Wednesday Nov 19, 2008

Inside the Middle East: The year 1967 and memory

Posted by Martin Kramer
Comments: 8
BOOKMARK or SHARE: technorati digg del.icio.us reddit newsvine facebook What's this?
Print  |  
Decrease text sizeDecrease text size
Increase text sizeIncrease text size

How did the outcome of 1967 change the way Arabs think about themselves and the world? It was the late Malcolm Kerr, one of America's leading Arabists at the time, who perfectly summarized the consensus. (Kerr was a UCLA professor, later president of the American University of Beirut, who was killed there in 1984.) He put it thus, in a famous passage written only about four years after the 1967 war:
Since June, 1967 Arab politics have ceased to be fun. In the good old days most Arabs refused to take themselves very seriously, and this made it easier to take a relaxed view of the few who possessed intimations of some immortal mission. It was like watching Princeton play Columbia in football on a muddy afternoon. The June War was like a disastrous game against Notre Dame which Princeton impulsively added to its schedule, leaving several players crippled for life and the others so embittered that they took to fighting viciously among themselves instead of scrimmaging happily as before.

I leave aside the identification of the Arabs with Princeton. Kerr was a Princetonian, but so am I, and I would have preferred to identify the Arabs with Columbia, for all sorts of reasons. But it is the way Kerr contrasts pre-1967 with post-1967 Arab politics that is striking - and misleading. Even in 1967, Arab politics hadn't been "fun" in a very long time: as early as the 1940s, they had become a serious and deadly game of costly wars and bloody coups. True, Kerr was writing in the aftermath of Black September in Jordan, a time when Arab politics seemed to have come completely unhinged. But the idea that 1967 put an end to the "good old days" of Arabs "scrimmaging happily" was a pure piece of nostalgic romance in the grand Arabist tradition.

Unfortunately, such nostalgia is seductive. For years, it has been at the root of a notion that persists even today: if we could somehow undo the 1967 war - if we could undo the injury inflicted in those six days - we could put the Middle East back to where it was in the "good old days." In this view, the Arabs and the world could have "fun" again if only we could erase the Arab memory of that war - by erasing its every consequence.

But the "good old days" analysis is entirely false, and not only in its distortion of Arab politics prior to 1967. It is false because it overlooks how the 1967 trauma trimmed the ideological excess of the pre-war period, and opened the way to pragmatic Arab acceptance of Israel.

That ideological excess, known as pan-Arabism or Nasserism, rested upon a prior sense of injury, in which 1948 played the major part. In that earlier war, Israel succeeded in defeating or holding off an array of Arab armies, and three quarters of a million Palestinian Arab refugees ended up in camps. The injury of 1948 was so deep that, over the following twenty years - Kerr's "good old days" - there was no peace process. The Arabs nursed their wounds and dreamed only of another round.

1948 also had a profoundly destabilizing effect on Arab politics. Three coups took place in Syria in 1949, and often thereafter; Jordan's King Abdullah was assassinated (by Palestinians) in 1951; Free Officers toppled the monarchy in Egypt in 1952. Everywhere, the 1948 regimes were faulted for their failure to strangle Israel at birth. Military strongmen seized power in the name of revolution, and promised to do better in the next round. Those "good old days" were in fact very bad days, during which Arab politics became militarized in the certainty and even desirability of another war with Israel.

In 1967, the other war came, and these regimes suffered a far more devastating defeat, delivered in a mere six days. Unlike 1948, when they had lost much of Palestine, in 1967 they lost their own sovereign territory. The shock wave, it is generally assumed, was even greater.

Yet what is telling is that the regimes didn't fall. Nasser offered his resignation, but the crowds filled the streets and demanded that he stay on - and he did. The defense minister and air force commander of Syria, Hafez Asad, held on and ousted his rival two years later, establishing himself as sole ruler. King Hussein of Jordan, who had lost half his kingdom, also survived, as did the Jordanian monarchy. The only regime that failed to withstand the shock waves of 1967 was Lebanon's, and Lebanon hadn't even joined the war. Kerr wrote that 1967 had left the Arab players "crippled for life." In the three Arab states that lost the war, the regimes survived, the leaders ruled for life, and they are now being succeeded by their sons.

What explains the fact that 1967 didn't destabilize the Arab system as 1948 did? It is true that even before 1967, these regimes had started to harden themselves. The evolution of the Arab state as a "republic of fear" dates from the decade before 1967, and this probably helped regimes weather the storm. Unlike in 1948, there weren't many refugees either - the Arab states lost territory, but the war was quick, and most of the inhabitants of the lost territory stayed in their homes.

But I believe the reason 1967 didn't destabilize the Arab order is this: Arab regimes and peoples drew together in the fear that Israel could repeat 1967 if it had to, and that it might show up one day on the outskirts of Cairo or Damascus (as it threatened to do in 1973), or come right into an Arab capital (as it did in Beirut in 1982).

