The 1967 War and Israeli

Politics

Introduction

The 1967 War was a turning point in many respects. It changed

the nature of Middle Eastern politics and Arab- Israeli

conflict, as Israel crushingly defeated the forces of Syria,

Egypt and Jordan in a surprisingly short time of six days and

occupied the Golan Heights, Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West

Bank and East Jerusalem. But the changes that the 1967 War

brought to the Middle Eastern politics was not only limited to

the international context. The 1967 War also irreversibly

changed the Israeli domestic political scene. Throughout this

paper, my research question will be: How did the consequences

of the 1967 War change the Israeli domestic politics? My

emphasis in answering this question will be on the impacts of

the 1967 War on Israeli right and the Israeli radical right,

since most of the changes in Israeli domestic politics after

the 1967 War relate to the rise of Israeli rightist parties and

radical rightist movements. In explaining these changes, I will

employ Anthony Smith’s theory of nationalism and identity.

Methodology

According to Smith’s theory, the individual and the

collectivity have an existential need to define their identity.

This need can be provided by religion or in non religious

societies, by politics. This definition of identity encompasses

the answers to the questions such as who we are, what belongs

to us and what does not, and what is our relationship to our

surroundings. The answers to these questions of identity

justify the distribution of power in the society, legitimize

the social order, determine the essence of political authority

and so on1.

The collective identity emerges out of “a continuos process of

selecting specific elements from a cultural repertoire and

loading them with symbolic value”. Due to this continuity,

collective identity is not static and can change over time as

different elements from the cultural repertoire are differently

emphasized2.

In modern societies, collective identity is mainly based on

nationalism. The intelligentsia and the political elites play a

direct role in the constitution and development of national

identity. Especially in poly-ethnic societies with deep social

cleavages, the role of political elites in shaping collective

1 Yoram Peri, From Political Nationalism to Ethno Nationalism, The Arab-Israeli Conflict-Two Decades of Change, eds: Yehuda Lukacs&Abdalla M.Battah(Colorado: Westview Press), 422 Ibid, 42

identities by providing answers to ontological questions by the

decisions they make is more influental3.

Smith’s theory then proceeds on defining ideal types of

nationalisms. With regard to the issue at our hand, namely

Israel’s domestic politics, two ideal types are especially

relevant. These are the national-political definition, namely

statism and and the ethno- national denition.

According to the statist thesis, state is at the centre for the

definition of collective identity. The state’s and the

collective’s boundaries are identical, and whoever belongs to

the state also belongs to the collective, meaning that

nationality is identical to legal citizenship4. Statist thesis

defines identity in terms of membership in a political entity,

so the issue of national collective identity is in second

importance, at best. Sometimes statism sanctifies the state end

it’s executive branch, making statism to the level of civil

religion in a sense5. In the statist approach, citizenship in

the collective is based on conscience, and one can enter or

exit the collective by becoming a citizen or losing his/her

citizenship6. The importance of the territory for the statist

approach is instrumental, it is the “physical area that the

state exists and the citizens reside”.

In contrast, the ethno-national definition of collective

identity uses socio-cultural attributes as the basis of the

definiton of the collective identity. Accordingly, the

3 Ibid, 434 Ibid, 445 Ibid, 446 Ibid, 44

boundaries of the collective are primordial, with reference to

culture, tradition, language, blood relations in contrast to

the statist approach’s civil and political definiton. The

ethno-nationalist approach sees the world as naturally divided

in nations with each nation exhibiting a particular character.

It follows that the interests of the nation are prior to the

interests of the individuals and groups. The nation expresses

it’s interests via the state7. Notice that while in statist

approach, the state is the supreme value, in the ethno-

nationalist approach, state is a tool that serves the ethnic

community. Thus, in contrast to the statist approach, state’s

boundaries may not be the same with the collective’s

boundaries. In ethno-nationalism, membership in the collective

is not voluntary and is based on primordial attachments. One

can not enter and leave the collective except by birth and

death8. While according to the statist approach the importance

of the territory is instrumental, the ethno-nationalist

approach prescribes an intrinsic significance to the territory.

