:
“The second Arab-Israeli war, also known as the six-day war, began when Israel launched a massive pre-emptive strike on three fronts.
Israeli forces took land from Syria, Egypt and Jordan, hoping to create a security buffer zone, and thus changed the whole nature of the Middle East conflict.
Here is a selection of your memories from that time.”
And what ‘atrocities’ did the Israelis commit? (JR take note) Oren writes:
Palestinian community and religious leaders were, for the most part, retained in their pre-war positions, including the Muslim wazf atop the Temple Mount – a decision for which Moshe Dayan was criticized by Israeli hawks. …The most controversial decision however was the destruction of three villages – Yalu, Beit Nuba, and Imwas – located at a strategic junction in the Latrun Corridor. The Israelis accused the three of abetting the siege of Jerusalem in 1948 and billeting Egyptian commandos in their recent attack on Lod, but even then several troops refused to carry out the demolition order. Ultimately, it was executed, and the Arab inhabitants, though offered compensation, were not allowed to return. No further acts of retribution were taken against Arabs who, only days before, had celebrated Israel’s demise. The revelation that Jordan had destroyed the Old City synagogues and had paved roads and even latrines with Jewish tombstones from the Mount of Olives did not dissuade Dayan from joining 4,000 Muslim worshipers for Friday prayers at the al-Aqsa Mosque.
“Oooh, this looks rather like a prompt for the usual obsessives on all sides to unleash some highly subjective ‘historical facts’ to enlighten us on the fine, finer and very very very fine points of the Middle Eastern situation. What fun in prospect.
Robbiekeane | 05.06.07 – 2:33 pm”
Just call me Mystic Meg 😉
Oscar | 06.06.07 – 8:32 am
No further acts of retribution
Oren’s account rather proves my John West salmon point.
Why no mention in the “Oren narrative” – which you claim to be “definitive” – of the forcible evacuation of the village of Sufir, near Hebron, on the 8th June and the demolition of 13 houses there?
Why no mention of the bulldozing of the old Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem that Frangi mentioned?
What about the villages of Kafr Elma and Al-Hurriah on the Golan – also destroyed.
What about the refugee camp at Jiftlik – whose 6000 residents (refugees from ’48) were “transferred” by the IDF across the border into Jordan?
I do not criticize Oren for not being ‘definitive’. No historian, however great, ever is.
The fault lies with those who claim definitive status for works which support their own views.
Dunno where that emoticon came from.
I dare say it was no laughing matter to those involved.
Robbiekeane | 06.06.07 – 8:38 am |
“Oooh, this looks rather like a prompt for the usual obsessives on all sides to unleash some highly subjective ‘historical facts’ to enlighten us……..
Are you including me in this, after all my post here, TPO | 05.06.07 – 4:40 pm is a direct lift from the BBC series ’The Fifty Years War’ • ‘Israel and the Arabs’
The Soviet machinations were reported, direct to camera, by Evgeny Pyrlin formerly of the Soviet Foreign Ministry who worked to Andrei Gromyko the Foreign Minister.
Having had another look at the recordings I can see that I made an error. According to General Reshetnikov, head of Soviet Bomber Command in the Ukraine at the time of the 1967 conflict, again talking direct to camera, the Soviet bombers were not painted in Syrian colours. They were in fact painted in Egyptian colours. They realised that the instructions they had been given from on high not to lose any aircraft was unrealistic, so all the crews had to divest themselves of anything that identified them. Incidentally he went on to say that they had difficulty in getting the paint as Soviet bombers only had a red star. He couldn’t recall all of the colours but they also needed green and black.
All the other comments were from the individuals themselves, again direct to camera, unless the narrator spoke the words
All of this was bundled up, narrated by Tim Pigot-Smith, drawn on sources provided by the BBC and the executive producer for the BBC was Edward Mirzoeff. Brian Lapping Associates compiled it for the BBC.
Wow, now that is obsessive.
jr
Good to see you at your desk, bright and breezy.
Have to hand it to you. You’ve pulled off a coup with the Beeb after pointing out to them that they need to employ someone to counter the corrosive effects of this blog.
