Events Leading to the War of 1967

     It has been a month since my last post and I apologize.  It isn't that I haven't wanted to post on many of the events that have currently graced the front pages of newspapers and magazines, but I have been working on papers for school.  My original plan was to post my most recent paper on the War of 1967 (Six-Day War) between Israel and the UAR (Egypt), but after looking into copyright laws, I realized that it could possibly become an issue to post my paper here without consent from all the authors whom I cited in my work.  So I have decided to do the next best thing--I am posting my introduction and conclusion, which provide the general content of the paper.
     The territorial gains (the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights) made by Israel during this war have been the greatest points of conflict between the Arabs and the Israelis.  This paper does not look at the results of the war and the impact they have had on the region, but rather it is an investigation of why the war occurred in the first place and the possibilities that existed to avoid war altogether.

Introduction

The Six-Day War of 1967 between Israel and the United Arab Republic (Jordan and Syria were also involved) is an example of a war that occurred due to rhetoric, manipulation, and miscalculation.[1]  Both sides had built-up sizeable militaries and were adequately armed in preparation for future conflicts, but the war that erupted between Israel and the UAR in June of 1967 was not inevitable.  This by no means suggests that the potential for conflict did not exist.  There were many contributing factors that led to the eventual Israeli attack on the UAR, but from these there are a few that played a major role in initiating the course of events that resulted in war.  Prior to the outbreak of war, the Soviet Union provided Syria and the UAR with false information about the concentration of Israeli troops on the border with Syria.  This led Gamal ‘Abdel Nasser, president of the UAR, to build-up troops in the Sinai Peninsula as a deterrent to Israel, which ultimately resulted in Nasser’s expulsion of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the UAR and began a quick chain of events that culminated in a swift Israeli victory over he UAR, Jordan, and Syria.

Israel’s defeat of the UAR and its allies was a harsh blow to the Arab world and its designs to remove Israel from its place as a Middle Eastern state.  These plans were partly responsible for the resulting war in 1967, in as much as they put pressure on Nasser to come out from the shadow of the UNEF and reestablish himself and the UAR as a strong Arab nation.  This paper will examine two primary factors that escalated the situation between Israel and the UAR to war—the Soviet propaganda of Israeli troop build-up along the Syrian border and the removal of the UNEF from the UAR replaced by UAR troops in the Sinai.  The first section of this paper provides the context, by which the events of May and June 1967 were influenced.  The following section will analyze the Soviet propaganda and discuss the possible motivations for supplying its Middle Eastern clients with false information.  The final section will address the issue of Nasser’s decision to remove UNEF troops from the Sinai Peninsula, which was partially influenced by the “intelligence” provided by the Soviets.  Through a close look at these elements, one will be able to have a more thorough understanding not only of the elements that ignited the Six-Day War, but also of those things that possibly could have prevented war in the late spring of 1967.

Conclusion

The situation in the Middle East in 1967 was certainly unstable, but there was a multitude of influences that made an unstable situation, a situation of war.  The Soviet Union hoped to capitalize on the Middle East’s waning affiliation with the United States by securing its own Arab clients.  Because of this goal, it became increasingly involved in the affairs of Egypt and Syria.  Continuing a policy that had previously worked, the Soviets initiated a propaganda campaign to strengthen the bonds between its two main Arabs clients, the UAR and Syria, and to discourage any Israeli designs to attack Syria and threaten the neo-Ba‘thist government.  This propaganda was miscalculated as well as the internal situations of both Syria and the UAR.  Syria welcomed a new external war in the hopes to halt a conflict with the Muslim Brotherhood.  Nasser was not willing to be a pawn on the Middle Eastern chessboard, but wanted to be the king.  This miscalculation of the situation allowed the Soviet Union to spark the fuse that would ignite a new Arab-Israeli war.

