Comments on: The Six Day War Sparked Forty Years of Strife http://www.historynet.com/the-six-day-war-sparked-forty-years-of-strife.htm?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-six-day-war-sparked-forty-years-of-strife From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Wed, 15 Feb 2012 01:51:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Chris Montegue http://www.historynet.com/the-six-day-war-sparked-forty-years-of-strife.htm#comment-787106 Chris Montegue Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:27:08 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681274#comment-787106 Very poorly written and researched article with very superficial analysis. The writer doesn't go to great lengths to conceal his bias against Israel and has allowed his personal bias to skew the article to the point of being painful to read. Very poorly written and researched article with very superficial analysis. The writer doesn't go to great lengths to conceal his bias against Israel and has allowed his personal bias to skew the article to the point of being painful to read.

]]> By: justplainbeth http://www.historynet.com/the-six-day-war-sparked-forty-years-of-strife.htm#comment-362587 justplainbeth Thu, 11 Nov 2010 04:28:41 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681274#comment-362587 I don't understand :( sniff sniff I don't understand :( sniff sniff

]]> By: jewz rulez http://www.historynet.com/the-six-day-war-sparked-forty-years-of-strife.htm#comment-359629 jewz rulez Thu, 04 Nov 2010 18:08:21 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681274#comment-359629 everyone is saying this is biased and we get this. very poor article and not very accurate everyone is saying this is biased and we get this. very poor article and not very accurate

]]> By: Dave http://www.historynet.com/the-six-day-war-sparked-forty-years-of-strife.htm#comment-350435 Dave Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:08:18 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681274#comment-350435 I stumbled across this website recently, and had been having an excellent time reading a host of well thought out articles on various eras of military history. Then I stumbled across this "article" (if you can call a bundle of selectively cherry picked facts devoid of any relevant background information/context, assembled by a.. 'person' who is clearly attempting to rewrite history as part of an effort to support his hatred of Israel at least, and more likely Jews in general, an article). What a dissapointment. For what little it's worth, I won't be returning to this otherwise stellar community/website, but I sincerely hope that Mr. Browne's racism and deliberate intellectual dishonesty would be sufficient reason for historynet to terminate it's relationship with him. I stumbled across this website recently, and had been having an excellent time reading a host of well thought out articles on various eras of military history. Then I stumbled across this "article" (if you can call a bundle of selectively cherry picked facts devoid of any relevant background information/context, assembled by a.. 'person' who is clearly attempting to rewrite history as part of an effort to support his hatred of Israel at least, and more likely Jews in general, an article). What a dissapointment. For what little it's worth, I won't be returning to this otherwise stellar community/website, but I sincerely hope that Mr. Browne's racism and deliberate intellectual dishonesty would be sufficient reason for historynet to terminate it's relationship with him.

]]> By: Proud American http://www.historynet.com/the-six-day-war-sparked-forty-years-of-strife.htm#comment-210398 Proud American Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:11:47 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681274#comment-210398 A very amateurish, biased and naive perspective on the war. The author neglects to mention that but for the Six Day War, peace with Egypt and Jordan would never have been possible. He also fails to mention that Syria plays host to at least ½ dozen terrorist organizations including Hamas, Hezbollah and the PFLP. No mention is made of the fact that Israel’s overtures to the PLO unleashed a wave of terror not seen since 1947. No mention is made of the Khartoum agreement where the Arabs declared their infamous “Three Nos.” No peace with Israel, no recognition of her and no negotiation with her. If the author wants to play the blame game, there’s plenty to go around. Focusing on Israel exclusively exposes the author’s bias. Just as an aside, it was the Arabs who put the ball in play and Israel just finished the game. To the victor go the spoils. I say “bravo Israel” for standing up to gangsters, thugs and scoundrels of the Middle East and sending them back crawling to their little holes. A very amateurish, biased and naive perspective on the war. The author neglects to mention that but for the Six Day War, peace with Egypt and Jordan would never have been possible. He also fails to mention that Syria plays host to at least ½ dozen terrorist organizations including Hamas, Hezbollah and the PFLP. No mention is made of the fact that Israel’s overtures to the PLO unleashed a wave of terror not seen since 1947. No mention is made of the Khartoum agreement where the Arabs declared their infamous “Three Nos.” No peace with Israel, no recognition of her and no negotiation with her. If the author wants to play the blame game, there’s plenty to go around. Focusing on Israel exclusively exposes the author’s bias. Just as an aside, it was the Arabs who put the ball in play and Israel just finished the game. To the victor go the spoils. I say “bravo Israel” for standing up to gangsters, thugs and scoundrels of the Middle East and sending them back crawling to their little holes.