A sacred character is imposed on the territory by emphasizing

on heroic narratives about the territory9. In extreme versions,

the relationship to the land becomes more important than the

relationship with the state, as is the case with some radical

rightist groups in Israel.

Historical Background

7 Ibid, 458 Ibid, 459 Ibid, 46

In this part, I will first briefly explain the Israeli-

Palestinian conflict and how it emerged, and then I will move

on to explaning three main versions of Zionism, namely Labour,

Revisionist and Religious Zionism. Due to the objectives of

this paper, I will put more emphasis on explaining Revisionist

and Religious Zionisms, since they are at the right of the

Israeli domestic political spectrum.

The Emergence and the Trajectory of the Israeli-

Palestinian Conflict

The Israeli- Palestinian conflict and the Arab- Israeli

conflict is a modern phenomenon. It’s roots can be traced back

towards the last decades of the 19th century, to the emergence

of Zionism.

The ideology of Zionism at late 19th century, as a response to

the rising anti-Semitism in Europe. Jewis people grew more and

more frustrated. These people concluded that as long as Jewish

people were a minority within the societies they lived, they

would be insecure. The solution was creating a Jewish national

home, in which they would constitute a majority.

The land of Palestine was a natural candidate for the ‘Jewish

National Home’, as it was the ‘promised land’ of the Jews

according to the Bible, although it must be noted that

alternative territorial visions did exist within the Zionist

movement10.

First Jewish immigration wave to Palestine began between the

years 1882–1884 and 1890–1891, as around 25 thousand Jews fled

from Russian Empire’s massacres.11Before the first immigration

wave(named ‘aliyah’ by the Jewish people), according to Ottoman

Empire’s censuses, there were 447.454 Muslims and Christians

and 15.011 Jews living in Palestine. The second ‘aliyah’

10 Ibid, 1811 Bora Bayraktar, Oslo Barış Süreci: İsrail-Filistin Barış Görüşmeleri, 1991-2000(İstanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2013), 169

occured in response to the new massacres by the Russian Empire,

as around 35 to 40 thousand Jews immigrated to Palestine12.

As the Jewish immigration continually increased in the 1920s

and especially in the 1930s with the rise of Nazis in Germany,

there occured some clashes between the Jews and Palestinians

and between the Palestinians and British mandate authority. In

1939, Britain issued a White Paper which limited the Jewish

immigration and land purchases.13 Coming in a time in which

persecutions over Jewish people increased in Nazi Germany, this

paper marked the end of British- Zionist alliance for that time

being.

After the WWII, Britain relinquished it’s mandate over

Palestine and handed it over to United Nations.14 UN General

Assembly decided to partition Palestine into two states. They

alloted 56 percent of the land to Jews and 43 percent to

Palestinians, and area of Jerusalem and Bethlehem would be an

international zone15. The Zionist leadership accepted the

partition plan with some reservations. The Palestinians

regarded the decision as a betrayal of the General Assembly, as

they saw viewed the Jewish state as a settler colony16. As a

result, figthing began between Zionist military establishments

and Palestinians. The Zionists gained control of the land

12 Bayraktar, 17013 Ibid.14Charles Smith, Palestine and the Arab Israeli Conflict: A History With Documents(New York: Bedford- St. Martins, 2009) ,22115 Joel Beinin&Lisa Hajjar, A Premier on Palestine, Israel and Arab- Israeli Conflict, MERIP ONLINE16 Ibid

allotted to them in the partition plan through their military

superiority.17

Israel declared it’s independence on 14 May 1948, and

subsequently war started between Israel and Arab states, which

did not view Israel as a legitimate state.

