Talk:Six-Day War/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

Controversy section & 1968 source

I have made this edit for the following four reasons. First, it comes from a very old source (44 years). I’m sure we can find more recent sources. Second and more importantly, there is a separate article dealing with this very controversy and if anything, the matter should be addressed in greater detail there. This article is already too long and we should be mindful of WP:SIZE. Third, General Wheeler was but one of many actors who had an opinion within the United States government and to say that this was the official U.S. position based on Wheerler’s alleged position is misleading. Fourth, according to Zeev Schiff (@ page 154) General Wheeler informed Eban that he viewed the threatening massing of Egyptian troops in Sinai as a “serious matter,” and this contradicts the 1968 source calling into question its veracity.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm ok with the removal based on reason #2 (WP:SIZE). --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Frederico. I made this edit[1] since you have noted it on top as a main article. I don't think there's a need for duplication.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You're quite right of course. I missed that part when making the edit. Well spotted. Cheers! --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem Frederico. Hopefully, if we can seem to find common ground and cooperate on the smaller issues, we can extend this cooperation to larger issues and do away with some of the partisan bickering (of which I am guilty) that has marred the I-A topic area for far too long.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"Scramble" online SPS

"Scramble" is an SPS. It is a very poor source with an uncertain vetting process and virtually no peer review. It should not be used as a source in this article as it does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Soviet troops

Soviet Union deployed a battalion of naval infantry to Port Said after 10 June as it was expecting hostilities to renew. 220.238.43.188 (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Mobilization

According to mainstream scholarship, IDF mobilization occurred only after the Egyptian troop buildup. Dailycare's edit makes it seem as though the IDF mobilization was the cause rather than the effect.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

How would you propose the text to read? Now it rather gives the impression that the tension was due to just the Egyptian buildup as no other elements are mentioned. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Chronologically speaking, it was Egypt that mobilized for war first. It was Egypt that deployed 7 divisions in Sinai first. It was Egypt that expelled UNEF first and it was Egypt that blocked an international waterway first. Israel's mobilization was in response to those actions and moreover, initially it was only a partial call-up. Incidentally, I found an old book about the Six Day War written by the Associated Press called "Lightening out of Israel." It was very engrossing with some rare and rather good photos. Its worth reading if you can get hold of it.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the book tip. But again, how would you propose to change the text so that the high tension doesn't come across as exclusively "Made in the U.A.R."? I think one option to mention is the Samu raid: "After a period of high tension, including large-scale Egyptian military preparations in the Sinai and an Israeli raid into the Jordanian-controlled West Bank." Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The Samu raid occurred 7 months before the outbreak of hostilities. That period was punctuated by periods of tension and calm. The period of tension that is being referred to in the article is the period of tension immediately preceding the war (from May 15 onward), where the tension was palpably high and increased daily. Also, your latest edit removed the primary reason or the spark for the Samu raid, the killing of three Israelis. If we're to talk about Samu, we should also make note of the factor that led to Samu. The Samu raid didn't just suddenly appear out of a hat. There was a cause and a subsequent effect. If you omit the cause, then you must omit the effect. Also, your edit summary clear up a bit of clutter unrelated to the six-day war is misleading and wrong. You referred to major attack that caused the death of three Israelis as "clutter." Your edit wasn't simply, "clearing up clutter." It was removal of relevant content that brought about a reaction.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have an answer to my question? BTW, the lead isn't limited to "May 15 onward" and even Oren discusses the Samu raid in his book as a "catalyst" leading to the war. --Dailycare (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I dont answer your questions fast enough. The Samu raid occurred 7 months before the war. Aside from the raid, which lasted a few hours, what tension was there during the period between the Samu raid and May 1967? If you can find a source that says that this 7-month period was marked by tension, then use that source.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The Samu raid can't be included as part of the war.--Shrike (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

As I can't make any more amendment to the article for today, here is my suggestion for consideration:-

After a period of high tension that included an Israeli raid into the Jordanian-controlled West Bank, Israeli initiated aerial clashes over Syrian territory, Syrian artillery attacks against Israeli settlements in the vicinity of the boarder followed by Israeli response against Syrian positions in the Golan Heights and encroachments of increasing intensity and frequency, initiated by Israel, into the demilitarized zones along the Syrian boarder and culminating in a large-scale Egyptian military build up in the Sinai, the war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise bombing raids against Egyptian air-fields. Within six days, Israel had won a decisive land war. Israeli forces had taken effective control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. Dlv999 (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

We can't mention the raid without mentioning cross border attacks against Israeli civilian from Jordan side.--Shrike (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable point. This is the same reason we can't mention the Egyptian military build up in the Sinai without mentioning the increasing tit-for-tat escalations during the previous year. I am open to suggested on improvements on my suggested edit. Incidentally from the sources I have looked at most agree that Hussein was doing what he could to stop the PLO from operating in Jordan. See for instance Moaz pg 84 in the ref above or Shlaim pg 136 [2] Dlv999 (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I recall that the cross-border "attacks" (I'm not sure if this is the right term) before the Samu raid were conducted from Syria, not Jordan. --Dailycare (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The current version of the Lead represents a highly revisionist, non-mainstream position that places almost exclusive blame for hostilities on Israel. I am reverting to the long-standing version of the Lead.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree there is no consensus for a change.--Shrike (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have also added the following contributing factors; Egypt's expulsion of UNEF Peace Keepers from Sinai, Egyptian closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, Iraqi military deployments in Jordan and the formation of an Egyptian-Jordanian military alliance. How this information can be excluded when these events immediately preceded the war, is truly mystifying.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC):

Material has been deleted based on the most up to date academic research and been replaced with a wholly one sided propagandistic retelling. Wikipedia represents all significant views, it is not an outlet for propagating Israeli Hasbara at the expense of academic scholarship. JJG please explain to me how you justify to yourself deleting all the sourced material representing one viewpoint while adding only material representing the opposite viewpoint. Dlv999 (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

No the material that was deleted was a cherry picked events to advance Palestinian propaganda please explain why you version doesn't include events that lead to a war like closure of tiran straits expulsion of UN forces and etc.--Shrike (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Shrike my additions were aimed at balancing a one sided narrative. I used high quality academic sources to ADD material to the article. I did not delete any referenced material that represented the alternative view. What other editors are doing is deleting referenced material documenting one view while adding material that supports another -that is POV pushing, plain and simple.Dlv999 (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

@Dlv999The following is just a partial listing of scholars, academics, professors, writers, military historians and strategists who have published works that unequivically describe the Six Day War as a preemptive war. Are all these agents of the "Israeli hasbara" effort? I suggest that you tone down your aggressive rhetoric that has become increasingly shrill, lacks substance and consists merely of pejoratives. What noted element is "wholly one sided propagandistic retelling?" That Egypt deployed 7 divisions in Sinai? That Egypt closed an international waterway to Israeli shipping? That Egypt expelled UNEF from Sinai? That Jordan placed its army under Egypt's command? That Iraqi units began deploying in Jordan? That Arab leaders repeatedly and publicly called for Israel's destruction in the most blood curdling ways? Which of these actions did not occur? You tell me.

