Six_Day_War

THE SIX DAY WAR December 10, 2007 On June 5, 1967 Israel launched a preemptive strike against its enemies, initiating what became known as the Six-Day War. The years leading up to war were marked by tensions that arose within Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. These tensions underlay the causes of war can be demarcated through a careful analysis of Waltz’s three images: individual, state, and international actors. Each image played a significant role in the instigation of the Six Day War. Waltz’s thirds image motivated Israel to got to war. However it was the first two images, leadership and domestic issues that laid the material groundwork for a war, and precipitated the war among the Arab nations. Waltz’s second image, on the domestic problems within states, played a crucial role in the involvement of Egypt, Syria and Jordan in the formation of the Six Day war. In the aftermath of the Israeli War of Independence, thousands of Palestinians fled their homes and flooded into the surrounding Arab nations in search of asylum. The large population of These Palestinians became economic and political liabilities, and their presence proved to be the source of constant conflict towards their host nations. In an effort to free themselves from economic hardship the Palestinian refugees put pressure on their governments to destroy the state of Israel and reestablish a Palestinian state. In the years preceding the Six Day war Egypt was, “plagued by economic difficulties” at home. When Nasser first became president in 1952 he launched a program for the economic development of the Egypt. The program met with initial success and the years from 1959 up until 1965 were marked by economic improvement. During those years Egypt experienced a growth in GDP investment by 5.3%, and there was a redistribution of wealth in favor of the lower classes. Yet Egypt prosperity was short lived, and it underwent an economic decline in 1966 and 1967, immediately preceding the Six Day War. Furthermore the Gaza strip, which was annexed by Egypt after 1948, was largely ignored by Egypt during its period of economic growth. The Gaza Strip was allowed to remain in poverty, its inhabitants eking out a living on citrus groves and fishing. In 1966 Gaza’s GNP per capita was eighty dollars, which made it one of the most impoverished communities in the world . Jordan also faced devastating economic problems as a result of its large population of Palestinian refugees. In aftermath of the War of Independence, Jordan annexed the West Bank adding on a huge tract of territory to greater Jordan and increasing its population by 700,000 individuals. The vast numbers of these Palestinians were homeless and placed a tremendous burden on Jordan’s economy. In the wake of the Six Day War, the West Bank economic development slowed down considerably. In 1967, the West Banks GDP dropped to two-thirds of the East Bank. Additionally the East Bank industrial sector was triple the size of the West Banks partially due to the cheap influx of laborers coming out of the West Bank . The economic distress and political strength of the Palestinians in the West bank put pressure on Jordan to join the conflict. In Syria steps towards economic improvement were curtailed due to the burden of supporting the one hundred thousand Palestinian refugees that now made Syria their home. In 1961 the Syrian government launched a five-year plan concentrated on developing the nation's infrastructure and increasing agricultural and industrial production. Syria only came up with 60% of the investment needed to finance the plan. Syria’s failure to come up with the necessary funds was in part due to the amount of funds needed to support Palestinian refugees. The Palestinian population was unwelcome by Syrian citizens as well as the government, but there was little that could be done to get rid of them. The domestic strife of the impoverished refugees found its way into politics and they became a force with which to contend. The sheer magnitude in numbers of the Palestinian refugees gave them immense political strength. The refugees were an economic drain on their respective Arab nations and the creation of a Palestinian state was seen as a means of solving this problem. A Palestinian state would free the Arab governments from any obligations they had to provide for the refugees thereby controlling a destabilizing political element and hopefully carving off or eliminating Israeli land in the process. Theoretically, the establishment of a Palestinian state would mean the renewal of the lives the Palestinians had lost in 1948. The war effort gained tremendous support from both the government and the people as it was seen as a gateway to ending poverty and domestic strife. As a result, steps were deliberately taken in effort to provoke war. Waltz’s First image played an increasingly important role as domestic tensions increased. Arab leaders used the prospective war against Israel as a rally ground for gaining