Only pulling your leg 8)
Anyone who wants to know what really happened (not the BBC’s distorted versions) can find a fascinating short visual history of the ’67 war here:
http://www.iba.org.il/
Click on English TV News on right. Starts 7 minutes in. Link wont last too long.
John Reith – Some info that you don’t deserve: your smiley came about through typing an 8 followed by a bracket. I discovered the same thing in the same way the other day. Of course it begs the question of how one avoids the smiley when trying to bracket 1948.
JR
Out of interest, do articles such as that by Charles Moore in Saturday’s Telegraph cause any discussion at the BBC?
Such as:
1. He writes for the Spectator so we can laugh him off
2. The accusations of bias on ME coverage needs serious discussion
3. Change the locks on the safe containing the Balen report
4. Ignore it and it will go away
5. Moore inhabits a parallel universe, and I bet he isn’t keen on recycling
etc
It would be interesting to know…..
Q&A with Michael Oren – the man JR thinks is sooo unreliable adopting that usual BBC strategy – if you don’t like the message what do you? Shoot the messenger of course. For those of you who want to read it, here’s the link.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180960612056&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
Good morning JR,
I would like to ask you whether you personally would support the release of the Balen report?
Battersea | 06.06.07 – 10:12 am
I would like to ask you whether you personally would support the release of the Balen report?
No I wouldn’t.
In 1982 I visited the Turkish side of Nicosia, Cyprus. Using a (pre1974 Turkish invasion) tourist map we tried to see the sights: famous cathedrals, artwork, frescoes and stained glass. All that we found had been converted to mosques. Minarets had been added. Walls had been painted white and plain glass (or none) replaced the stained. After a while we stopped searching.
The photographs below are mine:
Brand new minaret on a Byzantine era cathedral
http://thumbsnap.com/v/gZn6aJ2D.jpg
This church was famous for its frescoes
http://thumbsnap.com/v/bk0gebKz.jpg
Barbarism is in the eye of the beholder
http://thumbsnap.com/v/5nPX7atj.jpg
Even the BBC: Shame of Cyprus’s Looted Churches (2002) has mentioned the phenomenon, in passing, although in typical BBC fashion the blame is placed on unidentified looters, smugglers and the international embargo ( i.e. WE are really to blame). Islam doesn’t rate a mention.
I bring this up as an additional counter to those who want to rewrite the history of the Six Day War. By the standards of a very rough neighbourhood Israel has generally behaved very well. By the standards that her critics purport to uphold Israel has generally behaved very well.
It’s a shame you don’t support the release of the Balen report into the public domain JR, ‘cos as you keep on reminding us, it’s what’s left out (of the public domain) that makes all the difference.
Your John West fish story…
OT and not new but I’m sure some of you imaginative people can tie it in to this thread.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2807347009315039035
Re: leaving out. I’m sure that B-BBC would have far less to complain about if the things the BBC leaves out were not so consistently predictable and favouring particular groups and ideas.
Phew!!! The B-BBC magnum opus on 1967 is looking pretty damned thorough!
So far, we’ve got:
1948, Battles in the Old City
Age of Aquarius, Israeli (lotus blossoms etc)
Aircraft, Soviet, Got up to look Egyptian (in the Ukraine)
Aircraft, Soviet, Got up to look Syrian (in the Ukraine)
Al aqsa mosque, Friday prayers with Moshe Dayan
“Al Buraq”, smeared with excrement, full of animals
Arab claims, treated as BBC fact
Arab peacemakers, non-existence of
Arab refugees in Jordan
Arab refusal to negotiate peace
Arab unwillingness to recognise Israel
Arabs, staying in West Bank & Gaza, Israeli plan
Ashdown Paddy, C4 film of
Atrocities, Israeli, existence of (or not)
Balen Report, because it’s there
Berkowitz, Shmuel, “The Wars Over Holy Places”
Bowen, Jeremy, devil, spore of
Chemical weapons, Egyptian, in Yemen
Christians, Jordanian restrictions of
Cypriot Churches, defilement of
Dayan, Moshe, rebuilding of Kalkilya
Death of Western Wall refusenik (possibly)
Defacing of synagogues, by Arab Legion
Definitive history, impossibility therof
Discriminatory laws, Israeli annulment
Egypt, massive Russian re-arming of
Egypt, plans for expulsion and murder of Israelis
Entebbe, Colvin’s source
Frangi, Palestinian, taken with salt
Gilbert, Martin, reliable source
Guardian, quality cartoon of Nasser
Great pains, Israeli, to let Jordan know it would not be attacked
Holocaust, fear of (or not • more of Bowen’s bile)
Holy Sites, Jordanian Desecration of
Hussein, King, denial of knowledge of execution plans
Hysteria, Israeli public’s, war, fear of
Iraq, against existence of Israel, too
Israeli Defence Force, wrong about water (or are they?)
