What Will We Tell The Children?

The indomitable Haggai reads dozens of pages of old Senate transcripts and finds that "Baer's analysis of the differences between Wayne Morse's instincts and those of his colleagues in the run-up to the Six Day War is somewhat subtly--but very importantly--incorrect. It just doesn't fit into the framework that Baer tries to put it in." I know you're as surprised as I am.

It's also worth saying that this is a very odd choice of analogy. Say what you will about the Six Day War, but Israel fought it alone and . . . won decisively anyway.

Comments

Thanks for the link. Yeah, I know, real big surprise with that conclusion. No Sopranos-like ending to that blog post.

Posted by Haggai | June 12, 2007 12:24 AM

Well, I don't think the analogy is completely stupid.

In 1967 Israel attacked suddenly without a declaration of war and destroyed the entire Egyptian airforce on the ground, so that, of course, in the end there wasn't much fighting or any doubt on who was going to win. Nevertheless, in Western pop-culture the story is that Israel was defending itself.

What's going on now is, perhaps, something similar, the stage is being set for the same kind of deal: to be able to attack first and at the same time be portrayed as a righteous victim.

Posted by abb1 | June 12, 2007 7:46 AM

One thing to remember about 1967 is this--the Israelis went to great lengths to prevent US interference in their lovely little war, even to the point of attacking the Liberty, a US electronic surveillance ship. Result: 34 Americans killed, 173 wounded. The lesson Baer seems to have draw is that we need to be more supportive of Israel in these matters. What an appeaser!

Israel is no particular friend of the United States . . .

Posted by rea | June 12, 2007 8:04 AM

In 1967 Israel attacked suddenly without a declaration of war

I believe a state of war was already in existence from back when Egyptian armies invaded Israel (without a declaration of war) in 1948 and then refused to make peace after defeat on the battlefield.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | June 12, 2007 8:43 AM

He-he, ETT, good one. But have you heard that Israel along with UK and France invaded and occupied Egypt in 1956 as well? Must have been be the same war still; the pharaohs started it, not doubt.

Also, see this: Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine. Interesting document; educate yourself, fella.

Posted by abb1 | June 12, 2007 9:25 AM

So now everyone chimes in to get their rocks off on the Six Day War. I'm sure that a declaration of war by Israel, like "we're attacking tomorrow," would have been enough for abb1. And then Egypt strikes first, saying "hey, they declared war on us, what other choice did we have?" and I'm sure abb1 would have criticized them too. Right.

As for the Liberty, plenty of people have accused Israel of deliberately attacking the ship, even a lot of otherwise reputable people. On the other hand, none of them have explained why Israel would have been so concerned with the presence of a U.S. signals ship that they would have decided to take their chances with killing American servicemen instead. Because, of course, THAT didn't pose any risk of angering the U.S., as opposed to continuing to fight the war with a U.S. signals ship nearby, as Israel had done for the previous four days without any "interference" from the U.S.

Posted by Haggai | June 12, 2007 9:25 AM

Well, Haggai, I'm sorry, but starting a war is not a casual matter.

The one who starts a war is called 'aggressor', and when one starts a war without a warning it's much worse, 'cowardly aggression' or something, see Pearl Harbor. That's commonly accepted, not something abb1 invented.

And no, if Israel said "we're attacking tomorrow" and Egypt attacked today - I wouldn't have criticized them; that's called 'imminent danger', entirely within the rules.

Again, the point here is that normally the guy who throws the first punch is the bad guy, the aggressor, the criminal; and this is how it should remain, and people shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.

Posted by abb1 | June 12, 2007 9:49 AM

"Without a warning" being the key factor in play. To argue the justification of Israel's strike is one thing. To pretend that the Egyptians were utterly and completely surprised by an Israeli attack that materialized out of nowhere (like Pearl Harbor?) is a laughable description of what happened.

In any event, I don't actually dispute that Israel fired the first shot in the war, I just don't think they have anything to apologize for in having done so. If what they were facing wasn't an "imminent danger," then the phrase has no meaning. Get back to me when you find a historical example that would fit your description of an "imminent danger" that would justify a preemptive strike according to abb1's rules.

Posted by Haggai | June 12, 2007 9:58 AM

Did I say that Egypt was without blame in that incident? Where did I say that? Moreover, I agree that it was a close call; a reasonable person could argue that it was an "imminent danger" situation, though it's far from a clear-cut case.

What I object to is Israel being absolved of any blame, any responsibility whatsoever.

