Six-Day War of 1967 - Report Example

Six-Day War of 1967 Six-Day War of 1967 The Six-Day War, which pitted Israel against Egypt, Jordan and Syria as the key players as well as several other Arab and Islam states in 1967 lasted between 5th and 10th June. Further, there was also international interest by communities outside the Middle East, particularly the United States and Soviet Union (CAMERA, 2011). It also marked the third in a series of major conflicts between the Arab world and Israel. As pointed out by historians, although conflicting opinions exist, the Six-Day War was sparked off by events highly linked to, and overlapping, the rejection of Israel by the Arab world that caused the previous conflicts in 1948 and 1956. It has also been shown that although Israel expressed consistent desire of peaceful dialog with the aggressors, the Arabs categorically pushed for war (Jewish Virtual Library, 2014). This paper will describe the event by analysing its historical and contemporary causes as well as its different historical interpretations and finally evaluate its positive and negative consequences. Description of the Six-Day War The Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian fronts formed the Six-Day War’s three distinctive battlefronts. Towards the end of May in 1967, Egypt had 80,000 soldiers in the Sinai preparing to attack Israel. In terms of weaponry, 400 aircraft and 900 tanks were also in the region (Sharpe, 2012). Israel considered the deployment of troops to its border by Egypt and the closure of the Straits of Tiran to its shipping as acts of war. Amid threats of being wiped out by the Arab world led by Egypt, Israel launched a large scale air attack that took the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian forces by surprise. Refered to as Operation focus, the aerial assault largely destroyed the three nation’s air forces in a few hours, preventing the possibility of Israeli civilians being targeted from the air (Ynetnews, 2008). Although Operation Focus destroyed 451 of the enemy planes, the Israeli civilians were still exposed to artillery attacks, from which they suffered considerably around Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip. Egypt deployed massive ground troops in Sinai while reserving one armored division inland. In counter-attack, Israeli ground forces, strategically arranged in three divisions, got into Sinai. A day before the war, two divisions had already contained Egyptian forces in their course and by the second day into the war, Gaza city was already captured by Israel, who made it to the Suez Canal on the fourth day. The same day, the Gaza strip and the Sinai Peninsula were entirely under Israeli control. Jordan relied on its 60,000-strong ground forces after its air force was destroyed completely on day one, backed by 300 tanks and Egyptian commandos (Ynetnews, 2008). With this support and believing in false reports that Egypt had captured Israel, Jordan attacked Israel through Jerusalem’s east and the River Jordan’s west, commonly known as the West Bank. It only took Israel three days to cripple the Jordanian forces around Jerusalem, seizing control over the whole city and the West Bank. This meant that Israel had control of Samaria and Judea, which had ancestral and religious significance to the Jewish people (Sharpe, 2012). The Soviet Union, which had been Syria’s and Egypt’s main supplier of firearms as well as financial aid, falsely reported to Damascus that Israel was lining up an attack against Syria. Syria prompted an attack from Israel by initiating an offensive against it from the strategically situated Golan Heights on the war’s first day, to which Israel responded with a devastating strike on its air force (Jewish Virtual Library, 2014). By the fifth day of the war, Syria’s threat had been cleared from the Golan Heights, which effectively marked the end of the Six-Day War’s active phase. Pushing back the Syrian attackers by 18 miles, Israel was able to assume control over the Sea of Galilee, the Hermon slope, Gader and Hamat. Historical and contemporary causes Before the war erupted, the arising and pre-existing conditions surrounding it were significantly fuelled by the common desire of the Arab states surrounding Israel to annihilate the state. The Arabs were also acting on the urge to avenge for the shameful defeat they had suffered at the hands of Israel 19 years back (CAMERA, 2011). The most conspicuous cause of the war was the struggle over the River Jordan’s water. The Arabs were particularly against the Israeli National Water Carrier Plan (NWC), in which it was intended to draw water from the river and carry it to the Negev (Shemesh, 2004). The net effect of the NWC was a reduced flow to Arab territories. In retaliation, the Arab states started constructing a diversion that would cut down the NWC’s capacity by about one third. This led to the 1965 attack by Israel on the construction work, directly contributing to the border violence and the looming Six-Day War. Then, there was the self-defense aspect to the war in which Israel was exercising its right to be recognised as a sovereign state. Historically, territorial disputes have been known for their contributions to the war. Syria accused Israel of creating tension in the region by its efforts to increase its occupation of the zones that had been demilitarized in 1948 through a peace accord. Israel was further accused of dispossessing Arab farmers of land in the zones. According to studies conducted on Islamic territories, Muslims are notoriously adamant in reclaiming land that once belonged to them but was taken away, which they consider a religious duty