• Henry Shue
• David Rodin
• Karl P. Mueller
• Charles W. Kegley
• Gregory A. Raymond
• Mark R. Amstutz
• Yoram Distein
• Michael Walzer
• Michael Oren
• Randolph S. Churchill (son)
• Winston S. Churchill (grandson)
• Zeev Schiff
• Chaim Herzog
• Anthony Clark Arend
• Kenneth Pollack
• Edward Luttwak
• John Pimlott
• Antonio Cassese
• David Robertson
• Martin S. Alexander
• Sören Zibrandt von Dosenrode-Lynge
• Anders Stubkjær
• Avner Cohen
• Michael Elliott
• Marguerite Johnson
• Shlomo Aronson
• Warren Cohen
• Richard K. Betts
• Erik Goldstein
• Dan Reiter
• Isabella Ginor
• Seyom Brown

--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

JJG, stop wasting my time. You need to cite scholarship and page numbers as I have been doing. How do you justify deleting all referenced material supporting one view, while adding only material that supports the opposite view. Dlv999 (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The longstanding version of the text is "After a period of high tension between Israel and its neighbors, the war began on June 5 ...", and we're now discussing possible changes to that. FWIW, I'm in fact OK with the longstanding version as it doesn't have the defect that I've repeatedly raised, namely that the fault of starting the war would be assigned just to Egypt in the lead. That would be inaccurate since Israel's actions (threats to invade Syria, the Samu raid, informing Soviet diplomats of an intention to invade Syria, refusal to accept UNEF on their side of the border) clearly contributed to the tension. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I would also accept a return to the longstanding version. Alternatively we can document in a balanced way the main incidents involved in the period of high tension. The current version is laughable and a clear violation of NPOV as it only documents Arab contributions to the raised tensions while the well sourced documentation of the Israeli contributions have been deleted. Dlv999 (talk) 10:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Images in the article: Need Arab-side ones

The article needs to have a more balanced picture gallery. As it currently stands, there are only pictures from the Israeli side. -The Gnome (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That's because the IDF has released all their photos for free use. Every single article about the Arab-Israeli conflict is now dominated by Israeli images. Clever move. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

names cannot be ill-reported

as I cannot fix this page please edit for this and possibly other egregious errors.

In a campaign called "Operation Yated", Israel passed false information to the Egyptian via a double agent. In the 1950s, Egyptian intelligence agent [b]Refaat Al-Gammal[/b], posing as an Egyptian Jew named Jacques Bitton, infiltrated Israel. He was soon arrested as a spy by Shin Bet, and elected to become a double agent rather than spend decades in prison. On the eve of the war, [b]Gamal[/b] transferred false information to Egypt. He informed his Egyptian handlers that according to Israeli war plans, Israel would open an attack on Egypt with a ground offensive. His intelligence was one of the reasons the Egyptians left their planes in the open on the runways of their airbases, allowing the Israelis to easily destroy them.[61] additionally there appear to be continuity errors on the page Operation Focus about the number of casualties suffered by Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.243.145 (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Egyptian intelligence dismissing Soviet warnings of pending Israeli invasion of Syria

In this edit where it is stated that "Egyptian intelligence later confirmed that the Soviet reports were in fact groundless". However Oren on p. 55 says that "there could be no dismissing a warning of such specificity from so many Soviet sources, including the Kremlin itself. Viewed against the backdrop of the menacing statements of Eshkol and Rabin, and the absence of heavy weapons in Israel's parade, the intelligence had the ring of truth." If Egyptian intelligence had confirmed the Soviet warnings as groundless, then Oren should have mentioned it. As far as I can see, he does not. I believe the journalist in the newspaper source is mistaken. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Frederico. What pages were you looking at? You need to check Oren pages 54 and 55 pages 64 and 65[3]. Also, though I value your opinion (and I'm not just saying that) JPost is an RS So our subjective beliefs are really immaterial. Best regards,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong about Oren. I checked page 55 and some pages onwards, but that was not enough, as page 64 clearly supports the cited sentence. I did a sloppy work of fact-checking and I'm embarrassed. Please accept my apology. --Frederico1234 (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't be embarrassed and you've got no need to apologize. You're a valuable, knowledgeable contributor and I've been known to make mistakes as well.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Frederico, I concur with your recent revert. I also added some additional explanations for the Hussein-Nassir pact. In addition, I added more precise and sourced casualty figures for the Samu raid. The figures vary so I provided a range. In addition, I provided a sourced explanation for Nassir's reluctance to withdraw his troops even after learning of falsity of the Soviet reports. I very much enjoy collaborating with you on this article.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

UN Security council condemnation of the Samu raid

Why do the reader need to know this in order to follow the rest of the article? This is a Background section and the raid is already covered in Origins of the Six-Day War. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

False Soviet reports

I have added several sources that are consistent with mainstream scholarship that state that the pre-war Soviet intel reports were fabricated. I've also noted reliable sources that unequivocally state that the Egyptians were aware that he Soviet reports were false.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, alleged post-war Chinese-Israeli arms deal, even if true, is not relevant to war.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"Paragraph 21" makes no mention of US pressure. I have accordingly conformed the edit to the source.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you checked that the other source doesn't say this? --Dailycare (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

What other source are you talking about?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You state that there is another source but the only one I see is from JVL at paragraph 21 and this says nothing of US pressure on Israel in 1967 to maintain UNEF on the Israeli side of the border. Therefore, maintaining the current text would amount to source misrepresentation. Also, I have expanded on your source concerning maritime rights and have re-positioned the ABC-CLIO source so that it comports with what it actually states. Maintaining it at the end of the sentence would be implying that it supports a statement that it did not proffer.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

My rendering of the page has these sources after the sentence in question:

• U Thant, "View from the UN", 1978. p. 223
• Report of the Secretary-General on the Withdrawal of the Emergency Force (June 26, 1967) para 21

According to my math, that makes two. Now you're suggesting that we remove some text since it's not in one of the two sources. My question was, have you checked it's not in the other one? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure that UThant says that on 223?[4] When you put keywords such as Rikhye, Sinai, Israel, Egypt, or "pressure", nothing comes up on page 223.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

How would UNEF in Sharm al-Sheikh commanding the Straits of Tiran be redeployed?Statesman1 (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

JJG, It's hardly the point whether I'm sure. Since you're proposing to remove the text, you need to be sure that it isn't there. Incidentally, I recall looking at this book at some point but I don't own a copy myself so I can't scan page 223. However we're rescued since Noon does seem to have a copy, pls scan the page so we can have a look. --Dailycare (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS you should actually prove that the text is there.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, cool idea. Can I use that interpretation of that policy, too? --Dailycare (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Daily, you have now three times misrepresented the views of Sandler. You have also removed sourced information about Nasser disregarding the views of his Chief of Staff and intel officers. Egyptian deployments were initially prompted by false Soviet reports, later confirmed to be false by Egypt's Chief of Staff and intelligence officers. The sources clearly state this and the removal is inexplicable as are your attempts to misrepresent sources. Sandler clearly states that the Straits are an international waterway[5] But you have twice inserted the following some states and some countries. Sandler uses no qualifiers. He provides an unqualified statement. On a third occasion, you moved the source to the end of the sentence[6] making it appear that the source supports your edit and attributing a view to the author that he does not subscribe to. These are blatant source distortions. I didn't say anything the first two times you did it but this amounts to blatant source misrepresentation.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolution 242 calls for "freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area." Statesman1 (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Furthermore, the Egypt Israel Peace Treaty declares: "The Parties consider the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba to be international waterways open to all nations for unimpeded and non-suspendable freedom of navigation and overflight. The parties will respect each other's right to navigation and overflight for access to either country through the Strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba."Statesman1 (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

JJG, I've been representing the Danseyar source, not Sandler. Danseyar says that some contries were of the opinion Tiran was an international waterway, but other countries disagreed. This is consistent with any information by Sandler to the effect that it was considered international, since it was. Thing is, it wasn't so considered by all states, in particular not by Egypt. You deplore that I've removed "sourced information" to the effect that Nasser disregarded something officers of his said. I assume you're joking, since you've just removed sourced information revealing why Nasser began moving forces to the Sinai. With respect, you need to calm down. Should the AE you recently filed against me result in a topic ban for you, you'll get time to calm down. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Danseyar is a good source. The problem is you didn't bother reading the article because had you done so, you wouldn't have included her as a source because her legal arguments and historical analyses favor Israel's position. But that's not the issue. You were dicking around with the Sandler source and attributed to him comments not found in his book. Moreover, you used casualty figures not found in Segev's book but you made it appear as though it came from Segev's book. This is beyond sloppy editing. It is mendacious and I am confident that the admins who will review my AE will see through your shenanigans and mendacity.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Danseyar says that the status of Tiran was a "heated controversy", and also that the Arab states didn't view it as international. This is a simple matter and throwing aroung accusations of mendacity doesn't change it in any way. --Dailycare (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The qualification is necessary because the prior position is being passed off as fact when many scholars and historians do not subscribe to this position.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have sources saying that this "position" isn't mainstream? We have two reliable sources saying the Arabs took the threats seriously. In Origins of the Six-Day War we have this attributed to the BBC: "In the West as well as the Arab world the immediate assumption was that the unnamed source was Rabin and that he was serious". This only concerns a single statement, we know that senior Israelis repeated the threats publicly and also in private, to Soviet diplomats (Quigley, 158). Even Oren, Israel's former ambassador, (according to this piece, search for "342n52") acknowledges that not only was Israel making threats, Israel was in fact planning to attack Syria. --Dailycare (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

What U.S.-built school?