So, you're a sort of apologist, tell me: what's the share of Israeli leaders responsibility here? Just try to be objective. For example: yes, Egypt told the UN peacekeepers to leave, but Israel wouldn't accept the peacekeepers in the first place - WTF?

So, what's Israel's share of the blame in your opinion, all things considered?

Posted by abb1 | June 12, 2007 10:50 AM

Those peacekeepers (UNEF) had been set up in the Sinai and in Gaza following the '56 war, with Egypt's agreement. They had successfully helped preserve peace on that front for a full decade, without any of them being stationed in Israel (again, Egypt had agreed to that). Had Egypt decided in May of '67 (or whenever) that they wanted to change the deployment of UNEF in any significant way, say by including troops on Israel's side as well, they should have come back to the UN to debate the issue there. It's not a "WTF" that UNEF wasn't stationed on Israeli soil--it had kept the peace quite well for 10 years wihout deploying that way. The "WTF" was Nasser suddenly ordering them out for no legitimate reason.

It was not Israel's fault that Egypt (a) ordered the UN troops out directly, with zero warning and that (b) U Thant agreed to it overnight, without even taking any of the readily available steps that could have stalled the process. The UNEF commander lamented that Thant didn't even bother sending a "fact-finding team" or something that easily could have delayed the whole process by a week or two, allowing more time to try to calm the situation.

Posted by Haggai | June 12, 2007 11:22 AM

The war started when Egypt imposed a naval blocakde on Eilat.

Posted by David | June 12, 2007 11:38 AM

Also, see this CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War:

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol49no1/html_files/arab_israeli_war_1.html

For once, the CIA was right.

Posted by Peter H | June 12, 2007 11:51 AM

How about challenging Baer's analysis on pure historical ignorance? He calls Wayne Morris the ultimate Vietnam dove. Senator Morris voted against the Tonkin resolution on constitutional grounds, not opposition to the war. He would not cede the constitutional right to declare war away from the Congress to the President. He actually said that if Johnson had asked for a declaration of war he probably would have voted for it.
If Tonkin hadn't set the precedent and Congress had to vote on a declaration of war rather than a whatever we called it in 2003 would we be in Iraq? The framers and my Senator were right, Congress should never have given up the fundemental principle of only going to war with full resolve after full debate.

Posted by Roger Tompkins | June 12, 2007 12:18 PM

You might be interested in these State Department documents during the 1967 crisis:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/johnsonlb/xix/

The majority of the documents deal with how the United States should respond to the crisis & communications with Israel, but it's the U.S. intelligence analysis that I find most interesting. While the analysis is not unaminous, there's a prevalent belief that (1) Nasser is not planning on engaging in any offensive action against Israel and (2) that, in LBJ's words (see his 5/26 meeting with Abba Eban, document 77) Israel would "whip the hell out of" Egypt if Egypt attacked Israel. See especially documents 72, 73 76, 77, 119, 142. (To be fair, there is some contrary analysis on these; see documents 79, 100).

Obviously, US Intelligence is not always right (understatement of the year), and it's not hard to understand why Israelis may have been less sanguine about the ultimately military outcome. That being said, I believe Israel's preemptive strike had much less to do with any imminent danger of an Egyptian attack and much more to do with the political & psychological costs of resolving the crisis. In the worst-case scenario, the crisis would be resolved with a return to the pre-1956 status quo: resumption of cross-border attacks, no UN peacekeepers, loss of Israeli shipping rights to ship in the Gulf of Aqaba/Straits of Tiran. Even a less negative scenario (from Israel's perspective) would deliver a symbolic political victory to Nasser. Furthermore, letting Egypt get away with a massive military build-up without a resolute Israeli military response would erode Israel's deterrent power & military credibility.

Posted by Peter H | June 12, 2007 12:24 PM

The UN did suggest in 1967 placing peacekeepers on the Israeli - to stop the war - side and Israel refused. But that's just an example.

I know what wasn't Israel's fault, everyone knows, we all know what wasn't Israel's fault.

I was hoping you could tell me what was Israel's fault, if anything. Read something; I already linked Sheldon Richman, read Uri Avnery or something, face the facts, pretend you're a Martian. You can't move forward on a silly propaganda version of events. Look at them trolls here, do they help anything?

Posted by abb1 | June 12, 2007 12:29 PM

abb1, I'd continue this debate if you weren't such a dickhead. I have little doubt that I've read considerably more on this topic than you have (yes, including the oh-so-unbiased Uri Avnery). It seemed for a moment there that debating you might not be completely futile, but I was obviously wrong to think otherwise. I'm sure you'll consider yourself to have emerged triumphant in this exchange; congratulations.

