Day War (1967)

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Day War (1967) BICOM Briefing Causes and consequences of the Six- Day War (1967) March 2017 PART 1: THE CAUSES OF THE WAR Armed Palestinian fighters (Fedayeen) frequently launched raids into Israel, especially from Jordan What was the background to the war? and Lebanon, with Syria a key supporter of the fighters. These raids became more regular and Israel’s War of Independence ended in early deadly during the immediate years prior to the war, 1949 with armistice agreements that left Israel and culminated in what is often referred to as the in a formal state of war with all its neighbours, precursor to the Six-Day War, the Samu Incident defending precarious borders and cut off from of 13 November 1966. Israel sent up to 3,000 Jewish places of religious, historic and national soldiers and tanks into the Jordanian-held village significance in Jerusalem and the West Bank. of Samu, in the West Bank, in an attempt to stop The War also created approximately 750,000 Fedayeen attacks and to force Arab states to more Palestinian refugees in Jordanian, Lebanese, aggressively prevent cross-border attacks under Egyptian and Syrian controlled territory. Israel’s their control. The Samu Incident did not produce territory was the size of Wales, and in 1967 its its intended outcome; in the first four months of population was less than three million. 1967 Israel recorded 270 border incidents along the West Bank and Syrian borders (a 100 per cent Surrounded by hostile neighbours on all increase from the last four months of 1966) which sides, Israel had extremely vulnerable borders triggered Israeli reprisal raids. and no strategic depth. The narrowest point between the West Bank and the Mediterranean Cold War military alliances: In the late 1950s was nine miles, and Jordanian and Egyptian and early 1960s Egypt’s President Gamal Abdel artillery weapons could hit most Israeli cities Nasser aligned with the Soviet Union, receiving and civilian infrastructure. The recent memory vast amounts of arms and financial support. In of the Holocaust heightened the Israeli sense of fact, from 1956 to 1967 the Soviet Union invested insecurity and fear of genocide. Israeli Foreign US$2bn in military aid alone in its Arab clients – Minister Abba Eban said of the pre-1967 borders 1,700 tanks, 2,400 artillery pieces, 500 jets, and that they are, “for us equivalent to insecurity and 1,400 advisers – of which 43 per cent went directly danger. I do not exaggerate when I say that it has to Egypt. Due to the Soviet Union clientelism, for us something of a memory of Auschwitz ”. Israel’s Arab neighbours were outspending Israel in defence expenditures by US$1,481m to US$628m. Israel’s diplomatic vulnerability: Israel’s strongest Western ally and arms provider was France. However, after Charles De Gaulle was elected in 1958, France shifted to align itself more with Arab interests, placing an embargo on offensive weapon sales to the Middle East, a move affecting only Israel. British leaders had sympathy for Israel but placed emphasis on its relations with oil rich Arab states, whilst the US- Israel strategic relationship was in its infancy. Tensions over the sources of the Jordan River and Israeli land cultivation on the border, led to clashes between Israel and Syria. Syria attempted to divert the sources of the river, to thwart the construction of Israel’s National Water Carrier, vital for Israel’s development. A major clash between Syria and Israel occurred on 7 April 1967, when Syrian artillery on the Golan Heights fired on an Israeli tractor farming in the demilitarised zone which subsequently escalated into an air battle in which Israel shot down six Syrian MiG 21 fighters. Egypt signed a mutual defence agreement with Syria in 1966, placing all army units under the command of the Egyptian military, in effect 1 limiting Israel’s ability to respond to specific of Tiran to Israeli shipping, a violation of attacks without potentially causing a massive international law and long regarded by Israel as retaliation. a casus belli. The closing of the Straits prevented vital goods from entering Israel’s Red Sea resort What led to the crisis in May-June 1967? of Eilat and the absence of an Israeli response was perceived as severely False intelligence from the Soviets who reported diminishing Israel’s “The time has deterrence, which to Egypt in mid-May 1967 that Israel was massing come to enter troops to attack Syria. No such preparation was was vital for its underway. national security. US into a battle of President Johnson annihilation.” Egypt sent four brigades into the Sinai on 14 said later: “If a single - Syrian Defence Min- May and ordered out the 3,400 UN peacekeepers act of folly was ister Hafez al-Assad stationed there as an integral part of the ceasefire more responsible for agreement hammered out