"Plausible" is a pretty weak statement, and I'm not blaming Israel for 1967 war
Reader comment on item: Foxbats Did Fly over Dimona
in response to reader comment: This was the story from its beginning, and as at last you correctly admitted: It is indeed plausible.

Submitted by Charles Martel (the baffled) (United States), Nov 5, 2007 at 12:52

I absolutely don't understand the political passion of this very secondary issue. ... The ARABS provoked the war, not Israel or the Soviets.

Having re-read the original story, I still don't see a claim that the Soviets planned to attack Dimona and provoked the 1967 war to do so. (I didn't read all the secondary links, I admit, so perhaps it was in one of those.)

I thought the news was that there was now Russian, public-domain information about the Foxbat flight over Dimona (and it is always handy and interesting when something secret is now in the public domain.)

Various Russians confirming the Foxbat overflight is not evidence that a Soviet attack was imminent, nor that the Soviets mislead the Arabs into war to accomplish this.

Further, I want to reiterate that I still don't believe the Soviets provoked the 1967 war to attack Dimona (although as I said, it is plausible -- at least the alleged motive would be adequate to the action.)

I believe the Soviets provided weapons to the Arabs and when the Arabs felt ready, they attacked. You don't need warmongers in Moscow or Tel Aviv to explain that!

So, I'm (genuinely) sorry if you take this as an anti-Israel statement (because it is NOT), but I maintain that Moscow did not provoke the 1967 war, to attack Dimona or for any other reason. The Soviets were my bag, and they liked international trouble, but they didn't like their fingerprints on it.

Having said that (again), the contrary claim is plausible.

Another (to me, more) plausible scenario is that the Soviets knew the Arabs were getting ready for war and intended to use the war for a strike on Dimona, and the war was over too quickly.

So, agree with me or not, I'm making a narrow statement and it is not anti-Israel or pro-Soviet.

From a Zionist point of view, I would think it is BETTER to say the ARABS attacked in 1967 as the bloodthirsty savages they are, rather than saying they were mislead by the Soviets.

---

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.