Talk:Six-Day War/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Oren and Jews in Arab Countries

The Oren quote is not an appropriate source for the impact of the war on Jews in Arab countries. His work is a respected source for the war itself, but he is not and has never been a researcher on Jews in Arab countries. There are many better sources for that. The paragraph we use used the following source (footnote 4)

• LBJ, National Security File, Memos to the President, box 22: Wine to E. Rostov, Aug. 16, 1967.
• USNA, Central Foreign Policy files, 1967-1969, POL 27-7 ARAB-ISR, box 1830: The Hague to the Secretary of State, July 7, 1967; POL 12 SY, box 2511: Beirut to the Secretary of State, Sept. 6, 1967.
• ISA, Foreign Ministry file 4091/7: Speeches and Decisions (Conway): Foreign Ministry to Washington, June 16, 1967; 4085/1: Emergency Situation 1967 - Prisoners: Geneva to Tekoah, June 13, 1967.
• PRO, FCO17/531 Israel - Political Affairs (External): Condition of the Jews of the Arab States in the Light of the Six-Day War, Sept. 27, 1967.”

In other words, his sources for this claim were American, Israeli and British, not local sources. And due to Oren’s style of footnoting entire paragraphs in a single footnote, we have no idea what he relied on for the explusion claim.

We can and should do better. I have read numerous specialist sources on this topic, and have discussed it at length on the talk pages of the relevant article, and was not aware of these proposed post-1967 mass expulsions.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Worth reading Finkelstein’s take-down of Oren’s book: Norman G. Finkelstein (2003). Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. Verso. pp. 184–. ISBN 978-1-85984-442-7.. He calls it a propaganda initiative in response to the negative publicity from the second Intifada, similar to the timing of the Joan Peters book after the Lebanon invasion. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you rephrase your objections in terms of Wikipedia policy? Are you saying that Oren, a historian specializing in the subject of this article, is not a reliable source for information relating to the subject of this article? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

He is a specialist on the conduct of the war, not on its repercussions. Specialists on the Jewish exodus from Arab countries do not make this claim. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

You do realize we're talking about a book by an expert in the field, published by OUP, about the very subject of this article? Could you kindly quote the Wikipedia policy you're basing your rejection of this source on? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Per Guy Laron on Oren: “Oren’s book, an overwhelmingly military history of the conflict, is mostly devoted to a meticulous reconstruction of the major battles. The pre- and postwar periods are skimmed lightly.” [1] Onceinawhile (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It does not logically follow from that quote that we can't use Oren here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Local sources in countries without freedom of the press or research are a tad problematic, and there would be little reason to use state-controlled sources in such countries. Oren is a respected academic and expert in the field - and furthermore if you check each and everyone of his claims (e.g. the pogrom in Libya) - they all come up with plenty of other reliable sources saying the same.Icewhiz (talk) 06:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Oren is respected academic and should be used as a source per WP:RS--Shrike (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

None of the specialist sources in Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries support his claim that “A total of 7,000 Jews were expelled”. That is a major claim. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

That article doesn't discuss 1967 at length - mainly restricting itself to the main wave that ended in the early 50s. It does however state 4,000 just for Libya (where there was a pogrom). Other countries are mentioned in aggregate - e.g. In total, it is estimated that between 1956 and 1967, about 235,000 North African Jews from Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco immigrated to France due to the decline of the French Empire and following the Six-Day War.. If at all Oren is low-balling here.Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Those are not explulsions. The article is explicit: “As in Tunisia and Algeria, Moroccan Jews did not face large scale expulsion or outright asset confiscation or any similar government persecution during the period of exile”, sourced to Laskier.

I have not seen the 7,000 or any number of that scale anywhere, in any of the main specialist sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You can add the Laskier quote (attributed) after Oren. It's called NPOV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

We can and should do better than that.

We should agree who we consider experts on the post-67 Jewish exodus, and see what they each say.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I have amended the article to reflect this. Please overlay as appropriate. I have also removed the hyphenated subtitle, as (a) no other sections have this “subtitle”, (b) the expulsion question is uncertain, and (c) we only mention one pogrom in the article, so we can’t turn that in to multiple, and even then other sources don’t use that specific term to describe the event in Libya. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Stating in Wikipedia's voice that " but this claim does not appear in specialist works on the Jewish exodus by authors such as" is not NPOV, and is also patently incorrect - as events in Libya, Egypt, Syria, and other countries are well attested and documented. What is perhaps lacking in other authors is an aggregate number for 1967 expulsions for all countries (as opposed to a country by country account).Icewhiz (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: Did you really just state your personal thoughts in the encyclopedia's neutral voice? [2] and call it "per talk" as if anyone would ever agree to such nonsense? Good one. Quite BOLD. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any sources - just one - which document a large scale expulsion post-1967 in any of those countries? I have not seen any. Oren used the word “explusion” - you (and Oren?) may consider riots and persecution to be tantamount to expulsion, but they are different things. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You are arguing over a technicality. In Libya the entire community left - after government sanctioned pogroms and repressions. In Egypt a male from each Jewish household was arrested and placed in jail, property confiscated, and when released - were sent to the Cairo airport and made to sign various documents prior to being placed on a plane. However, here's a source saying expelled for Egypt - [3].Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

That reference is to the 1956–57 exodus and expulsions from Egypt, which, as discussed in detail in the talk page archives at Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries, is the only actual expulsion that we have a source for.

That event was a decade before the subject of this article.