after the 1956 Sinai- this explosion than Suez conflict between Israel and Egypt. UN any other, it was the arbitrary and dangerous Secretary General U. Thant immediately agreed announced decision that the Straits of Tiran to withdraw the UN, which Abba Eban likened would be closed.” to “an umbrella which is taken away as soon as it begins to rain”. This doubled the number of At the end of May, Egypt signed military Egyptian soldiers compared with Israeli soldiers defence pacts with Jordan and Iraq, in theory in the area. Israel responded by mobilising its unifying their forces under Egypt, and increasing reserves, a considerable proportion of its male the Israeli sense of a noose being drawn around population. its neck. On 30 May 1967, King Hussein of Jordan said: “All of the Arab armies now surround Nasser, emboldened by the UN withdrawal, Israel. The UAR, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, announced on 22 May the closure of the Straits Lebanon, Algeria, Sudan, and Kuwait... there 2 is no difference between one Arab people and Israeli military doctrine, dictated by lack of another, no difference between one Arab army geographical depth, made it a strategic imperative and another.” to strike first.Facing potential war on three fronts, Israel’s planners believed a surprise first-strike International diplo- “Our basic was essential to take out one threat in order to macy failed to resolve objective will be withstand others if they materialised. Israel’s the crisis. A US initi- generals also argued that the longer Israel waited, ative to break Egypt’s the destruction the more costly would be the battle, and the lower blockade of the Straits of Israel” the chances of success, since Nasser was using with a multinational - President of Egypt time to entrench his forces. The mobilisation of so convoy to escort Israe- Gamal Abdel Nasser many of Israel’s male population away from their li ships (named Oper- work places was also crippling economically. ation Regatta), never materialised due to lack of international support and US resolve. This dilemma created a political crisis in Israel: The pressure of a potentially devastating war Why did Israel launch a pre-emptive strike? coupled with the absence of clear policy directives caused Israel’s Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin to Israeli Prime Minister suffer from mental and physical exhaustion, “Expecting which incapacitated him for 48 hours between Levi Eshkol resisted Israel to take intense pressure 22 and 24 May. Political and public pressure from his military to a possible ultimately forced Eshkol to hand over the defence launch a pre-emptive destructive portfolio (which he also held) to Moshe Dayan, a military hero. strike for two to three blow without weeks, and hoped in vain for a diplomatic responding Israel’s alarm grew as Arab leaders, media and solution. He wished to would be like publics united around the threat to destroy Israel avoid war if possible – accepting defeat and slaughter its people. Nasser declared: “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel,” certainly without overt before trying to US support – and whilst Syrian Defence Minister Hafez al-Assad feared the diplomatic protect yourself.” declared: “The time has come to enter into a battle consequences of being - Professor Michael of annihilation.” On 1 June, Ahmed Shukeiry, judged the aggressor. Walzer the Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), said: “We shall destroy Israel 3 and its inhabitants and as for the survivors – within minutes. Israel committed 95 per cent of its if there are any – the boats are ready to deport planes to this operation, which minimised Egypt’s them.” ability to launch a ground attack and freed the IAF to attack Jordanian and Syrian air forces on Ultimately, the filling of the Sinai with an the same day. The successful land battles on the Egyptian army capable of a devastating strike Sinai and Jordanian fronts were won in the first coupled with the closure of the Straits of Tiran 24 hours thanks to air superiority. This enabled and the failure of diplomacy made war inevitable. Israel to then divert forces to capturing the Golan As the expert in ‘just war’ theory Professor Heights from Syria. Michael Walzer said: “Expecting Israel to take a possible destructive blow without responding Although outnumbered, Israeli forces were far would be like accepting defeat before trying to better prepared while Arab forces were poorly led protect yourself.” and organised. Israel’s victory was a result of the military’s planning, intelligence and preparation. However, Israel sought to keep Jordan out of the Jordanian forces, which had been placed under hostilities sending an appeal to King Hussein on Egyptian command, were sent to southern areas the first day of the war via three channels – the US of the West Bank, exposing Jerusalem.
