Regional Impact of the Arab Defeat in 1967 War - Case Study Example

Regional Impact of the Arab Defeat in 1967 War: Brief Background of: Emergence of Israel as a in the Post Second World War scenario changed theoverall outlook of the Middle East. Israel the lone Jewish state in the region, found little hospitality and acceptance from the mostly Muslim states around. As a result multiple wars have been fought till date. These wars are not limited to one particular neighbor, rather all the major regional states have had a share of conflict and war with Israel. The 1967 Arab Israel war was part of the same hostile environment between the regional states who did not accept one another’s dominance. Keywords: Jewish settlements, 1973 war, diplomatic breakthrough, liberation movements. 1967 Arab Israel War: The war that was fought over a period of Six days (Morgan, 2008, 195) was significant on multiple accounts. It had an impact on the contemporary political affairs as well as the future of Middle East. It was based on the animosity and hostility towards one another that had been in breeding for long. The major players of this war were Israel on one end, Egypt, Jordan and Syria as the Arab states on other (Robbers, 2006, 466). It not only allowed determination of power control in that phase of history, but also led to future determinations, wars, settlements, and political strength and say of each state against other in the continuous battle of supremacy in the region. Brief background of the war: There were number of events that led to the war, and it was not an event based on the immediate military offensive against one another rather the scope and reasons behind the war stretched to political, social, and territorial. Several years before the 1967 war, small battles and confrontations had taken place, this along with the establishment of the guerilla styled armed groups who were to launch undeclared offensives against Israel in different ways. In the same capacity the outcome of the war was not just accomplishment of edge over the enemy in one domain rather multiple faceted impact based outcome. Participant states: Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Syria constituted the major players of the war. Causes of the war: The causes of the war stretched from short term to long term hostilities and numerous political maneuvers against one another. Apart from the periodic territorial aggrandizements as alleged by different parities, the core point of content held against each other was that of 1948 settlements and establishment of the Jewish state. No Arab states had recognized Israel as a legitimate state and as a result of it did not engage itself in any political or diplomatic activity. In the preceding years after the 1948 settlements, the issues rose on individual and bilateral level between each state, with issues arising between Israel and Egypt first, followed by Israel and Jordan and the continuous issues with Palestine and other neighbors. The issue of Waterways usage: Israel and Egypt were locked into dispute over the control and dominance over the waterways, being paralleled in to territories and waterways connecting them, the two aimed to use the water sources to maximum benefit. Israel and Egypt were engaged in an accord in 1949 over the case of Suez Canal and other adjoining areas (Kohn, 2006, 29), through this agreement a mid way retreat was established, however over period of time, both parties blamed one another for the violations and disruption of the agreements settled in the 50s and 60s decade. The occurrence of the war took place at a time period when United Nations monitoring units would complete the mission. Alleged cross border infiltration and usage of the friendly states against Israel was a point of concern as well that can be termed as a precipitating factor of the 1967 war. This included the infiltration of Palestinians and other undercover groups into Jordan and Syria where its border areas were allegedly used against Israel for various offensives. Despite being a multiple force and multiple armies, Arab states were of no match against the Israel forces and the war could not extend beyond the seventh day and in these six days the Arab forces were humiliatingly crushed. However the war had massive impacts on the future course of Middle East Politics both in the short range and long term relationships between the party states. The impacts can be broadly divided into social, political, economical, regional, diplomatic, bilateral, and multilateral factors that were to come in times ahead (Mattar, 2005, 31). World’s attention seeking war: The war drew attention from the rest of the world based on the overall impact of the war and its possible repercussions and negative fallouts on the region and overall global politics. The super powers were more keenly involved now with United States siding with the Israelis and Soviet Union standing on the sidelines of Arab states and more prominently with the Egypt in the military and defense field. The closure and halting of the war activities were directly followed with the United Nations Resolution which aimed at preventing any future event as such and also striving to find the solution to the contentious issues that had been long prevailing between the two blocs. The resolution came about in form of Security Council’s resolution number 242 (Tucker & Roberts, 2008, 1301). The resolution also had to do with the territorial settlements and major one amongst these was the Sinai desert. Change in Egypt’s internal political scenario: As a result of defeat inflicted upon Egypt and its allies, the Egyptian Prime Minister bearing the responsibility for defeat stepped down as soon as the war got over (Barnett, 2012,103). This was in response to failure to win the war that had been initiated as a result of poor intelligence sources and lack of foresight about the handling of such an effective and militarily stronger enemy. Impact on the mindset of Arab states: Having been defeated convincingly, the Arab states now considered