The definition and usage of the word “expulsion” is anything but a technicality. Expulsion means explicit and unquestionable government-led persecution. In Libya, I don’t believe we have any sources confirming your “government sanctioned” claim. And in Egypt, regarding placing of people on planes, I have not seen any source stating that this was done to the entire community. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is that you're using a very narrow definition of "expulsion". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there any other definition? Please enlighten me, with a source. I consider its usage here as a broad synonym for “Deportation”. As our article on that subject says: “Expulsion is an act by a public authority to remove a person or persons against his or her will from the territory of that state. A successful expulsion of a person by a country is called a deportation”. Sourced to the International Organization for Migration. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This line of discussion is a waste of time. You can't counter what an RS said with your opinion on what expulsion means or how you can't find another source that says the same thing (see: appeal to ignorance + WP:OR). What you can do is add RS that contradict what this RS said. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I am countering it with the contention that the three of us experienced editors have yet to find a single other source corroborating Oren’s claim. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I've found several sources - on a per-country basis - that corroborate Oren's claim of Jews being murdered, persecuted, their belongings confiscated, and driven out of each country. Frankly - he's low-balling with the 7,000 (which you'd only reach by including a very short span after June 1967, and possibly omitting some of the countries due to classification of expulsion vs. fleeing - e.g. I'm fairly certain (by the number he uses) that he excluded Morocco which easily surpasses his total). Your issue seems to be with a technicality - his use of the word "expelled". Most per-country reports go into detail into how this expulsion happened, using at times different terms.Icewhiz (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: that’s good to hear, thanks. Please could you share whatever you are able to from these sources? I am focused on the ones that describe actual expulsions.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I haven't looked, since as you well know, I don't allow you to waste my time on your frivolous information requests. For example in this case, you say a source is wrong (using a logical fallacy) and think I'll waste my time proving it right when in fact, per Wikipedia policy, you need to show its wrong with other sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The ref clearly says the same thing happened in 1967 - same referring to expulsion as well - the next sentence. And it really is not hard to find accounts of Jewish men released from jail and driven to the airport.Icewhiz (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The source says “Many others were expelled and their property confiscated; an event that recurred during the 1967 war, when Jewish homes and property were confiscated.”

This proves my point - the author specifically does not reference an expulsion in 1967, even when it would be easy to make the comparison to 1956 as he does with property confiscation. Fischbach is the same. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The alternative to using Oren's estimate that is specific to 1967 (and gives us a tidy estimate for all countries) - is to list each Arab country individually, with sources that are specific for that country (mob violence, government restrictions and imprisonment, and migration - forced to varying degrees - from the Egyptians loading people onto planes, to clear threat of bodily harm following a sanctioned pogrom, to other means).Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of posterity, can anyone here confirm whether they are aware of any source at all which talks about any specific example of a post-1967 expulsion of Jews in the Arab world? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Oren has published on the subject, so he is a source. Sources may be biased, however, and indeed often are, such as in the case of Oren. As editors, it's our task to determine the overall balance of opinion from among the best sources, not search for sources that best conform to a specific agenda for copy-pasteing to the article in support of that specific agenda. Of course the primary story with expulsions and the 1967 war is the expulsion of Palestinians by Israel, but this topic deserves a mention, too. --Dailycare (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Belligerents

This article has until now been a representative example of an infobox with over-inflated list of belligerents and supporters - mostly with no source or at best brought in via a synthesis of sources. As of this was we can state the following: Jordan, Syria and Egypt fought against Israel as main belligerent sources; Iraq indeed sent reinforcements who made some contact with Israelis; other forces had none - perhaps only Lebanon and PLO had some support in logistics (asking for citation). Several Pakistani pilots were volunteers in Arab armies and had not represented their country officially, so that one has to be omitted. Unless there are solid sources for other parties, I'm keeping only Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Iraq and Israel, with Lebanon and PLO as supporters.GreyShark (dibra) 15:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

"pov changes"

Icewhiz, please explain this edit. What is POV about including a link to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank article? What is POV about saying captured and occupied the territories. On the contrary, removing the most common description of these territories is what is POV. Please explain your so far unexplained blanket revert. nableezy - 06:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Israeli certainly occupies and occupied the West Bank, however transient troop movements and change of control during a few days of war do not constitute occupation - which occurred following the war. A counterattack is generally, in military history, described as a counterattack. Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

There are three parts to your revert. Let’s take them separately - see below. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Occupy vs capture

Occupation happens immediately on troops taking over control. It is a technical word, whilst capture is more colloquial. Occupy is also the most common term used in literature. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, it is defined in Article 42 of the Regulations Respecting The Laws And Customs Of War On Land (Hague IV). There is no doubt whatever that the occupation of the WB began during the 6 days and not afterwards. Zero^talk 10:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

No - there is a distinct difference between invasion, capture and occupation. This is for instance discussed in Roberts, Adam. "What is a military occupation?." British Yearbook of International Law 55.1 (1985): 249-305. in page 8/256 under "The Beginning of Occupation" where the author distinguishes between invasion and occupation - "In the great majority of cases, occupations are preceded by invasions. The rather technical issue of the precise moment when an invasion turns into an occupation is not always easy to determine. Invasion itself-the entry of military forces into country controlled by adversaries-is not occupation; and if it consists of a mere raid, or a simple passage across territory, it may not lead to occupation. Most sources follow the Hague Regulations, Article 42, in stating that occupation may be said to begin when the invader actually exercises authority, thus stressing that it is factual criteria that are important.". Returning to the six-day war context, it is obvious (putting aside Israeli claims of no prior sovereign (illegal Jordanian occupation, part of the mandate)) that the occupation began following the Israeli decision to setup a military government in the captured territories (as opposed, to say, withdrawing) - however this did not occur until after the end of the war.

Furthermore, perhaps due to the technical ambiguity regarding beginning of occupation, and perhaps due to jargon in military history differing from the peculiar jargon of international law - sources covering the war favor military history terms - such as capture - over international law terms. Icewhiz (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that is wrong. See the Wikipedia page which describes it well. Military occupation#Beginning_of_military_government. The occupation begins at the very moment when the belligerent can exercise "effective control". See also ICRCs explanation. ImTheIP (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a RS. The well cited paper by Roberts disagrees with you, as "effective control" requires asserting control over the civilian population (as opposed to having troops on the ground with a surrounding, uncontrolled, civilian anarchy) - soldiers being present in the enemy territory may be a necessary (The novel case of Gaza aside) condition, but this is not a sufficient condition. Icewhiz (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

While Wikipedia is not a reputable source, you might learn something by reading it. :) Your own source states that "Most sources follow the Hague Regulations, Article 42, in stating that occupation may be said to begin when the invader actually exercises authority" which is exactly the same thing as effective control. ImTheIP (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

1. Every "capture" results in either "occupation" or "freeing". If we're to use either term in this article, we might as well change all similar articles accordingly. I do not volunteer to do so.
2. Semantics: "Capture" is a one-time event; "occupation" is a sustained state. Semantically, "occupation" cannot take place while fighting is ongoing, while "capture" can. For example, you cannot "occupy" a guard post mid-battle, but you can "capture" it; the exact moment when the hold becomes an occupation may be impossible to accurately define, resulting in the somewhat odd situation where "occupation" at a certain point in time can be said to "continue", but not "start" (this is akin to the notion of a limit in calculus).
3. Bottom line: Israel captured the West Bank during the war, and "occupied" or "continued to occupy" it at some point later, after fighting had ceased. François Robere (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

