15,697
edits
Changes
no edit summary
{{Mediawiki:kindleoasis}}
[[File:Ammunition_Hill_Museum_Exhibits_P1010035.jpeg|thumbnail|300px|left|Israeli Airstrike near the August-Victoria Hospital]]
__NOTOC__
Six days in June 1967 forever altered the landscape of the Middle East. Many of the modern conflicts in the region find their roots in the dramatic changes of that period. A multitude of consequences continue to shape interactions between Israelis, Palestinians, Arabs and the rest of the world. However, major political, economic, demographic and social changes took place immediately after the conflict. Specifically, political legitimacy, the occupied territories and Middle Eastern identity experienced vast transformations. Those transformations, in addition to United States involvement, would significantly impact foreign affairs for years to come.
==Political Changes==
Politics and political legitimacy following the 1967 War resulted in completely different outcomes for Israelis and Arabs in the region. Israel arguably achieved some level of political legitimacy through massive land acquisition and bargaining power over neighboring Arab states. Israel gained all of Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights in only six days.<ref>Gelvin, 273</ref> The Israeli government announced a bargaining deal with Arabs involving the exchange of land for peace. To address the issue of land ownership immediately following the conflict, the United Nations Security Council put forth Resolution 242 which specified the inadmissibility of gaining territory through war.<ref>U.N. Security Council: Resolution 242, as quoted in Walter Laqueur and Barry Rubin (ed) The Israel-Arab Reader (Penguin, 2001), 116</ref> However, Israel used the occupied territories as bargaining chips. For example, Israel negotiated for peace with Egypt in 1978 following of years of conflict that began with the 1973 October War. While this was a victory for Israel and its land for peace equation, Egypt was given the Sinai Peninsula. But discussion about the Palestinian refugee crisis was not addressed.<ref>Article II of the Egypt and Israel Peace Treaty, as quoted in Walter Laqueur and Barry Rubin (ed) The Israel-Arab Reader (Penguin, 2001), 228</ref> While the treaty points out Israel’s compliance with Resolution 242, it fails to acknowledge the conditions of the resolution that Israel did not follow, such as settling the refugee problem within the occupied territories. With massive land gains and political and military advantages, Israel found itself in a position to take bolder steps in obtaining and securing land. In a controversial move, Israel named Jerusalem as the country’s everlasting capital as part of an era of new assertiveness that lasted well into the 1980s (with Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s government.<ref>Gelvin, 275</ref><ref>Dov Waxman, The Pursuit of Peace and the Crisis of Israeli Identity: Defending/Defining the Nation (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 52</ref>
Although the 1967 War is sometimes seen as a struggle between Israelis and Palestinians, all neighboring Arab states were greatly affected by the unstable political environment. Jordan lost control of the West Bank and Syria relinquished control of the Golan Heights.<ref>Gelvin, 273</ref> The loss of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, and, more importantly, President Nasser’s loss of political credibility were particularly detrimental to Egypt. No longer did Nasser’s dream of pan-Arabism seem possible after such a concerted failure by Arab states to defend Palestinians. It was in the atmosphere of failed pan-Arabism that the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) gained a stronger foothold under their leader, Yasir Arafat. Formed in 1964, the PLO was created around the idea that Palestinians should be self-reliant in their efforts to regain a Palestinian state.<ref>Gelvin, 277</ref> This guiding tenet removed not only the expectations for Arab financial and military aid, but had the effect of weakening an already diminished Arab authority.