The memory of 1967 thus became the basis of an implicit understanding between the regimes and the peoples: the regimes will avert war, and in return the people will stay loyal, even docile. The regimes have upheld their end, by gradually coming to terms with Israel, and by leaving the Palestinians to fight their own fight. Pan-Arabism - which largely meant sacrificing for the Palestinians - faded away because no Arabs were prepared to risk losing a war for them. The skill of rulers in averting war has helped to secure and entrench them.

I call this understanding implicit - it doesn't have an ideological underpinning. Pragmatism rarely does. But the evidence for it is that no Arab state has entered or stumbled into war with Israel in over thirty years. The memory of the 1967 trauma has been translated into a deep-seated aversion to war, which underpins such peace and stability as the region has enjoyed. 1967 thus marks the beginning of the end of the Arab-Israeli conflict - the conflict between Israel and Arabs states, which had produced a major war every decade. 1973 marks the end of the end, in which two Arab states stole back some honor and territory, precisely so they could lean back and leave Israelis and Palestinians to thrash out their own differences. This narrower Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been a sore, but its costs have been limited compared to a state-to-state war.

It is important to note that pan-Arabism did survive elsewhere in the Arab world, where its illusions continued to exact a very high cost. I refer to Baathist Iraq, which wasn't defeated in 1967, and where pan-Arabism continued to constitute one of the ideological pillars of the regime, vis-à-vis Iran and the West. There it also led to miscalculation, war, and defeat, on a truly massive scale. The Iraq wars - there have been three in the last three decades - provide a striking contrast to the relative stability in Israel's corner of the Middle East - a stability which rests, I suggest, on the Arab memory of 1967, which restructured Arab thinking in the states surrounding Israel, away from eager anticipation of war, and toward anxiously averting it.

So in regard to Arab politics, I have offered a possible revision of the usual view of 1967: perhaps its memory, far from making the Arabs angry and volatile, underpins the stability of the Arab order and regional peace. If so, then perhaps we should recall it as a year of net benefit all around - as compared, say, to 1979, the year of Iran's revolution, or 2003, the year of the US invasion of Iraq. The impact of 1967 was to create a new balance, and push ideology to the margins of politics. The impact of 1979 and 2003 has been to unbalance the region and strengthen radical ideologies. 1967 ultimately produced a process that led to the finalizing of borders between states. The combined impact of 1979 and 2003 threatens to erase borders from the map.

The risk today, over forty years later, is not that the consequences of 1967 are still with us. It is that memory of 1967 is starting to fade, and its legacy is being eroded. I am struck by the subtitles of the two leading books on 1967. Michael Oren's is June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East. Tom Segev's goes even further: Israel, the War, and the Year that Transformed the Middle East. If only it were so. The problem is that the Middle East continues to be remade and transformed by subsequent events, whose legacy is much more damaging than the legacy of 1967.

What then happens when the Arab world is dominated by generations that no longer remember 1967 or, more importantly, no longer think Israel capable of reenacting it? What memories are replacing the memory of 1967? The 2006 summer war in Lebanon? (To rework Kerr's analogy, that was like Columbia playing Notre Dame to a draw.) Without the memory of that defeat of forty years ago, the ranks of the Islamists could swell with people who imagine victory. Without the fear of war, peoples could turn away from those rulers who have made peace - away from the implicit understanding that underpins order. Will it be possible to build stability and peace on other memories, or other promises?

This post originally appeared at Middle East Strategy at Harvard (MESH) on November 13, 2008. Earlier versions were delivered at two conferences in Jerusalem last year, marking the 40th anniversary of the war.

