The Six Day War Sparked Forty Years of Strife

Israeli operational planners had long before developed contingency plans for war against Syria with code names such as Operation Pincers to conquer the Golan Heights, and Operation Whip designed to seize the West Bank and Jerusalem from Jordan. “For five years,” IDF chief of operations Gen. Ezer Weizman recalled, referring to the surprise air strike against Egypt, “I had been talking of this operation, explaining it, hatching it, dreaming of it, manufacturing it link by link, training men to carry it out.”

On the Egyptian front, the Israeli plan of attack was to knock out Egyptian aircraft and bases while the IDF punched into Gaza and the Sinai. A task force of armored brigades and paratroops, commanded by Brig. Gen. Israel Tal, was to take Rafah and al-Arish, and head toward the Suez Canal, while in the center, through sand dunes thought impassable by the Egyptians, Brig. Gen. Avraham Yoffe would support Tal’s flanks with two armored brigades. Yoffe’s force would also back up Brig. Gen. Ariel Sharon’s tank, paratroop, and infantry brigades, which were to overrun initial defenses at Abu Ageila and then take the strategic Mitla Pass before moving on toward the canal.

Against Jordan, the Israelis planned two pincer movements: one to snip off Jerusalem, the other at the juncture of Janin and Nablus; a third strike would expel the Jordanians from the Qalqilyah-Tulkarm area. Syria would be dealt with later.

Benefiting from fine intelligence, King Hussein informed Nasser that the Israelis would attack Egypt by June 3, and Nasser warned his commanders to brace themselves. Hussein then placed his small forces almost exactly along Israel’s invasion routes. There, they awaited the onslaught.

Early in the morning of June 5, almost the entire Israeli air force, more than 180 planes, went on an apparently routine patrol over the Mediterranean Sea; Egyptian radar monitors thought nothing of it. Suddenly, the Israelis dove below radar level, banked, and roared toward UARAF bases in the Sinai and northeastern Egypt. They bombed Egyptian airbases for over three hours, coming in flights of four. The Egyptians, just in from their morning patrols and enjoying breakfast, were caught completely by surprise. “There were explosions everywhere,” Egyptian flight commander Tahsen Zaki said later, “but we kept going and managed to save a few planes.”

The attacks occurred just as Field Marshal Amer went airborne in an unarmed transport. He could not land for obvious reasons, and was afraid to issue radio commands for fear of being shot down. The Egyptian forces were effectively paralyzed.

Of the 12 Egyptian MiGs that managed to get off the ground, 10 were shot down. Losing only four Mystères, the Israelis destroyed 304 Egyptian aircraft, along with most of Egypt’s radar installations and 17 airfields. At 12:15 p.m., the IAF ripped into Jordan and Syria’s air arms as well, wrecking 53 Syrian planes and virtually the entire Royal Jordanian Air Force. Israeli planes even swept over Iraq, downing five Hawker Hunter fighter-bombers and destroying another 10 on the ground after the Iraqis bombed Israeli territory. On this day, one of the most destructive and effective aerial first strikes in history wiped out 70 to 80 percent of Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian frontline air power.

As oily plumes of smoke from the burning wrecks of UARAF planes curled into the sky, the IDF launched its invasion. To the north, General Tal hurled the elite 7th Armored Brigade against the Rafah fortifications behind which the Egyptian 7th Infantry Division waited. The Egyptians fought hard, inflicting many casualties, but superior Israeli tactics eliminated each defensive line as the Egyptians failed to maneuver their forces effectively. The sole Egyptian counterattack consisted of a headlong rush of T-55 tanks, plowing forward without infantry or artillery support. They were decimated.

Tal’s men now rushed toward the 13-kilometer-long Jiradi Pass, the only access to al-Arish. Here the Egyptian 6th Infantry Brigade and two battalions of T-55s were dug in. To outflank this position, Tal sent a unit to the south, which got bogged down in sand dunes. The Israelis’ only option at that point was to pound their way through, in the type of frontal, straightforward fighting they disliked because the attrition it produced was disproportionately harmful to their small nation. Although initially taken by surprise by the speed of the Israeli advance, the Egyptians fought fiercely, eventually knocking out 13 IDF tanks. In some of the bloodiest fighting of the war, the battle raged until nightfall. Nevertheless, after hand-to-hand combat, Israelis cleared the pass.

