"Geschichtsfälschung"?! Was du hier treibst ist eine einzige Frechheit!
Israel ist also mindestens mitschuldig weil sie es nicht zugelasdsen haben das die UN ihre Scharade auf israelischen Territorium weitertreiben konnte? Wenn hier etwas Geschichtsfälschung ist dann genau diese "These".
Tatsächlich verhielt es sich so das es noch im Mai 67 eine Anfrage U Thants gab ob man im Falle das Ägypten die Truppen rausschmeißen würde auf Israelisches Gebiet verlegen dürfte. Israel hat dies abgelehnt nicht weil sie UNEF loshaben wollten sondern weil die ganze Idee vollkommen inakzeptabel war. Es war der Auftrag UNEFs die Remilitarisierung des Sinais zu verhindern und nicht nur dabei zuzusehen wie ägyptische Panzerverbände in den Negev rollen.
Tatsächlich hätte dieser U Thant den Sicherheitsrat um die Verlegung weiterer Truppen bitten sollen damit überhaupt die Möglichkeit bestanden hätte als wirksamer Puffer zu dienen. Aber der Typ zog es ja vor Hals über Kopf abzuziehen ohne überhaupt irgendjemanden davor zu konsultieren.
Aber daran ist jetzt natürlich Israel schuld weil alles gut ausgegangen wäre wenn man die UN-Truppen nur auf eigenen Gebiet stationiert hätte. Ich sag dir was passiert wäre: Die Ägypter wären eines Morgens an den UN Truppen vorbei in den Negev gerollt und heute würde man sich fürchterlich darüber beschweren, das ein guter Teil dieser Truppen beim israelischen Gegeschlag mit draufgegangen wäre.
Es war die Aufgabe der UNEF für eine Einhaltung der Waffenstillstandsregelungen von 1956 zu sorgen. Als es galt Farbe zu bekennen und das zu tun wofür sie gedacht waren sind sie abgehauen und haben Israel ihrem Schicksal überlassen.
Hier zu denken das UN Truppen auf israelishcen Gebiet einen Krieg verhindert hätten nachdem Nasser sie aus dem Sinai vertrieben hätte ist nur bekloppt - oder lässt mal wieder sehr tief blicken.
Unglaublich was hier für Märchen gestrickt werden um der eigenen Propaganda gerecht zu werden.
Weiterhin, in dieses Zitat hineininterpretieren zu wollen, dass Israel den Krieg mit Ägypten gewollt und forciert hat indem man verhinderte die UN Scharade weiterzuspielen ist unverschämt und genauso geschichtsfälschend.
Natürlich hätte es 67 die Alternative gegeben nichts zu tun bis die andere Seite vielleicht zuerst angreift. Dies Überlegungen gab es damals in der israelischen Regierung. Aber diese fanden lange nach dem Rausschmiss der UN und dem Aufmarsch der UN Truppen statt. Die Behauptung man habe die UN quasi gehen lassen weil man den Krieg wollte ist nicht nur vollkommen falsch sondern eine Frechheit gegenüber denjenigen die in jeden Tagen mit dem Schlimmsten rechnen mussten. Die israelische Regierung entschied nicht vor dem Abzug der UN Truppen wie man vorgehen wollte. Die Entscheidung als erste anzugreifen viel keine zwei Tage vor Kriegsbeginn, Wochen nachdem UNEF die Fahne eingeholt hatte.
Es existiert hier überhaupt kein Zusammenhang. Aber es passt so gut, deswegen wäre es ja schön wenns so gewesen wäre - ja schon klar. Es kann natürlich nur eine Frechheit sein, das Israel nicht wartete bis die Araber mit ihrem Vernichtungswerk begannen.
Was ist jetzt mit Begin? Wenn du so ehrlich wärst und seine gesamte Rede herangezogen hättest könnte man selbst mit deiner Übersetzung ahnen um was es ihm ging:
Kriege die geführt werden müssen weil es keine Alternative gibt sind viel schlimmer als Kriege die man führt weil man sich entscheidet das sie geführt werden müssen.