In 1949, Israel and the Arab states signed armistice

agreements. As the outcome of the war, Palestine was divided

into three parts. Israel now controlled the 77% of the land in

contrast to the 56% allotted to them through UN partition plan

as Jordan controlled East Jerusalem and West Bank, and Egypt

controlled the Gaza Strip18. All this meant that the

Palestinian state foreseen by the UN Partition Plan did not

come into effect.

The 1947-1949 fighting had severe consequences for the

Palestinian population, which would later characterize some of

the aspects of their struggle. These years are known was the

Al- Nakba by the Palestinians, meaning disaster, and the Al-

Nakba is very influential in the narratives of the Palestinian

nationalism. The most important consequence was that over

700.000 Palestinians were uprooted from their land and became

refugees.19 Another very important consequence of the war was

that Jerusalem, focus of both Jewish and Palestinian/Arab

identity, was divided into two, as East Jerusalem was under

Jordanian and remaining parts of it was under Israeli control.

17 Smith, 22218 Beinin&Hajjar19 Ibid

The Three Main Versions of Zionism

In the prior section, I explained that Zionism emerged as a

response to rising anti-Semitism in Europe, and it’s aim was to

establish a state in Palestine in which Jews would constitute

the majority and would live safely. Although this vision is

agreed by the three versions of Zionism, there are also many

differences between them in terms of ideology and priorities.

Labor Zionists had a secular vision of Zionism. They tried to

establish an agricultural, progressive, democratic and self

sustaining society, with an emphasis on the value of hard

work20. They aimed at “normalizing” the Jewish people, as they

had concluded that the unusual societal structure of the

Jews(for example the relative low percentage of people who were

occupied with agriculture, and high number of bankers,

merchants) contributed to the rise of anti-Semitism in European

societies. This normalization also entailed secularization and

moving away from rabbinical Judaism21. Labor Zionists

distinguished between “Jews” and “Hebrews”, and they campaigned

for a Hebrew State rather than a Jewish state until the early

1940s22. Labor Zionists tried to fill religious symbols with

secular meanings. For instance, they saw the Bible as a

20 Ilan Peleg, The Impact of the Six Day War on the Israeli Right: A second Republic in the Making? , The Arab-Israeli Conflict-Two Decades of Change, eds: Yehuda Lukacs&Abdalla M.Battah(Colorado: Westview Press, 1988) , 6121Nadav G. Shelef, Evolving Nationalism: Homeland, Identity and Religion In Israel, 1925–2005(New York: Cornell University Press, 2010), 12022 Ibid, 120

historical text of the Jews rather than a divine, sacred

revelation23.

Alternatively to the Labor Zionist mission, Revisionists and

their founding father Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky, offered a myth

of national grandeur, military might and territorial

expansion24. The ideologues of the Revisionist camp were

influenced by the emerging extreme right of the time(probably

except Nazis), and they had concluded that British had to be

expelled from Palesine militarily25. Considering that Labor

Zionist ideology was the dominant one among the Jews in

Palestine in the British mandate period, Revisionist Zionists

had “anti-establishment” sentiments and were characterized by

rejection of democracy and hostility towards socialism26.

Betar, the youth movement of Revisionists, was a semi-

militaristic entity that emphasized hierachy, discipline,

obedience to superiors and rituals. Military symbols were seen

as a symbol of national sovereignity27. The Revisionists were

demanding the State of Israel to encompass both sides of the

Jordan River, and they had rejected the UN Partition Plan which

alloted East Bank to Jordan28. At the time, these demands were

seen as unacceptable by the general public opinion, and Herut’s

(Revisionist’s political party) support base was very low,

probably because of it’s leaders association with the Irgun, a

23 Ibid, 12124 Peleg, 6125 Ehud Sprinzak, The Ascendance of Israel’s Radical Right(Oxford University Press: London, 1991), 2426 Ibid, 2427 Ibid, 2628 Peleg, 55

hawkish militia known for its violent acts. Indeed, between

1949 and 1951, Herut lost five consecutive elections29.