Israeli State, existence of
Jewish Quarter, Arab inhabitants + bulldozers, who to blame?
Jews, persecution of, in other ME countries
Jordan River, diversion attempts
Jordanian Forces, Egyptian command, under
Kalkilya, refugees
King Hussein, Leave Him, He ain’t worth it
Kurdish victims, what they tells us about the Arabs if they had won
LBJ, contradictory briefings
McNamara, Robert, no love lost with NSA
Part II follows…
The B-BBC magnum opus on 1967 Part II!!!
Massacres, putative
Matthew 15, 14
Middle East destabilisation, Russian plans thereto
Moroccan Quarter, clearance or redevelopment?
Mufti, orders descration of holy places
Napalm, Israeli use (or not)
Nasser, threats and military build-up
Nasser, threats to anihilate Israel
Negev Desert, plans to irrigate
Occupied Territories, which bit and by whom?
Operation Tariq, plans for mass execution of Israeli civilians
Oren, Michael, definitive 1967 historian (perhaps)
Pentagon, Mossad contradicted by
Perfidious Guardian, predictions of destruction of Israel (or not)
Personal accounts of the war, BBC, weighted towards Palestinians (heavily)
Revisionist historians (as loved by the BBC)
Sadat, Anwar, misinformed by Russians
Soviet machinations
Straits, closure of
Stunning lightning campaign allows Israel to survive
Syria, massive Russian re-arming of
Syria, plans for expulsion and murder of Israelis
Syrian Border, Israeli forces massing on, or not
Time Magazine, surprisingly unbiased and objective
UN Building, captured by Jordan
UN Building, shelling from
United Nations definition of act of war
USA, warned to stay out of conflict by USSR
Water, not really a cause (or is it?)
Western Wall, forecourt of
Bowen, Jeremy. Check out that 666 tattoo
Looks like we’ll be pulling CBBC and CBeebies from the schedules, too, to fit it all in.
But we should not forget. This level of detail is just what the British public really expects from its national broadcaster.
Biased BBC: Nation Shall Obsess Unto Nation
????? What is he on about. Better still – What is he on. ??????
Houston .. I think you have a problem.
Off the rocker:
Apologies for not making myself clear. It’s a summary of all the points B-BBCers feel essential to commemorate the 1967 War, given the awful mess the BBC are making of it.
Hope that helps!
@ John Reith
Where in Mr Bowen’s recent reports did you hear him dwelling upon the deliberate napalming of women and children as reported by Le Monde and the NYT?
Mr. Bowen dwelt on little else but Israeli “war crimes” in his bloody awful book “Six Days”, which I abandoned 2/3rds of the way through when I tried to read it a few years ago.
One obnoxious example was his hand-wringing description of how Jew planes ruthlessly bombed a family home several days after the gun emplacement in it had been moved. The reader is left in no doubt by Jew-hating Jezza that this was an Israeli war crime.
Never mind how the Israelis were supposed to know the location of every gun position in real time in 1967. Bowen is obviously unaware that the recognised war crime here is siting a fortification in a civilian area. Israel was quite entitled to bomb it; the criminals are those who put it there.
The criminals in question were Palestinian. Not Jordanian troops, but Palestinian “civilians”. One might ask why civilians had anti-aircraft artillery in their back gardens, but needless to say, Bowen does not. I just assumed they were plumbers.
