June, 5th 2007 marked the fortieth anniversary of the Six-Day War between Israel and Arab countries; an occasion to reflect on an event, which explains everything that happened for the last forty years in the Middle-East.

June, 5th 2007 marked the fortieth anniversary of the Six-Day “accidental War” (1). Because of the situation that rose from the Six-Day War, its history is mainly told by Israeli historians. Palestinians cannot afford historians, and are reduced to the sole activity of archiving everything they can without resources for analysing any material yet. Unfortunately, when the history does exist, told from the other side, it is often a judeophobically biased one. Western historians are a better warranty.

The pre-emptive attacks on Egyptian aircrafts, and the successive captures of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula up to the Suez Canal on 5 June 1967, have been both a blessing and a curse for Israel, and the region.

It has been a blessing because prior to the invasion, Israel was in a position of weakness, and certainly in no position to negotiate for its safety. It was not even a well recognised nation in the Middle-East, and if asked anything it was only to disappear. It is a very basic rule of negotiation that if one does not possess a means for leverage, one cannot bargain. The occupation of territories provided Israel with precisely that: a leverage. From now on, Israel would have a means of exchange in return for its demands: peace for territories.

It did so with Egypt in 1979. It permitted peace talks in 1999 with Syria. It permits negotiations to create a Palestinian state – a possibility that would not have been possible under former Jordanian ruling.

On the other side, it has been a terrible curse upon Israel and the region. Perhaps, already in the midst of the battle for Jerusalem, Israeli defence minister Moshe Dayan, understood this when he ordered to take down the Israeli flag proudly planted on the Temple Mount. For triumphalism, and the humiliation of the Arabs meant being exposed to the complexities of a situation of an occupying power against a powerless people. 

Although Israel tried to be a “liberal” occupant (in its own terms) it is very obvious that any occupant is illegitimate. The resentment grew exponentially among the Palestinian population. A situation of permanent tension and explosiveness appeared between an occupant considering itself liberal, and a population permanently feeling oppressed. Thus Palestinians had nothing but stones to throw at the occupant and the intifada began, accompanied by bombings, and racket attacks. The “liberal” occupant interpreted this as illegitimate aggressions, and counter-attacked with its army Zahal.

The situation has been this one ever since: a dialogue of deafs. A model conflict: everyone is persuaded to be right.

Of course, radicalism is more visible than moderate actions. Hence suicidal bomb attacks and army counter-strikes are the images shown on TV screens. Anti-Jude hateful discourses respond to far-right fundamental Zionist ones. Arab Israelis are victims of discriminations. But 66% of them believe that the Shoah never took place.

However, even among Israeli moderates the confusion is great. Left-wing progressive Israelis do not know what to think anymore. On the one side they do not understand the hatred and the regain of anti-Semitic arguments, and they want to be tough on such behaviours – Israel’s survival is at stake. On the other, they sympathise with a population oppressed and ready to do anything just to survive – a reminiscence of what Jews had to endure in Europe.

On the Arabs' side, the defeat meant the end of “Nasserism”, a mixture of pan-Arabic nationalism and pro-soviet third-world politics. In the scale of Arabic values, national sovereignty is one of the most important – even more important than justice. The Six-Day War led to the jihad, the holy war against Israel. The occupation of Arab territories has thus given rise to numerous movements of nationalism, which official governments have not always been able to cope with, as they appeared discredited by their rendition to Israel.

The Six-Day war signified the end of the great dream of a unified Arab world. This dream would now only be realised through the ummah, the religious community of Islam – a theme that radicals would take to impose a Judeophobic Islamism dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

It is thus very easy to read all the events that happened in the Middle-East under the light of the Six-Day war.

Today, Iran is an Islamic republic with judeophobic leaders who want the end of Israel. They sponsor organisations like the Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Hamas in the Palestinian territories. This Islamism wants to conquer power to install an intolerant ummah, against Israel and any moderate Arab. This strategy seems to be paying in the Palestinian territories that fell under Hamas control.

At the same time, Syria is making aggressive manoeuvres at its borders with Israel, to which Israel replies, agitating the spectre of a new war this summer.

Both curse and blessing the Six-Day war gave the means to negotiate for peace, but it also gave rise to instability, Israel's domination and oppression, Judeophobia and Islamism. 

(1) Henry Laurens: ”1967: a war of miscalculation and misjudgement” http://www.eurozine.com/articles/article_2007-06-08-laurens-en.html

All pictures free from copyright for non-commercial distribution taken from http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk

Vorschau Bild: Zion Karasanti, Yitzhak Yifat and Haim Oshrí, IDF soldiers at Jerusalem's Western Wall shortly after its capture in 1967. Photo David Rubinger.

Bild 1: The same three soldiers in 2007.

Bild 2: General and Defence Minister Moshe Dayan (L) , General Haim Bar Lev, and Prime Minister Levi Eshkol (R). Photo Bruner Ilan. Israeli National Photo Collection.