Religious Zionism emerged as a response to anti-Semitism and

aganist the passive stance of religious Jews waiting for

Messiah to come and liberate them by giving Jews their holy

land in Palestine. It was justified by a religious doctrine

saying that a messenger would come before Messiah, so that the

efforts to establish a Jewish state was justified by religious

people30. Mizrahi, the mainstream in religious Zionism, had a

moderate and pragmatic approach most of the time. Although in

discourse level, they were committed territorial maximalism and

aganist the partition of Palestine, especially in the 1920s and

1930s under the influence of Rabbi Kook, they were mostly

pragmatic in their actions31. For instance, they passively and

reluctantly accepted the UN Partition Plan, as they probably

saw the establishment of a Jewish state as a priority,

especially after the Holocaust32. This reluctant and passive

acceptance made it possible for them to ally with the Labor

Zionists. In exchange for their alliance, they received more

and more concessions from Labor Zionists regarding the role of

religion in the public sphere33.

Until 1967, Labor Zionism was the dominant ideology in Israel.

They won all the elections for the Knesset and they engaged in

a more or less successful state-building process34. The right29 Peleg, 5530 Mehmet Yılmaz, Radikal Sağın İsrail Dış Politikasına Etkisi, Filistin-Çıkmazdan Çözüme ed: Ahmet Davutoğlu(İstanbul: Küre Yayınları,2003), 21331 Sprinzak, 3132 Shelef, 7133 Ibid, 7134 Sprinzak, 32

spectrum of the Israeli domestic political scene did not really

threaten them politically. The religious Zionists were already

allied with them. The revisionists were not really able to gain

much public support due to the factors I outlined above. But

all this would change with the 1967 War.

The 1967 War and the Domestic Changes

The 1967 War brought many changes to the Israeli domestic

political scene. These changes were mostly related with Israel

occupying many territories, namely the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza

Strip, West Bank and the Golan Heights. I will examine the

changes in three headings, which are the increasing

significance of Revisionist Zionism in the Israeli domestic

political scene, the revival of territorial maximalist ideas of

Religious Zionists and the new organizations in Israel related

to the occupied territories.

Increasing Significance of Revisionist Zionism in

Israeli Domestic Political Scene

The 1967 war helped to enhance the popularity of Revisionist

ideas within the Israeli society. I mentioned that before the

1967 War, Revisionist ideas and Herut, their political party,

were marginal in the Israeli political scene, due to their

hawkish ideas. However, the 1967 war was a victory for them and

it eventually brought them to the center of the Israeli

politics. To understand this change, we must look at how the

1967 War gave legitimacy to the core beliefs of the Revisionist

belief system. First of all, according to the Revisionist

belief system, the Jewish people exclusively are entitled to

control the Eretz Israel(The Land of Israel according to the

Bible, encompassing the occupied territories of 1967 War). So

as Israel acquired these territories, the Revisionist claim was

no more a theoretical claim, but a reality35. Secondly

according to Revisionists, the Jews will never be allowed to

achieve a normal existence within the family of nations,

contrary to what Labor Zionism tried to do. Relatedly, anti-

semitism is a permanent condition, and the outside world is

engaged in activities to destroy the Jewish nation, and the

Arab states are modern carries of anti-Semitism. Also, the

Revisionists accept the Holocaust as a center of gravity and

apply it to relationships between the Jews and the world. All

these claims were reinforced by the 1967 War, as Israel had

fought with many Arab states36.

As 1967 War helped Revisionist belief system to gain ground in

the Israeli society, the Labor Zionist dream of an egalitarian,

just and normalized society was starting to lose it’s strength,

and annexationist alternatives of Revisionist Zionists were

getting stronger. Consequently, In the 1977 elections, the

rightist party Likud, won the elections for the first time in

Israeli history. The 1967 War led to the strengthening of the 35 Peleg, 6236 Ibid, 62

Israeli right both in short term and permanently, as the war

gave the rightists a cause to defend which also struck a chord

with the general society, namely the annexation of the occupied

territories37.

