Israel's Involvement In The 1967 June War

Within the span of a few years, the political, social, and cultural climate in Palestine was whiplashed from being under the control of the Ottoman Empire, to colonization and state building by Jewish immigrants from the diaspora, to British rule through mandate, and finally the establishment of the Israeli state. The rhetoric that was used in both Zionist and Arab Palestinian propaganda created a situation that was very complex under the surface, and needs to be approached with delicate care. Taking this into consideration, as historians it is important to remain as objective as possible when reading documents from both the Jewish and Arab side because they both will show a view of the conflict that will benefit them most. As situations change, so will these views and the tone of newspapers and consumerism will change along with it.

The Arab-Israeli conflict, initiated over one-hundred years ago and still continuing, has confounded both policy-makers and citizens; despite the best efforts of foreign leaders, only one substantial accord has materialized in the decades of negotiations: the Israel-Egypt peace treaty of 1979. Before one undertakes to understand such a complex topic as the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, however, a broad knowledge of the historical background of the two countries involved is essential to understanding the motivations and aspirations of both parties, which in turn will shed light on the peace treaty itself. Foreign policy can’t be viewed in a vacuum; rather, each country must be viewed as a nation with legitimate historical and political

There is a tendency to characterize all Arab nations as being unilaterally on the same page when it came to the Israeli issue. In Rachel Bronson’s work Thicker than Oil demonstrates that nations like Saudi Arabia were capable of a great deal of leniency when it came to the issue.

Proceeding from a simplistic perception of regional stability, Washington utilized the surrogate strategy to control the outcomes of regional interactions in the Middle East and chose Israel to play the role of regional surrogate. But Israel, in many cases, instead of maintaining regional stability on behalf of the US, served its own interests which were not always consistent with US interest in regional stability. The Israeli violations, however, were either condoned or even approved by the US administrations. These reactions comprised what this chapter addressed as a pro-Israel model of intervention.

Almost a century has passed since the end of World War One, and the 1917 Belfour Declaration, which endorsed the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine and the preservation of the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish Palestinian communities. Consequently, the British Mandate in the region of Israel, the former Palestine, which was initiated and endorsed by the League of Nations in 1922, and which incorporated the Belfour Declaration. The control of Israel has changed hands multiple times since then and subsequently, its borders have shifted considerably and always to the disadvantage of the Palestinians and Arabs. The League of Nations approval of the British Mandate and Belfour Declaration, was roundly rejected by Arabs and Palestinians whose hatred and fear of a Jewish State has led to the heated arguments and unrelenting Arab/Israeli conflicts that continues to this day. In this paper, I will outline and discuss the controversial “Partition Plan’s”, of 1937 and 1947 respectively, which have concurrently shaped and reflected the state of the conflict throughout the 20th century. This paper will attempt to provide an unbiased account of the positions of both parties on the presented issues, however I will, in my conclusion, provide my opinion on the matter in light of all the information and facts provided.

The year 1948 witnessed the national independence for Israelis and “Al-Nakbah the disaster” (Sa'di 177) for Palestinian Arabs. Jewish Holocaust, Zionist movement, British interference, Arab awakening, religious conflict and disputes over territory built up into this catastrophic war. In consequence, on the one hand, millions of Palestinian Arabs fled into neighboring Arab countries, refugee camps and western countries (Mattar 395). On the other hand, militarization and securitization in Israel disrupted the normal life of its citizens (Éigeartaigh and Getty 18).

The Egyptian Syrian attack that took place on Yon Kippur is a hugely significant event in the history of the Arab Israeli conflict. Often referred to as ‘the trauma’, the attack revealed a number of key issues with regards to Israeli defence and intelligence that ultimately resulted in a severe lack of preparation. Israel was unprepared for a plethora of interlinking issues that resulted in a series of fatal mistakes with regard to intelligence and military preparedness. With regards intelligence, an entrenched and overconfident conviction in ‘the Concept’ blinded the Israeli’s to the concrete evidence and forewarnings of the Egyptian Syrian mobilization. The ingenuity of the Egyptian’s was also crucial to Israeli unpreparedness, especially the deployment of the almost certain double agent - Ashraf Marwan.