In the Arab preparations section, it makes a reference to some "new U.S.-built school" as if the reader should already be familar with it. My first reaction was, "What U.S.-built school?". This is the only reference in the entire article about this school. Some explanation might be in order here. Or perhaps simply changing "the new U.S.-built school" to "a new U.S.-built school" might work. I'm not that familiar with this topic so I'll let regular editors of the article decide if and how to fix this. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Length of section "Background and summary of events leading to war"

This section is, in my view, supposed to give the reader just enough information so that he/she can comprehend what the war was about. Information not strictly needed in order to follow the rest of the article should be deleted or moved to Origins of the Six-Day War. As I see it, the section could be cut in half or more without making the article less self-contained. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the edits here and here. The first reason is because, as the person above me said, this article is becoming too unwieldy, unorganized, and large, and it isn't really necessary here, but could be added to an article about the leadup to the war. For the second edit, it appears to me to be a revisionist view. It is certainly not mainstream, and the minority view isn't all that important here, especially since I can't find consensus for adding this information.

(This isn't 1RR violation, as this was 2 consecutive reverts to 1 person who made 2 edits without an intervening edit). --Activism1234 21:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Activism1234, did you read the source? It says: "It is most important to reiterate the conclusion of most scholarly accounts of the crisis: this was a process of unwanted escalation, which everybody wanted to prevent, but all were responsible for making this escalation unavoidable." You can check out the author on Google Scholar to see he has published extensively in the field, making him a reliable source to make this statement. Concerning the other edit, this is a bit humorous since you're proposing to remove, invoking length, from the text the fact that one party staged armed provocations along the border, which the (same) author considers in the text as important to the progress toward war? One wonders, why you won't rather propose to shorten the text by removing the number of persons killed by the mine, or speculation on reasons as to why the Soviets passed the incorrect reports to Cairo? --Dailycare (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I stand by what I wrote above. --Activism1234 21:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That isn't a policy-based argument concerning the evidence and arguments I described. --Dailycare (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Repetitions sound like a broken record. I suggest that the rest of the paragraph would adequately read as follows: One source claims that the Soviet assessment though inaccurate was “well founded.” Egyptian intelligence later confirmed that the Soviet reports were in fact groundless, but Nasser nevertheless chose to disregard the counsel of his own intelligence and began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19), and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran. UN Secretary-General U Thant proposed that the UNEF force be redeployed on the Israeli side of the border, but this was rejected by Israel. Statesman1 (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we only need to say once that Nasser disregarded the intelligence (assuming this is what you meant). We should, however, keep the Shemesh source and the narrative that Egypt and Syria shared a defence pact. --Dailycare (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The section is now going in circles. It had already mentioned the Egypt defence pact with Syria and needs no Shemesh narrative.Statesman1 (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't find Shemesh's words that "Israel's threats to invade Syria appeared serious to Arab leaders" and that "Nasser responded to the Israeli threats by beginning to concentrate his troops, in a defensive posture, in the Sinai Peninsula." Statesman1 (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, see p. 180 in the source, the last paragraph. Concerning the other point, see page 182, point 2 ("Qahir defence plan") and p. 187, paragraph 3 (starting with "When Egypt responded"). ("Cairo stands with all its power next to Damascus") Curiously, on pages 180 and 182 Shemesh also says that the Egyptians did initially "confirm" that there were Israeli troop concentrations in the north of the country. Concerning the defence pact, it needs IMO to be mentioned, since it allows the reader to follow Egypt's logic in moving his forces. Removing the first mention of it (from the first paragraph of this section) would be OK as far as I'm concerned. --Dailycare (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Page 180 makes no mention of "Arab leaders." Page 182 point 2 Qahir means "Conqueror" and point 5 speaks of "murderous attacks inside Israel." You may move the mention of the defence pact from the first paragraph as you wish. Statesman1 (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, p. 180 says that "The Egyptians estimated that the declarations by Israeli (...) According to Nasir, these declarations (...). I think it's clear that the passage discusses Egypt's leadership. The sentence is worded after the Quigley source. p. 182 states: (2. To deploy forces in Sinai immediately and implement the "Qahir" defence plan". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You may quote the actual words of your source that the Egyptian leadership decided etc... Statesman1 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, we're not restricted to using the actual words used in sources, in fact WP:NOR states "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly." In the case you mention, the Quigley source does say "The threats (...) thereby making the threats to appear to Arab leaders as serious". Obviously, when two sources are given it's usually impossible to use the same wording as both of the sources ;) Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

How did you reach such a conclusion if Quigley makes no mention of "Arab leaders"? Similarly, it is quite misleading to state that "foreign observers suspected that an Israeli strike on Syria was imminent" if these are not Parker's words. Furthermore, you misquote Shemesh on the Egyptian decision to implement the "Qahir" (Conqueror) defense plan and carry out the "Fahd 2 Plan" [murderous attacks] inside Israel. Statesman1 (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, a few quick points: 1) Quigley says "Arab leaders", 2) Parker says "(...) disposed Israeli and foreign observers to suspect a strike was imminent", 3) Shemesh says Egypt decided to implement the defensive plan, and prepare for the "murderous attacks". Shemesh does not say Egypt would have decided to carry out the attacks inside Israel. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Please quote your sources in context and indicate the page numbers. Statesman1 (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If page numbers are missing from any of the citations, let me know and I'll add them. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

How about quoting your sources in context? Statesman1 (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If you feel something has been cited out of context, you're welcome to bring it up. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a single phrase has been quoted. Statesman1 (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're asking me to type sections from various unspecified sources to this talkpage for your benefit, then no, I'm not going to do that. Much of the sources are available on google books, the rest are available in libraries but if you have a specific question concerning a source not available online, then I'm of course glad to assist. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to mention in the summary of events what "Arab leaders" and "foreign observers" allegedly suspected? How can one describe the massing of armored columns and "Feda'iyyun" as well as the removal of UNEF while enforcing a blockade as a "defensive posture"? Statesman1 (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What goes in the article turns on what sources say (see WP:V and WP:NPOV). Sources identify Israel's threats, and the fact they were taken seriously in the Arab world as well as in Israel and Europe, as key elements that led to the buildup of tension immediately preceding the war. Nasser invokes the threats in his letter to president Johnson of June 2nd, 1967. The Egyptian formations in the Sinai are, again, described as defensive by sources, e.g. Shemesh, but other sources as well. The US advised Israel that Egypt's forces in the Sinai were arranged in defensive positions. I haven't seen anyone proposing to edit the article by describing the removal of the UNEF as a "defensive posture" assumed by Egyptian forces in the Sinai. --Dailycare (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The section already mentions Israel's threats to attack Syria and the Soviet intelligence report that such an attack was imminent. If the Egyptian massive concentration of forces was defensive they would not have requested the removal of UNEF. Statesman1 (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote above, what goes in the text turns on the sources. The sources say that there were the reports, which were inaccurate. The sources say there were the threats, which were credible. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to go back and mention again the threats and that the attack was imminent. The section is already unbalanced on this issue, since you removed U Thant's criticism on terrorism from Syria, but added that Israel's "numerous provocations" led the Syrians and Soviets to believe that Israel was planning to overthrow the Syrian regime using military force. Statesman1 (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

See my previous comment. Conerning balance, see WP:WEIGHT: it too turns on the sources. Concerning U Thant, see the edit summary. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits completely unjustified. Unlike the previous huge paragraph on the Samu village raid seven months before the six-day-war, U Thant's May 11, 1967, criticism of terrorism from Syria clearly indicates who "staged numerous provocations". Furthermore, the section did not even mention that the Soviet Union had vetoed a resolution submitted by six nations that asked Syria to respect the armistice agreement. Statesman1 (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree this should be mentioned.You could make the edit yourself--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be good if we could reach a consensus that the section length need and should to be reduced. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Statesman, did you have a look at the edit summary? The reason U Thant's comments were removed was that UN condemnation of the Samu raid was similarly removed. If we're to control the section length, and we decide to remove UN commentary, then it makes sense to remove UN commentary. --Dailycare (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The above is self-explanatory. Repetition unnecessary. Statesman1 (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add the UN condemnation of the Samu raid once I get around to it. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Statesman, how do you see the "Background" section, in particular what kind of material do you think we should include in it and what kind of reasoning would you propose, that we apply when judging whether to include something or not? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Badly written sentence

The “Conclusion of conflict and post-war situation” section includes the following statement;

  “The 1967 War laid the foundation for future discord in the region – as on November 22, 1967, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 242…”.