Meanwhile, General Sharon’s brigades stood before the crack Egyptian 2nd Infantry Division at Abu Ageilah, dug into trenches protected by minefields and sand dunes. With typical Israeli boldness and creativity, Sharon ordered an armored task force under the command of Lt. Col. Natke Nir to cut through the dunes to the north, into the Egyptian rear. Helicopters then brought in paratroops to strike at Egyptian artillery positions.

[continued on next page]

26 Responses

  1. Tamahome Jenkins

    Wow, talk about the price of greatness. Excellent article, more people would do themselves a great service by learning more about the recent history of Israel before jumping to conclusions about who started what, or “good guys vs. bad guys.”

    Reply
  2. Earl Lee

    Another poor attempt to label Israel as the aggressor and the poor Arabs as defenseless victims. This article is rife with inaccuracies and bias. Unfotunately no-where near the high quality articles usually found on this website.

    Reply
  3. Tamahome Jenkins

    Earl, how is Israel not the aggressor in this war? Have you ever actually done any research on the Six-Day War, or do you just assume that Israel is blessed by God and can do what it pleases?

    Reply
  4. Ricardo

    It’s out of discusions that Israel did the first strike, but it was absolute self defense, without any doubt too. In other case surely the state of Israel doesn’t would exist today. I think it was clearly a self defense war (and one very well executed too)

    Reply
  5. Jim Faletti

    I am VERY disappointed with this article. You can not take a FEW facts, add your bias and write them off as facts. Taking one sentence to explain the Jordanian attack on a resort with the excuse of stupidity, then take three paragraphs to explain an opinion that the Israel’s attacked the American’s on purpose. If the American’s could see all that you mention, they would have been inside the international mark. And stating that they would have seen prisoners killed is ludicrous – not fact.

    What is clear is the “bad” attemp to make Israel the bad guy. In your own statement, that it was a “setback’ for the Egyptians, explains why when Israel offered to give back most if not all of the land, the offer was refused. They don’t want the land back, they want Israel gone. Factually, that is not going to happen and any propoganda is just that – propoganda.

    Reply
  6. dsm

    As a subscriber since the founding issue of MHQ I would label this as one of the most biased articles I have ever read.

    Reply
  7. Fred Wolfe

    This is a really biased article. Congratulations to the proud IDF and their excellent military campaign.

    Reply
  8. Steve

    The second paragraph of this article is so factually wrong. Immediately after the war, Israel offered to give back the land it had won in exchange for peace . The Arab leaders met in Khartoum after the war and issued the famous three no’s. No recognition, no peace, no negotiations with Israel. How did the writer of this article not know about this?

    Also, the land was not taken from the Palestinians. The West Bank was ruled by Jordan, Gaza by Egypt and Golan Heights by Syria. The author has an exciting writing style but has done no research to make sure he got his facts straight.

    Reply
  9. Ctos

    “Immediately after the war, Israel offered to give back the land it had won in exchange for peace .” – notice the poster does not say “all” of the land; Israel was attempting to legitimize some of its gains by giving back land (which it was mandated by the UN to do).

    Also notice the language “land it had won” which is in direct violation of the UN concept of the inadmissability of acquiring land by war.

    The truth is Israel started the war and it was not a defensive one (Israel’s territory was greater after the war and it attacked the Arabs in their own countries).

    Zionists and uninformed historians may take umbrage at this article but what they really take umbrage at is the truth of the FACTS around the ’67 war.

    Reply
  10. Lee Vann

    Another great article! Very informative and though, although I feel that it should have gone into more detail on the USS Liberty.

    Of corse the Pro-Zionist lobby would be upset with this, as it does not show their cause in the best possible light.

