Customer Reviews

Six Days: How the 1967 War Shaped the Middle East

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Jeremy Bowen explores the causes of the 1967 war initiated by Israel, and why the Israeli decision to attack its neighbors resulted only in the seemingly never-ending disaster in the Middle East. As a Republican, and a strong supporter of Israel, I was quite disturbed by the facts presented, and better understand why the 1967 war can be a perpetual cause of Israel's bad relations with her neighbors, as can be evidenced most recently with the 2006 Lebanese devastation, and the recent massacre of civilians (including 500 children) in Gaza. The drumbeats of the 1967 still beat, as can indisputably heard even now, with the new Israeli government's threats to bombard Iran. My fellow supporters of democratic (albeit apartheid) Israel obviously do not want you to know the full story. You can begin to learn the other side of the story here.

Jeremy Bowen's "Six Days" is a brilliant chronicle of the 1967 war and its consequences for the Middle East. It is a curious phenomenon to see the amount of attacks leveled at the book on this page. Most of the one star reviews provide little in the form of facts and documentation to refute Bowen's conclusions, instead their principle source of anguish is the fact that Bowen does not subscribe to statist worship. They want a classic, romantic narrative where tiny, God-chosen Israel slays the Arab menace with only the equally divine United States providing friendship and support. But as real students of history know, real life is something else. "Six Days" cuts through the imposed daydream and with a sharp, exciting prose, documents how the 1967 conflict erupted out of an Israeli government seeking to expand its territory and governments in Syria and Egypt who bit off more than they could chew.

Bowen's book reads like an epic as it begins with the partition of Palestine, Israel's war of independence in 1948 and the tragic expulsion of the indigenous Arab population as a result of Israeli land grabbing in conjunction with territorial aspirations of the Jordanian monarchy. With fine details, figures and names, Bowen chronicles how the build up to the 1967 war was a long process involving years of hostilities between both sides as Israel coveted more land and regional governments engaged in provocative actions to keep the newly formed Jewish state on edge. The details of the period are well presented as Bowen takes us into a unique era in the Middle East when secular Arab nationalism was sweeping the region and Nasser's Egypt became a beacon of independence from imperialism, especially after the 1956 French-British-Israeli failed invasion. But as Bowen shows, Nasser also suffered from a need to keep his credentials and image intact which lead to Egypt parading itself as a military might which in fact, it wasn't. Syria, at the time suffering from continuous military coups, was also in the same situation. The conditions were ripe for a confrontation where Israel, having a superior and well-disciplined military force (and a newly-established nuclear program), could easily defeat the Arabs without ever having been under any serious, mortal danger.

The details of the Six Day War are well-known, especially Israel's dramatic air assault which decimated Egyptian air defenses, Bowen brilliantly captures it all here and those interested in the history of the conflict will not be disappointed. The book is especially worth reading for its exploration of little known, or little discussed incidents such as the Israeli bombing of the USS Liberty, a US ship where several crewmen died. This remains a highly controversial subject and Bowen presents both sides, was it an accident or a deliberate attack? And why did the US simply brush it under the rug? Most likely because after the war Israel proved it was a highly valuable client state in the region. Bowen also reveals how many of Israel's pretexts for the war were actually not completely honest, Nasser's "blockade" was a joke and was never fully enforced, it was all show to try and keep a macho face in the region. British and US intelligence also knew that Israel faced no mortal danger from its neighbors because of their poor resources and Israel's own superior military capacity. This of course is one reason why reviewers here condemn the book, much in the same way state cultists cannot accept scholarship showing that Iraq never posed a direct threat to the United States in 2003. So why go through the war with Egypt, Syria and Jordan?