This sentence is poorly written as it implies that all of the “discord” which followed the six day war can be blamed on resolution 242. Removing the first part of the sentence so that it begins “On November 22…” seems to me the simplest way to resolve this (I can’t perform the edit myself as I am barred from editing I/P mainspace). Prunesqualor billets_doux 10:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Frederico1234 (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's even necessary to include the first part, that it laid the foundation. What comes after it doesn't bring any proof, just briefly discusses Resolution 242 (although surprisingly doesn't mention the "the") and Israel's withdrawal from Sinai and Gaza. If we are to include the first part, examples should be given of how it laid the foundation for future discord, or a reference. It gives the impression that without the 1967 war, everyone would've danced around a campfire holding hands and singing Kumbaya and would never have fought again, which is clearly false (look at 1948 war, 1948-1967 terrorist attacks, 1956 Suez Crisis, etc). --Activism1234 13:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for giving this your attention guys. @ Activism1234 - Yes the “the” issue in resolution 242 is surly a big subject, such that, if it is not fully addressed in this article, it should at least be firmly signposted over to the Resolution 242 article. Prunesqualor billets_doux 00:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Map

There is a small error in the map. Golan Heights reads as "Golan Hights." 149.164.66.5 (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for the UNEF force be redeployed on the Israeli side of the border

I removed the sentence describing this event in this edit as it does not seem to be of high importance. These kind of details is better covered in the Origins of the Six-Day War article. I also did a revert here as it comments on this particular event. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Naser

I added info about his thoughts on invasion on syria. They are sourced and and are good information Crystalfile (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree the information you added is sourced, however since we're not citing verbatim Israeli rhetoric (e.g. the threats issued against Syria), we probably shouldn't cite Nasser's words verbatim either. Sources do mention Egyptian propaganda/rhetoric as something that contributed to the tension in the area (although not to Israel's leadership's view on the situation) so mentioning Egyptian rhetoric makes sense. However, if we're to cite Nasser, we'll also have to cite Israel's threats and we're rather trying to make the section shorter, not longer. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This isnt Israeli rhetoric. This is independent analysis by Stein. this isnt the threats of politicians. It is analysis.

Stein's book was discussed on RSN here, his "analysis" isn't very independent and should be used with caution. But leaving that aside, there is on the Israeli rhetoric side the famous Rabin statement where he reportedly stated "We will carry out a lightning attack on Syria, occupy Damascus, overthrow the regime there and come back". ("The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East: Volume 1981", by Mahmoud Riad, page 17) (online source) Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes but comparing independent assesment to a politicians speech is not the same thing. One is account of events, one is a speech. Crystalfile (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Assad

Hafez al-Assad was not President of Syria at the time. That was Nurredin al-Attasi. Assad seized power in 1971. See [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rechavia Berman (talk • contribs) 19:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 September 2012

There is a capitalization typo near the bottom of the "Advance on Arish" section. The link to the An-Nakhl article has been capitalized as An-NAkhl. 204.197.237.101 (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Activism1234 02:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I edited part of the section about the events leading to war

The article was missing an important confrontation that occurred on April 7, 1967 between Israel and Syria, so I added it. -- Wiki Khalil (talk) October 13 2012

Last sentence in Background section

Here's the last sentence of the Background and summary of events leading to war:

"Most scholarly accounts of the crisis attribute the drift to war to an escalation that was unwanted, however despite a desire to avoid war on all sides, everyone was in the end responsible for making the escalation unavoidable."

I don't believe reference 69 speaks for most scholarly accounts. Also, speaking to the content of the sentence, what is this? Kindergarten? I suggest removing this sentence. It does not summarize anything that came before it, it's misleading at best, factually incorrect at worst. It adds nothing to the page.

204.9.220.42 (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Images

Do we have any images that aren't of Israelis? All the images in this article are of Israeli forces, are there none of the opposing forces on wikipedia we could use as well?

--76.68.197.217 (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Note to editors.Oren as a source

He is cited 44 times here. I.e. the article is built round his book. Stephen Walt has recently charged that Oren is an unreliable source.

Third, Roberts declares that Israel's "preemptive strike" on Egypt in 1967 "saved the Jewish state." This is nonsense. Although Nasser's decision to order the U.N. peacekeepers out of the Sinai and to send part of his army back in was both provocative and foolish, he was not preparing to attack Israel and Egypt's forces in the Sinai were not deployed for offensive action. Strictly speaking, the Six Day War wasn't preemption, though some Israeli leaders may have seen it that way. Israel had more troops arrayed against the Egyptian forces, and U.S. military intelligence correctly predicted that Israel would win easily even if the Egyptians attacked first. No less an Israeli patriot than Menachem Begin described it accurately when he said: "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." That attack might have been justified on other grounds -- such as not allowing Nasser to alter the status quo in the Sinai -- but it was not a case of preemption and thus does not support Roberts' case.

• (By the way, readers interested in understanding the origins of 1967 war would do well to avoid Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren's highly imaginative reconstruction, and rely on more serious scholarly accounts, such as Tom Segev's 1967 or Roland Popp's 2006 article "Stumbling Decidedly into the Six Day War."])

• Tom Segev is drawn on 4 times.
• Popp is ignored altogether
• Norman Finkelstein mentioned briefly on the otherwise wikipuff of Oren's book (Six Days of War)came to the same conclusion long ago in a detailed analysis of the fantasies in Oren's book. He is mentioned but once here. See his review in his Norman G. Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, 2nd ed. (London and New York: Verso, 2003), appendix . 184-198]
• Roland Popp, Stumbling-Decidedly-into-the-Six-Day-War "Stumbling Decidedly into the Six Day War" in The Middle East Journal, Vol. 60, No. 2 argues that:'In critically examining existing master plan theories, it is shown that the United Arab Republic's (UAR) military actions were limited in size and were without aggressive intentions. The Israeli decision to strike was taken not for military reasons but rather to prevent a diplomatic solution which might have entailed disadvantages for the Israeli side.'

So the article, at a minimum, requires a drastic overhaul since serious scholars challenge the accuracy of its basic source, and argue it is a Zionist fantasy (WP:NPOV).Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The article requires no overhaul, serious or otherwise. Walt is a political scientist with a political agenda and an ax to grind, , not a historian,. His opinions on this article's topic, or on the works of academic historians are worthless. Ditto for Finklestein. Oren is an academic historian, a graduate of Princeton and Columbia, and his book on the 6 day war was published by Oxford University Press, no less. The only thing more amazing than your statement above is the double standard you employ - shunning non-historians when it suits you, and advocating for non-historians when the historians say some thing you don't like . Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

A lot of material has been published since Oren's book by historians under academic imprint or in peer reviewed journals that discredits a lot of the claims he makes in the book. Oren qualifies as a source for historical scholarship, but where his view is not supported by other historians that have been published since e.g. Segev 2007, Moaz 2006, Gluska 2007, that should be made clear in the article, and we should not be over-relying on a single source when there is a significant divergence of opinion. Academics specializing in Political science are entirely suitable sources for an article topic such as this. Dlv999 (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I am bemused by seasoned wikipedians talking about overhaul etc. You know very well this is not how wikipedia works. One needs to delve for a few weeks into the archives to see how the current state was created as a compromise between various factions. For instance, there was a massive debate as to how to decribe the hotly contested question of preemption. Not sure what the outcome was; in the end, I had enough and moved on. Oren is a prominent academic historian of the 1967 war and no wonder his account is very prominent in the aritcle. Obviously on such a hotly contested topic as this, there are many views, and it is perfectly appropriate to add other views by academic historians where they are due. So the best way to address this bias, if any, is to add other points of view (for instance: Oren says that the earth is flat. However Segev suggests that a hyperboloid is a more adequate description, and so on). Complaining about bias, calling for overhaul etc., is not constructive. I don't think there exists an account of these events that hasn't been challenged or contested from all sides. If you are prepared to put a few months of your time into it, go for it. A great thing to do for a retired wikipedian. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that Oren is a very unreliable and biased person considering who he is, and therefor should not be used as a source. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with bias, to the contrary. All history is 'biased', the difference is, the best historians make awareness of it a guiding light in their research, and the rest just ignore the problem.