Recommended publications
  • Singapore, July 2006
    Library of Congress – Federal Research Division Country Profile: Singapore, July 2006 COUNTRY PROFILE: SINGAPORE July 2006 COUNTRY Formal Name: Republic of Singapore (English-language name). Also, in other official languages: Republik Singapura (Malay), Xinjiapo Gongheguo― 新加坡共和国 (Chinese), and Cingkappãr Kudiyarasu (Tamil) சி க யரச. Short Form: Singapore. Click to Enlarge Image Term for Citizen(s): Singaporean(s). Capital: Singapore. Major Cities: Singapore is a city-state. The city of Singapore is located on the south-central coast of the island of Singapore, but urbanization has taken over most of the territory of the island. Date of Independence: August 31, 1963, from Britain; August 9, 1965, from the Federation of Malaysia. National Public Holidays: New Year’s Day (January 1); Lunar New Year (movable date in January or February); Hari Raya Haji (Feast of the Sacrifice, movable date in February); Good Friday (movable date in March or April); Labour Day (May 1); Vesak Day (June 2); National Day or Independence Day (August 9); Deepavali (movable date in November); Hari Raya Puasa (end of Ramadan, movable date according to the Islamic lunar calendar); and Christmas (December 25). Flag: Two equal horizontal bands of red (top) and white; a vertical white crescent (closed portion toward the hoist side), partially enclosing five white-point stars arranged in a circle, positioned near the hoist side of the red band. The red band symbolizes universal brotherhood and the equality of men; the white band, purity and virtue. The crescent moon represents Click to Enlarge Image a young nation on the rise, while the five stars stand for the ideals of democracy, peace, progress, justice, and equality.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Market Update
    GLOBAL MARKET UPDATE 22 TO 28 MAY: PAPER SHUFFLING THIS WEEK’S GLOBAL EQUITY MARKET MOVERS Top 3: New Zealand 2.78%, Luxembourg 2.38%, Finland 1.67% DEVELOPED Bottom 3: Italy -1.78%, Belgium -1.35%, Norway -0.99% Top 3: Turkey 3.83%, Brazil 2.95%, China "H" 2.90% EMERGING Bottom 3: Dubai -1.51%, Abu Dhabi -1.41%, Indonesia -1.19% Top 3: Kenya 4.74%, Pakistan 3.74%, Nigeria 3.38% FRONTIER Bottom 3: Tanzania -7.44%, Bermuda -2.54%, Jamaica -2.09% After a 9-month odd bull market, some divergence and loss of momentum has prevailed over recent weeks. Over the next month, a number of policy announcements could shape market direction. In particular: • FED and ECB monetary policy decisions at which the US will likely raise rates and Europe may signal a more hawkish stance on policy. • UK general elections and the start of Brexit negotiations. • Italian electoral reform (setting up an Autumn election) and the conclusion of Greek negotiations with the EU to unlock the latest tranche of funding. under quantitative easing gained greater prominence in UNITED STATES discussions. Specifically, “nearly all policymakers expressed S&P 2,416 +1.43%, 10yr Treasury 2.23% +1.19bps, HY Credit a favourable view” of a plan whereby the bank would Index 327 -3bps, Vix 9.81 -2.23Vol announce limits on the dollar amounts of securities that would not be reinvested each month. These caps would The minutes to the FED’s May meeting contained two then increase every 3 months. “Most participants…judged points of interest: that a change in the committee’s reinvestment policy would likely be appropriate later this year” and that “the 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Palestinian Refugees: Adiscussion ·Paper
    Palestinian Refugees: ADiscussion ·Paper Prepared by Dr. Jan Abu Shakrah for The Middle East Program/ Peacebuilding Unit American Friends Service Committee l ! ) I I I ' I I I I I : Contents Preface ................................................................................................... Prologue.................................................................................................. 1 Introduction . .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2 The Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem .. .. .. .. .. 3 • Identifying Palestinian Refugees • Counting Palestinian Refugees • Current Location and Living Conditions of the Refugees Principles: The International Legal Framework .... .. ... .. .. ..... .. .. ....... ........... 9 • United Nations Resolutions Specific to Palestinian Refugees • Special Status of Palestinian Refugees in International Law • Challenges to the International Legal Framework Proposals for Resolution of the Refugee Problem ...................................... 15 • The Refugees in the Context of the Middle East Peace Process • Proposed Solutions and Principles Espoused by Israelis and Palestinians Return Statehood Compensation Resettlement Work of non-governmental organizations................................................. 26 • Awareness-Building and Advocacy Work • Humanitarian Assistance and Development • Solidarity With Right of Return and Restitution Conclusion .... ..... ..... ......... ... ....... ..... ....... ....... ....... ... ......... .. .. ... .. ............
