ reason.
    Facts, in most topics here, ME in particular, don't matter much. Reason even less so.

    Besides, your approach disturbs the "online therapy".
    Unfriendly.

    Yid 1 to Yid 2: “Pat my crepe brother Yid and I’ll pat yours. We be so slick.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Tyrion 2

    Yes, the Egypts have their own interestes, but why should this exclude solidariety with the Palestinans and Syria
     
    What have the Palestinians done with 70 years of Egyptian, Syrian and general Arab and Muslim support? Have they made their lives better? Has the support made their lives better?

    And, at what cost has said support come at to the greater Arab and Muslim worlds? It has lodged a poisonous narrative of passive victimhood, pointless martyrdom and has resulted with the repeated disgrace of your people again and again and again.

    You can say what you want about how you're somehow the innocent, helpless, (useless?) targets of Machiavellian Israelis and Western aggression but any objective observer can see nothing but extreme dysfunction when they look at your countries.

    Does this have to be the case? Perhaps you might try something different? Are you happy that your people live such lives?

    You disagree with the fact that Israel favours the destruction of Syria? Why don’t you think this is right? How do you explain Israel’s medical aide to Islamists in Syria, why has Israel been attacking Syria weekly? I could also quote Israelis saying outright that the best outcome of the war is if both sides destroy each other.
     
    I can quote endless Syrians and other Middle Easterners saying outright they want to kill all of the Jews.

    Also, medical aid delivered to anyone who turns up, no questions asked, is a kind thing. While, those attacks are on Iranian and Hezbollah targets which clearly Israel cannot have settling in Syria. This is obviously why Putin acquiesces and Assad, who probably doesn't want it either long-term, also goes along.

    You don’t believe that Israel wants only more than a tiny fraction of the Westbank? You must be the only one
     
    Actually, the majority of Israelis agree with me. And that is obviously the most important fact.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-most-israelis-opposed-to-annexing-parts-of-west-bank/?fb_comment_id=1431803963528873_1432251706817432#f2ba2fcc2824e4c

    But there is evidence that Israel promoted wars in the region, among others wars the wars against Iraq which left one million dead people. Without Israel the West also wouldn’t care very much about Assad. And who made and makes propaganda for a war against Iran
     
    Iraqis slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Syrians slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Turks slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Yemenis slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Lebanese slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Libyans slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Algerians slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Egyptians slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Jordanians slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

    You know when Hitler tried to invade Britain, we Brits did not instantly try to slaughter each other. Nor, when we invaded Germany, did the Germans instantly start murdering their cousins. Indeed, despite the Arab world repeatedly trying to destablise, invade or otherwise work out a way to destroy Israel, the Israelis haven't devolved into internecine warfare.

    Actually, the majority of Israelis agree with me. And that is obviously the most important fact.

    Self serving nonsense.

    Israelis don’t want to annex Judea and Samaria (not the “West Bank”) only because they don’t want more Arabs. There is 0 interest in Israel today in returning any territory to the Arabs. This isn’t 2005.

    Most Israelis, today, oppose official annexation, preferring the current status of de facto annexation. In 15 years, however, as Israel becomes increasingly religious, you will have majority support for official annexation.

    Read More
    • Troll: Tyrion 2
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. iffen says:

    as Israel becomes increasingly religious, you will have majority support for official annexation.

    Well, there are all these non-Jews living there. Do you envision Judaism going back to a policy of accepting masses of converts? Because there really is no other… way … except … but … you wouldn’t … advocate …

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    It’s ok don’t worry, we’ll catch it on the rebound; don’t we always? ;)

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-H8t8K2VI3b8/T16udY8qdDI/AAAAAAAAAQ4/rkj0q0A2oCs/s1600/R_rota_fortuna_nigel_jackson.jpg

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @Anon
    Iraqis slaughter each other like maniacs…and Israel is at fault.
    Syrians slaughter each other like maniacs…and Israel is at fault.


    Political peace is precarious in diverse nations.

    Iraq, Syria, and Libya blew up because Zionist-globalists in the exploited the diversity in those nations to set off one tribe against another.

    So, yes, Arabs did kill Arabs and Muslims did kill Muslims, but the violence was set off by US invasion(led by Neocons) and US aid to insurgents in Libya and to terrorists in Syria.

    Do you not find it bizarre how it is taken as a matter of faith that somehow the vibrant people slaughtering each other are always innocent, whereas, if anyone of less colour so much as looked at the diverse chaos, then it is somehow their fault?

    Again, no one is forcing them to murder each other. Nor is their murdering each other an understandable reaction to anything the West or Israel has done.