• Boris, I agree with you, and fail to understand why our agreement trips up over the use of 'overhaul', which means thorough revision, not elision (of Oren), more or less along the lines I suggested.
• Flying box, saying 'Walt is a political scientist with a political agenda and an ax to grind, while praising Michael Oren as an historian is to no purpose. Oren's first degree was in Walt's field, actually. He did go on to do a Phd in Near Eastern Studies. It's news to me that he was trained in history. If you want a political agenda read Oren's wikibio, which suggests he's spent more time in politics and in the IDF than in the dryasdust archives of pure historical research. Both are competent sources: Oren's work is regarded as partisan, and that is why balance is required. Walt mentions Segev, who is a competent historian, and whom we almost totally ignore. Certainly no historical article on an international conflict can be written mainly from the perspective of a political activist for one government.
• I am retired from article writing because my enjoyment in doing precisely what you suggest met a stonewall with a chap blocking all constructive editing at every point, and, as soon as I withdrew from the overhaul, because of his ostructionism, he too withdrew and relaxed, leaving the article's second part (on the Jews in Khazaria) in the mess I hoped to correct. People who play politics don't overhaul articles: they track an ostensible adversary who does, and make life impossible for them, and that done, leave the article stale. You've never noticed this kind of thing? Retired people occasionally give advice. Retirement is not silence, until of course fate snips the thread or dementia.Nishidani (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Want a neutral account that judiciously sums up Israeli, Arab and Western sources? It's Henry Laurens, La question de Palestine 1967-1982: Tome 4: Le rameau d'olivier et le fusil du combattant, Fayard, Paris 2011. With this and several other sources, some mentioned above, it would be short work, a week, to fix this POV imbalance from top to bottom. Laurens is what Oren is not, an historian of international standing in this specific field, noted for his comprehensive and impartial use of all sources. Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and since I see Dlv mentions him, and the relevant chapter is completely accessible via google books, see the overview by Zeev Maoz Defending the Holy Land, University of Michigan Press 2006 pp.80-112 which argues that there are three general explanations for the outbreak of that war, which he analyses to expose their inadequacies (pp.97), and then provides his own alternative conclusion, based on Israel’s policy, Israel’s prior misconduct with Syria as the predominant factor precipitating the crisis, and the dominance of the IDF in foreign and security affairs, with however an understanding of the general incompetence al round. Most versions ignore the Syrian front and the IDF’s autonomy over the preceding years of provoking Syria.

‘The interaction between Israeli military “controlled escalation” and the domestic Syrian problems and inter-Arab struggles is, therefore, the key to understanding the Six Day War as emanating from a process of unwanted escalation p.108

‘The Six Day War was an inadvertent war. Everybody could have done much to prevent it, instead, almost every action taken by each of the parties accomplished just the opposite –making the war inevitable. Yet, the “everybody was guilty” notion serves only to minimize the role of Israeli policies and practices in the process leading up to the crisis and the management of the crisis itself.’ p.110 (and the several conclusions re.)Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani, if this is what you think needs to be done, why not do it, rather than rant on the talk page? Has any of your specific suggestions been opposed? Besides, you claim that the whole article is so POV, yet all you mention is the hotly contested and important issue of the events related to its outbreak. The issue is important, but only a small fraction of the whole article. If this is all you are concerned about, there have been numerous debates on this, particularly as to how it is covered in the lead, and I think some sort of compromise has been reached. Of course, the way Wikipedia works, you can open this Pandora box again... And quite frankly, it appears that what you are doing is trying to find reliable sources that support your own POV. Given the prominence of the topics, there likely to be others with differet POV who will do the same. I have read the entire Oren's book, and it sounds very convincing and impartial, but I am no historian. So the sum of all these vectors will result in some compromise (hopefully without ArbCom etc). This is, regrettably, how Wikipedia works in practice. Good luck. - BorisG (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Boris, please check the meaning of the word 'rant'. I know that in Russian it means декламация, громкие слова, торжественная речь etc., but in contemporary English the denotation is extremely pejorative, meaning turgid bombast by an unhinged person frothing at the mouth, usually in a political vein. It jars as extreme irony to be told that one rants, and at the same time should contribute to an article premised on NPOV obligations. A bit like kicking an athlete heftily in the shin before a race and suggesting he run.

The 'small fraction of the whole article' is what scholars debate most intensely (and is poorly evidenced here). Compare similar articles where war was drifted into. The Iraq War of 2003, Soviet War in Afghanistan, World War 1 or the Yom Kippur War, which have lengthy detailed backgrounds totally missing here. The last named was a 'war of aggression' because Arabs attacked first. The Six Day War, where Israel attacked, was just 'a war fought between Jun 5-10 by Israel and neighbouring states'. But of course, to note such things is 'ranting'.Nishidani (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to note, I have changed the Yom Kippur War article as the claim of "aggression" was not supported by the cited source. Dlv999 (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani, the Urban Dictionary says one of the meanings of 'rant' is 'When someone is pissed about something and they rabmle on about it'. I think this is a very precise description of your speech. Yet out of respect for your linguistic credentials I take back the word 'rant'. The rest of my comment still stands. Dlv999, this is a welcome way forward. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I gave an analysis of sources on the page, provided indications of a dissenting view about the reliability of the major RS, added material relevant to that judgement, and suggested lines of development. You call that 'being pissed off about something and rambling on'. Loose talk is facile. Reading books out of one's daily round of professional interests, carefully weighing words in articles, and providing assistance to one's fellow editors on an encyclopedia is not, by any stretch of the imagination, 'ranting'. You're entitled to find Oren superb. Honesty obliges you to recognize that, since serious doubts about his neutrality are held by scholars in good standing, one's initial impression may merit reexamination. Shortly after the 67 war, I was impressed by Walter Laqueur's The Road to War.(Camelot Press 2nd printing 1969). Friends who had fought in it on Israel's side confirmed my impression. Everything I've read since shows me my first impression was utterly uninformed. The same could be said of many books which, though they support my POV, on further reading, strike me as glib. At my age, one doesn't get pissed off. One reads or watches, and nods one's head sadly because whoever gets pissed off hasn't yet understood that bad news, skewed reportage, spinning, is what one should expect from all sides. It's to Israel's merit that the finest scholarship on most of this comes from there or the diaspora, and is light years ahead of the clichés that still inform people raised under or adopting Zionism's glowing/self-tragic narrative of the nice-decent-guy-in-a-vicious- neighbourhood version of history. Nishidani (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I did say I take it back. It is not for me to describe your emotions, though I am afraid your claims of objectivity won't be taken very seriously if you cite Finkelstein 'the Hezbollah represents hope' as a credible source. Arguably if you base your opinion (of Oren) on such sources as Finkelstein, people will conclude that you don't have more credible sources. And this is not to start a discussion on credibility of Finkelstein; one has the right to believe whatever one wants. But it is not for them to judge whether they are objective or not. Everyone is objective in their own mind; it is the opinion of others that counts. - BorisG (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sloppy logic. Guilt by association. Mutatis mutandis, Oren would be unobjective because he serves with the IDF, and is proud of his role as a paratrooper in the war Israel inflicted on an unrpovoking Lebanon in 1982, where the IDF's love of violent solutions to any problem effectively created Hezbollah. Hezbollah and the Israeli military complex (IDF/Shin Bet/Mossad etc) differ only in this: the former is not involved in violence against foreigners, in shooting and arresting civilians and children every day as part of crowd control, in occupying other countries, or in wars of choice as a matter of institutional work every other day. The only difference is the level of institutionalization of routinization of terror.

