 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 13, 2013, November 13, 2016, and November 13, 2021. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article is nearly 100% identical with Operation Shredder (not surprisingly, since I merged this content , which was previosuly at Es Samu into Operation Shredder). There's a discussion at Talk:Operation Shredder on the need for a separate "Samu Incident" article, with the conclusion "no". Feel free to contribute there. Isarig 16:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that the article is large enough and has reliable references like Bowen and Michael Oren, I think we should upgrade its ratings
In what way was the "Incident at Es Samu is regarded as a prelude to the Six-Day War"? They were unconnected, unless the editor means to say that because Israel got away with an unjustified attack on Jordan, it could get away similar attacks on Syria and Egypt. If that is what the author meant, that should be stated. I am not sure what else could have been meant by the statement. Incidentally, I am not sure whether the conclusion is justified.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am querying why this event has been given the decaffeinated title of an "incident". It was a cross-border invasion in violation of the U.N. Charter and of the General Armistice Agreements. Even the IDF calls it an "operation". The U.N. called it a "military action". Given that the IDF agreed, I propose that the title should at least be changed to "Samu IDF Cross-border Operation" or something similar Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Better than most English Wiki articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict, this one still suffers from cultural bias. IDF allegations are rarely challenged while statements from Arabs/Palestinians are dismisses as not WP:RS. There is plenty of balancing commentary from the copious U.N. records (in UNISPAL) and I will be introducing this. The members of the Security Council received a spread input ranging from the Secretary General, the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine (UNTSO)(on the ground), and the Jordanian and Israeli representatives, so they should be in a near-ideal position to judge cause, justification and merit. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the "Aftermath" heading Walt Rostow is listed as a "Special Assistant." During this period he was National Security Advisor, a significantly different role.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Rostow Gumbus223 (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done LittlePuppers (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