    [Show full text]
  • How Hitler and Stalin Made Modern Poland
    The Wall Street Journal August 1, 2019 How Hitler and Stalin Made Modern Poland The neglected history of the Warsaw uprising helps explain the country’s nationalist politics today. by Sean McMeekin Members of the Polish resistance fight the Nazis in Warsaw, 1944. Photo: Photo 12/Universal Images Group via Getty Images Warsaw Thursday marks the 75th anniversary of the heroic yet doomed Warsaw Uprising against German occupation forces in Poland. Every Aug. 1 at 5 p.m., Poles mark the bitter occasion with a moment of silence for the fallen. Alarm sirens wail in a would-be call to arms that captures the defiant spirit of this proud, pugnacious nation. Warsaw’s stupendous Uprising Museum, one of the city’s few tourist attractions, illustrates the painful side of this defiance. For the battle of 1944 left behind almost nothing of old Warsaw for visitors to admire. The martyrs of the Polish Home Army lost not only their lives but also the city they loved. The fate of Warsaw—reduced to rubble by the vengeful cruelty of one dictator, Hitler, in unspoken connivance with his enemy doppelgänger, Stalin—epitomizes the catastrophe of World War II better than any other single event. Why, then, is this shattering episode in European history almost forgotten in the West? Perhaps because the battle for Warsaw does not have a happy ending. Germany’s eventual defeat did not mark the liberation of Poles but the beginning of another brutal occupation by the Communists. This unsettles the narrative of World War II as a “good war” and looms large over Polish and European politics to this day.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel-Palestine Through the Lens of Game Theory
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Economics Department Working Paper Series Economics 2021 Land for peace? Israel-Palestine through the lens of game theory Amal Ahmad Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/econ_workingpaper Part of the Economics Commons Recommended Citation Ahmad, Amal, "Land for peace? Israel-Palestine through the lens of game theory" (2021). Economics Department Working Paper Series. 301. https://doi.org/10.7275/21792057 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Economics at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Economics Department Working Paper Series by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Land for peace? Israel-Palestine through the lens of game theory Amal Ahmad∗ February 2021 Abstract Why have Israel and the Palestinians failed to implement a \land for peace" solution, along the lines of the Oslo Accords? This paper studies the applica- tion of game theory to this question. I show that existing models of the conflict largely rely on unrealistic assumptions about what the main actors are trying to achieve. Specifically, they assume that Israel is strategically interested in withdrawing from the occupied territories pending resolvable security concerns but that it is obstructed from doing so by violent Palestinians with other objec- tives. I use historical analysis along with bargaining theory to shed doubt on this assumption, and to argue that the persistence of conflict has been aligned with, not contrary to, the interests of the militarily powerful party, Israel.
    [Show full text]
  • International Crisis and Neutrality: United States Foreign Policy Toward the Iran-Iraq War
    Mercer Law Review Volume 43 Number 2 Lead Articles I - The Legal Article 1 Implications of a Nation at War 3-1992 International Crisis and Neutrality: United States Foreign Policy Toward the Iran-Iraq War Francis A. Boyle Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr Part of the International Law Commons, and the Military, War, and Peace Commons Recommended Citation Boyle, Francis A. (1992) "International Crisis and Neutrality: United States Foreign Policy Toward the Iran- Iraq War," Mercer Law Review: Vol. 43 : No. 2 , Article 1. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr/vol43/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Mercer Law School Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mercer Law Review by an authorized editor of Mercer Law School Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LEAD ARTICLES International Crisis and Neutrality: United States Foreign Policy Toward the Iran-Iraq War by Francis A. Boyle* Prescript This Article was written in 1986 and submitted to the University of New Orleans Symposium on Neutrality. The Article reflects the author's analysis regarding the United States military intervensionism into the Middle East with a special focus on the Persian Gulf region. The author analyzes the United States' policies to divide-and-conquer the Arab oil * Professor of International Law, University of Illinois College of Law, Champaign, Illi- nois. University of Chicago (A.B., 1971); Harvard Law School (J.D., magna cum laude, 1976); Harvard University (A.M., 1978 and Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Fighting for the King and the Gods