From the perspective of Smith’s theory of identity and

nationalism, we can say that the statist tradition was getting

weaker in the Israeli society and the ethno-nationalist ideas

of Revisionists, particularly those related with the importance

of the territory and the particularity of the Jewish people as

a nation, were gaining strength, due to the consequences of

the 1967 War.

The Revival of Territorial Maximalist Ideas of

Religious Zionists

The Six-Day War led to the revival of the territorial

maximalist ideas of Religious Zionists. As I stated before,

traditionally the religious Zionists were allied with the Labor

Zionists prior to 1967 War, and they were mostly concerned with

the role of religion in the public realm. However, as Israel

acquired the biblical lands of Israel in the 1967 War, a new

reality was created with which the Religious Zionists had to

deal with. The reunion of Israel with it’s biblical lands moved

Religious Zionists to a territorial maximalist position, and

their alliance with the Labor Zionists eventually collapsed and

they eventually allied with Revisionists, as they found a 37 Peleg, 64

common cause with them, namely the annexation of the occupied

territories38.

Before the 1967 War, Religious Zionists had even declared that

it could withdraw from the parts of Land of Israel if it would

serve for the state of Israel and peace39. However, this

mentality changed after 1967 War. From then on, they adopted a

territorially hawkish stance. They started to prioritize the

Land of Israel over the State of Israel, and started to see

Jewish presence over the occupied territories as the most

important issue. They even started to imply that the state had

no right to withdraw from the territories, regardless of what

it’s leaders and population wanted and how legitimate the

decision-making procedure was40.

When we look at the position of the Religious Zionists prior to

1967 War, we see that in their belief system they were mostly

ethno-nationalists, however they were also realistic and had

accepted to live in an Israel not truly matching with their

ideals. So in their actions, they were mainly statists.

However, after 1967 war, the possibility emerged that they

could actually live in the Israel as they imagined, so they

slided into a more ethno-nationalist line in their actions.

This is especially evident in their attitudes regarding the

occupied territories. Smith in his theory argues that ethno-

nationalists invest land with a degree of sacredness and in

extreme cases the relationship with the land may become more

38 Shelef, 13239 Ibid, 13540 Shelef, 136

important than the relationship with the state. This is what

happened with the Religious Zionists after the 1967 War.

New Organizations in Israel Related to the Occupied

Territories

Land of Israel Movement

Land of Israel movement was a parliamentary movement defending

the annexation and assimilation of the territories occupied in

the 1967 War41. They argued that 1967 War had produced

historical justice, returning the Eretz Israel to the Jews.

Although the movement’s founding document was primarily signed

by Revisionists, some people associated with the Labor movement

also signed it42. Bringing also some generals and ideological

extremists from the radical right together, the movements

manifesto brought together many different names from different

political spectrums.43 After it’s inception, Land of Israel

movement became a significant political force. At the

beginning, it was rather like an elite group than a radical

protest movement, but it’s territorial maximalist views made it

carry the seeds of the future radical right44. By 1973, the

movement had completed it’s evolution. They were an

ultranationationalist movement, placed right of Menachem Begin

within the Israeli political spectrum. They endorsed Likud(new

rightist party, dominated by Revisionists) in the coming

elections45. 41 Yılmaz, 22942 Sprinzak, 3943 Ibid, 3944 Ibid, 4345 Ibid,64

Gush Emunim

Gush Emunim is a messianic, territoral maximalist organization

formally established in 1974, but it’s constituents and

ideologues have a long history related to 1967 War.