François Robere (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but both you and Icewhiz are simply wrong. First, it isn't a population that is occupied, it is a territory. Read the definition (Hague IV, Art. 42) that Israel follows along with everyone else: "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." It doesn't say anything about the servility of the population, nor about overall cessation of hostilities. In our case it started when the West Bank came under control of the Israel Army, by the evening of June 7 or the next day at the very latest. Zero^talk 00:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to territory, not population ("the state" - in this case Jordan - isn't the same as "the people" - the local Palestinian populace), and I gave a semantic analysis, not a legal one (mind Wikipedia is not bound by the Hague convention - it's just another source). As for cessation of hostilities - you will notice the convention uses the phrase "placed under the authority", while other definitions use term "control"; both suggest the ability to exercise power (or, arguably, the exercise of power), which is something that cannot be done, or cannot be done in full, until hostilities in the area have ceased. As a practical example you will notice how Israeli forces (and practically many other forces in similar situations, but not all) only begun setting up occupation authorities some times after the is the setup of occupation authorities some time after the seizure, once the situation had stabilized. François Robere (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

When Israel setup the military government is irrelevant. This is from the ICRC page I linked to earlier: "The question of ' control ' calls up at least two different interpretations. It could be taken to mean that a situation of occupation exists whenever a party to a conflict exercises some level of authority or control within foreign territory. So, for example, advancing troops could be considered bound by the law of occupation already during the invasion phase of hostilities. This is the approach suggested in the ICRC's Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention (1958)." Furthermore, the entry we are discussing is called "Territorial changes" mean that it is about the result of the war, which was the "occupation". "capture" was an action performed by Israel during the war. ImTheIP (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The question of when the system was set up is important exactly because occupation exists whenever a party to a conflict exercises some level of authority or control. You "exercise authority" via some level of governance, not through the act of entering a land.

could be considered... doesn't mean "is considered", but "could be considered", which is exactly the point: this question is far more nuanced than "they came in, they occupied".

the entry we are discussing is called "Territorial changes" mean that it is about the result of the war, which was the "occupation" "occupation" is not a form of "territorial exchange" - "conquest" is. "Occupation" is a state of rule or system of government.

By the way, there's a discussion in Robert, What is Military Occupation? (1985) that suggests that your and others' verbatim reading of eg. the conventions is actually the other way around from what they intend. François Robere (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually there isn't. Israel "actually exercised authority" and "made a proclamation of occupation" (aka Military Proclamation No. 2) several days before June 10. It fits Roberts' discussion perfectly. Zero^talk 00:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Roberts makes the point that the legal state can be ambiguous, and the way the conventions are phrased isn't meant to resolve that ambiguity, but rather circumvent it by cementing behavioral guidelines that are always applicable, regardless of what the legal state is. Hence, relying on the convention to try resolve this ambiguity goes against what they were actually intended to do. François Robere (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The removal of "occupied" took place in the results section, where it says "captured East Jerusalem and the West Bank ... occupied the Golan Heights" (making one appear occupied and the other not), and in a section name of "Captured territories and Arab displaced populations". I would like an explanation as to why any of those were removed. None of the removed instances are about troop movements, actual fighting, but the results, meaning what took place after. So the entirety of the basis for removing it, that however transient troop movements and change of control during a few days of war do not constitute occupation is entirely irrelavant. In fact, it relevant to the many places where it says Jordanian forces or Egyptian forces "occupied" a village or a position or whatever. If that were actually the reason for removal then those instances would have been removed. Icewhiz, why exactly did you remove occupied from the result, and why exactly did you change Occupied territories back to Captured territories in the section name? nableezy - 14:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

To move forward here, I suggest we use both words (captured and occupied). Onceinawhile (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The date of occupation is in dispute (which would suggest why sources avoid it for wartime discussions) - It is far from clear the territories were occupied by 10 June. They definitely were occupied shortly after the war - e.g. by the end of June certainly. Icewhiz (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

So why did you remove it from the places where you did? None of those places are about temporary troop movements. The territorial changes part of the infobox, why is it removed there? Why the sentence on capture the West Bank and East Jerusalem ... occupied Golan. And the section title on Captured territories and Arab displaced populations in the aftermath section. Why was it removed there? What does the date it took effect even have to do with any of those instances? You can say you just did a blanket revert, that is obvious given the typo you later went back and corrected. But if you are actually arguing that it is POV to say in the infobox that the war resulted in the occupation of those territories then come out and say that and say why. Same for the section title. And absent explanations that actually address those, I will be reverting. nableezy - 06:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and here is the US State Dept view:

Between June 5 and June 10, Israel defeated Egypt, Jordan, and Syria and occupied the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights ... Yet after June 5, the administration did not also demand an immediate Israeli pullback from the territories it had occupied.

Certainly seems to be their view the occupation began during the war. nableezy - 06:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

"Captured and subsequently occupied"? François Robere (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Weill, Sharon (2007). "The judicial arm of the occupation: the Israeli military courts in the occupied territories". International Review of the Red Cross. 89 (866). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 401. doi:10.1017/s1816383107001142. ISSN 1816-3831. On 7 June 1967, the day the occupation started, Military Proclamation No. 2 was issued, endowing the area commander with full legislative, executive, and judicial authorities over the West Bank and declaring that the law in force prior to the occupation remained in force as long as it did not contradict new military orders. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Any sources for the so far unsubstantiated view the occupation did not begin then? Any at all? nableezy - 07:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

So Israel not only gained authority over the WB during the war but explicitly asserted authority. That is really the end of the argument. Zero^talk 09:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

With these sources, who objects to the return of occupied in each places it was removed? And why? The argument that the territory was not occupied prior to the end of the war is now directly contradicted by a reliable source (Weill also has a book published by Oxford University Press that says much the same thing here) nableezy - 17:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Object, per the well reasoned and sourced arguments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Im sorry, but what well reasoned or sourced argument? The well sourced bit is that the occupation of the West Bank began on 7 June 1967. During the war. There is literally no source presented that contradicts that. So, can you explain what argument supports leaving these as "captured" instead of "occupied"? nableezy - 18:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: please could you clarify what you are opposing? It is not clear whose arguments your are referring to, or which side the discussion you are referring to. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Q "who objects to the return of occupied in each places it was removed?" A "Object". Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The question was also why. There are reliable sources that explicitly contradict the unsourced OR above that those opposing relied on. As such, I am returning it, with the sources. nableezy - 21:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you should add it back in, but instead of replacing “capture”, add occupy as what happened after (with the timing specified in the sources you have brought). That is an appropriate middle ground. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

