Arabs beating their heads against the wall over 1967 defeat

[mawilson 2,133]

Today is the 40th anniversary of the 1967 Arab-Israeli (Six-Day) war.

What does the Arab press have to say about it?

• The 1967 Six-Day war is known as "naksa" or "temporary setback"
  
• Israel didn't win the war -- it was the "claw of colonialist Western forces" the weakened the Arabs
  
• Arab dictatorships and fundamentalism are Israel's fault
  

Read and weep.

Review of Arab Editorials

UPI

June 5, 2007

AMMAN -- A roundup of commentary from Arab newspapers June 5.

The Arab press Tuesday focused on the 40th anniversary of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war,

which has come to be known as "naksa," or "setback," when Israel captured the

West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights.

Arabs have yet to implement lessons of 1967 defeat

Jordan's independent Al Ghad said June 5, 1967, was no mere "setback," but the start of

a series of setbacks for the Arabs as Israel occupied territories, forced the displacement

of people, and succeeded in frustrating Arabs.

In a special supplement commentary, the daily said the war had changed the history of

the Middle East as Israel had directed the region to where it wanted.

However, it complained, the Arabs had not learned from his defeat, choosing to rely merely

on their just cause in confronting the Jewish state. "But this was not, is not, enough in a

world controlled by interests and balances of powers," it argued.

The mass-circulation daily stressed that while Arabs had failed to manage the regional

crisis over the past 40 years, it was time they started working on cutting their losses.

"The strength of Israel lies in the weakness of the Arabs, and the weakness of the Arabs

stems from their surrender to despair, relying on slogans, and [their] failure in building

strong and modern states," it said.

However, despite the "dark picture" 40 years following the 1967 war, it added, the conflict

was not forgotten on this occasion.

"This [anniversary] is a [milestone] reviving the cause, proving it has not been buried and

that the Palestinian [question] remains in the conscience of the Palestinians, Jordanians,

and the rest of the Arabs as the primary, central [issue]."

1967 war anniversary overshadowed by Gaza strife's shame, chaos

An editorial in the Palestinian Al Hayat Al Jadeeda said that no matter what the Palestinians

did to mark this day, the 1967 war "will not erase the shame of the internal fighting and the

consequences of the chaos we still experience."

The mainstream daily, close to Fatah, added that the defeat, 40 years ago, was just one in

a series of further daily defeats and setbacks as Israel continued to confiscate land, build

settlements, force displacement, kill, arrest, and demolish Palestinian homes.

"Then came the catastrophe of the chaos, social and financial corruption, [and] moral

deviation," it complained.

The West Bank-based daily said that the 1967 defeat that changed the Middle East and

brought military occupation to the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights would be forgotten

unless "we retrieved our rights by establishing an independent state on the borders of Sunday,

June 4, 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital."

It called for marking the 1967 war anniversary by "erasing the new catastrophe of internal

fighting, regaining our national unity, and assuming the will to confront the repercussions of

the earthquake that hit us four decades ago."

Israeli 1967 triumph enabled by 'foreign' powers

A commentary in Egypt's Al Gumhuriya said that 40 years ago Tuesday, the entire Arab nation

received a powerful and "treacherous" blow from Israel as it convinced the world that the Arabs

were trying to push them into the sea.

"So it swallowed all the lands of [the occupied territories], Egypt's Sinai, Syria's Golan, and

southern Lebanon after destroying the Arab armies in six days," it recalled.

The semi-official daily maintained that for the past 40 years, Israel had tried to show that it alone

had emerged victorious in the Six-Day War, "while the truth is, it was the claw of the foreign

forces whose [colonialist] conspiracies failed in the 1950s and 1960s to subdue the Arab nation,"

that owned the triumph.

These Western forces, the mass-circulation argued, had exploited the 1967 Arab defeat by

weakening the Arab capabilities through igniting internal strife.

"The conspiracy of June 5 has not ended since expansionist Israel is still in the region [given that]

the allied forces managed to fool the Arabs with their supposed friendship to enter [through] the

door, and they still haven't left," it opined.