and consolidating power. In the late sixties, the governments of Egypt, Syria and Jordan were all politically vulnerable and by taking a pro-Palestinian liberation stance, Arab leaders won the support and admiration of the Palestinian people. Additionally, the Palestinians focus on Israel as the cause of their destitution diverted their attention from a host of government failures. The conflict with Israel gave Arab leaders greater control over their nation, by turning their peoples focus away from the domestic problems and focusing it on a common enemy. Nasser, the president of Egypt, utilized the domestic strife of his people and directed it at Israel in effort to increase his powerbase both within Egypt and within the Arab world. Nasser had long dreamed of creating a Pan-Arab empire with Cairo as its capital and the unification of the Arab people under a common cause seemed to be the key. Nasser used the terrible conditions of the people and blamed its source on Israel. Nasser thereby gained the support of the Palestinians in Egypt as well as the surrounding nations by calling out for Israel’s destruction. He became something of a messiah for the Palestinians and his words held tremendous weight. Nasser’s Palestinian support gave him power over other countries with large Palestinian populations as well. Under Nasser’s leadership Jordan and Syria followed Egypt to war. In 1967 the Baath Party came to power in Syria and followed Nasser’s example of externalizing the blame for the country’s woes against Israel. The leaders of the Baath Party rallied the Syrian population against Israel and quickly gained the support of its citizens. The decision of the Baath leaders to support Nasser helped stabilize Syria’s otherwise unstable government. Tremendous instability within the government existed since the advent of Syrian independence in 1936. In a period of ten years from 1946 until 1956, twenty different cabinets seized power, through a series of military coups, and four different constitutions were drafted . When the Baath Party came into power they saw an upcoming war as a way of gaining control and diverting attention from the problems at home. King Hussein’s decisions decision to participate in the war was ultimately an effort to preserve his power more than anything else. On November 12, 1966, a mine strategically placed by Fatah terrorists exploded killing three Israeli soldiers. The Fatah terrorists were suspected of being harbored in the Palestinian village of Es Suma, located in the West Bank. Seeking to avoid conflict with Israel, King Hussein sent out a letter in which he apologized and promised to do his utmost to keep Fatah terrorists in Jordan under control. The letter was not received by Israel and two days later Israel launched a full-scale assault on the village. In the assault, in addition to the military casualties, three Jordanian civilians were killed and ninety-six wounded. The Palestinian community was enraged by the Jordanian government’s passivity towards the conflict. Palestinian refugees incited a rioted that threatened to bring down Hussein’s Government. Hussein’s government and life was under threat and he understood that it would remain so if he did not change his allegiances. King Hussein received criticism from Egypt and Syria as well. In a press conference the commander in chief of Jordan forces issued a warning to Jordan’s leaders, if Jordan did not join the war against Israel, Jordan would erupt in civil war . The Palestinians ability to destabilize its government left King Hussein with two choices: either give in to Palestinian demands or experience a loss of power. On May 30, 1967, King Hussein signed a joint defense pact with Egypt, which effectively enlisted Jordan into the war effort against Israel along side Syria as well. In a clear case of Waltz’s First image, the leaders of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan gave the struggle for war against Israel a political presence that allowed the conflict to escalate. Without the direction and pressure of its leaders the tensions of the Arabs nations would have remained domestic issues and threatened the power of the individual leaders. The leaders’ participation in the war effort was an act of self-preservation and brought attention away from their own failures as leaders. In addition to the leadership of the Arab States, the world’s two superpowers were also jockeying for position and expanding their own interests in the region. The Soviet Union saw the departure of Great Britain and France from the Middle East as an opportunity to fill a vacuum. They were interested in forming an alliance with the Arab nations as well as diminishing the strong American presence in the region. While the Americans were supplying the Israeli’s with arms, the Soviets were militarily supporting Egypt and Syria. Instead of tempering the war hysteria the Russian government added fuel to the fire by falsely claiming an Israeli military buildup along Israel’s northern