Daniel Pipes
Mobile Edition
Regular Site

None of this implies the Soviets instigated the 1967 war to overfly Dimona
Reader comment on item: Foxbats Did Fly over Dimona
in response to reader comment: RTWT

Submitted by Charles Martel (United States), Aug 27, 2007 at 11:21

I'm not making a pro-Soviet or pro-Arab argument -- I promise I hate them both.

I made a narrow response to a narrow and to me unconvincing claim, that the Soviets provoked the 1967 war to overfly Dimona. (Maybe I misunderstood the claim, I apologize if so.) I agree they overflew Dimona for recon during the war-- no question.

I think by 1967 Nasser and Assad felt ready for war after their Soviet-assisted buildup.

They had the motive and felt they had the tools to do the job.

You don't need nefarious Soviets to explain the Arab decision to attack, and even IF the nefarious Soviets misled the Arabs into war (I have no opinion on that) -- I don't think the Dimona overflight is adequate motive.

As I said, a surprise peacetime overflight would be a lot less risky than overflying a country at war.

All the comments are tangential to the claim that the Soviets provoked the war to overfly Dimona.

Yes, the Arabs concealed the destruction of their air forces, but what does that have to do with this claim?

Yes, Soviets advised the Arab military (and often provided specialists) down to very low levels, but that does not imply that the Soviets could order the Arab militaries to act.

Nasser and Assad were Soviet clients, but they weren't puppets.

Thus, I am unconvinced that the Soviets had either the means or the motive to provoke the war -- they were helping out their Arab buddies and when the Arabs felt ready they would attack Israel. And IF there was a motive it was not overflying Dimona.

Give Arabs the weapons and confidence in victory over Israel, and that's an unstable equilibrium -- you don't need to provoke them further, and the Soviets did not like their direct fingerprints on international conflict.

I assume you're not arguing that the Arabs were mere proxies in a Soviet vendetta against israel?

So, MAYBE the Soviets misled the Arabs into war in 1967, but if so the reason wasn't to overfly Dimona.


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

Submit a comment on this item

Search by Enter name or date
Search Forum Comments:

Reader comments (18) on this item

Title By Date
A Call for More Research on the Role of State-Sponsorship in Conflicts More Generally [151 words]AlexNov 5, 2007 00:18
Saida 1982 [150 words]UgriSep 9, 2008 03:05
Daniel, please read The Fifty Year War [62 words]Tom DavisSep 21, 2007 19:10
Hiding [57 words]David W. LincolnSep 21, 2007 10:32
This stuff again? [155 words]Wayne WagnerAug 29, 2007 00:25
Of course this is not news! [47 words]MosheSep 2, 2007 06:56
The inability of the world to write about any event which exonerates Israel. [175 words]Mladen AndrijasevicAug 27, 2007 02:03
Dimona libel [91 words]jacob CH.Aug 28, 2007 12:38
Russian denial [92 words]Rebecca MouldsAug 25, 2007 17:54
The lie is compounded [214 words]Yuval Brandstetter MDAug 25, 2007 14:34
The FOXBAT mission doesn't imply the Soviets instigated the 1967 war [206 words]Charles MartelAug 24, 2007 11:45
RTWT [35 words]Brian HAug 24, 2007 17:50
Martel, you do not realize [202 words]Yuval Brandstetter MDAug 25, 2007 14:46
⇒ None of this implies the Soviets instigated the 1967 war to overfly Dimona [342 words]Charles MartelAug 27, 2007 11:21
Of course not! They overflew Dimona prior the 1967 war. [121 words]MosheSep 2, 2007 07:34
That is a different story, and plausible [133 words]Charles MartelSep 25, 2007 17:21
This was the story from its beginning, and as at last you correctly admitted: It is indeed plausible. [24 words]MosheOct 8, 2007 04:21
"Plausible" is a pretty weak statement, and I'm not blaming Israel for 1967 war [344 words]Charles Martel (the baffled)Nov 5, 2007 12:52

Comment on this item

Name
Email Address (optional)
Title of Comments
Comments:

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

See the 25 most recent outstanding comments.

Back to top of page