For some of the spots yes, for the section name no I disagree. The occupation is what is relevant there, not the capture. It was what Israel did after initially capturing the territory that is covered there. nableezy - 21:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been watching for someone to locate a source stating that the occupation began after the end of the war, or even stating that the starting point is disputed or uncertain. Did I miss one? To the sources brought in the other direction, I'll add the opinion of the International Court of Justice (invoking the Hague definition of "occupied"): "The territories...were occupied during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan" (Legal Consequences.. 2004, No. 131, p32). Repeated on p40. Zero^talk 03:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

No sir, to nobody's surprise, you did not miss one. Nobody has even pretended to offer any source that disputes what now has several sources explicitly supporting. nableezy - 05:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Counterattack and retaliate

I have no problem with these terms, so long as they are used consistently. Israel launched the first attack against the allied Arab countries. So by definition the Arabs were the ones retaliating. Personally I prefer we avoid this chicken and egg nonsense and use less loaded terms. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Generally, attack and counterattack refer to ground movements - not aerial warfare. Technically, if you go to "who started it" - a blockade is an act of war - but on the technical sense, counterattack refers to an offensive that follows an opposing ground offensive. Icewhiz (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Any source for that? Any at all? nableezy - 14:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

But Ill remember that line, a blockade is an act of war, next time rockets are fired from Gaza and its the Israeli "counter-attack" that happens. nableezy - 14:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Nableezy, well done on an excellent analogy.

Icewhiz, do you have any credible reason for using terminology which paints one side as the victim and the other as the aggressor?

In the absence of this, we will revert to the neutral wording. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Counterattack is the term used in sources - and is the proper military term. A counterattack is a ground attack that follows an opposing ground attack - there's nothing about "victims" or "aggressor" in it. Operation Lüttich and Battle of the Bulge are Nazi counterattacks/counteroffensives - it has nothing to do with the attacking (or counterattacking) side of the offensive being a "victim" or "aggressor". Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

What sources? nableezy - 06:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is one: John B. Quigley (2005). The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective. Duke University Press. pp. 162–. ISBN 0-8223-3539-5. Jordan retaliated later in the morning of June 5 with shelling in the Jerusalem area

So Jordan's first move was a "retaliation". This is logical since Riad, an Egyptian, made the decision (Mutawi writes of the debate before Jordan's attack: "in the end Riad's view prevailed since as Commanding Officer he could not be overruled by his staff").

If Icewhiz wishes every subsequent movement in the conflict - on both sides - to be described as a counterattack, we can do that (selected sources on both sides will support it I am sure), but it will make for a clunky article. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The more one delves into the sources, the more outrageous our lede sentence “Israeli counterattacks resulted in the capture and occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, from the Jordanians and the Golan Heights from Syria”. The Jordanian and Syrian attacks on Israel were weak and of limited threat, particularly as it became clear during the first 24 hours of the war that they had no hope of success. The taking of the West Bank, EJ and Golan took place well after the war was already won, and was a strategic decision to send a message and bolster future defence, not a “counterattack”. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

That the initial attack was weak does not negate a counterattack being one. Counterattacks, in fact, often occur when the initial attack was weak and was defended succesful (as a successful attack does not leave the defender with the possibility of a counterattack). Luring the enemy into making a weak attack so that a counterattack will be successful is actually common strategy - e.g. Battle of Austerlitz. You are trying to place some pov value here where the meaning is entirely technical.Icewhiz (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The Austerlitz example proves my point well. Our article on Austerlitz uses “counterattack” two times, both referring to minor individual events in the overall battle. That is consistent with our definition at counterattack which states that counterattacks have the “objective of shocking and overwhelming the enemy. The main concept of the counterattack is to catch the enemy by surprise.”

In the Six Day War, the surprise on the losing side was finding our about the total loss of airpower which took place before a shot had been fired. Not a single Egyptian, Syrian or Jordanian attack was carried out with some kind of expectation of success which was suddenly turned on its head by surprise. They had lost since the first moment, made some weak retaliations during the period in which that became clear, and then tried hard to get a ceasefire. The Israeli command subsequently assessed the situation and decided to go for territorial acquisition for strategic reasons.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Mutawi, the U.N. resolution and the Jordan withdrawal

Please explain your removal of this well-sourced paragraph. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The information was already present in the passage.Icewhiz (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph states “As Israel continued its offensive on 7 June, taking no account of the UN ceasefire resolution, the Egyptian-Jordanian command ordered a full Jordanian withdrawal for the second time, in order to avoid an annihilation of the Jordanian army.”

This is intended to explain why the Jordanians retreated when they did, in the context of the earlier paragraph which explains that they realised they had no hope on the morning of 6 June and were trying to hold on for a ceasefire.

This is not stated elsewhere and is needed to explain the crucial moment of the Jordanian withdrawal. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: do you have any remaining objections to the above sentence? Onceinawhile (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The UN ceasefire resolution is irrelevant to the Jordanian withdrawl.Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: In the section entitled “The withdrawal of Jordanian forces from the West Bank” in the Cambridge University Press book “Jordan in the 1967 War”, Mutawi writes:

Shortly after the order for the withdrawal had been issued [10.00 a.m. on 6 June], the Jordanians were informed that the UN Security Council was meeting to consider a resolution for an unconditional ceasefire. On learning of this the Jordanian command decided that the order for withdrawal had been premature, since if a ceasefire went into effect that day they would still be in possession of the West Bank. Consequently, the order was countermanded and those forces which had already withdrawn were asked to return to their original positions... The Security Council ceasefire resolution was passed unanimously at 11.00 p.m. on 6 June. However, Jordan's hope that this would enable it to hold the West Bank was destroyed when Israel continued its offensive. On learning of this Riad once again ordered a complete withdrawal from the West Bank as he feared that failure to do so would result in the annihilation of the remains of the Jordanian Army. By nightfall on 7 June most elements of the army had withdrawn to the East Bank and by mid-day on 8 June Jordan was once again the Transjordan of King Abdullah, while Israel completed total occupation of historical Palestine.