As Bowen chronicles in "Six Days," the Israelis have always been an expansionist power with certain aims including the annexation of the West Bank, at the time Gaza and other territories were also coveted. Here is the real heart of the book, it shows us how the events of the past have lead to the situations of the present. The Six Day War resulted in Israel establishing itself as the prime military might in the Middle East and birthed the brutal military occupation of the Palestinian territories, not to mention the hotly disputed occupation of Jerusalem. While it crushed its adversaries, Israeli planners took advantage to expand the country's territory through a classic move of conquest. It takes courage to write the kind of honest, direct history that Bowen presents here. Instead of resorting to recycling the typical, doctrinal view, he looks at the facts, at the events, and draws some clear conclusions. This is not a one-sided narrative, Bowen also faults Arab scheming, grandstanding and poor military planning for what happened, but no one can deny that Israel has been occupying territories in actions deemed illegal by the world body which has resulted in decades of violence, hatred and ethnic conflict.

"Six Days" clarifies the past and clarifies the present, it is brave, vital scholarship which should be read by all serious researchers and those who simply want to know one reason why we are where we are today in the Middle East.

I bought this book as a person who is not Jewish, but as European individual who is interested about the history and the conflict in the Middle East. I work as a researcher in university and I consider it sad that Mr. Bowen does not let the reader develop his views independently, but chooses 'the right' viewpoints for the reader. The chapter describering pre-war development in Israel is headlined "Leading the country to war" which gives impression that Israel was eager to have a war with its Arab neighbours. I found this quite hard to believe when Arabs had superior firepower due to Russian military aid and e.g. the US was preoccupied with deteriorating situation in Vietnam demanding resources and therefore unable to assist Israel. In the book Palestinian violence today is explaned as understandable reaction for Israeli '67 occupation of West Bank and Gaza. I checked this from other sources and violence in Palestine started already in 1920s. Scores of israeli civilians died yearly in violent terrorist attacks from neighbouring countries already before 1967 war. Palestinians were offered homeland twice in 1937 and 1947, and in both times opted to use violance in order to promote their political aims. There was no peace when the West Bank and Gaza belonged to Jordan and Egypt during 1948-1967. At the same time in history, India received independence without any violence whatsoever. Although it might be possible to claim that the IRA violence in Northern Ireland has been only understandable reaction to British occupation there, I suppose that there are also other perspectives. I wonder would Bowen write a similar book about conflict in Northern Ireland mentioning only aforementioned viewpoint and not taking others into account. According to my opinion, honest journalist aiming for objectivity should present all the relevant viewpoints. The views of the author are quite clear from the beginning of the book, and I am somewhat sad that I bought this book since I think that the Middle East conflict does not need another one-sided commentary, but open-minded and accurate books where authors do not regards their own personal views as universal truths that cannot be otherwise.

I thought it was better as a page-turner than most other accounts of the Six Day War. Indeed, Michael Oren's book felt more like a textbook than anything else. But therein lies the true difference. Oren's book is factually accurate, and what it sacrifices in page-turning ability, it gains in accuracy. This book is incredible in fact-picking.

First, one cannot reconcile Oren's book with this one. From the outset, this book makes it as if Israel, not the Arab world, wanted this war. Oren's book, however, describes the mood in Israel as vastly against war and that people in Israel felt that the end was possible, even if not near. Second, Oren describes numerous instances in which the Israeli government and military debated going into the Old City. From this book you would think that Israel hatched the war as a pretext for entering the Old-City. It's an interesting theory, and perhaps some in Israel did want the war precisely so they could use it as a pretext to conquer Jerusalem, but evidence demonstrates that the reality on the ground was very very different, and that the decision to take Jerusalem was not made till well after the war was under way.

The quotes of former high-ranking Israeli government and military officials are impressive. But the author fails to note that a number of the people quoted have adopted views in the past few years inconsistent with views they had in past years, including in the years after the war. That is, the author found a way to quote those that left israeli government and military and became spokepeople for groups on the fringes.

This book would be better if it was described as an editorial. Admittedly, I do not share its editorial perspective or conclusions, but I can accept a difference of opinion. Even then, however, the book's factual flaws seem rather fatal.