    Reply
  11. Kaiser

    So let me get this straight…Egypt kicks the UN out of the demilitarized zone two weeks prior, places all but 10,000 of its remaining forces (seven divisions and numerous independent brigades totalling 100K) in the Sinai, and closes the Straits of Tiran; Egypt flies artillery and battalions of commandoes to Jordan on June 3rd after signing a mutual defense treaty; Jordanian reserves are called up on June 2nd and orders subsequently captured from Jordanian command posts dated at the end of May detail operations for the capture of objectives inside Israeli territory; Iraqi forces are repositioned closer to the Iraq/Jordanian border; Syrian mobilization; etc, etc. And Israel was to believe this all just defensive “posturing”?

    Reply
  12. Jay White

    I was very disappointed that this poorly written propaganda piece was accepted by what I always considered the best military history magazine . I was so upset that MHQ would publish such garbage, that for the first time in 15 years I didn’t purchase MHQ. I sincerely hope this is not a trend . The history channel no longer has any history shows. Let’s hope MHQ doesn’t deteriorate into garbage that attracts the Jew haters who always bring up the Liberty which was in an active war zone.

    Reply
  13. Elliot

    I’m surprised at how some posters chose to read this article so selectively.

    Because of his own personal agenda, Kaiser omits facts clearly stated in the article that according to three US “separate intelligence groups” “Egyptian deployments…were defensive,” of which Israelis were informed on May 26 by U.S. secretary of defense Robert McNamara. This, of course, was nothing new to the Israelis who knew from their own superb intelligence organizations all the precise information about their enemies.

    Similarly, Kaiser chooses not to mention the following two passages from the article where IDF chief of operations Gen. Ezer Weizman and Menachem Begin both honestly admitted that the surprise air strike against Egypt had been planned for a long time:

    (1) “For five years,” IDF chief of operations Gen. Ezer Weizman recalled, referring to the surprise air strike against Egypt, “I had been talking of this operation, explaining it, hatching it, dreaming of it, manufacturing it link by link, training men to carry it out.”

    (2) “The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches,” Menachem Begin told the New York Times, “do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

    Why can’t one mention certain facts about Israel, facts confirmed by prominent Israeli historians themselves, without being attacked as being biased and writing propaganda?

    Reply
  14. Randy

    This article was a great addition to this issue. It is sad that today people are still looking at wars from only one side. Mankind needs to FINALLY learn that there are always two sides to every story and the only way to find truth is looking at both sides. The author stated the faults of both sides very well. I particularly appreciate the credit given to soldiers of both sides. As for the other comments, how can someone say this is bias? The paragraphs concerning the USS Liberty say in their first statement controversial which by definition means debatable. So how can you call the author a propagandist? His obvious respect for the Israeli military machine is clear throughout the article. The statements about the political motives of both sides are again, “debatable”, as are all political agendas. The comments on the colonial structure of the region being a serious cause were very interesting. To call someone a “Jew hater” for an article with historical facts and speaking on a subject rarely talked about today is juvenile, and obviously made by someone who has not studied the conflict. Readers need to focus on the real tragedies of such events for example, 1.4 million and now 4.7 million refugees. This is the real issue. The war happened no matter the cause , it should be time now to clean up the mess it caused by mending fences and helping those who are still affected by it.

    Reply
  15. Garbage

    Alright, so honestly I rarely try to make sense of anything that happens in the Middle East because everything seems to just boil down to a bunch of religious fanatics who hate each other. And no, for the record, I am not blaming this war on religion.

    This article, however, is the most biased piece of trash on earth. So lets say a guy comes near you with a knife, in a stance of aggression, are you going to stand and wait, or are you going to pull out your handgun and put a round through him?

    I mean for God’s sake, why is it that so many people support America in the Iraq war (when they are in the wrong, without any doubt whatsoever) but so many others support Gaza in the war with Israel? It makes absolutely no sense. At least Israel is actually TRYING to fight terrorism and ensure minimal casualties.

    Reply
  16. David All

    An extremely biased article. Its anti-Israeli slant makes this article a travesty of history. I hope this is an exception to the usual fine level of articles at MHQ and not an indication of articles to come.