I've never made a claim to be objective, in the odd sense that word is used to signify 'not having a decided point of view'. I think I represent reliable sources accurately, and on any difficult argument will use a dozen to see the lay of the land, not just one. You've never read Finkelstein, evidently. He's deeply hated in your community because it's almost impossible to refute him on the grounds he falsifies or misreports source. Indeed, he shows how widespread this practice is in the field, and names names. That's why he lost his job, he blew AD's pretenses to be objective or factual. In that sense, he's objective. Let's drop it, eh. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum or blog for your anti-Israel lies. Read WP:TALK. But I can't stop mentioning several notable attacks by Hezbollah against foreigners: 1983 United States embassy bombing, 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, TWA Flight 847, Lebanon hostage crisis, 1992 attack on Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, AMIA bombing, Alas Chiricanas Flight 901, 1994 London Israeli Embassy attack, 2009 Hezbollah plot in Egypt, 2012 Burgas bus bombing... besides, Iranian and Hezbollah terrorist cells have been involved in (failed) recent attacks against foreign objectives in Berlin, Thailand, Georgia, India, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Nepal, Azerbaijan, Kenya, Nigeria, Greece, Turkey, South Africa, Canada, etc (at least 24 countries in five continents).--IranitGreenberg (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Proof, if it were needed, that you did not understand my point, misread what I said and worst of all, failed to read the articles you scooped up. Having said this is not a blog for lies, you then indulge in both. This is not the place for that, but since you wish for enlightenment I'll provide a short reading list for your page, which illustrates my point about Israel's routinization of terror. Goodbye Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Syrian artillery attacks against Israeli settlements in the vicinity of the border followed by Israeli response against Syrian positions in the Golan Heights and encroachments of increasing intensity and frequency (initiated by Israel) into the demilitarized zones along the Syrian border.

• This is a conceptually and historically garbled sentence.
• followed by means that 'Syrian artillery attacks against Israeli settlements' preceded the dependent clause statement 'encroachments of increasing intensity and frequency (initiated by Israel)'.

If that means anything, it is that the temporal order is

(i)Syria's artillery bombarded Israeli settlements in the vicinity of the border.

(ii) Israel responded against the artillery that had fired and against encroachments ..initiated by Israel into the demilitarized zone.

Complete nonsense, historically, conceptually and grammatically.Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I don't see why the sentence can't be read as saying that both the response and encroachments followed the atrillery attacks. But I see the ambiguity here, do you have a suggestion on how to re-word the sentence? --Dailycare (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

'Encroachment' in this context refers to unilateral Israeli encroachments over the armistice line, (which, on the eviction of Arab villagers, met with the Syrian artillery response). The qualifying parenthesis ('initiated by Israel') implies there were also Syrian encroachments. There weren't: they use Palestinian militants as proxies to retaliate, of course. These 'encroachments' over the armistice line into the demilitarized zone had gone on and off for well over a decade, with Arabs over wide swathes in that zone evicted. Our text abolishes history, and squeezes the encroachments of a decade into artillery attacks into Israeli settlements in the vicinity of the border, the last phrase euphemistically glossing over the whole process of encroaching over the demilitarized zone that long preceded the war. This collapses long term patterns and immediate casus belli incidents prior to the war into one sentence. These incidents have nothing to do with ther reasons and unreasons that led to war.

(Michael Prior Zionism and the State of Israel: A Moral Inquiry, ‎1999 p.196 on the 4 United Nations Security Council Resolutions over Israel's consistent breach of the northern armistice 1949-1967. None were passed against Syria); Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel Palestine Conflict, rev.ed. Verso, 2003 p.131.)

In an otherwise not very reliable account, in my view, Itamar Rabinovich does make a good point in writing:-

An uninterrupted cycle of violence was unleashed in which a clear distinction no longer existed between cause and effect. When Israeli tanks hit Syrian bulldozers implementing the Arab diversion scheme, Syria retaliated by sending a Palestinian terrorist squad through the territory of Jordan, to which Israel retaliated with an air raid, only to invite the Syrian response of laying a mine in the Israeli patrol road in the valley dominated by the Golan Heights' The Brink of Peace: The Israeli-Syrian Negotiations, Princeton University Press, ‎2009 p.20

I see that in the meantime the boy genius has just added another 'in response to sabotage acts aimed at Israeli targets'. Sabotage, when not of a peace plan, is destruction of a nation's property, usually in time of war. The genius manages to retrodate the outbreak of the June war, define shooting at encroachments in the demilitarized zone as damage to Israel's property. I.e. Israel attacked Syria because Syria had destroyed Israel's property outside of Israel during the war before the war broke out. Brilliant. (please note that 'response' is a wiki POV word used predominantly to define any Israeli act of war, all over the articles. Iranit added it again, so the lead has it twice (asociated with Israel), and the overall text now uses 'response'4/0/'responded' (3/1), seven times in Israel's favour with regard to Israeli military actions. Nasser responded by just a troop move before the war. Of such sneaky niceties are I/P articles written.Nishidani (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Tractors, provocations in the DMZ

Ykantor. Looking at this edit I had the vague sense you might be conflating two distinct periods. The tractor episodes I always associate in my mind with the mid 1950s, not with the 1965-66 period. I checked Maoz, and what you cite on p.110 is correct, but that summarizes what he writes of more extensively on pp.102-104. On p.104 he writes:

While in the 1960s 'there is no evidence of a deliberate Israeli effort to encroach into the DMZs, the IDF did regard these areas as a Syrian soft spot and capitalized on this sensitivity to provoke a Syrian response. In this respect, Raban and Elazar emulated to a large extent Dayan's "deterioration" policy of late 1955.'

In other words, the tractor business relates to 1955 etc., whereas the Israeli provocations a decade later were of a different kind and order. To conflate these would be WP:OR.Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that you check me, since it is important for me to be as reliable as possible. In this case, you can click the 1st source and read it yourself. It talks about the sixties, rather than the fifties. as I said. Ykantor (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I reciprocate your sentiment (though I try not to 'check' (i.e. create obstacles editors) while 'checking' edits). My point was Maoz is used to introduce Israeli provocations 1965-6, and this is then followed by details from Rabil (pp.19-16). Maoz's point was that the tractor business was, per Dayan, characteristic of the mid-fifties, (p.110) and says evidence for deliberate Israeli encroachment into the DMZ is lacking for the 1960s. Your second source Rabil mentions the tractor business, relates it first to the 50s, but then says two such incidents occurred in December 1962, and August 1963. That means (a) there is a source conflict between Maoz and Rabil on this detail over what actually took place and (b) Rabil cites two incidents in 62 and 63, two years before the 1965-6 period the text is discussing concerning Israeli provocations. My impression is that you cannot write of provocations for 1965-6 by illustrating it with details that in either Maoz or Rabil, took place in the mid fifties and perhaps 1962-3. It's called WP:OR. I appreciate that you can edit in material for both sides in a conflict,-this is rare. While I generally edit to ensure a proper representation of Palestinians and their history I am also under an obligation, as here, to ensure Israel is not misrepresented. Nishidani (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Zeev Maoz himself , in his book Paradoxes of War: On the Art of National Self Entrapment , Zeev Maoz - 1990, p. 124,125 talks about years 1964 to 1966.

Concerning edit for both side, it is OK in my opinion. Facts are facts, does not matter whether it present one of the sides in a good or bad light. We have to live with that. The problem arise when it is a conclusion or interpretation. e.g. who started the 1948 civil war ? In my opinion, the Arabs has started (although that was not their intention). I guess that in your opinion it was an escalation where it does not matter who shot first. you see, that is a problem.