Israel a full time enemy, this changed their perception and mindset pertaining to any midway solution and aiming to find a solution that would allow mutual co existence. The war not only hurt the Arabs militarily but psychologically and created a constant element of hatred and fear in their minds with aims of crushing Israel in any time soon through any action possible. They now aimed at deriving policies and practical actions that would enable protecting their sovereignty and culture from a foreign state that according to them was enforced upon them and had no legal standing to its existence. Bringing Arabs closer: Faced with a common enemy and with a common defeat, the leaders agreed on finding a common manifesto for solving the issues of enemy being invincible. A special meeting of the stakeholder states was held in Khartoom (Oren, 2002, 400)right after the War. Usage of Oil as a weapon: Having realized that Israel’s military might is way superior to Arab’s combined, they thought of bringing about an alternative and unconventional weapon of war in form of the oil embargo. Since the Arab states are large producers of oil this, would be used against Israel and the West in particular in response to the policies and actions undertaken by each. The plan was executed in 1970s and it did create panic in the American ranks, and this can be termed as a result and impact of 1967 affair. Case of Refugees: The war resulted in thousands being expelled from their places, Jordan already dependent on agricultural source had to bear the brunt of accommodating the refugees from Palestine who had been displayed after the capture of West Bank and Gaza by Israel during the course of the war. Syria also saw massive shift over of the people between different cities and parts of neighboring countries. Rise in the Arab Nationalistic movement: Having seen the might of Israel, the Arab states now concentrated on the building of their internal strength and nationalism drew brighter in their ranks and mindset. PAN Arab nationalistic spirit and movement came to forefront as a result of the entire activity on War in 1967. Apart from the internal strengthening of the ranks, the stress was for unifying the Arab states and thwart any possible attacks and offensives in future with collective might and unity of political and military force. Rise of leaders in Arab world in Pan Arab movement: As a result of the Pan Arab movement, various prominent leaders came to forth with the same mindset of strengthening the Arab bloc. These leaders went on to rule for multiple decades, and their internal politics were protected and embossed with the slogan of protecting the people from Israel’s offensives and preparing strategies for collective defense against any external direct or indirect threat. The prominent leaders who came to power as a result of this were Colonel Qaddafi of Libya, Hafiz Al Asad of Syria and Yasir Arafat of Palestine and Nasser of Egypt. The Arab Israel war in 1973: This factor can be termed as one of the direct consequence and gift of the 1967 affair. Having lost the territories, being bruised militarily, defeated psychologically and morally, the Arab States aimed at leveling the scores in times ahead. This was physically incorporated into action in six years time when the Arab nations launched an offensive with Egypt initiating it. Although Israel won the war on ground, but several other dynamics and circumstances saw a twist in the appearance and gave Arab nations a positive hint and motivational force and move ahead. Secondly, having lost such important strategic and economic regions, the states would not settle for anything less than military defeat and recapture of the territories from Israel, therefore the 1967 is without a doubt the direct cause and impact upon the 1973 war. The human element: Israel ended up capturing major regions, leaving the Arab states isolated and crippled on many accounts. The major areas occupied during the war included the Golan Heights, West bank, Gaza and Eastern part of Jerusalem (Duiker & Spielvogel, 2010, 740). Apart from the political and military maneuvers it was the common citizen of respective areas in these countries that suffered the most. The people had to face massive migration and had to be settled in different parts within and outside the country. This led to the living of an entire generation as refuges in the longer run especially around the Gaza strip and West bank area. The living standard and availability of the basic facilities were also compromised and there was no major access to health care, education. Internal change in political corridors: The outcome of war saw a shift in the internal politics of each of the nation, with Israel seeing a shift of power to the more religious segmented political parties. The events in Syria resulted in more aggressive and outright approach against Israel with Hafiz Al Asad being the lead. Their military’s trainings and social mindset was driven by the avenging of Israel sooner or later and getting back its Golan Heights area. Israel’s ties with the West and United States of America: Being backed by United States of America in the military field in present day and having earned maximum dividends from it support by United States of America in recent times, the situation was considerably different at time of 1967 War. In 1957 under President Eisenhower Israel had earned itself a free passage agreement to the Straits of Tiran, but little was respected and at the time of War in 1967, America was caught up in the Vietnam debacle and had little influence and assistance for Israel at that time. Long term impacts: Israel Egypt normalcy of relationship, exchange of diplomatic staffs and recognition against one another can be termed as the long term outcome of 1967 war. However, in the longer run, the ties got stronger and Israel relied more heavily on United States of America. Apart from the military partnership, political partnership also grew strong and United States of America stood by it in parallel over Israel’s claims