even if it takes endless wars (Sharpe, 2012). Relating to historical happenings, Arab mobs could be heard chanting battle cries in the months preceding the war that were used in the seventh century during an attack against Jews by Muslims led by their spiritual leader, Prophet Mohammed (Sharpe, 2012). This occurrence is evidence enough that the war also stemmed from a religious aspect. Some causes immediately before the event included the 1966 killing of Israeli policemen by terrorists based in Jordan, which the US ambassador took unusually long to convey a condolence message from King Hussein of Jordan, prompting Israel to strike back (Pipes, 2012). Then, in an early 1967 border confrontation, the Israeli Air Force downed Syrian fighter jets, forcing Syria to seek help from Egypt. Egypt, factoring in previous reports from the Soviet Union that Israel had put its soldiers along its border with Syria, responded by sending troops to its own border with Israel (Ynetnews, 2008). These events, coupled with Egypt’s president Nasser incessant challenging and prompting Israel to war, triggered the Jewish nation into a defensive mode. President Nasser, pointed out by literature as the most ambitious aggressor, had openly proclaimed his stand of never accepting the coexistence of the Arab world with Israel (Jewish Virtual Library, 2014). Israel may not have planned for war, but continuous confrontations by the Arab world, with promises of destroying it, drove it to preemptive action, which worked to its advantage when it launched a surprise attack on the Egyptian Air Force. Different historical interpretations of the event The Six-Day War can largely be perceived as one that Israel single-handedly found itself against Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Further, the three nations against Israel also received, albeit minimal, support from the governments of Iraq, Lebanon, Sudan, the Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia (Sharpe, 2012). However, there have been different arguments regarding the exact causes of the war and whether it was actually planned or not. The three aggressors may not have had the war as their ultimate goal from their historical and constant attacks against Israel, but their actions and claims could only have been tolerated for so long. Gaza had been occupied by Egyptian terrorists for decades, while the West Bank was occupied by Jordanian terrorists. The two groups unleashed attacks across borders into Israel resulting in civilian deaths with large numbers of children. In contrast to the Arab world’s claims that their aggression against Israel arose from its occupation of the area when it came up as a reconstituted state, the terrorist attacks took place much earlier than Israel’s occupation of the region (Sharpe, 2012). The contrasting interpretation points towards the event having been caused by water and territorial conflicts. Through the course of time, the Arab’s hostile speech-making against Israel, Egypt’s initiative that saw the United Nations withdraw its emergency troops (UNEF) and the blockading of the Straits of Tiran may have given the then events a new twist. Analysing the occurrence of these events, especially from an Israeli perspective, one could justify the arguments that Israel acted in self-defense when it launched the Operation Focus, which was the final event that ultimately led to the eruption of war. Compared to Egypt, Israel is tiny, and its borders have historically been vulnerable to attack from the Arabs, a fact the Arab world was well aware of. Two years before the war, Nasser had asserted that Egypt would enter Palestine, whose creation was to go alongside that of Israel, with its soil full of blood (Jewish Virtual Library, 2014). Then, in a manner that can be viewed as bullying, he claimed that Egypt’s attack on Israel would be to restore Palestinian rights and to perfect the might of the Arab military. Clearly, that was calling for war. The declaration of neutrality by the United States meant Israel would face the Arabs on its own, which prompted the preemptive attack from Israel, rather than wait for the Egyptians to ambush them. Positive and negative outcomes of the event Immediately after Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War, mediations took place to find a lasting solution to aggression and the Arab world’s rejection of Israel. However, in typical defiance, the Arab nations rejected diplomacy (CAMERA, 2011). By Jordan’s participation in the war, the already grave refugee situation was worsened by some West Bank inhabitants crossing the River Jordan into Jordan. They opted to live under Islamic conditions rather than Israel’s military rule. In contrast, a positive consequence was manifested by those who chose to return to the West Bank. They enjoyed economic growth for almost 20 years. Heavy investment by Israel into the West Bank’s infrastructure after it took over it control drove up the living standards of the Palestinians. In particular, the growth was aided by policies put in place to allow free movement of Arabs, giving them access to jobs in the Middle East and Israel itself (CAMERA, 2011). However, this gave rise to an unforeseen negativity amid the prosperity. Most Palestinians were not ready for Israel to go on with its occupation, neither were they also willing to have their country exist alongside Israel. Rather, through their leadership, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), they preferred Palestine to replace Israel. This brought about the obvious consequence of tighter restrictions being imposed by Israel, which in turn prompted violent uprisings against Israelis. Ultimately, the