Why History Still Matters: The 1967 Six Day War
Today, there are those who wish to rewrite history.‘Nakba,’ ‘Naksa’ … Nowhere
They want the world to believe that there was once a Palestinian state. There was not.
They want the world to believe that there were fixed borders between that state and Israel. But there was only an armistice line between Israel and the Jordanian-controlled West Bank and eastern Jerusalem.
They want the world to believe that the 1967 war was a bellicose act by Israel. It was an act of self-defense in the face of blood-curdling threats to vanquish the Jewish state, not to mention the maritime blockade of the Straits of Tiran, the abrupt withdrawal of UN peacekeeping forces, and the redeployment of Egyptian and Syrian troops.
All wars have consequences. This one was no exception. But the aggressors have failed to take responsibility for the actions they instigated. They want the world to believe that post-1967 Israeli settlement-building is the key obstacle to peacemaking.
But the Six Day War is proof positive that the core issue is and always has been whether the Palestinians and larger Arab world accept the Jewish people’s right to a state of their own. If so, all other contentious issues, however difficult, have possible solutions. But, alas, if not, then all bets are off.
These people want the world to believe that the Arab world had nothing against Jews per se, only Israel. Yet they trampled with abandon on sites of sacred meaning to the Jewish people. In other words, when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, dismissing the past simply won’t work.
Can history move forward? Absolutely. Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994 prove this. At the same time, however, the lessons of the Six-Day War illustrate just how tough and tortuous the path can be, and are sobering reminders that, yes, history does matter.
When it comes to the Palestinian “original sin” theory of Israel’s creation, there are two key milestones: the flight of approximately 750,000 Arab refugees during the 1948 War of Independence and the 1967 conquest of eastern Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip during the Six Day War. The events of 1948 are known in Arabic as the nakba (“catastrophe”) and the events of 1967 are called the naksa (“setback”).
This week, with the 51st anniversary of the Six Day War upon us, Palestinians will mark “Naksa Day” on June 5 with protests and demonstrations — and it will be interesting to see whether any new wave of protests fizzles out in much the same way as those on the Israel-Gaza border in recent weeks, which were presented as a commemoration of the events of 1948. It will also be interesting to see whether Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and allied Islamist groups will use the occasion to fire another barrage of missiles at Israel.
It’s increasingly clear to everyone that neither of these strategies is working for the Palestinians. Compare the international reaction to Gaza in 2018 to that of summer 2014, when Israel took military action to end the daily missile launches from Gaza, and which the Palestinians similarly depicted as a total war designed to deliberately kill and maim civilians. Four years on, especially among European governments, there is much greater recognition that Hamas uses Gazans as human shields and far less lecturing Israeli leaders about the moral perils of a “disproportionate response.” As for the expected convulsion of international protests, there really hasn’t been one so far.
Instead, the Palestinians are confronted with a region that no longer places them front and center, as well as an impatient international community, less willing to indulge Palestinian tales of Israel’s inherent brutality. In her speech to the UN Security Council emergency meeting on the Palestinian missile attacks on Israel — called by the United States — US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley openly declared that the time had come for the Palestinians to consider alternative leadership that can adopt a peace strategy. Haley, significantly to my mind, made no distinction between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and the Hamas rulers of Gaza, puncturing yet another prevailing myth that the former is dramatically more moderate than the latter.
PMW: Trump is “the copy of Hitler,” says official PA daily op-ed
Following the US veto of a UN resolution, which called for "international protection" for Palestinians in the Gaza Strip over Israel's response to the violent March of Return riots, US President Trump was described as "the copy of Hitler" and a "racist" in an op-ed in the official Palestinian Authority daily:Erdogan and Other Turkish Politicians: "The State of Israel Emulates Hitler"
"This racist [Trump], the copy of Hitler, does not want to see us free but rather dead, uprooted, expelled, and captive. He is happy to see us hungry, chasing the American sack of flour and leaving the principle of freedom thousands of miles behind us." [Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, June 3, 2018]
This is how writer Muwaffaq Matar, a member of the Fatah Revolutionary Council, interpreted the American motives behind the decision to veto the Kuwaiti resolution that was brought to a UN Security Council vote on June 1, 2018. The resolution did not mention Hamas' rule over the Gaza Strip or the violent demonstrations and attempts to breach the border into Israel, nor the recent escalation of rocket fire from Gaza into Israel.