Thursday 7 June is the 40th anniversary of the 6 Day War.
On Saturday 9 June the “Enough!” coalition, which contains several organisations extremely hostile to Israel, is holding a march and rally in central London to protest against “40 years of Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories.”
http://www.enoughoccupation.org/?lid=13717
A counter-demonstration has been organized with the aim of publicising Israel’s willingness to give up territory for a secure peace. CVF is supporting the counter-demonstration. CVF is also supporting a similar counter-demonstration in Washington on 10 June. “StandWithUs” is organising the Washington counter demonstration and is supporting the London one.
The counter-demonstration will take the form of a static demonstration on the route of the march. It will take place from 2.30pm at the junction of Arundel Street and The Strand. Police permission has been granted and the police will ensure that public order is maintained.
http://www.standwithuscampus.com/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=2
http://www.vigilantfreedom.org/910group.html
HOLOCAUST MASSACRE SITE FOUND
“In a climate of holocaust denial within the Arab world and on the far right, this is a proof that the horrors of the Nazis did take place.”
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/8965/Holocaust+massacre+site+found
.
Gordon_Broon_Eats_Hez_Bawgies | | 06.06.07 – 1:04 pm
the recognised war crime here is siting a fortification in a civilian area. Israel was quite entitled to bomb it; the criminals are those who put it there.
… One might ask why civilians had anti-aircraft artillery in their back gardens
It is not a war-crime to site an anti-aircraft gun in a civilian area.
London bristled with them in the Blitz.
It can, however, be a war-crime to bomb an anti-aircraft weapon sited in a civilian area – if the likelihood of civilian casualties is high, if other options are available, and if the likely gain is small.
It can, however, be a war-crime to bomb an anti-aircraft weapon sited in a civilian area – if the likelihood of civilian casualties is high, if other options are available, and if the likely gain is small.
John Reith | 06.06.07 – 1:30 pm
Wrong.
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000170.html
Both Protocol I and Article 28 of the Geneva Convention (IV) make clear that “the deliberate intermingling of civilians and combatants, designed to create a situation in which any attack against combatants would necessarily entail an excessive number of casualties is a flagrant breach of the Law of International Armed Conflict,” according to international law scholar Yoram Dinstein (see his The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict, Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 129 – 130).| In short, Hezbollah is in violation of the laws of war when it places missiles and rockets in villages and homes in order to shield them from Israeli attack.
Article 51(7) of Protocol I states: “The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations.” And the Geneva Convention (IV) holds that “The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points of areas immune from military operations.” (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949, Laws of Armed Conflicts, 495, 511.) Moreover, the Rome Statute is clear that “utilizing the presence of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations is recognized as a war crime by Article 8 (2) (b) (xxiii)”. (Dinstein, p. 130)
…
The above considerations pertain to the norms deriving from treaty law (e.g., the Geneva Conventions). But there is another set of standards which are relevant to the question of proportionality which derive from another source of international law, known as customary international law. Together with treaties, customary law is one of the main sources of international humanitarian law (IHL), or the laws of war. Dinstein explains that “Customary international law is certainly more rigorous than the [Geneva] Protocol on this point. It has traditionally been perceived that, should civilian casualties ensue from an attempt to shield combatants or a military objective, the ultimate responsibility lies with the belligerent [party] placing innocent civilians at risk. A belligerent…is not vested by the laws of international armed conflict with the power to block an otherwise legitimate attack against combatants (or military objectives) by deliberately placing civilians in harm’s way.” (Dinstein, ibid). In short, Hezbollah is legally (and morally) responsible for any Lebanese civilian casualties which result from Israeli bombardment of villages, homes or urban areas containing missiles, rockets or armed Hezbollah guerrilla forces—so long as Israel is aiming at these military targets, as it has.
Dinstein further notes that “An obvious breach of the principle of proportionality would be the destruction of a whole village–with hundreds of civilian casualties–in order to eliminate a single enemy sniper. In contrast, if — instead of a single enemy sniper — an artillery battery would operate from within the village, such destruction may be warranted” under the laws of war. (pp. 122-123)
BioD
No I am not wrong.
