An Inevitable Conflict: The Six-Day War - by Prof. Efraim Karsh

It has long been conventional wisdom to view the June 1967 war as an accidental conflagration that neither Arabs nor Israelis desired, yet none were able to prevent. This could not be further from the truth. Its specific timing resulted of course from the convergence of a number of particular causes at a particular juncture. But its general cause—the total Arab rejection of Jewish statehood—made another all-out Arab-Israeli war a foregone conclusion.

Prof. Efraim Karsh..
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 470..
19 May '17..
Link: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/six-day-war-inevitable-conflict/

The standard narrative regarding the Six-Day War runs as follows: Had Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser not fallen for a false Soviet warning of Israeli troop concentrations along the Syrian border and deployed his forces in the Sinai Peninsula, the slippery slope to war would have been averted altogether. Had Israel not misconstrued Egyptian grandstanding for a mortal threat to its national security, if not its very survival, it would have foregone the preemptive strike that started the war. In short, it was a largely accidental and unnecessary war born of mutual miscalculations and misunderstandings.

This view could not be further from the truth. If wars are much like road accidents, as the British historian A.J.P. Taylor famously quipped, having a general cause and particular causes at the same time, then the June 1967 war was anything but accidental. Its specific timing resulted of course from the convergence of a number of particular causes at a particular juncture. But its general cause—the total Arab rejection of Jewish statehood, starkly demonstrated by the concerted attempt to destroy the state of Israel at birth and the unwavering determination to rectify this “unfinished business”—made another all-out Arab-Israeli war a foregone conclusion.

May 1967: Recalling the menace -by Michael Freund

...Israel's presence in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria is historically just, morally fitting, biblically mandated and militarily necessary to ensure our survival. And we shall remain in these areas until the end of time, whether the world likes it or not.

Michael Freund ..
Pundicity/JPost..
18 May '17..
Link: http://www.michaelfreund.org/19904/six-day-war

As the nation prepares to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem and the liberation of Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights, it is perhaps only natural that our focus is primarily on the miraculous outcome of the June 1967 Six Day War. After 1,900 years of yearning, the Jewish people were at last reunited with the heart of our ancestral homeland, when Divine providence granted Israel a resounding victory over our adversaries.

For the first time since the Roman legions under Titus set Jerusalem aflame, holy places such as the Temple Mount, Shiloh and Hebron were once again under full Jewish sovereignty and control.

It was a victory for the ages, a turning point in history that reshaped Jewish destiny, as the dreams of our ancestors were transformed into reality, and Jews could once again live and play, worship and work, in the hills of Judea, the vineyards of Samaria and the stone-paved alleyways of Jerusalem.

But amid the festivities, it is no less important to recall the events of May 1967, when the menace of destruction hung heavily over the nation as our neighbors vowed to finish off the youthful Jewish state.

Particularly now, when the Palestinians and their supporters have succeeded in poisoning historical truth with fantasy and falsehood, a glimpse back at what took place prior to the war will serve to undercut the false narrative now being put forth by our foes.

For starters, bear in mind that in May 1967, there was no Israeli "occupation," no Jewish "settlements" and no "Judaization" of Jerusalem. Nonetheless, there was plenty of Arab animosity, as the airwaves filled with chilling threats to throw the Jews into the sea.

On May 8, 1967, Syria's information minister, Mahmoud Zuabi, openly declared that his country would soon wage "more severe battles until Palestine is liberated and the Zionist presence is ended."

Eight days later, on May 16, Cairo radio chimed in, announcing that, "The existence of Israel has continued too long... We welcome the battle we have long awaited. The peak hour has come. The battle has come in which we shall destroy Israel."