It could not be any clearer. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I put it back in as a separate paragraph.Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

East Jerusalem

The constant mentions of East Jerusalem in the article when it didn't exist as a defined geographical entity is ahistorical. EJ was defined first when Israel extended Jerusalem's municipal boundaries. For example, the sentence "resulted in the seizure of East Jerusalem as well as the West Bank from the Jordanian" is faulty because the reader is lead to believe that EJ and WB are disjunct territories. The books I've read about the war, do not single out EJ in the way this article do. If it has to be pointed out that the rest of Jerusalem was occupied in the war, the reading should be "WB including the Old City of Jerusalem" ImTheIP (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

They are disjoint territories. East Jerusalem existed prior to 1967 - during 1950-67. The international status of the core of East Jerusalem (not the vastly extended Jerusalem) - is distinct from the West Bank - as Jerusalem intended to be a Corpus separatum (Jerusalem) - a position not abandoned by the international community to this day. Both the Israeli and Jordanian seizures of parts of the Corpus Separtum are disjoint from the rest of the West Bank.Icewhiz (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The name West Bank comes from the Arab ad-Diffah I-Garbiyyah, given to the territory west of the Jordan River that Jordan occupied in 1948. That EJ would be disjoint from WB... well... you need to find a source for that claim! ImTheIP (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

An occupation viewed as illegal by most of the world. The status of the Jerusalem Corpus Separatum (East & West) is different from the rest of the former mandate areas. Source - Levine, Alan. "The Status of Sovereignty in East Jerusalem and the West Bank." NYUJ Int'l L. & Pol. 5 (1972): 485.. Icewhiz (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Or - Lapidoth, Ruth. "Jerusalem-Some Jurisprudential Aspects." Cath. UL Rev. 45 (1995): 661. - who surveys the different opinions on East and West Jerusalem (quite the same arguments for both - just flip Jewish/Palestinian Israel/Jordan around) - those who do not recognize the Jordnian annexation generally followed the fourth option - "Finally, proponents of the fourth opinion claim that the corpus separatum solution still applies to both East and West Jerusalem.". Icewhiz (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

You were supposed to find sources claiming WB is disjoint from EJ... ImTheIP (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Both of the above.Icewhiz (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for being obtuse, but I just don't see how those sources claim that the WB is disjoint from EJ. Can you elaborate? ImTheIP (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

East Jerusalem is routinely included in the West Bank in reliable sources, just googling "West Bank, including East Jerusalem" would demonstrate that to any editor acting in good faith. Examples: [4], [5]. nableezy - 14:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

There's a typo

It says "relations wasn't" rather than "relations weren't".

160.32.69.200 (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Icewhiz (talk) 08:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Under Advance on Arish, it says "Brigadier-General Avraham Yoffe's assignment was to penetrate Sinai south of Tal's forces and north or Sharon's.". I believe it should say "north of Sharon's."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.181.55 (talk)

Fixed. Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Under West Bank, it says "It was already too late, as the counter-order caused confusion and in may cases it was not possible to regain positions which had previously been left.". I believe it should be "in many cases".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.181.55 (talk)

Fixed. Icewhiz (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Add Trump's Recognition of Golan Heights as part of Israel to Long term Aftermath

Add a sentence like In March 2019 President of the United States Donald Trump recognized Israel's sovereignty of the Golan Heights. The response was widespread condemnation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.37.4 (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Trump's recognitions may be what's known as a recentism, they're news now but may be retracted once the occupant in the White House changes. --Dailycare (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources for the Egyptians side:

CIA

The CIA states that there were only 50,000 to 80,000 UAR troops in the Sinai when Israel attacked: Mcdruid (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Senior Egyptian officials:

"the testimony of Egyptian Chief of Staff General Mahmoud Fawzi to the effect that an Egyptian air attack was scheduled for 27 May, and that the relevant orders had already been signed by Abdel Hakim Amer when Nasser ordered its cancellation on 26 May" (Gluska 2007 , p. 168)

"According to then Egyptian Vice-President Hussein el-Shafei, as soon as Nasser knew what Amer planned, he cancelled the operation" ( Bowen 2003, p. 57 (author interview, Cairo, 15 December 2002). I have not verified)

the testimony of Bassiouny, who recalls that when the Washington Embassy reported that Secretary of State Dean Rusk had information that Egypt was going to start the war, Amer wrote on the cable, “Shams, it seems there is a leak.” (Shlaim, Louis, 2012, p68 )

Egyptian military steps

on May 26, two Egyptian Air Force MiG-21s overflew the reactor (at 52,000 feet) on a photographic reconnaissance mission, and interceptors and missiles failed to bring them down. The Israelis linked the mission to a possible preemptive strike on the plant (Morris, victims, p. 308)

In the Sinai, there was deep confusion; as late as 5 June officers were still not sure whether their goal was offensive or defensive. Nasser is said by some officers to have added to the chaos by his constant interference in military plans (Shlaim, Louis, 2012, p66 )

On approximately 20 May, Saad alDin Shazly, commander of a Special Forces unit in the Sinai, was given an offensive mission plan involving an advance through Israel.(Shlaim, Louis, 2012, p67 )

As late as 25 May, therefore, everything was set for an attack at daybreak on 27 May.(Shlaim, Louis, 2012, p67 )

It was only one hour before the planned strike on 27 May that Said’s army liaison officer told him the attack had been aborted after a U.S. request to the Soviets. Shazly was not informed of the shift to a defensive posture until about 1 june. Although Nasser reiterated that Egypt would not strike first, tanks and planes in the Sinai were fully fuelled and not concealed, as if they were going to attack (Shlaim, Louis, 2012, p68 )

Nasser intentions

On 13 May 1967 Nasser received a Soviet intelligence report which claimed that Israel was massing troops on Syria's border. Nasser responded by taking three successive steps which made war virtually inevitable (Shlaim, Louis, 2012, p 7 )

He was subsequently to imply- as during his speech of May 26 to Arab trade union leaders-that the whole sequence of moves, culminating in the closure of the straits, had been planned to trigger war with Israel, with the ultimate aim of “liberating Palestine." (Morris, victims, p. 306)

In 1966 Nasser himself had declared that if Israel developed an atomic bomb, Egypt’s response would be a “preemptive war’ directed in the first instance against the nuclear production facilities.27 On May 21, Eshkol had told the cabinet Defense Committee that Egypt wanted to close the straits and “to bomb the reactor in Dimona. (Morris, victims, p. 307)