The blame does not fall solely on the Soviet Union of course.  Although one might question if there ever would have been a war if the Soviets didn’t instigate a crisis, it is very difficult to determine this.  It is, however, much easier to determine possible outcomes had other agents reacted differently to the initial crisis.  The mobilization of UAR troops into the Sinai was not a move beyond the point of no return.  The UAR and Israel had averted a military conflict seven years earlier under almost the same circumstances.  The problem with this situation was Nasser’s need to quiet the comments of his fellow Arab leaders, which were delegitimizing his claims as leader of the Arab world.  An inaccurate assessment of the situation by the UN Secretary General U Thant further complicated the situation.  Had he applied pressure on the UAR and refused to remove the UNEF from UAR territory, it is quite likely a replay of the stand off in 1960 would have been the only consequence.  However, U Thant’s compliance with the UAR’s request, although correct according to policy concerning the UNEF, forced Nasser to continue the course of action he began.

Nasser, who did not meet the opposition he expected, had to decide whether he wanted to avoid a war and lose his prestige among the Arab world or continue with actions that would commit the UAR to another war with Israel, but would further legitimize his status in the Arab world.  He chose the latter path because that was his whole purpose in playing the game the Soviets had set before him.  The superpowers and the UN failed to recognize the importance the Israelis placed on naval access to the Straits of Tiran and didn’t work hard enough to convince Nasser to open the straits.  The risk assessment became too great for Israel and it finally attacked and defeated the UAR, Jordan and Syria. 

The possibility for a different outcome existed in 1967, but there were too many conflicting aspirations that resulted in the events that have been recorded in the annals of history.  Although the “what if” game could be played forever, what is clear from this analysis is that there is not one sole person or entity that is responsible for the chain of events that escalated into the Six-Day War.  Instead, the propaganda, manipulation, rhetoric, and miscalculations of a number of agents determined the course of events that led to war in 1967 and has affected the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli conflict ever since.     

---

[1] Syria was no longer part of the UAR at this time, but it was still the official name of Egypt.

The Second Flotilla and the US Failure to Support What is Right

On 26 June 1948, the United States along with its allies began a 15 month operation called the Berlin Airlift in English and Die Luftbrücke (The Air Bridge) in German, which circumvented the complete blockade of Berlin by the USSR through coordinated and continuous flights of supplies from West Germany to Berlin.  Berlin, although located in newly created East Germany, was divided like the rest of the country into east and west zones.  However, the Soviet Union wanted to have the entire city and initiated the blockade.  Luckily for the West Berlin Germans, who were considered enemies only a few years earlier, the Soviet Union and Communism had become the new enemies of the western Superpowers and these Superpowers organized an honorable effort to bring relief to those Germans who had been cut off from necessary supplies.  I was fortunate enough to be in Berlin in 1998-99 when the 50th anniversary of this historic humanitarian aid event was commemorated and President Bill Clinton represented the US and its role in die Luftbrücke.  

Now, what does this have to do with the Middle East?  As I am writing this post, there is a second flotilla that has left Greece and is headed for Gaza in an effort to bring necessary supplies to the people, who have been devastated by the Israeli blockade of seaports and land crossings.  Gaza has a total land area of 360 sq. km., which is slightly smaller than the 479 sq. km. of West Berlin.  It also has a population that is slightly smaller than that of West Berlin in 1948 at 1.65 million people compared to 2.2 million.  The number of people per square kilometer is almost exactly the same between Gaza and West Berlin of 1948.  Another similarity between the two is the difficulty of production and resources in the area necessary to sustain the population.  Where these two seemingly similar situations differ is in the perpetrators of the blockades.  For West Berlin, the new enemy of the West--the Soviet Union--had instigated the blockade, which was their right for security purposes since Berlin was located in their territory.  The Palestinians, are not as fortunate, since the perpetrator of the Gaza blockade is Israel--the most strongly supported country by the United States.  It seems humanitarian aid is worthy of US support as long as the recipients are its allies or if the aid will thwart the plans of its enemies.

