The 1967 Six-Day War

Setting the Stage in 1967

By early 1967, the Arab-Israeli conflict had already gone through one major war in 1948–49, a series of border clashes, and a growing Palestinian refugee crisis. The armistice lines from 1949, often called the Green Line, separated Israel from its neighbors: Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. No formal peace treaties existed. Instead, ceasefire agreements were repeatedly tested by raids, reprisals, and political tension.

The 1956 Suez Crisis had left deep marks. Israel had invaded Egypt alongside Britain and France, seized the Sinai Peninsula, then withdrawn under United States and Soviet pressure. In return, the United Nations deployed a peacekeeping force in Sinai and along the Egyptian border with Israel, and Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser allowed Israeli shipping to pass through the Straits of Tiran. This fragile arrangement reduced direct confrontation but did not resolve deeper disputes about borders, refugees, and legitimacy.

By the mid‑1960s, three key trends raised the temperature. First, the rise of Palestinian guerrilla groups, especially Fatah, increased cross‑border attacks, primarily from Syrian and Jordanian territory. Second, rivalry among Arab states, especially between Egypt and more conservative monarchies, encouraged strong anti‑Israel rhetoric and competition over who would lead the Arab cause. Third, the Cold War fed regional arms buildups, with the Soviet Union supporting Egypt and Syria and the United States growing closer to Israel.

These threads came together in a crisis that, in the space of six days in June 1967, transformed the geography and politics of the conflict.

The Road to War

Tensions escalated in spring 1967 through a series of steps that many participants interpreted as signals of impending war, even if each step alone might have been reversible.

Along the Syrian border, skirmishes grew more frequent. Disputes over water, including Israeli efforts to divert the Jordan River and Syrian attempts to block or challenge these projects, had already led to military clashes. Palestinian guerrilla raids from Syrian territory, and Israeli retaliations against Syrian targets, brought the two states into increasingly direct confrontation.

In May 1967, the situation worsened after a series of misleading reports, apparently encouraged by the Soviet Union, that Israel was massing troops on the Syrian border for an imminent attack. Whether these reports reflected error, misinterpretation, or deliberate political maneuver remains debated, but they reached Egyptian leaders at a moment when Nasser faced regional and domestic pressure to demonstrate leadership of the Arab cause.

Nasser responded by taking highly visible steps. He ordered Egyptian troops into the Sinai Peninsula, where since 1956 only a limited Egyptian presence had remained. More significantly, he requested the withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force that had been stationed along the Egyptian–Israeli border and at Sharm el‑Sheikh near the Straits of Tiran. The UN Secretary‑General complied, as there was no legal basis to keep peacekeepers without the host state’s consent.

With the UN troops gone, Egyptian forces moved into positions that directly faced Israel. Shortly after, Nasser announced the closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. For Israel, this was not only an economic blow, especially to oil supplies from Iran, but also a symbolic reversal of the post‑1956 understandings. Israeli leaders had previously declared that a blockade of the straits would constitute a casus belli, that is, a cause for war.

In the following days, Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian leaders made further moves and declarations. Egypt and Jordan signed a defense pact. Jordan permitted Iraqi forces to enter its territory. Arab media broadcast speeches that spoke openly of confronting Israel and reversing the outcome of 1948. These statements, together with visible troop deployments, created a climate in which many Israelis believed they faced existential danger.

Inside Israel, debate raged over whether to wait for diplomacy or strike first. While some military commanders argued that delay would allow Arab states to coordinate and strengthen their forces, others feared diplomatic isolation and moral condemnation if Israel initiated hostilities. The United States and other powers urged restraint, but they did not give clear security guarantees. Domestic anxiety grew, with many civilians preparing for high casualties or even destruction of the state.

By early June, with Egyptian forces entrenched in Sinai, the Straits of Tiran closed, and Arab defense arrangements in place, Israeli leaders decided to launch a preemptive attack that they presented as defensive. How to interpret this decision, and whether the war should be called preemptive or preventive, remains one of the key controversies in interpretations of 1967.