BOOKMARK or SHARE: technorati digg del.icio.us reddit newsvine facebook What's this?
Print  |  
Comments: Post your own comment
1  |   Said, London, Friday Nov 21, 2008
You're wrong sir. The reason that Arabs leaders suddenly became "pragmatic" is because they realised that they preferred their Swiss bank accounts more than Palestinian liberation. They are all a bunch of thugs and petty crooks with delusions of grandeur. Rather than suffer the fate of those they overthrew and executed, they sold a different position to the Arab masses and drugged them with even better slogans: Resistance to Israel, even though we're not going to war with them. If you ask me, the Arab world should have fought a war of attrition since 1948.
2  |   anon, Friday Nov 21, 2008
Interesting premise, wrong conclusion. Your pro-Israel bias make you forget to deal with the reality that 1967 was as much, if not more, of a radicalizing factor in the Middle East (thus contributing to the rise contemporary Islamism) than the stabilizing one you present.
3  |   Frank, NYC, Friday Nov 21, 2008
Said: States with nuclear weapons do not fight wars of attrition. The peculiar moderation of Israel's wily Arab neighbours - of Mubarak, Hussein and Asad - is their sole virtue. They know better than to fight their much stronger neighbor. The dreams which you dream are fine - as dreams. Continue dreaming them. Remain docile.
4  |   Chuck A Franklin NJ USA, Friday Nov 21, 2008
I believe your analysis is flawed in that the Arabs have merely changed tactics, not their desire to see Israel destroyed. They have maintained the "3 no's", continued hostility in the UN, and now have sought to portray Israel as a pariah, which they have done in the UN and with EU complicity. Jordan merely has ceased to be an aggressor, and the "peace" with Egypt is only an absence of combat. The Saudi "peace plan" in not, as it required Israel to give up everything before the Arabs consider recognition (never happen). 1967 still stings the Arab memory.
5  |   Daniel-Atlanta, Saturday Nov 22, 2008
The problem is that neither Israel nor the Arab states realized that the events of the Six Day War in 1967 were spiritual in nature, ordained by G-d. Specifically, the capture of the Temple Mount by Israel was predicted to happen exactly when it happened (predicted in the Book of Daniel, see brief explanation at [ Link to page ] ). Another prophecy even pinpoints the exact day, June 7. However, both sides have proceeded ever since as if the hand of G-d had nothing to do with 1967. Is it any wonder that things have only gotten worse?
6  |   SarahSue - USA, Sunday Nov 23, 2008
It is interesting how people such as Martin Kramer try to debunk misinformation while adding their own. He shows concern for future muslims forgetting the lessons of the past. Yet history shows that the muslim world never forgets. They remember all the battles won and lost from the 7th century ad to the present day. September 11, 2000 was in memory of September 11, 1683. He worries that the muslim world will get the chutzpa to act now that Israel is perceived as weak. Yet history again shows that the muslims know that a weak Israel is ten times stronger than a strong muslim country.
7  |   Yosef, Israel, Sunday Nov 23, 2008
The Arabs have had many propaganda victories, while Israel has been very bad at projecting a positive image of itself and at the same time, combating this propaganda. This to the extent that history has been reinvented, even in the minds of many western academics, who have the effrontery to claim that the 67 war was totally initiated by Israel and not a war of self-defence! The Israeli insistence of ignoring the miraculous nature of the victory of the 6-Day War itself is no small part of the problem.
8  |   Garty Best Australia, Saturday Apr 11, 2009
All one sided comments perpicting one's views on the middle east. Since the birth of human records, and probably preceeding them, Arabs/ Islam and Jews have wanted to kill each other. Nothing has changed, except the tactics and the weapons on both sides. There will never be peace. The only way there is a possibility of peace is for one side to genocide the other. Evan in the lands that house both sides of this, both batlle, belittle and attack each when possible, torche each others temples and synogogues. Its the only part of evolution that hasnt changed. Jews and arabs/ islam fighting.
Add your comment remaining characters
Name and Location *

NOTE: Comments are moderated and will not appear on this blog, until they have been reviewed and deemed appropriate for posting.

For more information, please see our
Readers' Submission Policy.

E-mail * (will NOT be published)
Your Blog/Website
--------------------------------
* All fields are required

About this blog

Inside the Middle East Shalem Center's Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies' scholar of Islam and the Arab world Martin Kramer on this turbulent region.

Search this blog

Archives
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs

Most Popular

  1. Time to be put out to pasture?
    Posted in In the Trenches by David A. Harris
    Sunday Nov 01, 2009
  2. Hillary's Middle East saga
    Posted in A Point of View by Abraham Foxman
    Thursday Nov 05, 2009
  3. The end of anti-Semitism?
    Posted in Guest Blog by David Turner
    Thursday Nov 05, 2009
  4. 'The Jewish Terrorist'
    Posted in Green-Lined by Yisrael Medad
    Thursday Nov 05, 2009
  5. The downfall of a cynic
    Posted in Guest Blog by Ruth Lande
    Tuesday Nov 03, 2009

Top Rated Posts

Recent Comments

George Florida USA: Israel lost Turkey their only Moslem ally in the region due to in part to the Gaza offensive. One she trusted to the point of taking on Turkish interests as her cause in the US lobby. Posting anti Hellenic articles in the US press, even fighting against the Armenian genocide vote in the US Congress. Who from a nation that suffered massive genocide herself. Does Israel have any morals? Now that the Turks have turned on Isreal an have even called Israeli action in Gaza genocidal , It's time to find out who her real allies in the eastern Med basin may be and reach out to them.
Colin Beck, Surrey, B.C., Canada: The Holocaust occurred in 2 year increments from 1933 - 45. We are not aware of the gradual erosion of our civil liberties because we are under the delusion that the beast can be tamed. DOES NOT THE TURKEY HAVE TO THAW OUT UNDER WATER? DOES NOT CHARLIE POTATOES DEFINE THE TURKEY? The West has weak leaders who tell people what they KNOW they NEED to hear in order to get what they WANT which is their money or power. [or both] Was Dec. 7/41 and Sept. 11/01 caused by an ALAMO COMPLEX? Did Hitler have one? Was that what World War Two was all about? Is it caused by a wandering spirit? Luke 11:24:26
Jonathan_Liberaed Jewish Homeland: #3 and so, what's your point other than to brag about your son? He is spineless, do you know what true pioners in Israel have suffered through? Malaria, Fakestinians attempting to murder them.....I took a 90%cut in income as a physician and I have ever looked back