Aber das wirst du und deinesgleichen nie verstehen. Für dich ist Israel mindestens mitschuldig weil es die Frechheit besessen hat einmal nicht zu warten bis man es wie ein Lamm zu Schlachtbank führt.
Es war gut und richtig das Israel 1967 nicht gewartet hat bis der Krieg alternativlos wurde. Das hätte ihnen viel mehr an Blut gekostet und einen viel geringeren Sieg eingebracht. Alternativen gabs noch viele. Man hätte warten können. Warten bis die Generalmobilmachung die israelische Wirtschaft komplett erledigt hätte. Oder bis die Araber zum ersten Schlag ausholen. Oder man hätte den Vorschlag von Shimon Peres umsetzen und auf dem Sinai eine Kernwaffe zu Demonstrationszwecken zu zünden. Man hätte auch demobilisieren können und hoffen das die Weltgemeinschaft einen zweiten Holocaust schon irgendwie verhindern wird.
Oder man hätte das tun können was man getan hat: Angreifen und binnen sechs Tagen den umfassensten Sieg in der jüngeren Militärgeschichte feiern.
Das alles lange nachdem die UN abgezogen und Israel den Arabern zum Fraß überlassen hat.
Soviel zu "Geschichtsfälschung"
Zitat:Was it possible to prevent the Second World War?
Today, thanks to research and the facts known to us, there is no longer any doubt about the answer: Yes, indeed, it was possible to prevent it.
On March 7, 1936, Hitler announced that he was abrogating the Treaty of Versailles. In order to implement his decision, he introduced two battalions of the German army into the demilitarized Rhineland. At that time, two French divisions would have sufficed to capture all the German soldiers who entered the Rhineland. As a result of that, Hitler would have fallen.
His prestige would have crumbled. At that time, he did not yet have an army worthy of the name, only gangs of SS, SA and Gestapo. Two French divisions, with their tanks, and with the air force at their disposal, would have blasted this entire German armed force to the four winds.
If this had happened, the Second World War would have been prevented, more than 30 million people would have remained alive, tens of millions of others would not have been wounded and the tragedy of Hiroshima would have been averted. Humanity would have looked different today. The six million Jews slaughtered then would today be more than 12 million, and the whole of Eretz Yisrael would be in our hands.
The Second World War, which broke out on September 1, 1939, actually began on March 7, 1936. If only France, without Britain (which had some excellent combat divisions) had attacked the aggressor, there would have remained no trace of Nazi German power and war which, in three years, changed the whole of human history, would have been prevented.
This, therefore, is the international example that explains what is a war without choice, or a war of one's choosing.
Let us turn from the international example to ourselves. Operation Peace for Galilee is not a military operation resulting from the lack of an alternative. The terrorists did not threaten the existence of the State of Israel; they "only" threatened the lives of Israel's citizens and members of the Jewish people. There are those who find fault with the second part of that sentence. If there was no danger to the existence of the state, why did you go to war?
I will explain why. We had three wars which we fought without alternative. The first was the War of Independence, which began on November 30, 1947, and lasted until January 1949. It is worthwhile remembering these dates, because there are also those who try to deceive concerning the nine weeks which have already passed since the beginning of Operation Peace for Galilee. This was a war without alternative, after the Arab armies invaded Eretz Israel. If not for our ability, none of us would have remained alive.
What happened in that war, which we went off to fight with no alternative?
Six thousand of our fighters were killed. We were then 650,000 Jews in Eretz Israel, and the number of fallen amounted to about I percent of the Jewish population. In proportion to our population today, about I percent would mean 30,000 killed and about 90,000 wounded. Could we live with such losses? Let us imagine 30,000 soldiers killed, the best of our youth, those who say, "Follow me! "
We carried on our lives then by a miracle, with a clear recognition of life's imperative: to win, to establish a state, a government, a parliament, a democracy, an army - a force to defend Israel and the entire Jewish people.