Bottom line. No dark secrets, just a propaganda film

...But there is another approach – neither historical nor scientific, but propaganda-related. It's the approach who prefers to manipulatively emphasize testimonies over exceptions. It's the approach who joins, perhaps knowingly, the massive campaign aiming to present Israel as a monster. It's the approach of the PR campaign of "Censored Voices," which includes the distorted claim that "70 percent of the material was censored" in order to create the suitable atmosphere to convey the message. The film will not only be screened around the world, but also in Israel. That's the way it should be. Israel is a democracy. But we should know that it's not an exposure, and there was no exposure there. Everything has already been published. The film's director didn't hesitate to present her political agenda. The result, we should all know, is a propaganda film.

Ben-Dror Yemini..
Israel Opinion/Ynet..
02 August '15..

Some 20,000 of the enemy's soldiers were killed in the Six-Day War, almost only soldiers. Thousands were captured. It wasn't a war without unusual incidents. There is not a single war in the past century which didn't include massacres and horrors.

Prof. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, the most important researcher in this field, argued in his book "Worse Than War" that about 90 percent of the casualties in conflicts after World War II are innocent, victims of massacres. While there is a dispute over the percentage, even those who disagree with him assert that most victims are innocent.

So the question isn't: "Did it happen in the Six-Day War?" Of course it did. The question is: "Was it the norm, or were these exceptions?" Even today, almost five decades after the events, evidence about exceptions can and should be presented.

The fact that IDF fighters carried out such illegitimate acts, a lot less than any other army those years, before those years and after those years – doesn’t mean that these things should be presented today either. We have to know. We have to condemn. The IDF's soldiers must be educated against such acts. It should be obvious. But in the heat of the battle, it isn't always obvious.

This is the background before presenting the new hit movie, "Fighters Talk: The Hidden Reels" (Hebrew title), a documentary based on the original recordings of intimate conversations with soldiers returning from the battlefield after the Six-Day War. The film received a huge wave of PR in Israel. After all, it presents Israelis' crimes, and those are always sought-after goods.

It is also becoming a hit around the world, under the name "Censored Voices." It provides an aura of exposure. "The Israeli army censored the 1967 audiotapes, allowing only a fragment of the conversations to be published until now. This film shares those 'censored voices' for the first time," the film's English synopsis says.

And in their interviews, the filmmakers, led by director Mor Loushy, instilled the myth of the brutal censorship – "70 percent." And we, the exposures in the turret, the commando of the forces of progress, are now revealing the dark secrets. Leading newspapers like the New York Times and Economist rushed to buy the goods.

But it's a lie, says Dr. Martin Kramer, following a long investigation he conducted.

Memories of 1967, Iran and France

...So by all means, heartfelt thanks are due the French. But a nod may also be due to the deterrent Israel has created by its proven willingness to defend itself by itself.

Evelyn Gordon..
Commentary Magazine..
11 November '13..

Like Jonathan, I breathed a sigh of gratitude to France this weekend for thwarting–at least for now–a horrendous deal that would have granted Iran significant and probably irreversible sanctions relief while letting it continue making rapid progress toward a nuclear bomb. But contrary to the snide Western diplomat who accused Laurent Fabius of making trouble just to achieve “relevance,” I can think of two substantive reasons for the French foreign minister’s strong stance. One is that France has consistently taken a tougher line against Iran’s nuclear program than the Obama administration has. But another may stem from historical memory–and the clue is Fabius’s statement that “The security concerns of Israel and all the countries of the region have to be taken into account.”

At first glance, this is astounding. If any party to the talks were going to spare a thought for Israel’s concerns, one would expect it to be the U.S., or even Germany: Both are closer Israeli allies than France, which usually leads the anti-Israel camp. But France attaches great importance to averting Israeli military action against Iran; that’s precisely why it pushed for a European oil embargo on Iran (“We must do everything possible to avoid an Israeli attack on Iran, even if it means a rise in the price of oil and gasoline”). And France has a very specific historical reason for doubting the widespread view that Israel wouldn’t dare attack Iran in defiance of its major patron: It’s called the Six-Day War.