occupation became oppressive (Gordon, 1999). However, in an attempt to promote peaceful coexistence, Israel offered economic assistance and also relocated Palestinians to new homes, removing them from camps. This, together with the free movement that was newly permitted, also gave Arab women, for the first time, the ability to participate in free elections under the rule of Jordan (Ma’oz, 1995). Arabs in the east of Jerusalem were also afforded the choice of either acquiring citizenship from Israel or remaining citizens of Jordan, which granted them recognition as the Unified Jerusalem’s residents (Jewish Virtual Library, 2014). Although Israel made a positive move by unconditionally withdrawing from the Gaza Strip, it was marred by negative consequences as the gesture did not yield the intended peace. Away from the region, negative effects were also felt in the United States as the relations between Jews and Christians were put to trial. This happened when the Jews found fault among Christians for not condemning enmity unleashed against Israel by the Arabs just prior to the war. However, the war end of the war portrayed the United States positively as the paramount negotiator of peace in the Middle East (Makovsky, 2004). While the Soviet Union continued supplying firearms, the United States took the position of influencing peace. However, in a negative twist, the Arab world perceived the land-for-peace strategy drawn up by the United States as meant to serve American interests, which was one of the reasons it was rejected in the Sudan deliberation. Perhaps the most negative consequence of the Six-Day War was the cost, in terms of fatalities and casualties. Israel lost 777 lives, with more than 2,500 people wounded. Collectively, Egypt, Jordan and Syria lost 18,300 lives, with 15,000 accounting for Egypt alone (Jewish Virtual Library, 2014). Annotated Bibliography CAMERA. (2011). The six day war: Causes and consequences. Retrieved from http://www.sixdaywar.org/ This website divides the important points of the war into a simple way be including sections where to click on and read. It is more modern and user friendly for information. Gordon, H. (1999). Looking Back at the June 1967 War. Praeger Publishers: Westport, CT. This book describes the injustices that the Palestinians faced after the June 1967 War. Thanks to all the land that the Israeli took over they gained control and took advantage over the Palestinians. Harris, D. (2011). The World Post: Why History Matters: The 1967 Six-Day War. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-harris/why-history-matters-the-1_b_873387.html This article makes reading and getting information about the war more interesting. It is meant for readers that might not like history, it intrigues them to actually give it a chance. Jewish Virtual Library. (2014). The Six-Day War: Background & overview. Retrieved from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/67_War.html In this website everything that led upto the June 1967 War is broken down into pieces step by step. It also includes a section where myths and facts about the war are addressed to better clarify beliefs. Makovsky, D. (2004). Consequences of the 1967 war. Retrieved from http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/consequences-of-the-1967-war This article, presented to the conference held in Washington addressing the United State’s relations with the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli war, was authored by a distinguished Fellow of the Washington Institute. Rather than taking sides, it offers an objective look into the outcomes of the war from a neutral perspective. Ma’oz, M (1995). Syria and Israel: From War to Peacemaking. Clarendon Press: Oxford. This book explores the most decisive events between war and peace in the Middle East. It goes into issues of relations between countries that aren’t commonly talked about. Most important it describes the relation between Syrian and Israeli and where they stood on the problem of the Palestinians. Pipes, D. (2012). [Michael Orens] “Six days of war”. Retrieved from http://www.danielpipes.org/415/michael-orens-six-days-of-war This website was useful because it includes common questions asked about the war with a direct response. Also there is a forum section where readers can post their questions and get feedback from other readers as well. Sharpe, V. (2012). American thinker: The Six-Day War: Israels miraculous victory. Retrieved from http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/the_six-day_war_israels_miraculous_victory.html This website includes an article written by writer that has a background of having written a book about the Jewish. Thus, it is reliable because he has had a lot of research done and it includes a point of view through the Jewish eyes. Shemesh, M. (2004). Israel studies: Prelude to the Six-Day War: The Arab-Israeli struggle over water Resources. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/is/summary/v009/9.3shemesh.html This article takes a look at this issues that the Arab-Israeli faced due to resources. Water was a major resource that that brought up complications leading to the June 1967 War. It also addresses how Syria and Egypt became involved in trying to find a solution to the conflict. Ynetnews. (2008). The Six Day War (1967). Retrieved from http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3611488,00.html This article is written by an Israelite, which I think is helpful because they would include information about the war thought their point of view. Perhaps, some information that might not be included in other sources might be found here. Read More