Post-1967, Arabs must take new approach to 'resisting Israel'

An editorial in the United Arab Emirates' Al Khaleej said 40 years after the defeat by Israel, Arabs

had still not learned how to cut their losses, remaining in a constant state of defeat and impotence.

Because of Arab weakness, it argued, Israel has managed to maintain its occupation and "total

racism without fear of an Arab reaction, adding that US support had further caused Israel to

disrespect international laws and ignore "all the resolutions since the 1967 aggression."

The pro-government daily added that the Arab defeat had impacted Arab performance in promoting

Arab causes, especially in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

"On the ... 40-year [anniversary of] the [1967] defeat, we must realize that standing fast and

resisting Israel requires a new Arab approach in managing the conflict ... based on identifying

and using the Arab political, economic, human, and military means properly," it said.

The paper added that Arabs should also adopt a union similar to the EU model, insisting this would

give them strength toward overcoming their defeat. "But this needs belief from the Arab regimes in

the need to change," it said.

1967 war caused Arab dictatorships, fundamentalism to bloom

A commentary in the London-based Al Hayat said Arab regimes had exploited the 1967 defeat at

the hands of Israel to turn their countries into police states under martial law.

The Saudi-financed daily added that Arab regimes had become more like dictatorships, forcing

the Arab intelligentsia to flee their countries to avoid persecution. The vacuum left behind, it argued,

was being used by certain elements of these repressed societies to undermine what was left of civil

institutions, while poverty and unemployment increased.

"In this context, fundamentalism bloomed, and ... a series of civil wars erupted, starting from Syria,

then [to] Egypt and Algeria, spreading violence and terrorism to the rest of the [Arab] countries," it

maintained.

The paper, distributed in many Arab capitals, insisted the 1967 war was not just the occupation of

Arab lands and the expansion of Israel. "It was also a pretext for tyranny and destroying ... Arab

society. It wasn't just a setback, but a disaster [for] the Arab peoples," it said.

"Forty years ago, the choice [in the Arab world] was between a military regime and a pluralistic,

democratic one. Today, the choice is between dictatorships, fundamentalism, or civil wars."

Source

[Boiler 46,246]

Tensions continued to rise and newly-formed Palestinian militant groups began cross-border raids with Arab support. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser was keen to unite the Arab world and spoke of "the destruction of Israel", while Israel feared it could be wiped out.

In May 1967, President Nasser demanded the removal of Unef troops from the Sinai, closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and signed a defence pact with Jordan. Some historians question whether Nasser planned to go to war, but all three factors, and Egyptian troop deployment in the Sinai, led to a pre-emptive strike by Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guid...tml/default.stm

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Boy they sure do hate Israel.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Wow an editorial about editorials. The mind boggles.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

The al-Hayat almost left me laughing (till I realised that it wasn't actually funny).

To say that "Forty years ago, the choice [in the Arab world] was between a military regime and a pluralistic,

democratic one" is wildly inaccurate--as there had been a total of one attempt at democracy in the region all the way from Tangier to just-west-of Abadan. This attempt was in Egypt in 1954 when King Faruk was deposed; while Nagib was elected president, he was promptly overthrown by arrogant dictator Nasser.

Indeed, prior to 1990 in the entire Muslim world, there were a total of three attempts at democracy which led to four failures (the two attempts outside Egypt were by Pakistan at Partition in 1947 and in 1970--the failures in 1951, Pakistan's obvious failure in 1970 and Bangladesh's failure in 1975).

Actually, there have only been a very few Muslims who could have made democracy work at all, of whom I'll supply an exhaustive list:

• Hasan Shahid Suhrawardy (1894-1963)
  
• Iskander Mirza (1899-1969) (ok, actually I gave "benefit-of-doubt" for the first two)
  
• Tajuddin Ahmed (1925-1975)
  
• Syed Nusrul Islam (1925-1975)
  
• Abdul Hamid (aka "Maulana") Bhashani (1885-1976)
  
• and obviously, Mujibur Rehman (1920-1975)
  

(of course, one may notice a rather obvious pattern)