Nothing you have quoted in any way refutes what I said.
Yes – “the deliberate intermingling of civilians and combatants, designed to create a situation in which any attack against combatants would necessarily entail an excessive number of casualties
is forbidden. But the stationing of an anti-aircraft gun to protect a town or village from aerial attack would not fall into that category. (Whereas Hezb missiles would).
Nor, for instance, would the stationing of an IDF garrison at a settlement for the protection of that settlement against genocidal jihadis be a war crime.
Nor is the stationing of troops within the city boundaries of Baghdad.
As for my second point:
Article 51 (5) prohibits:
An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
i.e. it places an obligation on the attacker to weigh the likely advantages against the likely risk to civilians – exactly as I said.
It is not a war-crime to site an anti-aircraft gun in a civilian area.
It is if the purpose of siting it there is to prevent the opposing side from attacking it.
London bristled with them in the Blitz.
Note the date below:
“The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points of areas immune from military operations.” (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949, Laws of Armed Conflicts, 495, 511.)
During the Blitz it was not illegal, much less a war crime – during the Six Day War it was.
If there were no other military or terrorist activity going on there, the best way to “protect” it would be to make sure there was no artillery there at all, wouldn’t it?
Then there’d be no value in attacking the village and no risk of civilian casualties.
By the way JR – the conditioning must be slipping because in your post above you referred to “Hezb missiles”. I take it you really meant to say “militants’ crudely-made rockets”.
The thing is, Hisb’allah did site missiles in those villages, which was a war crime. The guns were placed there to protect the missiles, further increasing the likelihood that the village would be attacked. War crime upon war crime. There’s no two ways about it.
Yet the Israelis are the ones accused of war crimes…
Gordon_Broon_Eats_Hez_Bawgies:
By the way JR – the conditioning must be slipping because in your post above you referred to “Hezb missiles”. I take it you really meant to say “militants’ crudely-made rockets”.
To be fair, because I am, JR was probably referring to the link and quotes I posted which deal with last summer’s war against Hezballah, although they are just as applicable to the Six Day War, but possibly NOT to the Blitz because the Geneva Conventions were written after WW2.
Apologies for not making myself clear. It’s a summary of all the points B-BBCers feel essential to commemorate the 1967 War, given the awful mess the BBC are making of it.
Hope that helps!
hillhunt | 06.06.07 – 12:56 pm |
No I do not think it does help.
I thought this particular theme was about recollections of the Six-Day War.
Is that not why people are putting their comments here?
Your agenda appears to be that of belittling everything and everyone.
Houston … you really do have a problem.
Time to break open the methylphenidate or send him/her to bed.
The BBC, its hatred of Israel and half a story
Egyptian pilot We felt humiliated :
Israel wiped out much of the Egyptian Air Force on the morning of June 5, 1967, the first day of the war. Egyptian pilot Mustafa Hafez was stationed at one of the 11 Egyptian air bases that were targeted.
…………………
He told military historian and BBC website reader, David Nicolle, what happened that day. In the build-up to war, I was sent to a squadron based at Kabrit, flying MiG-17Fs and MiG-17PF night fighters. We didn’t really think that there would be a war, and if there was one, I was confident that Egypt would win.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/6712597.stm#
So the BBC posts an article about how the Egyptian (Well the geezer the BBC interview) armed forces didn’t think that there would be a war. And that if it did happen that Egypt would win. Which is strange as Mustafa Hafez omits from the BBC version of events a certain Operation fajr – Dawn. Which in plain English was the mirror of the Israeli attack but launched by Egypt against Israel on May 28th 1967. The architect of this plan ‘Field Marshal Amer’ was awaiting the signal to go ahead with this attack on Israel when with 15 minutes to H hour President Gamal Abdel Nasser cancelled it. Egyptian pilots who had been sat waiting in their aircraft ready to attack were stood down.