He was subsequently to imply- as during his speech of May 26 to Arab trade union leaders-that the whole sequence of moves, culminating in the closure of the straits, had been planned to trigger war with Israel, with the ultimate aim of “liberating Palestine." (Morris, victims, p. 308)

Abdel Magid Farid, however, suggests that Nasser did actually consider the first strike option until early on 27 May, when he was hauled out of bed at 3 by the ambassador from the Soviet Union (his only source of arms and spare parts) and warned not to precipitate a confrontation (Shlaim, Louis, 2012, p68 )

Number of Israeli planes at start of war

The info-box says that Israel had 300 combat aircraft. This figure is found on a map in "The Routledge Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict" by Martin Gilbert and "Wars That Changed History" by Spencer C. Tucker; however, on page 541 Tucker writes 260. Another source - "Six days of war" by Michael B. Oren and published by Oxford University Press says 250 planes— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaakovaryeh (talk • contribs)

References

It may vary according to how you count. Israel pulled stuff out of mothballs and assigned 44 Fouga CM.170 Magister (in 147 Squadron (Israel) - which fields flight academy aircraft) trainers to combat. May be worth updating - but probably requires in-depth analysis here. Icewhiz (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2019

I would like at least one mention of the immediate conflict that happened after the Six-Day War. Some editor please add next to the fourth sentence of this section (where it says "The Israeli decision was to be conveyed to the Arab nations by the United States. The U.S. was informed of the decision, but not that it was to transmit it. There is no evidence of receipt from Egypt or Syria, and some historians claim that they may never have received the offer.") the following text: Shortly after, Egypt initiated clashes along the Suez Canal in what became known as the War of Attrition.--213.8.34.194 (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Added - though with different source and placement - diff. The War of Attrition was a rather serious omission in this article. Icewhiz (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hassan II helping israeli intelligence

Are these two headlines (Morocco tipped off Israeli intelligence, ‘helped Israel win Six Day War’, Mossad listened in on Arab states' preparations for Six-Day War) usable for this article? I think that the two newspapers are reliable and someone should integrate them into the page. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Iran (and other countries) in the infobox

Even if Iran "opposed Nasser's Pan-Arab cause" and "gave de facto recognition of Israel" (which is all I can find in the cited source), the country was in no way a belligerent of this war. Iranian support for Israel can be mentioned in the relevant sections, but the infobox is meant to summarize the key facts, and this is evidently not one of them. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree. The source given is very poor. It's removal was a good call. Simon Adler (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Also agree. Regardless of the source, the infobox is for the main belligerents. If notable the armed, logistic or moral support of others can be noted in the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

However, I have seen many examples of this practice in other campaign infoboxes in my 7 years here. I have taken an extended wikibreak, so I am unsure if now the above guidelines alluded to by Gog the Mild (talk) are now being reinforced more firmly. Simon Adler (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Simon Adler Welcome back. From the relevant infobox instructions "When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article." As ever this is enforced as rigorously as the inclination and motivation of editors permits; and also as ever, infoboxes suffer from good faith mission creep. WWII is a good example of an even more complex conflict which seems to have a good grip on this - as you will doubtless know better than me. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Simon Adler; Unfortunately, this policy is handled differently from article to article. Regardless of how anyone feels about including non-belligerents in infoboxes, I think we can all agree that including Iran here opens Pandora's Box. This was a war between Israel and Egypt, Jordan and Syria, with some Iraqi participation on the Jordanian front. That's it, and the infobox should reflect that. (By the way, welcome back!) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Question about picture

Why are we using a picture in french on the English Wikipedia? IsraeliIdan (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Which one? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: The main one, its not in English. IsraeliIdan (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Zvikorn: I see what you mean. Sorry, I should have spotted that. No (obviously), it should ideally be in English. It seems to be a passably accurate map though and IMO Non-English is better than no map. That said, if you were to post a request here asking if the French map could be turned into one with a similar format to the other maps in the article I think that you will find them very helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that it's better than no map, but I don't think it's better than the one that was previously there, which was in English. If this map were also in English, then it might be better. But, until this map is translated, I'd recommend reverting LightandDark2000's edit from April 19, 2019, which replaced an English-labeled map with this one. I would make the change myself, but I can't due to this article's protection level. Vbscript2 (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Well now. Personally I prefer the map showing the military manoeuvres, even if it is not in English. As I said above, the best solution would be suggest this to the Map Workshop. I shall ping that well known expert on military maps, Amitchell125 to enquire as to what their advice might be. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Facts missing from article

I am sorry but the article is in a terrible state. I cannot edit it for not having an account, and would not be able to alter it anyhow due to it being locked so only the long-term POV pushers (so-called "confirmed editors") can play about with their own narratives. The biggest problem with the article is its failure to explain why the war lasted six days. 188.29.191.29 (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Did the first phrases of this article get removed or something?

It should first say what the war is before moving to outcomes right? Woutersmet (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Typo

There is a typo on the first paragraph where it says UAE instead of UAR. BalladeCracker (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of requests for sources

@Watchlonly: Please explain your revert: [6] In particular, how you think it is in compliance with WP:V. ImTheIP (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources are in article. Lede is supposed to summarize the article. I told you. Your drive-by tagging is unnecessary and not helpful at all.--Watchlonly (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If sources are in the article, it should be easy for you to add them. Now read WP:V carefully and please stop following me around on Wikipedia. ImTheIP (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You added tags for the known facts that there are controversies regarding the origins of this war (for which there's a link to an entire article full of information and sources) and that Israel conquered the Sinai. You're not being serious and you are wasting our time. You are engaging in a clear case of WP:Blue. Also, have you ever heard the phrase the world doesn't revolve around you? I have better things to do in Wikipedia (even more so in life) than following you.--Watchlonly (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is the relevant policy: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort and if you think locating sources is a waste of time, feel free to stop contributing. However, you don't have the right to interfere with others who are trying to improve Wikipedia. ImTheIP (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, keep "improving" Wikipedia by adding pointless tags in lede.--Watchlonly (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Moroccan help

In 1965, King Hassan ll passed recordings to Israel of a key meeting between Arab leaders held to discuss whether they were prepared for war against Israel. That meeting not only revealed that Arab ranks were split — heated arguments broke out, for example, between Egypt’s president Gamal Abdel-Nasser and Jordan’s king Hussein — but that the Arab nations were ill prepared for war, Maj. Gen. Shlomo Gazit told the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper over the weekend. https://www.timesofisrael.com/morocco-tipped-off-israeli-intelligence-helped-israel-win-six-day-war/ Tony Yammine 2004 (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Yugoslav support for Egypt