    Reply
  17. Sheila Kalivas

    Finally, an unbiased account of the Palestinian/Israeli situation. Those who have commented otherwise appear to have a rigidly pro Zionist view. The objective of this scholarly and masterfully written piece is not to cast blame on one side or another, rather it is to articulate the breakdown of how peace has eluded the Middle East thus far. This is not only a fairly presented chronology of past events but it points to a future roadmap for achieving peace by rebuilding nations which were artificially created. Palestinians and Israelis are equally important thus both peoples must be represented by “satisfying Israel’s need for security ;and recognizing and fulfilling Palestinian struggles to create a viable nation-state. ” To label this author a Jew-hater, to my mind is unconscionable.

    It is said that “history repeats”. History does not have to repeat if we learn from past errors. Of concern to this writer is the right-wing or “populist” movement in the U.S. which holds extremist views about biblical prophecy to which this author has referred. This group has generated significant influence through purchased media blitz. The movement encourages and condones Israeli acquisition of Palestinian land including Jerusalem and joyously awaits the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem to usher in the end times.

    This scenario seems eerily similar to a historical misconstruing of prophecy from ancient Greece. King Croesus consulted the Oracle at Dephi to find out if he should go to war with Persia, the Oracle stated “If you go to war, you will cause the destruction of a great Empire”. Croesus went to war, was defeated and captured. He sent word to the Oracle asking why he was mislead. The Oracle said he was not mislead, a great empire was destroyed, his own. Because an event is prophesized does not indicate it is a desirable path to take. This piece by O’Brien Browne, if heeded, can avert a potential disatrous course of action.

    Reply
  18. Proud American

    A very amateurish, biased and naive perspective on the war. The author neglects to mention that but for the Six Day War, peace with Egypt and Jordan would never have been possible. He also fails to mention that Syria plays host to at least ½ dozen terrorist organizations including Hamas, Hezbollah and the PFLP. No mention is made of the fact that Israel’s overtures to the PLO unleashed a wave of terror not seen since 1947. No mention is made of the Khartoum agreement where the Arabs declared their infamous “Three Nos.” No peace with Israel, no recognition of her and no negotiation with her. If the author wants to play the blame game, there’s plenty to go around. Focusing on Israel exclusively exposes the author’s bias. Just as an aside, it was the Arabs who put the ball in play and Israel just finished the game. To the victor go the spoils. I say “bravo Israel” for standing up to gangsters, thugs and scoundrels of the Middle East and sending them back crawling to their little holes.

    Reply
  19. Dave

    I stumbled across this website recently, and had been having an excellent time reading a host of well thought out articles on various eras of military history. Then I stumbled across this “article” (if you can call a bundle of selectively cherry picked facts devoid of any relevant background information/context, assembled by a.. ‘person’ who is clearly attempting to rewrite history as part of an effort to support his hatred of Israel at least, and more likely Jews in general, an article). What a dissapointment. For what little it’s worth, I won’t be returning to this otherwise stellar community/website, but I sincerely hope that Mr. Browne’s racism and deliberate intellectual dishonesty would be sufficient reason for historynet to terminate it’s relationship with him.

    Reply
  20. jewz rulez

    everyone is saying this is biased and we get this. very poor article and not very accurate

    Reply
  21. Chris Montegue

    Very poorly written and researched article with very superficial analysis. The writer doesn’t go to great lengths to conceal his bias against Israel and has allowed his personal bias to skew the article to the point of being painful to read.

    Reply
  22. Richard

    The title of the article is itself completely misleading. Does the author mean to imply that that the attempt by the Arab states to destroy Israel in 1948 and the persistent attacks on Israelis by state forces and by terrorists as well as the utterly pervasive anti-semitic propaganda were just normal relations? My word, this is a new low in anti-Israeli propaganda.

    Reply
  23. An Unbiased Richard

    Great article. I especially love the comments. \This is biased trash\, etc, ironically written by biased trash.

    \In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.\
    – George Orwell

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.