Where Balloons Go
Geopolitics of the Six Day War
Leave a Comment
Describe the interests and actions of the various Great Powers and International Organizations involved in the Six Day War.
- Americans approved the transfer of Hawk surface-to-air missiles to Israel
- recommitted to Israel’s security and the need to maintain a regional balance of power
- cut economic assistance to Egypt by 1965 under the leadership President Lyndon B. Johnson, which pushed the Egyptians closer to the Soviets
- President Dwight Eisenhower pressured Israel to withdraw from Sharm el-Sheikh despite the fact that the Egyptians did not offer any concessions in return
- Eisenhower pledged that the U.S. would guarantee Israel’s right of passage in the Straits of Tiran
- the Americans also sponsored a United Nations resolution establishing the United Nations Emergency Force presence between the Egyptians and the Israelis
- Americans repeatedly rebuffed Israeli requests for military aid and approval for an Israeli preemptive attack on Egypt
- Americans aggressively pursued diplomatic solutions and sought to cobble together an international regatta to challenge the Egyptian blockade on Israeli shipping in the Straits of Tiran
- self interest in the region= tried to safeguard their share
- provided Israel some weapons to defend itself
- British policymakers decided to adopt a more neutral or pro-Arab stance
- war marked a turning point in relations between Israel and Britain, ending a brief period of close cooperation
- by the early 1950s the Soviets no longer regarded the Zionist state as useful for extending their influence into the Middle East
- the Soviets took on the role of armorer for both Syria and Egypt, supplying them with modern tanks, aircraft and later missiles
- the Soviet Union exerted a troublesome influence on the events leading up to the war by feeding Arab suspicions about Israel
- after the war the Soviets rapidly made up the equipment losses suffered by the Syrians and Egyptians and increased their involvement in Egypt’s anti-aircraft defenses
- Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War had an enormous impact on the Jewish population in the Soviet Union and helped set in motion the Jewish exodus from the Communist regime
- France had been a key weapons supplier to Israel during the 1950’s and the first half of the 1960’s
- French fighter jets made up the backbone of Israel’s air force on the eve of the Six Day War
- France hoped to protect its overseas empire in the face of mounting insurgencies
- 1958 to the Presidency of France had begun a gradual shift in policy, a mending of relations with the Arabs and a move away from Israel
- in addition to the embargo on Israeli weapons purchases imposed in 1967, France also refused to deliver 50 aircraft already paid for in full
- the French embargo marked the end of close military relations between Israel and France and the beginning of a strong relationship between Israel and the U.S
- United Nations Emergency Force
- in place along the Egypt-Israel border since the Suez Crisis of 1956
- an irritating presence to Egyptian militarism
- the Arab League declared their wish to finally achieve the dissolution of Israel in 1964
- Egypt forced a withdrawal of UNEF from the border
- Canada’s objected to the retreat of UNEF, arguing that it would spark armed conflict
- UNEF heads attempted to slow removal, but war broke out in June of 1967
- United Nations Security Council
- previous year (November 1966) had drafted Resolution 228, which cautioned Israel against continued encroachment into Jordanian territory
- Abba Eban made a speech to the Security Council in order to explain Israel’s justifications for going to war
- Security Council Resolution 242 (November 1967) called for the removal of Israeli forces from occupied territory to facilitate peace between Israel and Arab countries
- called for end of “belligerency” between the involved states (Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Israel)
- start of “land for peace” – would become a major part of future Arab-Israeli relations
- Israel still maintained expanded borders
- Israeli + USA
- United States – maintained diplomatic relations outside their borders to keep the peace
- also reaped benefits from said diplomatic relations
- United States had bountiful Jewish population
- Presidents pandered to Zionist Jews to maintain order and popularity
- Israel asked for United States for military assistance during the Yemen War
- United States began to give Hawk air missiles to Israel
- Arabs was infuriated by the United States giving supplies to Israel
- Arab Countries + USA
- although the United States often favored the Israelis, kept diplomatic friendships with the Arab countries