What is also missing from the BBC coverage of the six-day war is how an Iraqi armoured division was on route to attack Israel when the IDF got that sucker punch in. How Egypt was on a war footing how the media was attacking the Jews on a daily basis and how the Jews watching how the Egyptians had used poison gas in Yemen in which to kill their fellow Muslims had become some what concerned when Egypt relocated 4 brigades from Yemen to the Sini. Not only that, but Nasser sent in his own personal crack troops (Think along the lines of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard) the Egyptian 4th Division into the Sinai. Lets not forget the Saudi Troops who were on the move, the intercepted communications between Arab Embassies which refereed to “A sudden explosion about to erupt” and as the coup de grace to the information the BBC withholds from its somewhat polarised article on the six-day war. The fact that Alexey Kosygin sent his ambassador Dimitri Pojidaev to warn Nasser that President Johnson not only knew of the Egyptian attack but had warned the USSR that if the attack took place the US of A would consider itself freed of the commitments it gave to the USSR to exercise restraint. Nasser called off his attack because he believed the Jews knew of his plan of action. So going back to the BBC article how could Mustafa Hafez say he didn’t believe that he didn’t believe there would be a war when 9 days earlier from the 5th of June he had been strapped into his Mig 17 ready to attack Israel.
The BBC, its hatred of Israel and half a story
pounce | 06.06.07 – 5:57 pm
That’s not all:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/2959682555847920330/#358775
John Reith:
Nor, for instance, would the stationing of an IDF garrison at a settlement for the protection of that settlement against genocidal jihadis be a war crime. ❓ ❓ ❓
John has someone been using your computer and online name without permission again?
John Reith:
Sorry that was overly familiar calling you John. JR for short.
:o(
John Reith:
it places an obligation on the attacker to weigh the likely advantages against the likely risk to civilians – exactly as I said.
And in the real world ❓
•Does an inspector have to make an appointment to interview the residents and then wait for a committee to make a decision?
•What ratio of Intelligence Officers to combat soldiers would be necessary to be confident in every case?
•Does the decision need to be made by the ranking colonel or higher or will the lieutenant on the spot be allowed to make that decsion?
•Can the relevant officer take into account the likely risk to soldiers under his command of not attacking?
•In the modern Middle East all ranks of combatants, without uniforms, store and manufacture weapons in the houses of their extended families and install heavier weapons with or without the permission or knowledge of the residents. In the modern Middle East women set off bomb belts in restaurants and children crowd around to cheer on the ‘fighters’. Who knows who is a civilian?
The writers of the Geneva Conventions were mindful of the last world war. I don’t think the regulations will be relevant for the next one.
The attitude of JR et al proves the damage that is done by people who believe the BBC’s output.
They believe that it is WE who are biased.
Why does JR not want the Balen report published?
Because he will be proved wrong.
The mere fact that the BBC a) refused to release the report, and b) went to enormous lengths and expense to prevent its release, convinces me of its guilt.
Nothing JR et al can say will convince me otherwise.
Nothing JR et al can say will convince me otherwise.
Edna | 06.06.07 – 9:53 pm |
Agreed Edna. JR has really demonstrated his own bias on this thread. He’s gone way beyond the brief of defending the BBC against charges of bias. He has gone onto the offensive – openly slinging mud at Israel and using highly questionable sources. He has also tried to denigrate sources that are as academically reputable as any academic work can be – that of course doesn’t make the work foolproof, but it does mean it adheres to basic principles of research that are deemed reliable. In other words Reith has demonstrated he holds exactly the kind of prejudices against Israel that is one of our main charges of bias against the BBC. In effect he’s proved our point.
John Reith and BBC employees like him are in the position of someone trying to see his own contact lenses while wearing them. It is of course impossible, unless you either
a/ occasionally take them off and see how different everything looks, or
b/ look carefully in the mirror.
Al-BBC cannot do the first, as it involves taking off its whole mindset; and we’ve seen what happens when you hold up a mirror to its prejudices.
The BBC, it’s hatred of Israel and half a story.