I'm not saying that the Unites States does not supply humanitarian aid to the Palestinians, because it does and I do not want to mislead anyone.  My point here is strictly related to the Gaza situation and the Flotilla of Peace that is on its way to Gaza.  One of the ships in this flotilla is called "The Audacity of Hope" carrying 50 US citizens.  The US State Department has issued a travel warning about entering Gaza by sea, which states "previous attempts to enter Gaza by sea have been stopped by Israeli naval vessels and resulted in the injury, death, arrest, and deportation of U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens participating in any effort to reach Gaza by sea should understand that they may face arrest, prosecution, and deportation by the Government of Israel."  In response to questions about the second flotilla headed to Gaza, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton also stated "that it’s not helpful for there to be flotillas that try to provoke actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves."  It appears that the US supports any action Israel will take against US citizens on this flotilla.  The great problem with this is there is no intention for the flotilla to enter Israeli waters.  The flotilla that was attacked by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) last summer was still in international waters when boarded by IDF soldiers and the plans of the current flotilla are also to remain in international waters.  Just because Israel has a naval blockade on Gaza, does not mean those waters have now become part of Israeli territory, although I am sure that is the mindset.  Does Israel have the right to check the cargo of the ships to make sure there are no weapons or potentially dangerous materials?  Sure it does.  The problem, unfortunately, is that anything can be labeled as potentially dangerous and blocked by the Israelis, which has happened continuously with supplies to Gaza.

Statements from the State Department indicate the ineffectiveness the flotilla will have, pointing to the improvements in the transportation of materials into Gaza.  State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland released a statement last Friday, which noted "that the humanitarian situation has significantly improved over the last year, including a marked increase in the range and scope of goods and materials moving into Gaza, an increase in international project activity, and the gradual expansion of exports."  What she doesn't mention is the fact that these improvements are a direct result of the first flotilla to Gaza.  Without that first flotilla, there would have been no easing of the Israeli blockade.  Other statements have warned US citizens against supplying materials to recognized terrorist organizations like Hamas, implying that those aboard the flotillas are criminals and could very possibly face criminal charges for their actions.  What I find astounding is that we consider Hamas a terrorist organization, but the Taliban in Afghanistan has never made the list.  We have been at war with the Taliban for a decade, fighting a war on terror, and yet the Taliban is not on the list.  I wonder if it has to do with the fact that originally the Taliban was an ally of the US.  We supplied arms to the Taliban, known as the mujahideen at the time, which in Arabic means those who are involved in jihad, in order to support their fight against the Soviet Union, whose victory against the USSR was applauded by the US government.  This was made famous by the book and subsequent movie Charlie Wilson's War.  Maybe they haven't made the list because the US needs to be able to have legal interaction with the Taliban to further its purposes in Afghanistan and the region.  My guess is that President Obama does not believe the war can be won without a compromise between the new government of Afghanistan and the Taliban.  Since the US has a strict policy of not negotiating with terrorists, it cannot list the Taliban as a terrorist organization.  One of the criteria for qualifying as a terrorist organization is posing a threat to US national security, which Hamas does not do, but the Taliban obviously does.  The point here is that whom the US government decides is a terrorist organization is completely arbitrary.

It is clear that the reason Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization is because they are an enemy to Israel.  I will not deny that Hamas has carried out terrorist operations.  I'm not trying to justify the actions of Hamas, but I would like to put things into perspective.  Recently the US Senate unanimously passed a non-binding resolution (S. Res. 185 text) urging the president to veto any resolution that comes to the UN Security Council for the recognition of an independent Palestinian state.  Much of the resolution focuses on Hamas and the unity government that has been forged between Fatah and Hamas since the breakdown of the last attempts at peace negotiations.  Senator Ben Cardin from Maryland, the head writer of the resolution, states, "any Palestinian effort to gain recognition of a state outside of direct negotiations demonstrates their lack of a good faith commitment to a peace negotiation. The Senate is now firmly on record that this kind of action would be directly counterproductive to peace. If the Palestinians pursue this, it may well have implications for the continued U.S. participation with the Palestinians."  I'm not surprised that the Palestinians lack good faith in the peace negotiations.  More than sixty years of negotiations have done little to better their situation.  What is also implied in Senator Cardin's statement and made clear in the resolution, is the intent to withdraw all funding to the Palestinians should they continue to pursue recognition in the UN.