Bowen is convinced the Arabs weren't out to destroy Israel, that the Israelis knew they would wipe the floor with their Arab antagonists. This hardly explains the Israeli chief of staff's (Rabin) nervous breakdown, or the then ex-PM's (Ben Gurion) white hot fury with him for what he perceived as an existential danger.
Oren's book is far more extensively sourced from Arab, Hebrew, Russian documents as well as English one - and unlike Bowen evidently strives for precision and balance. The comparison between the two is highly illuminating.

I read this book believing it would give me a neutral perspective on the 1967 Arab Israeli war I should have took more care with my choice and took note of who the author was (a BBC Journalist).

The BBC are notorious bias against the Israelis as a result this book is nothing more than another edition in the Insta-book crap collection.

If you want to be an independent thinker and form your opinion on the Israeli-Palestine troubles read Michael B Oren's 'Six days of war' (available on Amazon).

As Abraham Rabinovich, author of The Yom Kippur War: The Epic Encounter That Transformed the Middle East, said: It is easy to be annoyed at this flawed attempt at a comprehensive account of the Six-Day war. But the book does carry the reader along and can serve as an introduction for those unfamiliar with that landmark event and, also, as a reminder for those who have forgotten.

The absence of a preface in which Bowen, a BBC journalist, should have spelled out what he was attempting to achieve and how he intended to go about it is an immediate warning of a lack of weightiness. Another sign is the absence of maps, except for two unhelpful regional maps.

To his credit, Bowen appears to have read dozens of the books written on the war, including the most recent, as well as relevant government archives, particularly of the United States and United Kingdom. He has also interviewed military and civilian personnel on both sides although he does not indicate how many. But his account remains that of a journalist making notes from the sidelines, not of a researcher who has immersed himself in the heart of the matter, who can make informed assessments, and has original insights to offer. He misses central elements in the story, such as the fascinating objections in the Israeli cabinet to the capture of Jerusalem's Old City-and the Western Wall-by ministers from the National Religious Party, who maintained that it was too politically and ideologically hot to handle; this from a party that would soon after spearhead Israeli settlement efforts.

The battle descriptions are incomprehensible, and Bowen, in searching for the illuminating detail or pregnant quote, more often ends up with banality and schmaltz. Nevertheless, there are interesting glimpses of the players, particularly in the Egyptian camp. Bowen's description of how Egypt and the Arab world worked their way up with ever expanding rhetoric into war fever despite their near-total lack of preparation remains, even four decades later, an astonishment.

Abraham Rabinovich
author of The Yom Kippur War:
The Epic Encounter That Transformed the Middle East

The author explains that in the 1960s, Syrians would challenge Israel by shooting at Israelis who lived near the border. Now, it may be obvious to him that no decent person ought to provoke people by living near a border, but it is not obvious to me. Actually, what is obvious to me is that such attacks violate property rights and human rights.

In any case, Israel would fight back against these attacks by sending tractors into the area near the border. These tractors would draw Syrian fire, after which the Israelis would shoot back. Anyway, Bowen explains that the Israelis were not the only people who were violent. Yes, "Israel set the pace, but the Arabs did their best to keep up with the violence." He goes on to describe Arafat and his gang. And I think that Arafat more than kept up with Israeli violence!

Is Bowen kidding?

The author also tells us that "Israel has poured money into colonizing the Occupied Territories, violating international law."

Actually, the West Bank is disputed territory. If it violates international law for Jews to spend money there and live there, it violates international law for Arabs to spend money there and live there. What Bowen is saying is simply false.

Oh, but there's worse. Bowen also explains that Israel can prosper only if the Arabs suffer. That's preposterous.

Is there anyone who might like such a book? Maybe someone who truly believes that Arabs have a Divine Right, decreed by God Herself, to steal land as long as by so doing, they can deprive Jews of human rights. Maybe the book will make sense to someone like that.

However, if you think truth has value, and if you think peace, justice, or human rights are worthwhile, this book is not for you.