According to this article, General Secretary of the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party János Kádár wrote a report to the Politburo on June 16th 1967 regarding the meeting in Moscow that had discussed the War between Egypt and Israel. It has been written in the report that Tito said that he consulted with Nasser about the plans and gave support. It is also said that Tito supported the ideas of sending arms to Egypt and establishing an airbridge to Egypt as soon as possible. According to the article Tito said "he wouldn't have been allowed to return home as they told the entirety of Yugoslavia who the aggressor is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazymanball (talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Note

Why does the beginning not note the Israeli's got a signal from the Soviets saying the Arab armies were going to attack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A1C0:6D40:5107:AB2E:801C:616A (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2021

I'm a history nerd and I have some new information regarding the war and what happened between both ends and what was the aftermath and what caused the 6 days war Youssef 440 (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The edit request template is used for requesting specific non-controversial changes to an article that you are unable to edit. Please resubmit your edit request in the form of "please change X to Y", and another editor will implement the changes for you. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 01:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2021

Please provide source for this statement: “ The Israeli success was the result of a well-prepared and enacted strategy, the poor leadership of the Arab states, and their poor military leadership and strategy.”

Seems like a matter of opinion when one could argue, ‘The Israeli success was the result of the preemptive strikes, a reneg of prior treatise.”

I mean, seriously, did Netanyahu write and lock this article personally? 2601:280:C200:A4C0:9102:31F1:FF17:3E6F (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you want a source added, provide the source. If you want content changed, provide the change. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 04:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Background section.

Currently the Background section carries a non-neutral statement of fact about Soviet warnings given to Egypt concerning Israeli troop build ups on the Israel-Syria border:

"In May 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border."

That may faithfully relay what some sources claim, but not them all. David Hirst, for instance, in "The Gun and the Olive Branch", sets out a different narrative, which is introduced in the section titled "The Myth of the Golan Heights" (starting on pagee 337 of my edition) and concluded in "Nasser Falls in the Trap" (starting page 341).

In Hirst's version, two Syrian emissarises arrived secretly in Cairo on 8 May 1967, announcing that Israel was about to begin an attack on their country. Nasser contacted other sources, including the Soviet Union, for confirmation, which they gave. Israel has denied then and since that it had concentrated troops on the Syrian front, helping to re-inforce the impression that Arabs were responsible for the built up in tension. Hirst points out that, five years after the 1967 War, Ezer Weizmann said: "Don't forget that we did move tanks to the north after the downing of the aircraft." UN observers supposedly also saw the tanks. Hirst cites Geoffrey Jansen's journalistic acount of the start of the war. The narrative continues that the tank concentrations were followed by a verbal threat, portending a full-scale invasion of Syria and an overthrowing of its regime, and a taunt aimed at Nasser intended to make him react in the way in which he actually did which stated that, when the attack on Syria came, he would not go to Syria's aid.

    ←   ZScarpia   14:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Referencing style.

Short footnotes (SFNs) seems to be the preferred style. I am finished adding templates for SFNs and cites for linking. Please try to maintain the style using sfnp and harvp templates. Thanks. User-duck (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

latinization of heb

in hebrew it milhemt sheshet hayamim. you forgot the L in. Lilijuros (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I second. כרסומת (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Mistake in Romanisation of Hebrew name for war

מילחמת should be romanised at Milhemet. Note the 'l' which is missing in the original. 82.42.128.61 (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

A false claim that the Israeli naval commandos sank an Egyptian minesweeper before their capture. This is a big lie. The commando operation was a failure and they were captured without damaging any ship or minesweeper.

A false claim that the Israeli naval commandos sank an Egyptian minesweeper before their capture. This is a big lie. The commando operation was a failure and they were captured without damaging any ship or minesweeper. Vergth (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources for the Israeli side:

Israeli military considerations

In the first days of June ... as did the sense that the Arab states might launch an attack within days There was particular fear of a limited Jordanian or Jordanian-Egyptian offensive against Eilat. (Morris, victims, p. 310)

Israel's defence forces were confident of victory in any conflict with the Arab states, and military leaders provided prime minister Eshkol with alarmist information to persuade him to support an attack. Roland Popp, "Stumbling Decidedly into the Six-Day War", Middle East Journal, Vol. 60, No. 2 (Spring, 2006), p. 297

Moshe Dayan ordered the censor to maintain a fog of war and insist Egypt was attacking Israel, to prevent external pressure from forcing Israel to stop the attack on Egypt. (SEGEV, loc 6599)

Israeli generals viewed Syria as Israel's foremost enemy and thought it should be attacked forecefully in a large-scale military operation. Israel's press was recruited to support this view in the eighteen months leading to the Six-Day War. (SEGEV, loc 3801)

An abundance of remarks by Israelis made plain that Israel may strike Syria (SEGEV, loc 4463)

The idea that Israel might seize additional territory came up repeatedly during the mid-1960s in confidential discussions between Israeli generals. (SEGEV, loc 3426)

Israeli diplomatic and political steps

"In private, Eshkol had sent Nasser secret messages urging deescalation. In public, he continued to assert Israel’s peaceful intentions, call for international mediation, and avoid criticism of Egypt. This reinforced the existing image of Egyptian military superiority — if Israel wanted to avoid war, it was presumably because Israel thought it would lose" (Shlaim, Louis, 2012,The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences, p66 )

Nasser seems to have been encouraged by the fact that Israeli rhetoric condemning the Tiran blockade and subsequent developments was relatively mild. Even the fact that the United States counselled restraint was interpreted as an attempt to protect Israel from Arab wrath — and therefore as further evidence of her need for protection. (Shlaim, Louis, 2012, p68 )

Although Eshkol denounced the Egyptians, his response to this development was a model of moderation (Mutawi p. 93)

the leaders of the confrontational states were caught by complete surprise when Israel took their threats at face value (Shlaim; Louis2012, p. 63 )

Nasser appeared to challenge Israel to a duel (Shlaim; Louis2012, p. 7 )

During the lead-up to the war, David Ben-Gurion expressed the view that neither Egypt nor Syria, but Israel itself was responsible for the crisis. Moshe Dayan agreed with him (SEGEV, loc 4587 + loc 5213)

The military maintained that Israel must strike first, and regarded the build up of Egyptian armed forces in the Sinai peninsula and in the Red Sea as a casus belli.