    The way in which people in the West want to make it all about us is pathetic. The way some here want to make it all about scheming Jews is gross.

    Were I Iraqi, I would have seen the toppling of Saddam Hussein as fortuitous and a great opportunity (a gift) to Make Iraq, Great Again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    TYRION


    Jews have an IQ of 114 and the West is a (Semi) meritocracy. This will breed all sorts of resentment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Johnny Rico
    This is VERY good. People may differ on the viewpoint and opinion but it is succinct, concise, well-written, well-researched history. Who is Amr Abozeid and what else has he written?

    Thank you Johnny for your kind words.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Tyrion 2
    I agree with your assessment even if I think the article is quite often probably wrong and, sometimes, a bit silly. It is a huge step up on every other article I've read that comes from the same perspective. Amr Abozeid must be an interesting person.

    Thank you

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @Tyrion 2
    Do you not find it bizarre how it is taken as a matter of faith that somehow the vibrant people slaughtering each other are always innocent, whereas, if anyone of less colour so much as looked at the diverse chaos, then it is somehow their fault?

    Again, no one is forcing them to murder each other. Nor is their murdering each other an understandable reaction to anything the West or Israel has done.

    The way in which people in the West want to make it all about us is pathetic. The way some here want to make it all about scheming Jews is gross.

    Were I Iraqi, I would have seen the toppling of Saddam Hussein as fortuitous and a great opportunity (a gift) to Make Iraq, Great Again.

    TYRION

    Jews have an IQ of 114 and the West is a (Semi) meritocracy. This will breed all sorts of resentment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. This is a superb article in every way, well worth reading, and I hope we get more from the author who knows how to write and has a lot to say.

    According to these broadcasts, Nasser … was advocating a confrontation with Israel while sheltering behind UNEF,”[35] the exact opposite of the truth.

    Hitler and the Nazis were other agents for the people who suffered similar treatment and I hope that becomes increasingly apparent, for it’s a key concept.

    Similarly, most of what we ‘Merkins are treated to vis a vis “info” regarding the Zionist project is the exact opposite of the truth and the article did a fine job of demonstrating that. The fact that the usual Izzy-first trolls didn’t like it helps boost its authority, so a big “thank you” to them as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    You must be a fun date.

    Jacques: hi

    Date: hi, I like this restaurant, it is very cool.

    Jacques: guess who also liked really cool restaurants?

    Date: ...

    Jacques: Hitler, of course! And there's been a worldwide conspiracy to hide the fact that he was history's greatest foodie.

    Date: I think I might need to go to the loo. (Slips out window.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @jacques sheete
    This is a superb article in every way, well worth reading, and I hope we get more from the author who knows how to write and has a lot to say.

    According to these broadcasts, Nasser … was advocating a confrontation with Israel while sheltering behind UNEF,”[35] the exact opposite of the truth.
     
    Hitler and the Nazis were other agents for the people who suffered similar treatment and I hope that becomes increasingly apparent, for it's a key concept.

    Similarly, most of what we 'Merkins are treated to vis a vis "info" regarding the Zionist project is the exact opposite of the truth and the article did a fine job of demonstrating that. The fact that the usual Izzy-first trolls didn't like it helps boost its authority, so a big "thank you" to them as well.

    You must be a fun date.

    Jacques: hi

    Date: hi, I like this restaurant, it is very cool.

    Jacques: guess who also liked really cool restaurants?

    Date: …

    Jacques: Hitler, of course! And there’s been a worldwide conspiracy to hide the fact that he was history’s greatest foodie.

    Date: I think I might need to go to the loo. (Slips out window.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. lysias says:

    When did the USS Liberty get its orders to proceed to the East Med?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  94. Talha says:
    @iffen
    as Israel becomes increasingly religious, you will have majority support for official annexation.

    Well, there are all these non-Jews living there. Do you envision Judaism going back to a policy of accepting masses of converts? Because there really is no other... way … except … but ... you wouldn't … advocate ...

    It’s ok don’t worry, we’ll catch it on the rebound; don’t we always? ;)

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Thank you, Amr Abozeid (I’m astonished to learn our Israeli masters never told us the whole story).

    And thank you, Ron Unz. I’ve gotta say, I like this website. What a fascinating (& ad-free) crossroads of free speech.

    Read More
    • Agree: Talha
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. Kolo says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Yes, the Egypts have their own interestes, but why should this exclude solidariety with the Palestinans and Syria
     
    What have the Palestinians done with 70 years of Egyptian, Syrian and general Arab and Muslim support? Have they made their lives better? Has the support made their lives better?