    FIGHTING FOR THE KING AND THE GODS Press SBL RESOURCES FOR BIBLICAL STUDY Editor Marvin A. Sweeney, Old Testament/Hebrew Bible Number 88 Press SBL FIGHTING FOR THE KING AND THE GODS A Survey of Warfare in the Ancient Near East Charlie Trimm Press SBL Atlanta Copyright © 2017 by Charlie Trimm All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permit- ted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission should be addressed in writing to the Rights and Permissions Office, SBL Press, 825 Hous- ton Mill Road, Atlanta, GA 30329 USA. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Trimm, Charlie, 1977– author. Title: Fighting for the king and the gods : a survey of warfare in the ancient Near East / by Charlie Trimm. Description: Atlanta : SBL Press, 2017. | Series: Resources for biblical study ; number 88 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers:LCCN 2017021412 (print) | LCCN 2017026895 (ebook) | ISBN 9780884142379 (ebook) | ISBN 9781628371840 (pbk. : alk. paper) | ISBN 9780884142386 (hardcover : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Military art and science—History—To 500. | Military art and science— Middle East—History. | Iraq—History—To 634. Classification: LCC U31 (ebook) | LCC U31 .T75 2017 (print) | DDC 355.0209394—dc23 LC record available at hhps://lccn.loc.gov/2017021412 Press Printed on acid-free paper. SBL In memory of my father Press SBL Press SBL Contents Abbreviations and Sigla ...................................................................................ix List of Figures ................................................................................................xxiv 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hashemite Custodianship of Jerusalem's Islamic and Christian
    THE HASHEMITE CUSTODIANSHIP OF JERUSALEM’S ISLAMIC AND CHRISTIAN HOLY SITES 1917–2020 CE White Paper The Royal Aal Al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought THE HASHEMITE CUSTODIANSHIP OF JERUSALEM’S ISLAMIC AND CHRISTIAN HOLY SITES 1917–2020 CE White Paper The Royal Aal Al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought THE HASHEMITE CUSTODIANSHIP OF JERUSALEM’S ISLAMIC AND CHRISTIAN HOLY SITES 1917–2020 CE Copyright © 2020 by The Royal Aal Al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought All rights reserved. No part of this document may be used or reproduced in any manner wthout the prior consent of the publisher. Cover Image: Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem © Shutterstock Title Page Image: Dome of the Rock and Jerusalem © Shutterstock isbn 978–9957–635–47–3 Printed in Jordan by The National Press Third print run CONTENTS ABSTRACT 5 INTRODUCTION: THE HASHEMITE CUSTODIANSHIP OF THE HOLY SITES IN JERUSALEM 7 PART ONE: THE ARAB, JEWISH, CHRISTIAN AND ISLAMIC HISTORY OF JERUSALEM IN BRIEF 9 PART TWO: THE CUSTODIANSHIP OF THE ISLAMIC HOLY SITES IN JERUSALEM 23 I. The Religious Significance of Jerusalem and its Holy Sites to Muslims 25 II. What is Meant by the ‘Islamic Holy Sites’ of Jerusalem? 30 III. The Significance of the Custodianship of Jerusalem’s Islamic Holy Sites 32 IV. The History of the Hashemite Custodianship of Jerusalem’s Islamic Holy Sites 33 V. The Functions of the Custodianship of Jerusalem’s Islamic Holy Sites 44 VI. Termination of the Islamic Custodianship 53 PART THREE: THE CUSTODIANSHIP OF THE CHRISTIAN HOLY SITES IN JERUSALEM 55 I. The Religious Significance of Jerusalem and its Holy Sites to Christians 57 II.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on Camp David at 40
    Reflections on Camp David at 40 How the Camp David Accords became a limited Egyptian–Israeli peace effort that ultimately transformed Arab–Israeli relations across the Middle East By William B. Quandt hen President Jimmy Carter and his foreign policy team began to address the Arab–Israeli conflict in early 1977, they had several W important reference points in mind. First was the vivid memory of the 1973 October War and the threat it had posed to international security as well as economic prosperity. No one wanted to see a repeat of such a dramatic and dangerous conflict. In addition, there was the beginning of a serious diplomatic process begun under the careful guidance of Henry Kissinger, secretary of state for both Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Three agreements on the disengagement of military forces had been reached, two between Egypt and Israel, and one between Syria and Israel, which set the stage for Carter’s own diplomatic efforts in the Arab–Israeli arena. Finally, the United States had good working relations with most of the key parties in the conflict, other than the Palestinians, and Carter was eager to deepen those relations in pursuit of peace in the Holy Land, something that was particularly appealing to him as a devout Christian. All of this meant that the team around the president, which included several participants in the Brookings Report of 1975, were predisposed to support a U.S.-led effort to achieve a comprehensive solution to the Arab–Israeli conflict, including some form of self-determination for the Palestinians—the main goals identified by the report.