In pictures: Arab-Israeli war of 1967
The capture of East Jerusalem on the third day of the war was a key objective for the Israelis.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/in_pictures_arab_israeli_war_of_1967_/img/1.jpg
The first picture from the BBC montage of photos of the battle for Jerusalem shows an armoured convoy proceeding down a road. With the above caption does the BBC give the impression that the IDF planned the assault and subsequent capture of the holy city to the smallest detail. Does the picture of 2 M4 Sherman tanks leading a convoy give the impression of Israeli aggression?
Which is strange as Israel had no plans to invade the West Bank. It was Jordan which launched an attack on Israel who quickly responded. In fact the Troops the IDF faced were the undefeated Arab legion. (It was they and not the Israeli paratroopers who the BBC should be labelling as crack troops.)
Much of the Israeli victory in the West Bank depended on ground troops, including crack paratroopers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/in_pictures_arab_israeli_war_of_1967_/img/2.jpg
Which leads me to the BBC bias. The tanks the IDF used against the Jordanians were M4 Shermans of WW2 vintage. (and they weren’t super Shermans either) The tanks the Jordanians fielded were the M46 and M47 Patton tanks. Not only did the M46 replace the M4 in American service. But it was a far superior tank. (As was the 47 to the 46) So why would the IDF use inferior tanks against a numerically superior enemy an enemy which had not only started an attack on Israel but was actually advancing forward (supported by 1 Armoured Iraqi Mech Division and 2 Egyptian commando Battalions ) It was only because the IDF had won the war in the air over the Levant that Israel was able to stem and defeat the Jordanian advance.
Oh and those crack Israeli paratroopers. They had trained to fight in the desert. But had to be transported in buses across Israel to take on the attacking Arab legion. They had no maps, no planning and on their first attack they were cut down and lost 5 of their supporting Sherman tanks. Yup the BBC does spin a good line.
The BBC, it’s hatred of Israel and half a story.
The majority of the BBC’s “reporting” on the war is designed to make the Arabs feel better about their defeat.
Oh and those crack Israeli paratroopers. They had trained to fight in the desert. But had to be transported in buses across Israel to take on the attacking Arab legion. They had no maps, no planning and on their first attack they were cut down and lost 5 of their supporting Sherman tanks. Yup the BBC does spin a good line.
The BBC, it’s hatred of Israel and half a story.
pounce | 09.06.07 – 1:04 am
http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/news_articles-three-soldiers.htm
Yitzak Yifat, 64, now an obstetrics and gynaecology surgeon: “I developed toothache when we arrived in Jerusalem and went into battle with my mouth still numb from the local anaesthetic. It was face-to-face fighting. I fought like a tiger. My friend was shot in the backside and he was about to be shot again by a Jordanian. I shot him. Another Jordanian saw I was out of bullets and he charged at me with a bayonet. I don’t know how I did it, but I took his gun and shot him with it. It was brutal, and a sad victory. I lost many friends. After the fighting we built a memorial to our friends – and one to the Jordanians, in honour of their bravery.“
Pounce: Shermans were joke tanks even in WWII. The troops called them “Ronsons” from a famous brand of cigarette lighter, because they caught fire so easily. A single German Tiger could take care of a whole column of Shermans – and often did. More to the point, the Russian T-32, from which were descended the tanks that Russia’s Arab allies used, were also far better. If that is how hopeless they were in 1944 – when they were present in shoals, as part of a victorious army that overwhelmed the enemy both by numbers and thanks to General Patton’s genius – you can imagine just how outdated they were in 1967. The Israeli victory is the ultimate demonstration of how – as the Austrian Admiral Tegethoff said exactly a century before 1967 – “men of iron on ships of wood can beat men of wood on ships of iron”.
It also has a most ironic aftermath, which you probably know about. By way of thanks for having not only defeated but ridiculized them, the Arab nations began a worldwide campaign to stop anyone supplying weapons – even old outdated weapons – to Israel. As a result, Israel, who were meaning to buy tanks in Europe, had to develop their own – the Merkava (“chariot”). It is currently regarded as the best tank in the world and certainly poses many more questions of any future Arab attacker than the miserable Shermans of 1967 ever did.
As a counter to Al Beeb’s pro-Islamic bias:
“What really happened in the Middle East”
http://www.melaniephillips.com
(15 June)