border . Russia offered to discuss the rapidly deteriorating situation with the Kremlin however the offer was rebuffed. Although the Soviet Union wanted to increase tension in the Middle East they did not want them to erupt into an all out war. Unfortunately their meek plea shortly before hostilities began came too late. The superpowers and the UN as well as the involvement of other countries to a lesser extent failed to influence the hysteria toward war that Nassar had initiated. This third image ultimately played only a minor part on behalf of the Arab motivation in the conflict that ensued. Israel’s involvement and instigation of the war was motivated through very different causes then their Arab neighbors. Third image acts of aggression on the part of their Arab neighbors threatened Israel’s independence and forced them to act. When a state’s sovereignty is threatened, a state will do anything within their power to survive and given Israel’s circumstances any state would have acted similarly. Israel decision to launch a preemptive attack was in direct in response to Egypt’s blockade of the Straits of Tiran On May 23, 1967. Egypt’s blockade of the Straits of Tiran infringed on Israel’s trade rights was a direct threat to the nation’s sovereignty. The blockade violated the International Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone laws, adopted by the UN in 1956 and was universally accepted as an act of war8. Although it was a justifiable cause of war Israel agreed not to take any action until May 25, 1967 in an effort to allow diplomacy to take affect. After the allotted time for diplomacy to take effect was up, the UN called Secretary General U Thant and sent him to Cairo to mediate the conflict. Israel declined to give more time for mediation because of the economic devastation the country faced. The country simply couldn’t survive economically for the time it would take for negotiations to take place. If Israel were not in such a desperate situation it most probably would have given peaceful resolution another chance. The recession Israel was facing placed them under time constraints for a resolution and pushed them towards military action. The blockade of the Straits of Tiran had significant economic ramifications for Israel. The blockade sealed Israel off from trade via the Gulf of Aquaba. The closure of the Gulf of Aquaba prevented Israel from receiving oil from Iran and sealed off their prosperous trade from East Africa and Asia. Furthermore, Israel was undergoing an economic recession at the time of Egypt’s Blockade. Over one hundred thousand Israelis were unemployed, which made up approximately a fourth of Israel’s working class9. The blockade of the straits of Tiran couple with Israel’s economic recession sped up the conflict which led to war. Israel’s decision to act militarily was to preserve its political and economic sovereignty as an example of Waltz’s third image. Egypt’s decision to blockade the Straits of Tiran was a threat to Israel’s security and an infringement of Israel’s rights. However, Israel’s decision to act when it did, and not prolong the conflict for a chance at mediation, was influenced by second image reasoning. State seeks at minimum to survive and when Israel’s survival was called into question it justifiably launched an attack. The Six Day War was caused by a culmination of internal issues which pushed countries and individual leaders to war. When they were faced with instability and domestic conflict, the Arab leaders sought to divert attention from the failings of government. The Arab leaders channeled their people’s resentment towards a common enemy while simultaneously diverting their people’s attention from domestic problems. The Six Day war exemplifies the significance of Waltz’s second image as a major contributor to the initiation of wars while the first image demonstrates the power of individuals to draw states into conflicts. Israel’s involvement of the conflict can also be seen through the second image; however, Israel ultimate decision to go to war was only after its sovereignty was called into question. Waltz’s first image of individual actors contributed to the short causes of the war but in all the cases it was Waltz’s second image that brought significance to the people who fought and died for what they believed in. Works Cited 1. Amin, Galal. Egypt's Economic Predicament. Brill Academic, 1995. 2. Barnestt, Michael. Dialogues in Arab Politics. New York: Columbia UP, 1998. 3. Benvenisti, Meron. The West Bank Project. Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1984. 4. Ovendale, Ritchie. The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Wars. Third ed. New York: Longman, 1999. 5. Rubin, Barry, and Walter Laquer, eds. The Israel-Arab Reader. Sixth ed. New York: Penguin, 2001. 6. "Six-Day War." Wikipedia. 9 Dec. 2007. 6 Dec. 2007 . 7. "Syria - Economic Development." Encyclopedia of Nations. 10 Dec.2007 . 8. "Wrap Up of the Astounding War." Life Magazine 23 June 1967