]]> By: Sheila Kalivas http://www.historynet.com/the-six-day-war-sparked-forty-years-of-strife.htm#comment-168937 Sheila Kalivas Sat, 02 Jan 2010 21:25:25 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681274#comment-168937 Finally, an unbiased account of the Palestinian/Israeli situation. Those who have commented otherwise appear to have a rigidly pro Zionist view. The objective of this scholarly and masterfully written piece is not to cast blame on one side or another, rather it is to articulate the breakdown of how peace has eluded the Middle East thus far. This is not only a fairly presented chronology of past events but it points to a future roadmap for achieving peace by rebuilding nations which were artificially created. Palestinians and Israelis are equally important thus both peoples must be represented by "satisfying Israel's need for security ;and recognizing and fulfilling Palestinian struggles to create a viable nation-state. " To label this author a Jew-hater, to my mind is unconscionable. It is said that “history repeats”. History does not have to repeat if we learn from past errors. Of concern to this writer is the right-wing or “populist” movement in the U.S. which holds extremist views about biblical prophecy to which this author has referred. This group has generated significant influence through purchased media blitz. The movement encourages and condones Israeli acquisition of Palestinian land including Jerusalem and joyously awaits the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem to usher in the end times. This scenario seems eerily similar to a historical misconstruing of prophecy from ancient Greece. King Croesus consulted the Oracle at Dephi to find out if he should go to war with Persia, the Oracle stated “If you go to war, you will cause the destruction of a great Empire". Croesus went to war, was defeated and captured. He sent word to the Oracle asking why he was mislead. The Oracle said he was not mislead, a great empire was destroyed, his own. Because an event is prophesized does not indicate it is a desirable path to take. This piece by O’Brien Browne, if heeded, can avert a potential disatrous course of action. Finally, an unbiased account of the Palestinian/Israeli situation. Those who have commented otherwise appear to have a rigidly pro Zionist view. The objective of this scholarly and masterfully written piece is not to cast blame on one side or another, rather it is to articulate the breakdown of how peace has eluded the Middle East thus far. This is not only a fairly presented chronology of past events but it points to a future roadmap for achieving peace by rebuilding nations which were artificially created. Palestinians and Israelis are equally important thus both peoples must be represented by "satisfying Israel's need for security ;and recognizing and fulfilling Palestinian struggles to create a viable nation-state. " To label this author a Jew-hater, to my mind is unconscionable.

It is said that “history repeats”. History does not have to repeat if we learn from past errors. Of concern to this writer is the right-wing or “populist” movement in the U.S. which holds extremist views about biblical prophecy to which this author has referred. This group has generated significant influence through purchased media blitz. The movement encourages and condones Israeli acquisition of Palestinian land including Jerusalem and joyously awaits the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem to usher in the end times.

This scenario seems eerily similar to a historical misconstruing of prophecy from ancient Greece. King Croesus consulted the Oracle at Dephi to find out if he should go to war with Persia, the Oracle stated “If you go to war, you will cause the destruction of a great Empire". Croesus went to war, was defeated and captured. He sent word to the Oracle asking why he was mislead. The Oracle said he was not mislead, a great empire was destroyed, his own. Because an event is prophesized does not indicate it is a desirable path to take. This piece by O’Brien Browne, if heeded, can avert a potential disatrous course of action.

]]> By: David All http://www.historynet.com/the-six-day-war-sparked-forty-years-of-strife.htm#comment-153434 David All Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:06:41 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681274#comment-153434 An extremely biased article. Its anti-Israeli slant makes this article a travesty of history. I hope this is an exception to the usual fine level of articles at MHQ and not an indication of articles to come. An extremely biased article. Its anti-Israeli slant makes this article a travesty of history. I hope this is an exception to the usual fine level of articles at MHQ and not an indication of articles to come.

]]> By: Garbage http://www.historynet.com/the-six-day-war-sparked-forty-years-of-strife.htm#comment-151389 Garbage Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:47:03 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681274#comment-151389 Alright, so honestly I rarely try to make sense of anything that happens in the Middle East because everything seems to just boil down to a bunch of religious fanatics who hate each other. And no, for the record, I am not blaming this war on religion. This article, however, is the most biased piece of trash on earth. So lets say a guy comes near you with a knife, in a stance of aggression, are you going to stand and wait, or are you going to pull out your handgun and put a round through him? I mean for God's sake, why is it that so many people support America in the Iraq war (when they are in the wrong, without any doubt whatsoever) but so many others support Gaza in the war with Israel? It makes absolutely no sense. At least Israel is actually TRYING to fight terrorism and ensure minimal casualties. Alright, so honestly I rarely try to make sense of anything that happens in the Middle East because everything seems to just boil down to a bunch of religious fanatics who hate each other. And no, for the record, I am not blaming this war on religion.

This article, however, is the most biased piece of trash on earth. So lets say a guy comes near you with a knife, in a stance of aggression, are you going to stand and wait, or are you going to pull out your handgun and put a round through him?

