The Political And Strategic Consequences Of The Six Day War Of 1967

Good Essays
The Six day war of 1967 was unquestionably one of the most awesome things to happen in modern history. The events of the rapid war are still studied today in military academy’s world wide. The war even took on spiritual dimension for the nation of Israel, who had mostly secular motivations until that point. However, what is perhaps the most interesting is the political and strategic choices and consequences of the war. The dynamics of power in the Middle East were forever changed by a few simple choices. The set up for the war can be illustrated as a two player simultaneous game between Israel and Egypt. Egypt currently lead bu Gamal Abdel Nasser was the de facto leader of the Arab world. While he had made some failed attempts to consolidate …show more content…
Attack means an attempt at a preemptive strike on the foreign antagonist while hold means do nothing and slowly deescalate. We assume the players in this game are rational, even if their populations may be bloodthirsty and have very different payouts. Should both factions go on he aggressive the Israeli Forces will ultimately gain the upper hand because of their highly coordinated troops. Both sides were in position high powered weapons and aircraft courtesy of other world powers, granting the edge to the Israeli offensive. However being attacked on all sides would likely result in losses either in potential spoils or actual lost land. On the Arab side the technical loss would be a set back, but propaganda and fervor from attacking Israel would help cement the regimes legitimacy making the losses not as severe. If both sides go on the defensive Israel will neither have significant gains or losses from the result. The population would be shaken from Arab Psy Ops and propaganda but weathering the storm would give them more time to build legitimacy on the international stage. For the Arab nations not following through with their threats would anger the population but keep their military resources safe and allow for faster buildup for future conflicts. Furthermore for both sides this would be the first steps towards a lasting …show more content…
While Arab Forces waited Israeli forces issued one of the most devastating surprise attacks in the history of war. In a few hours the Egyptian Air force was completely demolished. Worse yet needing to save face with its allies and downplay the damages its people knew about, Jordan and Syria were mislead and faced a similar attack. With the only air power in the war Israel was able quickly carve out sections of the Sinai, Golan Heights, and West bank. The wars results were so fast and awesome many Israelis saw it as divine intervention, and not matter the case Israel was the unchallenged top military power in the area. Furthermore the weakness of Egypt and its allies lead to a new middle eastern union, this time headed more by Saudi Arabia and its oil profits. Why did Egypt choose to Deviate from its dominate strategy? Nasser was a rational player and knew the potential consequences. On issue with showcasing the conflict in this way is that the final results of a war are close to impossible to know until they are over. No one expected the Israeli surprise attack to be so effective, even if people knew they had the upper-hand. Furthermore It could be argued the payout matrix was less accurate because player may have chosen to attack, but simply at a later time, though the strategy of perpetual delays and threats is had to

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    If someone is in danger or they feel threatened, is war necessary? Some people believe it is, but others believe it is not. is sometimes preferred because some countries don’t respond to just talking. Also, some countries might start war on our country, so war is necessary to stop them. For example with North Korea, they do not respond to talking and threaten the United States with nuclear threats, talking with them will not work and could just result to an attack on the U.S. War is oftentimes necessary because sometimes violence is necessary, there are positives to declaring war, and it can get things done faster.…

    • 1097 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Anwar Saddat was the main actor of this war because some economic problem and national prides in his country he think that it will be a good strategy if they attacking Israel. This war is about reclaiming Sinai territory and inviting Syrian to taking back Golan Mountain from Israel. After this war Israel and Egypt negotiated and recover their diplomacy relations And their made Camp David agreement. So many Arab Country didn't like Egypt because they call Egypt a traitor under Anwar Saddat regime (Staff H. , 2009). But we can see there is no big war between Arab Nation and Israel in the future.…

    • 1651 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Such emphasis on importance of practicing empathy matches with liberalists’ view that empathy is required in international cooperation. Failure to be empathetic, however, can cause the strong to lose and evidences that supports McNamara’s claim can be found in Record’s article. Record first introduces Andrew Mack’s argument. Mack argued “will to fight and prevail” is the ultimate determinant of which side is likely to win. According to Mack, “ for insurgents ‘war’ is total, while for the external power it is necessarily ‘limited’, meaning that weaker side has its country and independence to lose in a war so it fights with everything it has.…

    • 1211 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Peace In The Middle East

