Paid Advertisement
Historynet/feed historynet feedback facebook link Weider History Group RSS feed Weider Subscriptions Historynet Home page

The Six Day War Sparked Forty Years of Strife

By O'Brien Browne 
Originally published by MHQ magazine. Published Online: August 16, 2009 
Print Friendly
25 comments FONT +  FONT -

The Israelis suffered 302 personnel dead, 1,453 wounded, and lost about 100 tanks on the Jordanian front. The Jordanian Army, which sustained 6,000 to 7,000 killed and 12,000 to 20,000 wounded, performed the best of the three Arab armies. This, however, was more due to the costly house-to-house fighting and the challenging terrain that confronted the IDF than to superior leadership or the prowess of Jordan's military.

As with Egypt's air force, the Egyptian army was virtually destroyed, with 10,000 to 15,000 casualties, the loss of 530 tanks and 80 percent of its ground equipment. In contrast, the Israelis lost 61 tanks while suffering only 1,400 casualties. In the Golan, Israel probably suffered about 750 casualties and lost several tanks, although concise figures are hard to come by; estimates of Syrian losses run around 7,500 killed and wounded, with 86 tanks and 130 artillery pieces knocked out.

These figures are dwarfed, however, by the number of Palestinian refugees produced by the war—some 1.4 million fled their homes to live rough lives in various Arab host nations. About the same number found new homes inside Israel and in the occupied territories by 1973. Never returning to their homes, the number of these displaced Palestinians, according to the United Nations, has now swelled to about 4.7 million.
Victory left Israel controlling major Christian and Muslim holy sites, and it had expanded its land area threefold. Israel's triumph thrilled its people and was the wonder of much of the world. Life magazine issued a 100-page special edition titled, "Israel's Swift Victory."

Other observers, however, were more somber: "The Isolation of Victory" was the headline in The Times of London. Basking in the praise, dismissing the critics, Israel eventually annexed the Golan Heights and made Jerusalem Israel's capital, fulfilling a dream for many Jews.

But 42 years hence it appears that the Israelis quickly became complacent and arrogant. In their hubris, they did not seize the pivotal moment after their victory to bargain for security, choosing to ignore UN Security Council Resolution 242, which called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories in exchange for peace. Had the Israelis withdrawn promptly or negotiated a security deal, arguably they might have secured their borders and their people while doing much to defuse Arab frustration and their desire for retribution.

Israelis and many historians call this brief conflict the Six-Day War. Other historians prefer a more neutral title such as the 1967 War or the June '67 War. Most Arabs, however, know it as el naksa, "the setback." Regardless of what it has been dubbed, the Arab world saw it as a clear debacle. Nasser resigned and, although spontaneous demonstrations brought him back to power, Arab nationalism as a political or military force had been thoroughly discredited.

The June '67 War fundamentally shifted and embittered Arab-Israeli dynamics, vexing into creation a host of ills that have since spread far beyond the region: the closing of the Suez Canal; the assassination of U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Robert Kennedy on the war's first anniversary by a disturbed young Palestinian, who had been born in Jerusalem; the increased influence of the Soviet Union in the Middle East; the radicalization of both the Israeli settler program and Palestinian efforts to reclaim their lost lands; the War of Attrition between Egypt and Israel in the late 1960s; the 1973 October War; a diplomatic impasse concerning the occupied territories; the refugee problem; the first Lebanon War; ongoing Jewish settlements; and the intifadas (Arabic for "awakening" or "uprising") that have continually threatened world security.

Three great challenges faced the Middle East in 1967, as they do today: building nations, or rather, re-building them from the artificial states carved by European colonial powers after World War I; satisfying Israel's need for security; and recognizing and fulfilling Palestinian struggles to create a viable nation-state after their expulsion from Palestine and other lands annexed by Israel.

In all three cases, the 1967 War solved nothing and even made some things notably worse. In fact, Israel's staunch refusal to give up the West Bank and the Golan Heights, for internal political and security reasons, has played into the hands of radicalized Middle Eastern leaders, who have deftly used this to mobilize the masses against Israel and their allies, especially the United States.

We live in the world created in the summer of 1967. It remains a dangerous place.

MHQ

 

Click For More From MHQ!
Click For More From MHQ!


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25 Responses to “The Six Day War Sparked Forty Years of Strife”


  1. 1
    Tamahome Jenkins says:

    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."

  2. 2
    Earl Lee says:

    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.

  3. 3
    Tamahome Jenkins says:

    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?

  4. 4
    Ricardo says:

    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)

  5. 5
    Jim Faletti says:

    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.

  6. 6
    dsm says:

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

  7. 7
    Fred Wolfe says:

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

  8. 8
    Steve says:

    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.

  9. 9
    Ctos says:

    "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.

  10. 10
    Lee Vann says:

    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.

  11. 11
    Kaiser says:

    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"?

  12. 12
    Jay White says:

    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.

  13. 13
    Elliot says:

    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?

  14. 14
    Randy says:

    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.

  15. 15
    Garbage says:

    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.

  16. 16
    David All says:

    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.

  17. 17
    Sheila Kalivas says:

    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.

  18. 18
    Proud American says:

    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.

  19. 19
    Dave says:

    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.

  20. 20
    jewz rulez says:

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

  21. 21
    justplainbeth says:

    I don't understand :( sniff sniff

  22. 22
    Chris Montegue says:

    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.

  23. 23
  24. 24

    [...] Syria as well, it would strike with around 150 aircraft, 250 tanks, and 20,000 troops." The Six Day War Sparked Forty Years of Strife Those not hopelessly addicted to swallowing every load of kosher horse shit doled out by Israel [...]

  25. 25
    Richard says:

    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.



Leave a Reply

Human Verification: In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Related Articles


History Net Images Spacer
Paid Advertisement
Paid Advertisement
History Net Daily Activities
History net Spacer
History net Spacer
Historynet Spacer
HISTORYNET READERS' POLL

Which of these wars resulted in the most surprising underdog upset?

View Results | See previous polls

Loading ... Loading ...
History net Spacer
STAY CONNECTED WITH US
RSS Feed Daily Email Update
History net Spacer History net Spacer
Paid Advertisement

Paid Advertisement
What is HistoryNet?

The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by Weider History, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines.

If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest.

From Our Magazines
Weider History

Weider History Network:  HistoryNet | Armchair General | Achtung Panzer! | StreamHistory.com
Today in History | Ask Mr. History | Picture of the Day | Daily History Quiz | Contact Us

Copyright © 2014 Weider History. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Advertise With Us | Subscription Help | Privacy Policy