Mr Eshkol initially refused, holding out for international assistance that never arrived but finally he relented and ordered an attack on June 5. Sharon considered 1967 coup to force war with Egypt

Refugees were Jordanian, not Palestinian

In the intro section, at the end of ¶ six, why are there refugees listed as Palestinian, when they were in fact previously Jordanians, and there is no such ethnic group or nationality as "Palestinian", and never has been? Given, of course, that it is acknowledged that a PLO founder admitted in a Trouw interview that they made up the "Palestinian" socio-cultural group as a means of furthering a fatwa . Otherwise it's a purely geographical term, not one of identity.

A false claim that the Israeli naval commandos sank an Egyptian minesweeper before their capture. This is a big lie. The commando operation was a failure and they were captured without damaging any ship or minesweeper. Vergth (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2020

I would like to add a piece of important information.

Israel was able to secure a victory thanks to the secret help provided by former Moroccan King Hassan II. According to an Israeli former military intelligence chief, King Hassan ll sharpened Israel’s edge by providing secret recordings of Arab leadership discussions on war plans. Alama-laura (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: The sources and the request are mismatched. Stating that the Israeli military "was able to secure a victory" because of Hassan's cooperation is overstating the sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

These sources confirm that the Israelis had very good intelligence that they were in an extremely strong military position. Worth adding in to the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

A false claim that the Israeli naval commandos sank an Egyptian minesweeper before their capture. This is a big lie. The commando operation was a failure and they were captured without damaging any ship or minesweeper. Vergth (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate Statement

"On 5 June, Israel launched a series of airstrikes against Egyptian airfields, initially claiming that it had been attacked by Egypt, but later stating that the airstrikes were pre-emptive;[27][28]"

I read both sources given, and one source says the Egyptian government said Israel claimed it was attacked by Egypt, and the other didn't at all. So I don't know why thats in there.

Therefore, this should be changed to "On 5 June, Israel launched a series of pre-emptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields[27][28]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:a1c0:6d40:713a:6a01:ead3:f608 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. (courtesy ping ImTheIP and Gfcan777) — LauritzT (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

A false claim that the Israeli naval commandos sank an Egyptian minesweeper before their capture. This is a big lie. The commando operation was a failure and they were captured without damaging any ship or minesweeper. Vergth (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2022

2A04:4A43:48FE:EC9D:0:0:F94F:4A9A (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC) Algeria participed in this War

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

A false claim that the Israeli naval commandos sank an Egyptian minesweeper before their capture. This is a big lie. The commando operation was a failure and they were captured without damaging any ship or minesweeper. Vergth (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Introduction

After reading the United Nations own account of the events (https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/mission/past/unef1backgr1.html) and realizing I had been led into a false understanding by the introduction in this Wiki article, I'd recommend that:

"A peacekeeping contingent known as the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was deployed along the Egypt–Israel border, but there was no demilitarization agreement between the two sides."

Should be changed into:

"A peacekeeping contingent known as the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was deployed along the Egyptian side of the armistice demarcation line, as Israel had refused to receive UN forces; but there was no demilitarization agreement between the two sides."

And this:

"In May, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser announced that the Straits would be closed to Israeli vessels, and subsequently mobilized the Egyptian military along the border with Israel, ejecting the UNEF."

should be changed into:

"In May, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser announced that the Straits would be closed to Israeli vessels, and requested that UNEF left the Egyptian territory."

I think it's important, as the current introduction makes it seem like only Egypt is at fault for UNEF leaving, when the introduction fails to mention that Israel never even allowed UNEF to be deployed into its part of the border; and also, the UN states that "UNEF I was withdrawn in May-June 1967 at the request of the Egyptian Government", which has a very different tone comparing to Wikipedia's "[Egypt] mobilized the Egyptian military along the border with Israel, ejecting the UNEF". Dan Palraz (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Dan:

• I agree that it should be mentioned that the UNEF was deployed along the Egyptian side of the demarcation line, the Israelis having refused to have UN troops on territory controlled by it.[7]
• I think that 'request', although it is the word used by the Egyptian Chief of Staff in a message to the UNEF commander asking him to withdraw forces on the Israel-Egypt to their bases in Gaza (though not those in Sharm al-Shaikh), is probably too soft, though the word 'eject' is too hard, somewhat implying the issuing of a threat or ultimatum. In regard to the latter, it should be noted that at least some sources state that Nasser's 'order' to UNEF was for symbolic effect and he really wanted those forces to stay in place. The UNEF commander stated that the withdrawal was all or nothing, probably forcing Nasser's hand. The UNEF article uses the word 'ordered', which I think detailed sources would back up. As the UNEF article says, the UN Secretary General tried to have the UNEF forces re-deployed on the Israeli side of the demarcation line, but the Israelis refused.
• Both of the sentences quoted above from the Introduction have citations following them, which is often a sign that the Introduction isn't faithfully summarising the body of the article. In any case, unless anyone can show why the second of the cited sources, an article on the sixdaywar.co.uk website, should be regarded as fulfilling the source reliability requirements, that is, that it has a reputation for having been fact checked or that the publisher has a reputation for the quality of its output, I think that the citation should be removed.
• In the body of the article, in the Background section, there is a statement about the UNEF being 'expelled' which, to me at least, by not mentioning that UNEF positions were on the Egyptian side of the border, manages to imply that Egypt was carrying out a land grab.

    ←   ZScarpia   11:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

A false claim that the Israeli naval commandos sank an Egyptian minesweeper before their capture. This is a big lie. The commando operation was a failure and they were captured without damaging any ship or minesweeper. Vergth (talk)

Vergth (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2022

In the Aftermath section of the article, the resistance of the Palestinians is stated as "Palestinian terrorism". This is unjust to the Palestinians when looking at the context of the war. It is better to change the header of that part of the section from "Palestinian terrorism" to "Palestinian resistance". SerenityAndPatience (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That was an atrociously written and supported section, now removed - thanks. As a general rule, yes, we try to avoid the aspersion of 'terrorism' wherever possible, as "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", but certainly in section titles. In any case, the material was not only sweeping in its generalization, but entirely unsupported by any perennially reliable or academic sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2022

change "directed his followers to put tefillin on Jewish men around world." to "directed his followers to put tefillin on Jewish men around the world." KreegKreeg (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

done, thank you, nableezy - 03:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)