Israeli settlement in the West Bank near Bethlehem  © Chad Card

Senator Cardin also comments that "Israel has always been willing to come to the peace table for direct negotiations."  I can't refute this fact, but it is one thing to always agree to negotiations in order to demonstrate to the world your beneficence in an effort to garner continued support and it is a completely different thing to actually be prepared to negotiate.  The unwillingness to extend the moratorium on new settlement construction in the West Bank clearly indicates how dedicated Israel is to peace negotiations.  What is worse is operative clause 5 of the S. Resolution 185, which reads "the Senate supports the opposition of the President to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and the veto by the United States on February 18, 2011, of the most recent United Nations Security Council resolution regarding a key issue of the Israeli-Palestinian process."  The key issue that goes unnamed is the US veto of the UN resolution to recognize the illegality of the Israeli settlements according to international law.  So, operative clause 5 should read "the Senate supports the opposition of the President to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and the veto by the United States on February 18, 2011, of the most recent United Nations Security Council resolution deeming the Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal according to international law."  This UN resolution was not a resolution to create a new international law, but to enforce one that is already in existence and one that Israel has violated since the first settlements were begun.

There are many reasons the US does not want to support the Palestinians' right to seek recognition by the UN.  This "unilateral" decision would create a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, which means the Old City of Jerusalem and all of the illegal Israeli settlements would be included in the Palestinian state and the Israeli settlers would become Palestinians.  This is why the US is so adamant that the two-state solution come through direct negotiations.  The purpose of the negotiations is to give the land of the settlements to Israel and swap it for land that Israel possesses.  This 1:1 exchange seems fair, but one must ask the question, "Why is Israel constructing settlements in the West Bank when they have all of this land to swap?"  The answer to this question is two-fold.  The Israeli settlements in the West Bank are strategically located over natural water sources and the unsettled Israeli territories are non-arable lands.  These direct negotiations will create a Palestinian state that is not able to sustain itself because the majority of its arable land and water sources will go to Israel.

Playing soccer with children of displaced Palestinians  © Chad Card

If the continued settlements weren't enough of a source of pain, anguish and anger for the Palestinians, there is currently a bill in the Knesset, the Israeli governing body, to make Palestinians pay for the costs of the demolition of their homes.  This has already been a practice in East Jerusalem, where Palestinians are forcefully ejected from their homes at night by masked soldiers in order to replace these families with Israeli settlers.  The displaced Palestinian families must then pay the cost of moving their stuff out of their homes or else forfeit their possessions.  I had the opportunity to listen to some of these families in East Jerusalem, who sit everyday on the street outside of their homes in protest of their forced eviction.  This is what the US government is supporting.  Prior to her comments on the flotillas, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton comment on the situation in Syria.  She said, "we are closely monitoring the situation in Syria and in neighboring countries, and it is [a] further example of the lengths to which President Assad’s regime will go to repress the people of Syria rather than actually working in a collaborative way to try to resolve the legitimate concerns of the Syrian people. And it just is very clear to us that unless the Syrian forces immediately end their attacks and their provocations that are not only now affecting their own citizens but endangering the potential border clashes, then we’re going to see an escalation of conflict in the area."  I'm wondering where the disconnect is.  How can the US understand that oppression and restriction of rights is wrong and the cause of clashes in Syria, but it can't recognize the same thing in Palestine?  Oh I forgot, the US isn't friends with Syria, but it is bed buddies with Israel.