The Course of the War

The Six‑Day War unfolded rapidly from June 5 to June 10, 1967. Although multiple fronts were involved, the conflict is often described in terms of three main theaters: the Egyptian front in Sinai and Gaza, the Jordanian front in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the Syrian front on the Golan Heights.

On the morning of June 5, Israel launched a massive surprise air attack against Egyptian airfields. Using low‑altitude approaches to evade radar and carefully planned timing, Israeli aircraft destroyed most of the Egyptian air force on the ground within hours. Similar strikes were later carried out against Syrian and Jordanian air bases. With Arab air power largely neutralized, Israel gained control of the skies, which shaped the rest of the campaign.

Following the air offensive, Israeli ground forces advanced rapidly into Sinai. They used mobile armored units and coordinated infantry support to outflank Egyptian positions. Egyptian forces, many of them poorly coordinated and surprised by the speed of the Israeli advance, began a disorganized retreat toward the Suez Canal. Heavy losses occurred during this withdrawal, partly because Israeli forces targeted roads and choke points that retreating troops used.

In the Gaza Strip, then under Egyptian control, Israeli units moved to seize the territory. The fighting involved urban and camp areas where Palestinian refugees lived, and it created its own patterns of displacement and casualties. The capture of Gaza connected Israel directly to the densely populated coastal enclave and its inhabitants, a reality that would have long term implications.

The Jordanian front opened in parallel. Despite some ambiguity and miscommunication about who fired first in Jerusalem and the West Bank, Jordanian artillery struck parts of West Jerusalem, and Jordanian forces engaged Israeli positions along the armistice line. Israel responded with a major assault into the West Bank from several directions, including an advance on the city of Jerusalem. Within three days, Israeli forces had captured East Jerusalem, including the Old City with its religious sites, and most of the West Bank up to the Jordan River.

The battle for Jerusalem had both military and symbolic dimensions. Street fighting and artillery attacks damaged parts of the city and affected its civilian population. When Israeli soldiers reached the Old City and the Western Wall, images and sound recordings quickly circulated inside Israel and abroad, shaping Israeli and Jewish perceptions of the war as a dramatic reversal of vulnerability and loss.

On the Syrian front, the initial days of the war saw less movement on the ground. Syrian artillery had long targeted Israeli communities below the Golan Heights, and during the war it continued to fire on northern Israel. After neutralizing much of the Syrian air force, Israel debated whether to open a ground offensive. On June 9 and 10, Israeli forces attacked fortified Syrian positions on the Golan Heights, which were heavily defended by artillery, bunkers, and minefields. Through intense fighting, they broke through Syrian lines and occupied most of the plateau.

By June 10, following interventions and ceasefire initiatives at the United Nations, the main Arab states accepted a cessation of hostilities. In six days, Israel had achieved remarkable territorial gains. The military balance in the region had shifted decisively, but the political outcome was far from stable.

Territorial Changes and New Realities

The Six‑Day War dramatically redrew the map of the conflict. Before June 1967, the boundaries reflected the 1949 armistice lines. After the war, Israel found itself in control of territories that had not previously been under its rule.

From Egypt, Israel captured the entire Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. Sinai is a large desert area between Israel and the Suez Canal, rich in strategic depth and including oil fields and key routes. Gaza is a narrow coastal strip with a large Palestinian population, many of whom were refugees or descendants of refugees from 1948.

From Jordan, Israel captured the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The West Bank is a hilly region west of the Jordan River, containing many cities and towns that are historically and religiously significant to Jews, Christians, and Muslims. East Jerusalem includes the Old City and major holy sites. The annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel, and its later extension of Israeli law and administration there, remains unrecognized by most of the international community.

From Syria, Israel captured the Golan Heights. This elevated plateau overlooks northern Israel and parts of Syria. Its strategic value lies in its height and its role as a potential launching point for artillery and other attacks, as well as its water sources and agricultural land.