Avi Schlaim traces the debate between new and old historians of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, by identifying six contentions apparent on both sides. He sorts through and debunks several myths that have become natural to the history of the founding of the State of Israel. Although many of these myths are not new, Schlaim argues access to archival documents, beginning in 1978, now provides the new historiography a backing by hard documentary evidence. On top of this new hard evidence, Israel’s political climate also changed with the shocking invasion of Lebanon in 1982, which ended the image of Israel as “peace lovers.” Prime Minister Menachem Begin admitted the invasion was a “war of choice,” resulting in the downfall of the national consensus

Throughout the 20th Century relations between Arabs and Israelis in Palestine have undergone immense tension, change and deterioration, with both parties facing many barriers to peace. Foreign intervention is often listed as one such barrier to this peace. While the importance of foreign intervention cannot be omitted, other factors can be argued to have been both equally and more detrimental to the peace process. These include the founding of the Haganah, the 1948 War after the declaration of the State of Israel, and the rise of political extremism. The aim of this essay is to identify

The Israelis have created a modern state; they have become the region’s superpower and a homeland for the Jewish religion. In the Middle East region with conflicting beliefs, ideas, and disputes for land it is imperative for Israel to maintain a firm stance and be ready to deploy its military forces when needed. The country of Israel uses its similar goals and interest with allies to ensure its lasting security. This essay will discuss the physical environment, military history, and politics of Israel.

This essay analyses the killing of Hadeel al-Hashlamouna, as well as the aftermath, also putting it into a wider context, with “The Iron Wall” by Vladimir Jabotinsky. The killing of al-Hashlamouna is interpreted as a way to convince the Palestinians that they cannot fight against Israel. However, it will be argued that Jabotinsky did not consider what would happen if the Palestinians gave up hope of fighting against the existence of Israel, but Israelis did not recognise that. As we will see, that has happened. Thus it has created the situation in which Israel is keeping up the iron wall with brutal violence while the Palestinians, then, are fighting against the iron wall itself rather than the existence of Israel. Therefore the brutal killing

Six Days of War unequivocally provides a detailed historical resource about the Six Day War; however, it is heavily focused on the Israeli/US side with a consistent negative presentation of the Arab nations and USSR. Although the book presents the actions and motivations of both sides, there is a clear bias towards the Israeli side, likely due to the author’s nationality and political position. This limits is the understanding of the Soviet action in regards to the war, which is vital to the

The effects of the creation of Israel are still important today. The support of Israel from the United States as well as the Partition and the creation of the State itself are sticking points with Arab nations presently. The war of ’47 and ’48 is still a travesty for the Palestinians. Arabs were rife with sorrow following their hopeless stance. They’ve given the conflict the name ad-naqba, or “the disaster/catastrophe” (Altman 84, qtd. Tessler). The lives of Arabs, they argue, were inalterably corrupted and defiled by the influx of external influence in the region, and they argue that the creation of Israel was an event that both should never have happened and should be protested and fought against. Immell states, “[A] significant problem created by Israel’s rise to independence is the lasting ill will and anger that it created among Arab nations.

Michael B. Oren, a American-born Israeli historian, takes at the time recently declassified archival documents from the Arab nations, Israel, USSR, Soviet, and USA to attempt to compile a comprehensive book that contains a balanced study of the military and political facets of the war, the interplay between its international, regional, and domestic dimensions, a book intended for scholars but also accessible to wider readership. Oren begins his discussion with a concise yet comprehensive history of the events leading up what is commonly referred to as the Six Day war or June War. From this Oren is seeking to illustrate that the Arab- Israeli conflict occurring the June 1967 war is not a spontaneous event but rather a long history or connection

For many centuries, Judaic and Arabian societies have engaged in one of the most complicated and lengthy conflicts known to mankind, the makings of a highly difficult peace process. Unfortunately for all the world’s peacemakers the Arab-Israeli conflict, particularly the war between Israel and the Palestinian Territories, is rooted in far more then ethnic tensions. Instead of drawing attention towards high-ranking officials of the Israeli government and Hamas, focus needs to be diverted towards the more suspect and subtle international relations theory of realism which, has imposed more problems than solutions.