Supporters of ZIonism often make the claim that Nasser was intent on war in 1967. One of their main arguments are that Nasser expelled UNEF forces to get rid of the buffer so EGypt could invade and destroy the ZIonist state. In fact, Nasser did not even ask for a full withdrawal initially, he merely proposed a partial withdrawal of UNEF so that Egyptian forces could be mobile in case Israel launched a war on Egypt. The initial request for a partial withdrawal was publicly rejected by U. Thant, embarassing Nasser and forcing him into withdrawing all his forces. If you want sources:
here and
here and
here and
here and
here and
here and
here and
here.Of course, I could go on and provide morse sources. More importantly, though, after this blunder U. Thant proposed putting UNEF on the Israeli side of the border. In terms of maintaining a buffer and deterring war, U. Thant argued that if UNEF served that purpose on the Egyptian side of the border, it could have done the same on the Israeli side. Egypt supported the proposal, Israel, of course, rejected it.
If Zionist wars are justified, why are their supporting arguments full of lies?
6 comments:
On August 11, at 9.48 PM on the "Jenin Medical" thread, YOU INVITED ME TO ASK YOU A QUESTION.
You haven't answered it yet.
On August 12, on the "Jenin Property" thread, I asked you two questions.
You haven't answered either yet.
You wrote: "One of their [Supporters of Zionism] main arguments are that Nasser expelled UNEF forces to get rid of the buffer."
I decided to read what you'd carefully researched.
From the first source you cited:
"Nasser, under pressure from other Arab states, asked for the total withdrawal of UNEF forces on May 18."
So Nasser DID expel UNEF forces. Why make a big deal about how he first he requested partial withdrawals? What point are you making? It's like saying that first a man tried to wound his victim, but when he couldn't, he murdered him!
What's your point? How does it refute "one of their main arguments"?
Yes, we are talking about intention here though. Zionists say Nasser expelled UNEF forces bc they were ready to launch a war on Israel. Obviously, this is nonsense, given Nasser didnt even want to fully expel them. Moreover, Egypt was in favor of stationing UNEF on the Israeli side of the border, as was suggested by U. Thant. But ISRAEL adamantly rejected. I keep seeing this part of the argument ignored.
Egypt was in favor of stationing UNEF on the Israeli side of the border, as was suggested by U. Thant. But ISRAEL adamantly rejected. I keep seeing this part of the argument ignored.
And the only reason that Israel might have objected that you can think of is that it was evil and expansionist and had designs on poor little pacifistic Egypt?
Is that a fair summary of your opinion? Do most mainstream historians take a similar view when characterizing the whole build-up to the 1967 war?
Egypt got rid of the UNEF forces. Right? You don't have a problem with that.
If Egypt didn't want foreign troops on its territory, why should anyone expect Israel to want them on its territory?
How come, according to you its OK for Egypt not to want UNEF forces, but its not OK for Israel to be similarly UNEF free?
Hello, my understanding is that it was Egypt, not U. Thant, that suggested the UN "troops should be concentrated inside the Gaza Strip" (so said the message signed by Gen. Fawzi given to the UN commander, Rijhye, according to the book "Embassies in Crisis," p 32, a Zionist book that nonetheless agrees w/your facts in this post and your comment point about intention--original intention, note well.)
Post a Comment