The second war of no alternative was the Yom Kippur War and the War of Attrition that preceded it. What was the situation on that Yom Kippur day [October 6, 1973]? We had 177 tanks deployed on the Golan Heights against 1,400 Soviet Syrian tanks; and fewer than 500 of our soldiers manned positions along the Suez Canal against five divisions sent to the front by the Egyptians.
Is it any wonder that the first days of that war were hard to bear? I remember Aluf Avraham Yaffe came to us, to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, and said: "Oy, it's so hard! Our boys, 18- and 19-year-olds, are falling like flies and are defending our nation with their very bodies."
In the Golan Heights there was a moment when the O/C Northern Command - today our chief of staff - heard his deputy say, "This is it." What that meant was "We've lost; we have to come down off the Golan Heights. And the then OIC said, "Give me another five minutes".
Sometimes five minutes can decide a nation's fate. During those five minutes, several dozen tanks arrived, which changed the entire situation on the Golan Heights.
If this had not happened, if the Syrian enemy had -come down from the heights to the valley, he would have reached Haifa - for there was not a single tank to obstruct his armoured column's route to Haifa. Yes, we would even have fought with knives - as one of our esteemed wives has said - with knives against tanks. Many more would have fallen, and in every settlement there would have been the kind of slaughter at which the Syrians are experts.
In the south, our boys in the outposts were taken prisoner, and we know what happened to them afterwards. Dozens of tanks were destroyed, because tanks were sent in piecemeal, since we could not organize them in a large formation. And dozens of planes were shot down by missiles which were not destroyed in time, so that we had to submit to their advances.
Woe to the ears that still ring with the words of one of the nation's heroes, the then defence minister, in whose veins flowed the blood of the Maccabees: "We are losing the Third Commonwealth."
Our total casualties in that war of no alternative were 2,297 killed, 6,067 wounded. Together with the War of Attrition -which was also a war of no alternative - 2,659 killed, 7,251 wounded. The terrible total: almost 10,00 casualties.
Our other wars were not without an alternative. In November 1956 we had a choice. The reason for going to war then was the need to destroy the fedayeen, who did not represent a danger to the existence of the state.
However, the political leadership of the time thought it was necessary to do this. As one who served in the parliamentary opposition, I was summoned to David Ben-Gurion before the cabinet received information of the plan, and he found it necessary to give my colleagues and myself these details: We are going to meet the enemy before it absorbs the Soviet weapons which began to flow to it from Czechoslovakia in 1955.
I said: "We shall stand together, with no reservations. This is a holy war." And indeed, we stood together until the withdrawal, without a peace treaty and without the demilitarization of Sinai.
Thus we went off to the Sinai Campaign. At that time we conquered most of the Sinai peninsula and reached Sharm e-Sheikh. Actually, we accepted and submitted to an American dictate, mainly regarding the Gaza Strip (which David Ben-Gurion called "the liberated portion of the homeland'). John Foster Dulles, the then secretary of state, promised Ben-Gurion that an Egyptian army would not return to Gaza.
The Egyptian army did enter Gaza. David Ben-Gurion sent Mrs. Meir to Washington to ask Foster Dulles: "What happened? Where are the promises?" And he replied: "Would you resume the war for this?"
After 1957, Israel had to wait 10 full years for its flag to fly again over that liberated portion of the homeland.
In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.
This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.
We did not do this for lack of an alternative. We could have gone on waiting. We could have sent the army home. Who knows if there would have been an attack against us? There is no proof of it. There are several arguments to the contrary. While it is indeed true that the closing of the Straits of Tiran was an act of aggression, a causus belli, there is always room for a great deal of consideration as to whether it is necessary to make a causus into a bellum.
And so there were three wars with no alternative - the War of Independence, the War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War - and it is our misfortunate that our wars have been so. If in the two other wars, the wars of choice - the Sinai Campaign and the Six Day War - we had losses like those in the no alternative wars, we would have been left today with few of our best youth, without the strength to withstand the Arab world.