    And, at what cost has said support come at to the greater Arab and Muslim worlds? It has lodged a poisonous narrative of passive victimhood, pointless martyrdom and has resulted with the repeated disgrace of your people again and again and again.

    You can say what you want about how you're somehow the innocent, helpless, (useless?) targets of Machiavellian Israelis and Western aggression but any objective observer can see nothing but extreme dysfunction when they look at your countries.

    Does this have to be the case? Perhaps you might try something different? Are you happy that your people live such lives?

    You disagree with the fact that Israel favours the destruction of Syria? Why don’t you think this is right? How do you explain Israel’s medical aide to Islamists in Syria, why has Israel been attacking Syria weekly? I could also quote Israelis saying outright that the best outcome of the war is if both sides destroy each other.
     
    I can quote endless Syrians and other Middle Easterners saying outright they want to kill all of the Jews.

    Also, medical aid delivered to anyone who turns up, no questions asked, is a kind thing. While, those attacks are on Iranian and Hezbollah targets which clearly Israel cannot have settling in Syria. This is obviously why Putin acquiesces and Assad, who probably doesn't want it either long-term, also goes along.

    You don’t believe that Israel wants only more than a tiny fraction of the Westbank? You must be the only one
     
    Actually, the majority of Israelis agree with me. And that is obviously the most important fact.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-most-israelis-opposed-to-annexing-parts-of-west-bank/?fb_comment_id=1431803963528873_1432251706817432#f2ba2fcc2824e4c

    But there is evidence that Israel promoted wars in the region, among others wars the wars against Iraq which left one million dead people. Without Israel the West also wouldn’t care very much about Assad. And who made and makes propaganda for a war against Iran
     
    Iraqis slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Syrians slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Turks slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Yemenis slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Lebanese slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Libyans slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Algerians slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Egyptians slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Jordanians slaughter each other like maniacs...and Israel is at fault.

    Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

    You know when Hitler tried to invade Britain, we Brits did not instantly try to slaughter each other. Nor, when we invaded Germany, did the Germans instantly start murdering their cousins. Indeed, despite the Arab world repeatedly trying to destablise, invade or otherwise work out a way to destroy Israel, the Israelis haven't devolved into internecine warfare.

    What utter zio garbage

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    It was written in good faith and with full compassion.

    If I go to a bar with two friends and am wasted and embarrassing, the one who tells me I am fine and tells me to drink more is much less of a mate than the one who tells me I'm drunk and to stop being a moron.

    Shoot the messenger if you choose. Call me "zio" or whatever, but I'm not lying.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @Kolo
    What utter zio garbage

    It was written in good faith and with full compassion.

    If I go to a bar with two friends and am wasted and embarrassing, the one who tells me I am fine and tells me to drink more is much less of a mate than the one who tells me I’m drunk and to stop being a moron.

    Shoot the messenger if you choose. Call me “zio” or whatever, but I’m not lying.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. bjondo says:

    Add this from Israel Shamir:

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/22/what-really-happened-in-the-yom-kippur-war/

    From a great man, Nasser, to a worm, Sadat.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  99. Old Jew says:

    Dear Mr. Shamir,

    Off Topic:

    In a quote from 2012 Counterpunch you wrote about your days in the Yom Kippur war:

    ” buried my buddies, shot the man-eating red dogs of the desert and the enemy tanks.”

    What were those man-eating dogs?

    Are these feral dogs, or a different species of “lupus lupus”?

    Why did you shoot them.

    They attacked you?

    Did they dig out the bodies of your buried comrades?

    How many of these animals did you encounter?

    With Great Respect,

    sf

    Read More
    • Replies: @bjondo
    My experience in ME many feral dogs and cats. Better know the area you go.
    Dogs will attack, as they do everywhere. Dogs belong in cat food cans. Never by cats.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. bjondo says:
    @Old Jew
    Dear Mr. Shamir,

    Off Topic:

    In a quote from 2012 Counterpunch you wrote about your days in the Yom Kippur war:


    " buried my buddies, shot the man-eating red dogs of the desert and the enemy tanks."

    What were those man-eating dogs?

    Are these feral dogs, or a different species of "lupus lupus"?


    Why did you shoot them.

    They attacked you?

    Did they dig out the bodies of your buried comrades?

    How many of these animals did you encounter?

    With Great Respect,

    sf

    My experience in ME many feral dogs and cats. Better know the area you go.
    Dogs will attack, as they do everywhere. Dogs belong in cat food cans. Never by cats.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?