To understand Gush Emunim, we should first look at Yeshivat

Merkaz Harav(a type of religious school) and it’s preacher,

Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook. This Rabbi’s teachings were centered

around the concept that they were living in a messianic age in

which the Land of Israel would be united46. So after the 1967

War, convinced that they were indeed living in a messianic age,

his disciples dedicated themselves to settlement activities in

the occupied territories. As the first action, Kook’s disciples

led the first Jewish return to Hebron, first of their many

settlement activities in the coming years47. His disciples also

held many activities within the NRP, the main Religious Zionist

party. After the 1973 Yom Kippur War, after the first

territorial concessions in the Sinai Peninsula, these activists

felt that it would be more influental to form a pressure group,

and they formed Gush Emunim48. In the following years, Kook’s

students both rose to power within the NRP and established

themselves in the Israeli bureaucracy49.

46 Ibid,4447 Ibid,4748 Shelef, 6549 Ibid, 79

Conclusion

Throughout the paper, I tried to explain the changes that

occured within the Israeli politics after the 1967 War. From

the theoretical perspective, we can say that while the dominant

approach in Israel was statism before the 1967 War, the changes

brought by the 1967 War pulled Israeli domestic politics in a

more ethno-nationalist direction. The increasing significance

of Revisionist Zionism in the Israeli domestic political scene,

the revival of territorial maximalist ideas of Religious

Zionists, and the new organizations in Israel such as Land of

Israel movement and Gush Emunim related to the occupied

territories which emphasized territorial maximalism from both a

nationalist and a religious perspective, are showing us that

the ethno-nationalist perspective gained more influence in the

Israeli domestic political scene after the 1967 War.

When we look at the Israeli politics today, we can say that the

rise of the right and radical right after the 1967 War

continued and they really established themselves firmly in the

domestic political scene. Especially the situation of the

radical right is interesting, showing us how a small group of

people can be so influental. Through the years, the radical

right, through it’s settlement activities to the occupied

territories and as coalition partners for the majority-seeking

parties, became very effective in Israel. Today, even the

governments who are radically opposed to their demands, cannot

ignore them. The settlement activities is one of the greatest

blocks in terms of Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation, and

sadly, Israeli governments let settlements to be built in order

to appease their ultra-nationalist coalition partners. The

result is Palestinians growing more and more frustrated, seeing

that their potential territories for a future state is slowly

being overtaken.

I think an ethno-nationalist approach in the domestic political

scene of Israel is counter-productive for peace efforts. If the

both sides take an ethno-nationalist approach, there will be no

solution for the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, making the

Revisionist, ethno-nationalist vision that Jewish people will

never live in a normal existence under the family of nations a

self-fulfilling prophecy.

Bibliography

Bayraktar, Bora, Oslo Barış Süreci: İsrail- Filistin Barış Görüşmeleri, 1991-2000,

İstanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2013

Beinin, Joel and Lisa Hajjar, A Premier on Palestine, Israel, Arab- Israeli Conflict,

MERIP Online

Peleg Ilan, The Impact of the Six Day War on the Israeli Right: A second Republic in the

Making? , The Arab-Israeli Conflict-Two Decades of Change, eds: Yehuda

Lukacs&Abdalla M.Battah, Colorado: Westview Press, 1988

Peri, Yoram, From Political Nationalism to Ethno Nationalism, The Arab-Israeli

Conflict-Two Decades of Change, eds: Yehuda Lukacs&Abdalla M.Battah,

Colorado: Westview Press, 1988

Shelef, Nadav G., Evolving Nationalism: Homeland, Identity and Religion In Israel,

1925-2005, New York: Cornell University Press, 2010

Smith Charles, Palestine and the Arab Israeli Conflict: A History With Documents, New

York: Bedford- St. Martins, 2009

Sprinzak, Ehud, The Ascendance of Israel’s Radical Right, Oxford University

Press: London, 1991

Yılmaz, Mehmet, Radikal Sağın İsrail Dış Politikasına Etkisi, Filistin-Çıkmazdan Çözüme

ed: Ahmet Davutoğlu(İstanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2003)