    • 817 Words
    • 4 Pages

    national security. The entire Middle East has an impact as Middle Eastern peace and rest is a requirement for assured American national security. This breaks down into two divisions: U.S. – Middle East relations being crucial to American national security, and U.S. – Middle East relations being contingent on Arab-Israeli relations and American policies. The lack of Arab approval of American policies, regarding Arab-Israeli issues, can easily give rise to militant terrorist groups and other violent non-state actors, and create an atmosphere in which they can flourish, resulting in a direct threat to U.S. national…

    • 817 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Just War

    • 3235 Words
    • 13 Pages

    As explained by Cushman, it was “justified on the basis of protecting the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein 's oppressive government and shielding the world from dangerous weapons in the hands of a tyrannous regime”, meaning that “Iraq required intervention” (Cushman, p. 404). The author understands that the war did not go as hoped, and that the existence of weapons of massive destruction and links with terrorism was not a fact, but he believed that the suffering of the people to Hussein’s regime was enough to consider it a “just war”. In fact, the author asks to some comprehension of Bush’s actions despite his many mistakes, since it could have made a difference for these innocent people, although the results were not the expected for them. Moreover, the war with Iraq follows some other criteria in order to be considered “just”. As it has already been explained, a “just war” can only be started when a government or authority is legitimate and there is a real chance of defeating the opponent.…

    • 3235 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Throughout human existence, war has been a prevalent issue amongst countries fighting for their prominence. Using Neta Crawford’s Just War Theory, the prompt’s hypothetical situation meets all requirements for jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum (Crawford, 2003). War in the Middle East is justified on the grounds of it being self-defense used to disable terrorist groups in the region and bring an end to the stranglehold ISIS has on the area. The initiation of war is just, given the severity of the attack on America. Not only is the number of people killed a staggering amount, but the reach ISIS had in accomplishing attacks in 4 countries suggests ISIS is more than capable in combatting other countries to gain territory.…

    • 1277 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    War Argumentative Analysis

    • 1613 Words
    • 7 Pages

    The first factor that makes powerful states struggle to achieve the intended political outcomes is military power restriction and the fear of escalation. To clarify, major military powers avoid the escalation to the extent that makes other major powers to interfere directly, or to use a destructive weapon like the atomic bomb. With the innovation of nuclear weapon the Clausewitz concept of “absolute war” is finally achievable. This will generate fear and will restraint powerful state from using maximum power to prevail. Thus the victory as a proper outcome to be expected of the use of American arms was intractable for the duration of the cold war, for the reason of the sensible fear of the escalation of nuclear holocaust.…

    • 1613 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Counterterrorism

    • 1862 Words
    • 8 Pages

    This is mostly due to the fact that the region is currently devoid of any major wars and I feel the use of other IRs, specifically Realism, could cause undue stress and lead to a potential escalation amongst neighboring countries. I will admit, it will be hard not to stress the importance of Realism when our military is training the host nations to patrol and protect/defend their borders from terrorist. But care must be taken to ensure this is a forward reaching strategy. One that looks to the long term goal of eliminating the freedom of movement amongst terrorist groups within Southeast Asia versus creating a new war just to win a single border incident. Liberalism also shined through with the emphasis on continuing/increasing participation in international organizations.…

    • 1862 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    How To Prevent Ww2

    • 925 Words
    • 4 Pages

    There were supporters who believed that a stronger, timelier intervention would have prevented the atrocities that took place. This could have been achieved by not impeding efforts to aid Jewish refugees and having the military target the concentration camps and their rail networks. Others argued that the…

    • 925 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Fred Fleitz Analysis

    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages

    A liberalist could also see that America 's continuous involvement before with the bush administration was actually what was hurting the balance of power and Obama taking steps towards being less involved could help. Obama has been left to clean up what the Bush administration left and has taken action to not waste American lives on the ground and has tried another, less direct, approach. It completely agreeable that conflict happens but a liberal would agree that peace is achievable and the steps that need to be taken to get there can not be as enforcing as ones to achieve complete power. Another attack like 9/11 could happen but from a liberal standpoint one could gather that the world has moved past that and global security is moving towards a more peaceful future as Obama has gone 7 years without war. Fleitz makes a comment that Syria talks have been overshadowed because it legitimized the US 's interference in Syria and Iraq.…

    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays

Related Topics