Though few people remember nowadays, in 1967, Paris occupied much the same position that Washington occupies now with respect to Israel: Not only was France Israel’s chief arms supplier and Security Council patron, but it was the only country willing to supply Israel with essential equipment such as fighter jets. Israel’s air force fought the Six-Day War with French Mirages; only the following year, in 1968, did America for the first time agree to sell it Phantom jets.

Consequently, Charles de Gaulle had every reason to think that when he spoke, Israel would listen. And the French president’s message in 1967 was unequivocal: Under no circumstances must Israel launch a preemptive strike; if it did, it could kiss French patronage goodbye. Israel heard the message loud and clear–and preempted anyway. Facing what it deemed an existential threat, it decided that even the loss of its sole military supplier was the lesser evil.

A resolute upholder of Israeli national pride – especially when clad in pajamas.

...Surrealistically, as the scary siege against Israel intensified, both the State Department and the White House “couldn’t find” copies of America’s ten-year-old guarantees to prevent precisely such a scenario. This was despite the fact that these very much-publicized guarantees were what swayed Israel, under Washington’s aggressive prodding, to withdraw from the Sinai in 1957.

Sarah Honig..
Another Tack..
14 June '13..

In our collective memory Levi Eshkol is perceived as a weak, even a vacillating prime minister. Perhaps this was unjust already back on the eve of the Six Day War, when his image became thus ingrained in our popular lore. Certainly, compared to many of his successors in ensuing decades, Eshkol can be portrayed as a resolute upholder of Israeli national pride – especially when clad in pajamas.

Merely by refusing to change into proper daytime attire, Eshkol struck a plucky patriotic pose. In his humble night clothes he evinced more audacity than most of the wishy-washy variety that followed him in office.

Eshkol took his steadfast stand in the ungodly hours of May 27, 1967, when Soviet Ambassador Dmitri Chuvakhin arrived on the PM’s doorstep and demanded to wake him up to deliver an urgent message from Moscow. The envoy insisted he couldn’t wait till dawn.

Rather than be overawed and flustered, Eshkol chose to deliberately express his defiance of what was surely a bullying superpower diktat. He told his bureau chief, veteran diplomat Aviad Yaffe, that “under no circumstances do I have any intention of getting dressed for him” [Chuvakhin].

Those were the suffocating super-tense days in which the Arabs boasted belligerently that they were about to annihilate the Jewish state, after Egypt had blockaded the Tiran Straits and ignominiously tossed the UN peacekeepers out of Sinai.

Surrealistically, as the scary siege against Israel intensified, both the State Department and the White House “couldn’t find” copies of America’s ten-year-old guarantees to prevent precisely such a scenario. This was despite the fact that these very much-publicized guarantees were what swayed Israel, under Washington’s aggressive prodding, to withdraw from the Sinai in 1957.

Israel seemed alone, callously abandoned by its allies and coldly intimidated by the Russians. Things looked grim. How today’s crop of Israeli politicians would have coped with such extreme challenges is a matter of conjecture. But Eshkol stood his ground in his PJs and in fluent Russian rejected the stern warnings against a preemptive strike delivered by the emissary dispatched to harass him in the middle of the night.

The war, for which Israel is nowadays decried as an imperialist occupier, broke out soon thereafter and Chuvakhin was recalled by his bosses after they had resentfully severed diplomatic ties with Israel for disobeying their harshest admonitions.

Putting an end to the occupation

To others, such as Avraham (Yair) Stern and my late father, Prof. Yisrael Eldad, it meant we should fight to liberate the Land of Israel because it is our homeland and it is occupied by strangers. In the same way, a Frenchman would fight to liberate his homeland even if the occupier was not cruel. The Land of Israel for them was an end in itself, not just a means. This approach views Zionism as the liberation movement of the Jewish people and not as a philanthropic organization whose next goal is to help Jews in distress.

Dr. Arieh Eldad..
Op-Ed Contributor/JPost..
09 June '13..

