Thursday, May 24, 2007
Remembering six days in 1967
A lot of things happened in the late Sixties, and we are about to "remember" them all. Gird yourselves for a spate of fortieth anniversary retrospectives, complete with the obligatory implications for today. Next year will be even more retrospectish.
Forty years ago yesterday, Egypt's president Gamal Abdal Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, an act of war both because Israel had said that it would be and because law and history have long regarded it as such. The Egyptian blockade followed by one week Nasser's demand that the United Nations withdraw its blue helmets from the Sinai -- they had been there keeping the peace since 1956 -- and the mobilization of Syria's army. These and many other provocations eventually led to 7:10 a.m., June 5, the moment when Israel launched its jets in a surprising and devestating first strike against the Egyptian air force. So began the shooting phase of the Six Day War, one of the most astonishing military victories in history.
The New Yorker's David Remnick has published a review essay in the current issue of that magazine, "The Seventh Day: Why the Six-Day War is still being fought." It promises to be one of the more thoughtful of those retrospectives, focused on the competing versions of that war rendered by Michael Oren (the spectacular Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East
For the Israelis, the 1967 war was a triumph of such miraculous speed and fantastic territorial consequences that its leading military commander, Moshe Dayan, quickly helped brand it “the Six-Day War”––a deliberate echo of the six days of creation in Genesis. (In the Arab world, the defeat was such a humiliation that when it was spoken of at all it was commonly referred to as an-naksah, the “setback,” an echo of al-nakba, the “catastrophe,” of 1948.) The Israeli victory changed the country in nearly every aspect. The response, both within the country and among Jews abroad, ranged from the joyful to the distinctly messianic—a messianism that helped lead to the occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Sinai, and the Golan Heights, and the establishment of one settlement after another. It was a war that Israelis regarded as existential in importance––defeat could well have meant the end of the state after less than twenty years––and yet winning had Pyrrhic consequences. Out of it came forty years of occupation, widespread illegal settlements, the intensification of Palestinian nationalism, terrorism, counterattacks, checkpoints, failed negotiations, uprisings, and ever-deepening distrust. What greater paradox of history: a war that must be won, a victory that results in consuming misery and instability.
This, I think, is directionally correct, even if the emphasis on Israel's supposed attitude in victory -- always Israel -- is inherently unfair. The Arabs, after all, did not have to fight this war (Nasser said later, "If I had known the Army wasn't ready I wouldn't have gone to war") but did because of their own hubris and because the Soviet Union urged them (of which more below). If we cared about Arab actions we would be forced to admit that they created the circumstances under which the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan fell into Israel's hands. This is particularly true of the West Bank, which Israel did not attack preemptively, but only after Jordan joined the war notwithstanding Israel's promise that it would not attack if Jordan stayed out. Is it really true, then, that Israeli "messianism" led to the occupation, or was it the obvious consequence of a shocking and massive military victory over an enemy that had waged a war of choice?
To be fair to Remnick, he is reviewing revisionist histories of that war, histories that look at Israel unromantically and often from the left. These historians -- all of them Israeli -- look at the contemporaneous statements and recorded memories of politicians and generals and rabbis and argue that Israel was ultimately a victim of imperial hubris. Maybe, but it might also be the cherry-picking of a few damning quotations from the hubbub of democracy. Just as one cannot derive the intentions of the United States from the bleatings of any particular general, the suggestion from the IDF's chief rabbi, flush with victory, that "now was the moment to blow up the Dome of the Rock" may mean exactly nothing. Was it more important that Shlomo Goren said these things, or that his commander, Uzi Narkis, refused the suggestion and threatened General Goren with arrest?
The asymmetry goes beyond Israel's hubris in victory. Revisionists often adopt the argument of the Arabs that Israel is the product of imperialism, and that the occupation of the West Bank is at base colonial. But what of the Soviets? Remnick again:
By the spring of 1967, tensions had begun to escalate. Soviet diplomats informed Syria and Egypt, wrongly, that Israel was about to launch a full-scale invasion of Syria, further inflaming Nasser. According to Foxbats Over Dimona: The Soviets' Nuclear Gamble in the Six-Day War
Remnick does not make the point, but I will: the loss of the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan is the result of imperialism, but it is Soviet imperialism. One superpower pushed its clients into a war of conquest, and the other did not. The unwillingness of Western academics to describe communists as "imperialist" stands between Israel and an honest reading of the history.
In any case, the remarkable thing is that all of these historians are themselves Israeli and remain citizens of good standing in that country. In that part of the world, that fact alone is a measure of Israel's justice. Indeed, there are few countries that examine their own national myths with the courage of Israel, and none of them are among the Arabs.
12 Comments:
By 
Christopher Chambers, at
Thu May 24, 12:31:00 AM:
Um...what is revisionist history? Define that? I guess it means not ascribing to a certain romantic view of things that shouldn't be romanticized? I'd say you aren't even a romantic. This is big schlong porno hard-on for Israel. Is that healthy or right? I don't think so. Like addiction to porn (or meth or booze). You need to be on that show "Intervention" on A & E. As for the Cold War angle, hey even Nasser (and Sadat) despised the Soviets, but the story's a bit more complex.
By 
, at
Thu May 24, 12:34:00 AM:
Its six days that egypt would just as soon forget
By , at
Thu May 24, 01:07:00 AM:
Pay no attention to Chambers. Like many blacks he is racist, and anti-Semitic. Can't see beyond his own Klan-like hatred and bigotry.
