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)
Top Related