When I was a boy, I was terribly jealous of the underground Etzel and Lehi fighters who fought to oust the British, and of the IDF soldiers who were personally involved in the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. By the time I was born, Israel was already a fully-fledged country.

As I grew up in the divided and humiliated city of Jerusalem, I used to peek through the cracks in the walls at the occupied part of the city and swear that when it was my turn, I would fight to free Jerusalem. But when I was 17 and still in high school, Jerusalem and the rest of Israel were liberated in six magnificent days. And once again I was left behind to envy those who had the privilege of fighting for our homeland. Once more I lamented that fact that I had been born too late.

I could not have imagined then that the fight for Jerusalem and the Land of Israel would continue for decades, and that I would be the one to carry on fighting for Israel’s right to exist and to unify Jerusalem.

Israel entered the Six Day War for the wrong reasons. We did not initiate the war in an effort to liberate Jerusalem and the rest of our homeland that had been conquered by our enemies, but “only” to protect ourselves and to rid ourselves of the threat from Egypt, Syria and Jordan. The 1967 borders were called “The Auschwitz borders” by foreign minister Abba Eban, one of Israel’s most leftist leaders. If Israel were to return to its pre-1967 borders, it would be eternally tempted to return to war. But we have repeated the mantra that the war was forced upon us thousands of times.

This is the difference between the Zionism that called for the creation of a Jewish state as a reaction to the threat of extinction in Europe or because there were hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees in Europe after the Holocaust.

In other words, To some, Zionism meant Israel’s raison d’etre was to be a safe refuge for the Jewish people.

To others, such as Avraham (Yair) Stern and my late father, Prof. Yisrael Eldad, it meant we should fight to liberate the Land of Israel because it is our homeland and it is occupied by strangers. In the same way, a Frenchman would fight to liberate his homeland even if the occupier was not cruel. The Land of Israel for them was an end in itself, not just a means.

This approach views Zionism as the liberation movement of the Jewish people and not as a philanthropic organization whose next goal is to help Jews in distress. This is the also the reason why the Six Day War never ended. It was not enough to liberate the land from the Arabs; we have yet to liberate our Jewish souls from the mentality of persecuted refugees who want nothing more than not to be pursued and killed.

Who Starts Wars Does Matter - The Six-Day War and Its Consequences

Eli E. Hertz..
Myths and Facts..
06 June '13..





Arab Losses Caused by Unlawful Acts of Aggression in 1967

In June 1967, the combined armies of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan attacked Israel with the clear purpose expressed by Egypt’s President: “Destruction of Israel.” At the end of what is now known as the Six-Day War, Israel, against all odds, was victorious and in possession of the territories of the West Bank, Sinai and the Golan Heights.

International law makes a clear distinction between defensive wars and wars of aggression. Egypt’s blockade of the waterway known as the Strait of Tiran, which prevented access to Israel’s southern port of Eilat, was an act of aggression that led to the Six-Day War in 1967. More than six decades after the 1948 War and four decades since the 1967 Six-Day War, it is hard to imagine the dire circumstances Israel faced and the price it paid to fend off its neighbors’ attacks.

In 1967, the combined Arab armies had approximately 465,000 troops, more than 2,880 tanks and 810 aircrafts, preparing to attack Israel at once. Israel, faced with the imminent threat of obliteration, was forced to invoke its right of self-defense, a basic tenet of international law, enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Israel launched a surprised pre-emptive air strike against Egypt on June 5, 1967.

Who Starts Wars Does Matter

UN Charter Article 51 clearly recognizes “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations” by anyone.

Arabs would like the world to believe that in 1967, Israel simply woke-up one morning and invaded them, and therefore Israel’s control of the Golan Heights, West Bank and Sinai is the illicit fruit of an illegal act – like Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1991.

Arab leaders ‘bundle’ the countries who fought Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War into one “entity” in order to cloud the issues. They point to Israel’s surprise pre-emptive attack on Egypt as an act of unlawful aggression, and add that this “unlawful aggression” prevents Israel from claiming the Territories under international law.

Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, past President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) states the following facts:

“The facts of the June 1967 Six Day War demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR's use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF). It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated. The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest.”

Egypt in 1967

Before Israel’s pre-emptive and surprise attack on the Egyptian Air Force, a series of belligerent acts by the Arab state justified Israel’s resort to arms in self-defense in accordance with the Law of Nations.
The Egyptians were responsible for:

Forty-six years ago, the Jewish people's resurrection in their historic homeland

Dr. Haim Shine..
Israel Hayom..
06 June '13..

Forty-six years ago, in six days of divine grace, Jewish history changed its course. Thanks to the determination of our fighters and the dedication displayed by the honorable fallen soldiers, we returned home, to the homeland where the character of the Jewish people was shaped for generations.

The War of Independence in 1948 ended in a big victory. Outnumbered, trapped under siege and stranglehold, the people of Israel burst forth into freedom and into the light. After the 1967 Six-Day War, suddenly we were able to see the words of the Bible come back to life in the Land of Israel. We were enthralled with the vision of Biblical prophecies coming true before our eyes. We shed tears of joy at the Western Wall -- the only remnant of our Temple. In six days, 2,000 years of crying and lamentation turned into an endless source of comfort.

During the Six-Day War, we did not conquer foreign land or anything that did not already belong to us. No one can label a people as conquerors in their own homeland. The Jews never stopped praying in the direction of Jerusalem, mourning the destruction of the land or trying to return to Israel despite countless obstacles and tribulations. The land waited patiently for its saviors to re-cultivate its vineyards and plow its earth.

Like many times in the past, various dream peddlers managed to turn a big day into a small moment. On many stages across Israel and around the world, many visionless, angry and pessimistic cultural figures tried to convince the people both inside Israel and outside it that the Israel Defense Forces are an occupying army, that the Six-Day War was the source of all our problems and crises and that the Jewish settlers, who put themselves in the front lines, pose an obstacle to peace. Never in the history of humanity has there been a peace that claimed so many lives.

The Hands of Time and Palestinians

...Instead of trying to move the clock ahead to a time when Palestinians will have finally rejected the politics of hate and war, Erekat and Abbas continue to appear more interested in turning it back to a moment when there was not a single Jew living in the West Bank, Eastern Jerusalem or the Old City. It is no small irony that there was not only no peace when there were no settlements but also no Palestinian independence.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary/Contentions..
05 June '13..

This week marks the 46th anniversary of the Six-Day War and it cannot be said that the Palestinian Authority has neglected to remember the occasion. Earlier this week the PA’s chief “peace negotiator” Saeb Erekat schlepped a group of foreign journalists to Latrun, the crossroads town that once served as the choke point for the 1948 siege of Jerusalem to remind them—as well as Palestinians and Israelis — that what he is asking for is not negotiations for peace but an attempt to turn back the hands of time and return the region to the moment in history before the Israeli victory in 1967 changed the strategic balance in the region. As the New York Times reported:

“I am sure many of you are asking why is Saeb Erekat bringing you to this point,” Mr. Erekat said to a group of diplomats and reporters as he stood against a backdrop of green fields, a reservoir and an Israeli settlement of red-roofed houses in the valley below. 

“It is not because I want to demarcate the maps or finalize the negotiations,” he said, referring to the intensive efforts of Secretary of State John Kerry to get the Israelis and Palestinians to return to peace talks. “I just want to stand here and say, ‘It is 46 years later.’ ”

Erekat’s candor is in a sense quite commendable. Latrun is a potent symbol of the nature of the Israel that existed in those halcyon days before the obstacle to peace was the presence of Jews in the West Bank and in which a small state with indefensible borders and a capital that could be isolated with ease stood on the precipice of destruction as Arab armies began to mass on its borders. Erekat was sending a clear message to Israelis that if they thought the PA would ever accept the fact that the world had irrevocably changed in those 46 years they could just keep dreaming.