Generally speaking, what for we need all those wars? At the 1st reliable Census at 1922 , there were about 1.2 million people in Palestine. At 1947 the number had increased to 1.8 million . Nowadays, there are about 12 million between the sea and the Jordan, and the Negev (about half of the country) is still nearly empty. (numbers from my memory only). There is sufficient space for all of us. Could not we live together without those wars? I can understand an Arab person who says: this my country and the Jews are foreigners. On the other hand, Jews had nowhere to go ( That is a sad chapter in History), and Israel is the only place , Jews were dreaming about, during thousands of years. . Each side should have accept reality and give up some of it's dreams. Ykantor (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but having a piece of land registered in your own name expropriated because your DNA is not the one apparently given to the Chosen People, and all their collateral descendents or people who can convert to Judaism, from India to Peru (Incas!) and Ethiopia, and Russian Eurasia(300,000 non Jewish Russians) according to hearsay some 3400 years ago, makes happy coexistence a pipedream, one even without the blessing of marijuana. I'm fine with one eretz Israel/Palestine, as long as civil property law is applied without distinction, impartially to everyone who's born there. That will happen in about 2050, barring a really catastrophic. Patience.

To get back to the text. I don't think you construed my argument correctly. There is a contradiction in your edit caused by a conflict in the data in your two sources, which makes out that events related to 1955, 1962 and 1963 occurred in 1965, 1966. Have another look. Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

My writing "On the other hand, Jews had nowhere to go ( That is a sad chapter in History), and Israel is the only place , Jews were dreaming about, during thousands of years." is relevant to the period before 1948.

Sorry,but I do not find any contradiction. The tractors provocations happens during roughly all the sixties ( there is no dealing with the fifties in this section). My 2 initial sources were Rabil and Murray & Viot.( and not Maoz). Rabil mentions the 2 incidents at 1962, 1963. Murray & Viot mentions vaguely the whole period between 1948 to 1967. Maoz talks about 1964 to 1966. None of them deny tractors incidents in other years. To my knowledge it happened all over the sixties.

BTW, IT was not always Israel who provoked first (albeit with tractors). Rabil says (p. 15) "UN officialls found fault with the policies of both Israel and Syria and often accused the 2 countries of destabilizing the Israeli-Syrian borders. Rabil explains that internal Syrian considerations, were the motivation behind Syrian actions at the Israeli border. Ykantor (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I give up. I've done my best to preserve Israeli historical objectivity in the face of an edit which, in my view, gives an inappropriately anti-Israel slant by confusing dates and statements. I'm very particular about the logic and evidentiary basis of statements and I can tell you, the paragraph as constituted does not report what the sources say, but conflates them, and distorts the facts regarding Israel. I personally consider there's not a shadow of doubt Israel's behaviour at that time worked to provoke war, as so often, ('act crazy, and scare the Arabs' was the cabinet catchcry in the 1950s,'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother', Moshe Dayan) but that's not the point. The point is getting the order of facts and incidents correctly described per sources. I may be wrong. Plenty of people watch this page, and if they wish to reexamine this, they'll either confirm your impression, or back mine. Let's see.Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that I left such an impression (concerning the tractors provocations), since that really happened ( together with some "provocation" of Israeli boats in Tiberias lake that came close to the Syrian side and were shot by the Syrians.)

concerning your "Israel's behaviour at that time worked to provoke war" , it is not a black & white image but a gray one. e.g. About 10 days before the 6 days war started, Ben Gurion blamed Rabin, the chief of staff, that he caused the war , by heating up the Syrian border. The prime minister, Eshkol, was definitely against war, but he was a weak defense minister (too) that gave the army too much power. Most of the generals wanted a war, but in my opinion, Rabin himself did not want ( although he heated the Syrian border). The government and Rabin, remembered the 1956 war, in which the U.S have forced Israel to retreat. They realized that in a case of successful war, it might happen again, and if IDF will fail, then it could be the end of Israel (Unlike the Arab states, who can "afford" to fail). So, when the situation got worse (end of May 1967) Eshkol stopped the eager generals from stating the war, since he was afraid of the American response. Eventually the government decided for a war, only after the U.S. president Johnson, realized that the U.S cannot fulfill it's signed promise to open the Tiran straights. ( BTW Johnson was crossed when he learned that Israel attacked first, and put an embargo on arms supplies to Israel).

It is difficult to believe , but the people in Israel where extremely worried before the war. People were very gloomy, some rich people left overseas, some U.S. / European relatives offered their Israeli family to send them the at least the kids. The Jewish Rabbi's has marked the edges of huge temporary cemeteries ( actually all the public parks were converted). Israeli farmers who happened to have an Arab worker, heard that those workers has already decided among themselves, who will "inherit" which farm. If you find it interesting, I have more to say. Ykantor (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

MiG-21 defection

I think in the section about Israeli preperation for the war there should be a mention about the 1966 defection of a Iraqi MiG-21. This has helped the Israeli find out about the weaknesses of this aircraft and has in large parts help the Israeli win the war.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/migtheft.html

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3405913,00.html

http://www.iaf.org.il/1478-23715-en/IAF.aspx

http://novatus.heck.in/israel-stealing-a-soviet-mig-21-fighter.xhtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.168.230 (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit and reversion.

Please explain your rationale for censoring the perfectly accurate term "civilian". Also your attempt to include Israeli responsibilty for the war must be balanced by equally valid counter claims which can be sourced. I would expect a form of words to be negotiated which accepts that "blame" is far more subtle and must shared among all parties. Irondome (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The cited source for this statement says: "By the fall of 1966 and spring of 1967, things seemed to be getting out of hand. Israeli-initiated encroachments into the demilitarized zones (DMZ) along the Syrian border became more frequent and intense. Israeli leaders made repeated statements to the effect that the Syrian regime was directly responsible for the border clashes and that Israel may act directly against the Syrian regime"

Your edit deleted the reliably sourced information about the Israeli initiated encroachments into the DMZ and added unsourced information. Our WP:NPOV policy says we accurately reflect what has been written in RS, this is the basis for my edits. I would be interested to learn what is the basis for your edits. Dlv999 (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Oddly, you fail to address your apparent suppression of the term "civilian" which you removed. What is the basis for this removal? I shall be using Oren, who is a perfectly RS. That is my source for civilian. I know you have issues with Oren, but still I shall use him and his original sources. RS are one thing, the choice of sources, thus reflecting POV, is quite another. The basis of my edits is to restore a level playing field based on, if necessary, reasoned, sustained discussion on the varying RS in terms of events and narrative which can be presented in this article. I would appreciate that you do not question my GOOD FAITH here. That is a ground rule if we are to continue. I am not disputing yours, rather your method of source selection based on many other factors, of which we are all to some extent "guilty" of. There is a difference. Irondome (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

In the field, there are differing opinions on whether Oren is RS. But perhaps we can close this with having both "civilian" and "israeli-initiated" in the text? --Dailycare (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You added a claim without a source. Removing your unsourced claim is not "suppression". If you give a proper citation for the claim you will find it will not be removed. Oren's reliability has been disputed, but that is something we can discuss. If you add claims without citation they should be removed without discussion. I didn't question your good faith, I simply stated the facts that you deleted material sourced to academic citation and added unsourced claims. Whether you think you are doing the right thing (ie acting in good faith or not) is largely irrelevant at this stage. The point is your edit is inconsistent with core policy of the encyclopaedia. Dlv999 (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Very good. Irondome (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, why do you think they were civilians? Israel wouldn't send civilians into the DMZ knowing they would be shot at. Everyone knows the "farmers" were soldiers. This is well enough documented and I will add such documentation when I am not 10,000 km from my library, unless someone else does first. Zero^talk 14:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Nonsensical sockpuppet edit being edit warred into the article without discussion or explanation

Could the two experienced editors who are meatpuppeting for banned user AHJ please explain why they are warring non-sensical material added by a banned user into this article?

...Egypt blocking the Straits of Tiran, deploying his troops near Israel's border,....