    [Show full text]
  • The Arab-Israel War of 1967 1967 Was the Year of the Six-Day War
    The Arab-Israel War of 1967 1967 was the year of the six-day war. Here we bring together its impact on Israel and on the Jewish communities in the Arab countries; United States Middle East policy and United Nations deliberations; effects on the East European Communist bloc, its citizens, and its Jewish communities, and American opinion. For discus- sions of reactions in other parts of the world, see the reviews of individual countries. THE EDITORS Middle East Israel A ALL aspects of Israel's life in 1967 were dominated by the explosion of hostilities on June 5. Two decades of Arab-Israel tension culminated in a massive combined Arab military threat, which was answered by a swift mobilization of Israel's citizen army and, after a period of waiting for international action, by a powerful offensive against the Egyptian, Jor- danian and Syrian forces, leading to the greatest victory in Jewish military annals. During the weeks of danger preceding the six-day war, Jewry throughout the world rallied to Israel's aid: immediate financial support was forthcoming on an unprecedented scale, and thousands of young volunteers offered per- sonal participation in Israel's defense, though they arrived too late to affect the issue (see reviews of individual countries). A new upsurge of national confidence swept away the morale crisis that had accompanied the economic slowdown in 1966. The worldwide Jewish reaction to Israel's danger, and the problems associated with the extension of its military rule over a million more Arabs, led to a reappraisal of atti- tudes towards diaspora Jewry.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gulf States and the Middle East Peace Process: Considerations, Stakes, and Options
    ISSUE BRIEF 08.25.20 The Gulf States and the Middle East Peace Process: Considerations, Stakes, and Options Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, Ph.D, Fellow for the Middle East conflict, the Gulf states complied with and INTRODUCTION enforced the Arab League boycott of Israel This issue brief examines where the six until at least 1994 and participated in the nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council— oil embargo of countries that supported 1 Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Israel in the Yom Kippur War of 1973. In Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates 1973, for example, the president of the (UAE)—currently stand in their outlook and UAE, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, approaches toward the Israeli-Palestinian claimed that “No Arab country is safe from issue. The first section of this brief begins by the perils of the battle with Zionism unless outlining how positions among the six Gulf it plays its role and bears its responsibilities, 2 states have evolved over the three decades in confronting the Israeli enemy.” In since the Madrid Conference of 1991. Section Kuwait, Sheikh Fahd al-Ahmad Al Sabah, a two analyzes the degree to which the six brother of two future Emirs, was wounded Gulf states’ relations with Israel are based while fighting with Fatah in Jordan in 3 on interests, values, or a combination of 1968, while in 1981 the Saudi government both, and how these differ from state to offered to finance the reconstruction of state. Section three details the Gulf states’ Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor after it was 4 responses to the peace plan unveiled by destroyed by an Israeli airstrike.
    [Show full text]
  • “In the Service of Peace” Remembering Col Justin
    “In the service of peace” Remembering Col Justin MacCarthy DSM (1914 – 1960) Colonel Richard Heaslip (Retd) In July 1960 Belgium granted independence to the Congo its former colony and the country erupted in widespread violence. International concern resulted in the involvement of the United Nations, which established a peacekeeping force designated UNOC (United Nations Operation in the Congo) to maintain public order. The Irish Government responded very promptly and positively to a request from the United Nations Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold to participate in the new peacekeeping mission and agreed to provide an infantry battalion for the Congo. The initial request was followed very quickly by a further request for a second battalion which was also acceded to by Government. The Congo mission would become the country’s third UN military mission and historically the first occasion when armed Defence Forces units were deployed on overseas duty. Preceding UNOC, Ireland’s contribution to UN operations was in the form of unarmed military observers first with UNOGIL (United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon) in June 1958 and subsequently with UNTSO (United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation) in December 1958. Col Justin MacCarthy was about to become the Defence Forces’ link to all three missions. Lt Col MacCarthy (6th Cadet Class), a graduate of the Camberley Command & Staff Course, with previous service in a range of command, staff and instructional appointments, had been selected to lead the Irish contribution to UNOGIL. On arrival in Lebanon his duty station became HQ UNOGIL in Beirut, where within five weeks of his arrival he was promoted to Colonel following a request to the Irish national authorities by Gen Odd Bull (Norway) who led the UNOGIL mission.
    [Show full text]