"...Egyptian planes over Tel Aviv" - The War of Miracles

MK Moshe Feiglin..
JewishIsrael.org..
28 Iyar 5773/08 May'13..

Israel’s government did not want to liberate Jerusalem. Or to be more specific, the Labor and National Religious Party ministers did not want to liberate Jerusalem. “Who needs that whole Vatican?” Moshe Dayan explained. Prime Minister Eshkol had an understanding with Hussein that there would be a bit of “pyrotechnics” in the Armon Hanatziv area of Jerusalem so that he could show Egyptian president Naaser that he was doing something. But there was a Supreme Force that had other plans and the Six Day War became the war that military experts cannot logically explain. I call this war “The War of Miracles.”

One small aspect of these miracles became known to me by ‘coincidence’. I was driving home one evening approximately six years ago, listening to a radio interview with reserve General Avihu Ben Nun, who had participated in the war as a young pilot.

Ben Nun told the listeners how he had taken off with the entire Air Force, flying very low so as to keep off Jordan’s radar screens. When the entire air force takes off together in total radio silence, circles over the waves and reaches Egypt’s airports from Cairo without being detected and without hitting each other a major miracle has occurred. But something even bigger happened.

While bombing the Egyptian airfield as instructed, a heavy Egyptian bomber that was about to land in the airfield surprised Ben Nun. He was forced to choose between hitting the bomber or carrying out his original mission. He chose to stay with his mission. Other Israeli jets chased the bomber, but its experienced pilot managed to escape them with impressive aeronautical skill.

Didn’t the 1967 Borders Bring Peace?

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary/Contentions..
08 May '13..

The constant refrain of Israel’s critics in the last few decades has been the need for the Jewish state to withdraw from every inch of territory it won in the Six-Day War and to return to what they erroneously refer to as the “1967 borders.” But as Israelis celebrate the 46th anniversary of the re-unification of their capital city today that was made possible by that war, it’s appropriate to ask why peace did not reign in the Middle East on June 4, 1967 prior to the beginning of the “occupation.”

There may be reasonable arguments to be made about the need for Israel and the Palestinians to live under separate sovereignty rather than the unsatisfactory status quo. But the problem with most of the discussions about the topic is the assumption that merely recreating the situation that existed before that war will bring about peace. Hard as it may be to ask news consumers to think that far back into history, it is necessary to remind those who harp on “1967” as the only possible solution that when there was not a single Jew living in the West Bank or East Jerusalem, there was no peace. Not only that, prior to that war, when the area now dubbed the “occupied territories” were in the possession of Jordan and Egypt, the focus of the Arab and Muslim world was not on the creation of a Palestinian state but on ending Jewish sovereignty over the territory of pre-1967 Israel.

The 1967 borders actually were not internationally recognized but merely the armistice lines that marked where the armies were standing when a cease-fire ended Israel’s War of Independence. In particular, those lines left the city of Jerusalem, which had a Jewish majority since the mid-19th century, divided. The Old City of Jerusalem, which fell during the fighting during a siege of the city conducted by Jordan’s Arab Legion, was off limits to Jews from 1948 to 1967. The Western Wall never heard Jewish prayer and was used as a garbage dump. The Jordanians paved a road through the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives and used some of the tombstones as construction material. A wall ran through the city much like the barrier that divided Berlin.

But those parts of Jerusalem that were illegally occupied by the Jordanians (only the United Kingdom and Pakistan recognized their annexation of part of the city as well as the West Bank, which got that illogical name because it differentiated it from the East Bank–which is now Jordan) did not constitute a Palestinian capital. Nor was Egyptian-occupied Gaza considered part of a Palestinian state.

What those who demand a return to the 1967 lines also forget is that Israel’s liberation of the city marked the beginning of the first period in Jerusalem’s modern history that complete religious freedom and open access to all holy sites was protected.