The addition doesn't make sense. Is Egypt a person? I take a very dim view of experienced editors warring banned editor's material into articles without even taking the most cursory evaluation of the material to asses its suitability for inclusion. Dlv999 (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I second this request. (a)A precedent is being established that a repeat-offender/sockpuppet might now come in under a new name, make substantial edits that have the appearance of substance, with the assurance that, when caught out, his edits will be saved by other editors who share, if less egregiously, his POV.

(b)It is possible that a sockpuppet's work might in theory contain useful material, that closely evaluated, could be redeployed. But, surely, to avoid the kind of meatpuppetry which occurred, this can only be allowed by reverting the material and transferring it to the talk page. There are several problematical things here, for editors who know the subject, rather than reflex sympathizing with one of the historical parties: changing 'Damascus' for Syria ostensibly to avoid reduplication is wrong, for example, because in the rhetoric of threats at the time. Damascus was identified as a specific target, not only broadly Syria, and the sockpuppet's edit blurred this distinction.Nishidani (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

So if I showed you directly restoring material introduced by a sockpuppet with an edit summary of "I'm not banned. The edits were reasonable, and one judges these on their merits" that would make you a...? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That edit is also reverting an edit by a sockpuppet of a banned user. nableezy - 17:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd really really like to see him say he knew that when he made his edit, but unfortunately I think we'll just be left with your attempt to... what exactly were you trying to achieve? Something honest and full of integrity, I'm sure. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Just showing that your nonsense is just that. Nish, a bit of advice, just refuse to allow him to engage you on anything other than the content of an article. Dont respond, dont even acknowledge any comment that doesnt directly address the content of the article. I think youll find that certain people get their rocks off from wasting your time. Dont let them. nableezy - 18:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

No. The poor blighter has wasted years trying to document his ancient threat to mug up evidence I'm a Jew-intimidating, antisemitic editor that AE should permaban from wikipedia. He burns the midnight oil, pours over my edits as screened on his spread sheet, and ever time I edit, tries to find an incongruency. Well, for once, in all these years, he found a minor contradiction, more in nuance than anything. Even, (present company excepted) dickheads occasionally get things right. And the only honest thing to do, since there is an incongruency in my edit summary there, and my suggestion here, is to correct the dyscrasy. Of course, that he'll spend up large, shout chums champers at the bar or office and boast to anyone who will listen about the huge humiliation, after years he toiled to screw me, that he wrought on one, Nishidani, is no skin off my nose. People whose lives are passed in the dull nose-grind of tracking enemies of their favourite country deserve a light break now and then. He needs a small victory, esp. after that diehard à la Willis battle to defend a blatant sock went up in smoke. Never let pride or antipathy get in the way of the correct call.Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the reason I noticed your edit is because of your friend Sean.hoyland. You see, Sean goes around telling any pro-Israel editor he sees restoring material added by a sock (which he and Nableezy obsessively remove even if it's constructive well sourced material) that they are dishonest or aiding dishonesty or whatever because socks are bad and we shouldn't help them. At first I believed him. Then I noticed he never says anything to you or Zero when you do it. Then you had the audacity to say that (only pro-Israel of course) editors are POV pushing meatpuppets for doing something you argue is fine when you do it, and as usual I was compelled to point out the intellectual dishonesty. That Nableezy tried to pretend it was ok because you were reverting a sock was just icing on the cake. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I didnt pretend about anything. Youre allowed to restore whatever edit you want to take responsibility for. His edit was okay for that reason. Now you can continue trying to waste peoples time, thats fine with me. But thats really all youre doing, isnt it? As I said, nonsense. nableezy - 06:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

NMMGG. You reall should pull your socks up. This continual barrage about 'your friends', 'they' as if editors who oppose the constant intrusion of sockpuppets, and national meatpuppets were themselves some mirror version of the same faceless lot who every other week drift into the I/P area, is, apart from being absurd, boring.

Just a lesson on language, to close. 'When he (Sean) sees you . . do it' (restore a sock's edits) he never says anything.' The 'When ..do' construction is frequentative, it means 'on every occasion' implying (a) Sean Hoyland watches every edit on every page that I (or Zero) make, and that (b) I am in the habit of restoring sock edits. If you have evidence that, other than the one instance you cite, I do this habitually, provide it. If you don't, shut up and take your fantasies to some audience that loves just-so stories, but, like you, rarely contributes productively to wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a well known fact amongst wikipedia editors in this topic area that when you start with the English lessons, someone hit a nerve. FYI. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I should add that (a) no precedent should be made of this (b) the lead was strongly POV in Israel's favour before the sock added his note, and requires correction. Israel didn't win in 6 days. It won in 5 hours by preemptively striking three countries, and the C.I.A. two days earlier had informed the President that it would be a pushover. When you shoot first, it usually is.Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, my apparent meatpuppeting once for a sock amounts to this, on a page I look closely at, and where the only contribution NMMGG has made has been to remove the list of attacks made on Palestinians to a separate page, while retaining the list (it is a list) of every obscure Rabbi and politician who, on one of two occasions, made a public criticism of price tag vandalism or terror. I.e. he left the page devoid of its main content, while keeping in the 'Israeli reactions' section that is WP:Undue and intended to show how horrified the authorities are about what they never trouble to stop.

You left out the context of my edit. User:Precision123, the kind of occasional drop-in POV editor (the low profile chaps who just turn up at 'the right time') just slips in now again in his rare editing to introduce irrelevant material on an I/P page and then quietly erases key RS material he dislikes i.e. a POV pusher. He began the push. One of the rare pro-Palestinian socks User:Upper lima 65 comes in to make several edits, mostly correcting for NPOV and spelling errors (reprehensible but not POV pushing). User:Beta Jones Mercury comes out of the woodwork, announced a sockpuppet was to be reverted, while patently being, as was proved almost immediately a sockpuppet, and joined another curious newbie (User:GoGoBot2, possibly a sock, certainly a POV-pusher, who reintroduces irrelevant material on spurious grounds. In their reverts none of these troubled to read the edits. Just like Brewcrewer here, they automatically revert, bringing back hopelessly stupid errors I didn't know until he was reverted that he was a sock. I followed the edits: He removed the following irrelevancies, corrected POV phrasing or poor English:

• (1)which does not ordinarily condemn attacks on Islamic sites by Muslims. (totally irrelevant material. I could stack the page with numerous cites of Rabbis cited for condemning one attack on a mosque, while they advocate, or their followers appear to engage in that activity, or they never protest against the weekly assaults on non-mosque property. I don't)
• (2)Zar explained (='gave the reason why'.POV) that this is a legitimate struggle = stated that these actions represent a legitimate struggle
• (3) radical right-winged Israeli activists = radical right-winged Israeli activists
• (4) inserted
• (5) the destruction of trees do not belong not in the same cateogry (sic) = the destruction of trees do not belong in the same cateogry (category).
• (6)The vast majority of Yesha rabbis and, according to Shin Bet officials, settlers reject it and/or have expressed their reservations of it = According to Harretz (sic), Shin Bet officials believe that the vast majority of settlers reject price tag attacks. (The article did not mention the Yesha. Improper attribution, since fixed)

As any twit can see, if he has the will to read, there is no POV pushing involved. That does not disculpate the sock's behaviour. But the edits flagged textual problems no one noticed, and, with my attention drawn to them, I emended according to simple commonsense. That is a completely different kettle of fish to what Brewcrewer or Marokwitz or others did, automatically restoring material without reading it (since they left in the egregious grammatical errors).Nishidani (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I stopped reading at the point you tried to make it seem pro-I socks are worse than pro-P socks. Was there anything important after that? I'm assuming it was more of the same soapboxing and trolling. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

'you tried to make it seem pro-I socks are worse than pro-P socks.' Don't distort with malice aforethought. I made no judgement on who is 'better' or 'worse'. They are both a curse. 'Rare' means that 'pro-Palestinian' socks are uncommon compared to 'pro-Israeli' socks. This can be shown statistically. If I am wrong on this, I will happily stand corrected. Stop the disruptive whining and whingeing about editors, which disturbs the talk page whose function is to resolve content differences. Make your report to AE, as promised for years.Nishidani (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)