What the Six Day War points out is how little chance Israel has for peace: read none at all. Egypt will only refrain from attacking out of fear of losing it's Army which is the only think keeping the Mubarak Dynasty in power. Syria/Iran and Hezbollah and Hamas are not even deterred; over 3,000 rockets have been fired at Sderot (pre-1967 borders) alone.
Israel for survival must have a strong military able to defeat all it's enemies at one time; however with a nuclear Iran intent on replicating the Holocaust Israel may have to pre-emptively use it's nuclear deterrent.
Just as the US might as well.
Given globalization and Al Qaeda, America is just like Israel. What's striking is how much hatred in the 1920's Zionist European women who wore shorts and lived free lives generated among Arabs: a more direct threat to their chattel slavery of their women could not be imagined. America's global culture is much the same, just as provocative, and sure to get us attacked no matter what.
The really, really hate us. For our freedom. How could they not?
By Escort81, at
Thu May 24, 01:55:00 AM:
Christopher Chambers -
A good working definition of Historical Revisionism from Wikipedia:
"Revisionist historians contest the mainstream or traditional view of historical events, they raise views at odds with traditionalists, which must be freshly judged. Revisionist history is often practiced by those who are in the minority, such as feminist historians, ethnic minority historians, those working outside of mainstream academia in smaller and less known universities, or the youngest scholars, essentially historians who have the most to gain and the least to lose in challenging the status quo. In the friction between the mainstream of accepted beliefs and the new perspectives of historical revisionism, received historical ideas are either changed, solidified, or clarified. If over a period of time the revisionist ideas become the new establishment status quo a paradigm shift is said to have occurred."
Just so we are all clear, is it TH's analysis, Remnick's review, or any of the three books themselves that constitutes a "hard-on for Israel" in your view?
By the way (and you may already be aware of this), Khrushchev awarded Nasser the title of the Hero of the Soviet Union and the Order of Lenin in May, 1964. But you might be right that Gamal and Nikita didn't have the same kind of relationship that, say, Carter and Arafat did (recognzing that Arafat was not actually a head of state as was Nasser).
By , at
Thu May 24, 03:23:00 AM:
"big schlong porno hard-on for Israel."
Because TH tells the truth that the war was instigated entirely by the Arabs and the Soviets? Like all antisemites, Chambers is a semiliterate loser and halfwit.
By Purple Avenger, at
Thu May 24, 04:22:00 AM:
The greatest Hubris on Israel's part came after the war embodied in "the concept" which led directly to the 74' surprise.
By , at
Thu May 24, 08:25:00 AM:
Now that Remnick is infatuated with the idea of revisionist history I wonder if he will give any space at all, let alone a favorable review, to Moyar's Triumph Foresaken.
By , at
Thu May 24, 08:50:00 AM:
Tigerhawk,
One semantic nit to pick. Think about this for moment.
Imperialism is used widely to describe various actions of dominance and influence in the world.
Imperialism has a specific meaning, with regards to the late British Empire, and the economic system which they fostered. It also has a wider meaning in the language of modern-day Marxism. I submit that this is a toxic "buzz-word", and that the older, Greek-root word 'hegemony' should be used instead, as I think it is also more broadly accurate in its application. I would hardly call the former commissars of the Kremlin 'imperial' anything.
he·gem·o·ny: Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hi-jem-uh-nee, hej-uh-moh-nee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -nies. 1. leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others, as in a confederation.
2. leadership; predominance.
3. (esp. among smaller nations) aggression or expansionism by large nations in an effort to achieve world domination.
I would suggest that whenever the urge strikes to use the word "imperialism", use "hegemony" instead, as there are few truly 'imperial' nations left in the world. Thanks for your time and interest, and thanks for not smoking.
-David
By SR, at
Thu May 24, 09:04:00 AM:
What an imprecise definition. This means anything from NATO to the Warsaw Pact. Quite a difference there.
By , at
Thu May 24, 10:23:00 AM:
A good working definition of loud-mouth dolt from personal observation: Christopher Chambers. Poor fellow, his mother obviously never gave him this bit of advice mine gave me, and often: "If you aren't sure you know what you're talking about, better to keep your mouth shut and have people wonder what you know than to open your mouth and confirm beyond all doubt that you don't have a clue." Thanks, Mom.
Of course, this advice likely wouldn't have helped young Mr. Chambers, as this clown speaks with the pompous certitude found in the vast majority of vocal fools.
By , at
Thu May 24, 11:02:00 AM:
SR,
You're right, it can cover a broad swath.
That's why you need to preface it with a very strong modifier, such as "ruthless", "cruel", "exploitive", "benevolent", etc.
The US created a benevolent hegemony over Western Europe via NATO after the beginning of the Cold War. It was not exploitive in the common sense, as in 19th century British imperialism.
It's no longer needed (according to all the smart people), and the Euros resent it.
Contrast this with the brutal, exploitive, paranoid hegemony the USSR spread over Eastern Europe, and tried to extend over the Middle East through its surrogates such as Nasser, Ghaddafy and Saddam Hussein, which TH has tried to illuminate in this blog posting.
All the difference in the world.
The only point I really wanted to make is that "imperialism" is a semantic "buzzword" to the Marxist Left, just like they call anyone who disagrees with them Fascists. Utterly Pavlovian. TH should be wiser than that, IMHO.
-David
By , at
Thu May 24, 09:43:00 PM:
Christopher Chambers is black? Gosh, looking at this picture, I thought he was Albanian and changed his name.