Peter H, you seem to know what you're talking about. I'd welcome any further discussion with you.

Posted by Haggai | June 12, 2007 12:59 PM

You can be triumphant if you want, I don't care. And if you want, you can explain the 'dickhead' comment too.

All I said is that Israel attacked Egypt in 1967 but is considered (in the West) a victim of aggression and it'll likely to happen again when/if they bomb Iran and kill a bunch of people there at the most opportune time for them. Do you have a problem with this statement? Is this a dickhead statement?

Posted by abb1 | June 12, 2007 1:07 PM

All I know is that anyone watching Italian television a year ago would have sure that Berlusconi was the tallest, handsomest, most honest man in all of Europe...

Posted by RKU | June 12, 2007 1:31 PM

BTW, Haggai, you say that Peter H makes sense, but he is saying that there was no imminent danger. If there was no imminent danger, then it was a clear case of war of aggression. Starting a war of aggression is a crime, supreme crime according to the Nuremberg tribunals. So, what are you defending, what are we talking about here, who is a dickhead between us?

Posted by abb1 | June 12, 2007 1:37 PM

Haggai,

In case this is your first encounter with Abb1, be aware that he trolls any post that would lend itself to Israel bashing. So much so that one blogger on (the leftwing and hardly pro-Israel) Crooked Timber site has permanently banned him from commenting on his posts. Here's his latest view of Israeli scientists and their country:

These are people who help maintain a criminal, oppressive and very dangerous regime, that has been causing all kinds of troubles to the rest of society: terrorism, extremism, millions of refugees

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/06/danish_middle_east_policy_blog.php#comment-241734
http://crookedtimber.org/2007/06/07/boycotting-the-boycotters/#comment-199879

Posted by Harry G | June 12, 2007 2:52 PM

I understand that Israel is the most important country in the world, but actually I was banned there for my comments on China. Sorry to disappoint you, my friend.

So, what's so extraordinary about the quote you posted? Seems like a fair assessment.

Posted by abb1 | June 12, 2007 3:00 PM

Among reasons why Abb1 was banned on Crooked Timber...

e.g. in abb1’s case, comments that anti-Semitism doesn’t exist, that an international organization that he acknowledges he knows nothing about is part of the Vast Capitalist Conspiracy

http://crookedtimber.org/2007/03/02/china-and-democracy/#comment-188620

Posted by Harry G | June 12, 2007 7:09 PM

Henry: abb1 – a warning. You’re treading on some pretty thin ice. For a long while the majority of your comments on this blog have been as close to trolling as makes no difference. That you’re purportedly on the left makes this worse, not better. If you don’t reform your ways, you’re cruising for a longer term ban. I’d strongly suggest that you limit your comments to those where you have a substantial claim to make that has some resemblance to empirical facts. Indeed, I’d strongly suggest that you consider limiting your comments, full stop.

http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/13/lebanon-and-gaza/#comment-164383

Abb1: The word ‘anti-semit’ currently doesn’t have much of a meaning at all. It’s simply used to insult anyone who disagrees with the wingnut apologists of the Israeli wingnuts.
Henry: abb1 – you’ve been warned and have chosen to disregard those warnings. Whatever about the ways in which the term anti-Semitism is misapplied, anti-Semitism is a real and nasty thing. This is trolling. You’re barred from commenting on this blog for a week. Any comments that you make will be deleted as soon as I see them. I’d strongly advise you not to try to circumvent this ban through sockpuppeting or other means.

http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/24/chronicle-on-cole/#comment-165901

Posted by Harry G | June 12, 2007 8:07 PM

Do you really have such low regard for the MY audience? Pulling from Crooked Timber in an effort to discredit abb1 is perhaps the most pathetic incident I have witnessed at any of the incarnations of MY's blog. Such action is unnecessary and reaks of such juvenile insecurity and malice as to be counterproductive. Unless you are Haggai's sockpuppet delivering the coup de grâce or Haggai's mother defending her child you should refrain from such assholery in the future.

Posted by Harry G is a douche | June 13, 2007 5:23 AM

I have no connection with Haggai and am sure he can defend himself adequately without my assistance. As for the links to CT, I'm sorry they offended your sensibilities. It was, in fact, precisely because of my "regard" for MY readers that I considered it useful to explain what happens when Abb1 hijacks a thread (as had already happened above). My extensive quotes were simply in response to Abb1's claim that his "troll" designation had nothing to do with Israel. (And, just to return the favor... you wouldn't happen to be Abb1's sockpuppet, yourself, would you?)

Posted by Harry G | June 13, 2007 7:47 AM