I mean for God's sake, why is it that so many people support America in the Iraq war (when they are in the wrong, without any doubt whatsoever) but so many others support Gaza in the war with Israel? It makes absolutely no sense. At least Israel is actually TRYING to fight terrorism and ensure minimal casualties.

]]> By: Randy http://www.historynet.com/the-six-day-war-sparked-forty-years-of-strife.htm#comment-134646 Randy Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:21:49 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681274#comment-134646 This article was a great addition to this issue. It is sad that today people are still looking at wars from only one side. Mankind needs to FINALLY learn that there are always two sides to every story and the only way to find truth is looking at both sides. The author stated the faults of both sides very well. I particularly appreciate the credit given to soldiers of both sides. As for the other comments, how can someone say this is bias? The paragraphs concerning the USS Liberty say in their first statement controversial which by definition means debatable. So how can you call the author a propagandist? His obvious respect for the Israeli military machine is clear throughout the article. The statements about the political motives of both sides are again, “debatable”, as are all political agendas. The comments on the colonial structure of the region being a serious cause were very interesting. To call someone a “Jew hater” for an article with historical facts and speaking on a subject rarely talked about today is juvenile, and obviously made by someone who has not studied the conflict. Readers need to focus on the real tragedies of such events for example, 1.4 million and now 4.7 million refugees. This is the real issue. The war happened no matter the cause , it should be time now to clean up the mess it caused by mending fences and helping those who are still affected by it. This article was a great addition to this issue. It is sad that today people are still looking at wars from only one side. Mankind needs to FINALLY learn that there are always two sides to every story and the only way to find truth is looking at both sides. The author stated the faults of both sides very well. I particularly appreciate the credit given to soldiers of both sides. As for the other comments, how can someone say this is bias? The paragraphs concerning the USS Liberty say in their first statement controversial which by definition means debatable. So how can you call the author a propagandist? His obvious respect for the Israeli military machine is clear throughout the article. The statements about the political motives of both sides are again, “debatable”, as are all political agendas. The comments on the colonial structure of the region being a serious cause were very interesting. To call someone a “Jew hater” for an article with historical facts and speaking on a subject rarely talked about today is juvenile, and obviously made by someone who has not studied the conflict. Readers need to focus on the real tragedies of such events for example, 1.4 million and now 4.7 million refugees. This is the real issue. The war happened no matter the cause , it should be time now to clean up the mess it caused by mending fences and helping those who are still affected by it.

]]> By: Elliot http://www.historynet.com/the-six-day-war-sparked-forty-years-of-strife.htm#comment-130816 Elliot Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:07:16 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13681274#comment-130816 I’m surprised at how some posters chose to read this article so selectively. Because of his own personal agenda, Kaiser omits facts clearly stated in the article that according to three US “separate intelligence groups” “Egyptian deployments…were defensive,” of which Israelis were informed on May 26 by U.S. secretary of defense Robert McNamara. This, of course, was nothing new to the Israelis who knew from their own superb intelligence organizations all the precise information about their enemies. Similarly, Kaiser chooses not to mention the following two passages from the article where IDF chief of operations Gen. Ezer Weizman and Menachem Begin both honestly admitted that the surprise air strike against Egypt had been planned for a long time: (1) “For five years,” IDF chief of operations Gen. Ezer Weizman recalled, referring to the surprise air strike against Egypt, “I had been talking of this operation, explaining it, hatching it, dreaming of it, manufacturing it link by link, training men to carry it out.” (2) “The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches,” Menachem Begin told the New York Times, “do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” Why can’t one mention certain facts about Israel, facts confirmed by prominent Israeli historians themselves, without being attacked as being biased and writing propaganda? I’m surprised at how some posters chose to read this article so selectively.

Because of his own personal agenda, Kaiser omits facts clearly stated in the article that according to three US “separate intelligence groups” “Egyptian deployments…were defensive,” of which Israelis were informed on May 26 by U.S. secretary of defense Robert McNamara. This, of course, was nothing new to the Israelis who knew from their own superb intelligence organizations all the precise information about their enemies.

Similarly, Kaiser chooses not to mention the following two passages from the article where IDF chief of operations Gen. Ezer Weizman and Menachem Begin both honestly admitted that the surprise air strike against Egypt had been planned for a long time:

(1) “For five years,” IDF chief of operations Gen. Ezer Weizman recalled, referring to the surprise air strike against Egypt, “I had been talking of this operation, explaining it, hatching it, dreaming of it, manufacturing it link by link, training men to carry it out.”

(2) “The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches,” Menachem Begin told the New York Times, “do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

Why can’t one mention certain facts about Israel, facts confirmed by prominent Israeli historians themselves, without being attacked as being biased and writing propaganda?

]]>