- interests in the Middle Eastern oil fields
- Cold War – needed to secure relations with the Arab countries to fight communist threat
- embargoed arms because they didn’t want to seem as if they were favoring the Jews over the Arabs
- precedent seen in the intermittent support of the Partition of Palestine earlier
- Syria and Egypt + Soviet Union
- Soviets sought to extend their Communist ideals into the Middle East; needed a gateway
- Syria and Egypt – socialist ideology – still lacked full Communist leanings
- Soviet Union used the war between Israel and Egypt to extend their control in the Middle East
- Soviets supplied massive amounts of arms to the Arabs
- Egypt/Jordan/Syria/Lebanon + Kuwait/Algeria/Saudi Arabia/Iraq
- All four of the countries contributed troops and arms
- existed due to states’ Pan-Arab leanings
Delicious Scavenger Hunt-Suez Crisis 1956
Leave a Comment
Security Council Resolution S/2322
The Musketeer’s Cloak: Strategic Deception During the Suez Crisis of 1956
President Nasser: Denouncement of the Proposal for a Canal Users’ Association, 1956
Force in Deciding Conflicts
Leave a Comment
“The use of force, more than diplomacy or appeals to norms and values, ultimately determines the outcome of a dispute.”
This claim is neither 100% true nor 100% false. Personally, I think it is much more accurate to say that the use of force ultimately determines the outcome of a dispute by overriding ineffective diplomatic methods and establishing new, working diplomacy. Throughout history, cases of failed diplomacy have led to war, which ultimately solved the conflict and installed new channels of diplomacy to prevent further clashes. The most famous example of this is World War II. For three years, France (lead by Daladier) and Great Britain (led by Chamberlain) practiced the policy of appeasement, giving Hitler the lands he claimed to forestall an armed conflict. However, this policy led to additional areas’ absorption. This only ceased with the invasion of Poland, which resulted in a British declaration of war against Germany.
When, six years later, the war finally came to a close, the powers of the world recognized the failure of their diplomatic methods. The formation of the United Nations was a direct result of World War II and the defunct politics that led to it. Since the formation of the United Nations, there have been no “world” conflicts. Most contemporary conflicts are either between a small number of belligerents or contained to an isolated region. There have yet to be any trans-continental clashes in the sixty-four years of the United Nation’s existence. The reason for this is that heads of state are rarely willing to accept the shortcomings of their politics and must be pushed into forceful conflict to recognize the necessity of change.
Responsibilities of International Community Post-Holocaust
Leave a Comment
Post World War II, the international community were saddled with various responsibilities to the victims of the Holocaust. They were ranked according to immediate need and long-term goals.
Palestinian Difficulties on International Stage
Leave a Comment
Foreign interference from major powers in the Palestinian area was a major factor in preventing Arabs from voicing their interests. While the Arab race stretched far back in history and their presence in the land had been solidified over centuries, they were no match for the strength of a country like Great Britain. A major player in world politics for decades, Britain maintained its standing by being on the winning side in the first World War. The various other states meeting at the League of Nations were not going to stand up for a nation of people who had been absent from the global stage for the memorable past — even if they had wanted to.
When states met to discuss the fate of Palestine, emissaries from the surrounding countries were not invited. National leaders were not permitted. The people whose lives were in question were not consulted. Despite the lack of the ability that Great Britain demonstrated during the 1920 Palestine riots, they still believed that they had the right to control the area. As many other states around the world discovered long before and some time after, British self-entitlement was a force to be reckoned with.
Against the decision of countries like Great Britain, France, and the United States, the Arab nation was next to powerless. The Arabs were simply no match for a political and military power like the British Empire, who believed (and demonstrated this belief in arenas around the globe) that the voice of thousands of people can still be drowned out by the crack of rifles.
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