over territorial disputes. This in connection and extension to the vetoing of the multiple resolutions of the United Nations over Israel’s offensives against the neighboring states and other measures such as construction of boundary walls and various other factors which were opposed by the United Nations and its Security Council. Israel’s lack of trust in world’s assurances: The water passage issue had seen multiple agreements and accords in past, one of them came from arbitration of France and Great Britain in 1957-58 assuring them of control over Suez Canal and Straits of Tiran, which was not fulfilled. This was driven by the fact that France also pulled back from the support for Israel it had granted and presented in past. Charles DeGaulle’s policy of distance creating with Israel characterized France’s overall mood and provided a vivid idea of the kind of support Israel enjoyed at that time (Gawrych, 2000, 97). Israel’s strategic strength: Having captured areas of significance importance which could be possibly used against Israel in longer run for another potential war were being saved and owned. One of these areas was Golan. This resulted in an overall safer position and existence of Israel as compared to the past. This had a positive impact on the overall mood of the state and also raised the moral of the soldiers. Element of invincibility: The war’s outcome left a daunting effect on the minds of Arabs. They were badly beaten and were completely demoralized. The nation of Israel on other hand, extracted all the positives from it possible. They had gained military insight into the region, they had gained strategic and geographical dominance, they had gained a psychological edge over the rest and they had attained a political say having outnumbered the enemy. The element of invincibility was based on the feeling and fact that multiple enemies grouped together were defeated by a single army with the situation and odds totally against them. Being left high and dry by the Western allies, United States of America and France, Israel had to rely on its own potential to come out victorious and it managed doing so through self assisted response. This gave them a profound feeling of pride amongst the ranks. Change in order of diplomacy: The two super powers at that time saw a twist in turn with regard to their influences and participation in the region. With one (United States of America) becoming more active in the political and diplomatic corridors, while the other super power (Soviet Republic) seeing a hiccup in its efforts to strengthen its stay and presence. Russia’s role was mostly left to military assistance in form of the weapons and other arsenal providing by Russia to Egypt. As a result of diplomatic activities Egypt went on to establish ties with Israel (although this came about after the Arab Israel War in 1973) but the role of 1967 war cannot be undermined in the overall process. Without this war, the realization would not be as intense as it stood and enticed United States of America to participate and bring about order in the region. Opportunity for the World Community: the war’s outcome served as an overall opportunity for the world leaders to find a solution to the perennial problem that had long existed for multiple decades. It was time for them to raise above their ranks and act in practical manner. Although the 1973 was a hiccup and odd event in the sequence of affairs, yet this war did enable mobilizing the mindset and diplomacy around with Egypt and Israel being engaged into diplomatic partnership and recognition of one another in the longer run. PLO factor: Palestine Liberation organization formed in 1964 (Tobin & Ybarra, 2008, 138) learnt its lessons from the outcome of the war. It engaged itself in further advanced mechanism towards Israel. It continued attacking Israel from different parts of Palestine. The 1972 Olympics fiasco (Marcovitz, 2002, 102) that took place in form of the hijacking of Israeli athletes was a continuation of the same concept. Al Fateh was another outfit that came to prominence presenting itself as the representative of the voice of Palestinians and it operated massive offensives against Israel in times ahead. Conclusion: The war had farfetched implications, some leading to direct confrontation and others leading to indirect mediation and acceptance in form of the Egypt Israel accord and adjustment. What can be established is the fact that nearly four decades after the war has passed, the study would reveal that this war was of high importance from every dimension of two states engulfed in various issues within and against one another. The future of Arab region saw multiple wars and multiple peace accords, all can be attributed to 1967 war. Works Cited: Barnett, M. N., 2012. Confronting the Costs of War: Military Power, State, and Society in Egypt and Israel. s.l.:Princeton University Press. Duiker, W. J. & Spielvogel, J. J., 2010. Essential World History.. s.l.:Cengage Learning. Kohn, G. C., 2006. Dictionary of Wars. s.l.:Infobase Publishing,. Gawrych, G. W., 2000. The Albatross of Decisive Victory: War and Policy Between Egypt and Israel in the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli Wars. s.l.:Greenwood Publishing Group. Mattar, P., 2005. Encyclopedia of the Palestinians. s.l.:Infobase Publishing. Marcovitz, H., 2002. The Munich Olympics. s.l.:Infobase Publishing. Morgan, D., 2008. Israels Seventy Weeks. 1st ed. s.l.:AuthorHouse. Oren, M. B., 2002. Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East. s.l.:Oxford University Press. Robbers, G., 2006. Encyclopedia of World Constitutions. 1st ed. s.l.:Infobase Publishing. Thomas, A., 2010. Israel and the Palestinian Territories. e book ed. s.l.:Lonely Planet. Tobin, G. A. & Ybarra, D. R., 2008. The Trouble with Textbooks: Distorting History and Religion. s.l.:Lexington Books Tucker, S. C. & Roberts, P. M., 2008. The Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Political, Social, and Military History: A Political, Social, and Military History. s.l.:ABC-CLIO. Read More