As a result of these gains, Israel tripled the territory under its control. At the same time, Israel became the occupying power over more than a million Palestinian residents in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as over Syrian communities on the Golan and Egyptian residents in parts of Sinai. The war therefore did not only change borders. It created a new structure of control, in which one state ruled over large populations without granting them citizenship or political equality.

The demographic and legal status of these territories would become central to later debates about occupation, settlements, and possible political solutions.

Military and Political Outcomes for the Parties

For Israel, the war produced a powerful sense of victory and security, but also new dilemmas. Militarily, the destruction of neighboring air forces and the defeat of Arab armies removed the immediate fear of a large scale invasion. Many Israelis felt that their state had survived a grave threat and had reversed the humiliations of earlier conflicts.

Politically, the government now had to decide what to do with the newly captured territories. Some Israeli leaders viewed these areas, especially the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as part of the historic homeland and advocated permanent control. Others argued that the territories should be used as bargaining chips in negotiations for peace treaties with Arab states, potentially exchanging land for recognition and normal relations. This debate emerged rapidly after the war and would intensify in the following years.

For Arab states, the defeat of 1967 was a shock. Egypt, Jordan, and Syria lost territories, military assets, and prestige. Nasser publicly took responsibility for the failure, at one point offering his resignation before being urged to remain in power by mass demonstrations. Arab publics and leaderships faced difficult questions about military preparedness, political leadership, and the strategies they had pursued toward Israel.

Jordan lost the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which had been under its control since 1948. This loss not only reduced its territory but also changed its population balance, as many Palestinians under Jordanian rule now found themselves under Israeli occupation. Syria, which had presented itself as a militant front state, saw the loss of the Golan as a severe blow both strategically and symbolically.

On the Palestinian level, the war had several consequences. Many Palestinians who had been refugees since 1948 now found that the territories where they had taken shelter were also subject to Israeli rule. Others were displaced once again as a result of the fighting. The Palestinian national movement, which had been relatively weak and divided, began to draw lessons from the war, eventually shifting toward a more independent strategy not entirely dependent on Arab state armies.

Internationally, the war forced global powers and institutions to reconsider their approaches. The United Nations Security Council began to formulate responses that would shape later diplomatic efforts. Western and Soviet blocs interpreted the events through the lens of the Cold War, leading to debates over arms transfers, alliances, and influence in the Middle East.

Human Impact and Experience of War

Beyond governments and armies, the Six‑Day War affected millions of civilians. The speed of the fighting did not prevent significant human displacement and suffering. In areas close to the front lines, families fled bombardment or advancing forces, often with little time to prepare. Some Palestinian communities in the West Bank and Gaza experienced new waves of flight, while others remained under occupation. In the Golan Heights, many Syrian residents left or were pushed from their homes, and many villages were later destroyed.

Casualties were uneven but substantial. Arab states suffered heavy military and civilian losses, partly due to the collapse of defensive lines and chaotic retreats. Israel also experienced casualties, though on a smaller scale, and the losses were deeply felt in a society with universal conscription and a strong sense of collective vulnerability.

The capture of East Jerusalem, including the Old City, brought dramatic changes in daily life for its residents. Many Palestinian inhabitants suddenly found themselves under a new administration that altered municipal boundaries, laws, and property policies. Religious access also changed, as Israeli authorities opened many sites to Jewish, Muslim, and Christian worshippers but also redefined control and security arrangements. These changes would become a source of ongoing tension, especially around the holy esplanade known to Muslims as the Haram al‑Sharif and to Jews as the Temple Mount.

The psychological impact of the war differed sharply between communities. Many Israelis experienced a narrative of deliverance and triumph. Many Arabs and Palestinians experienced defeat, humiliation, or the sense of a second catastrophe. These emotional and symbolic layers became part of how later generations would remember and interpret 1967.

Competing Interpretations and Narratives

The Six‑Day War sits at the center of conflicting historical narratives. Israeli accounts often emphasize the perception of encirclement, hostile rhetoric, and the closure of the Straits of Tiran as evidence that Israel acted in necessary self defense in the face of an imminent threat. In this view, the preemptive strike is justified as a way to prevent a larger and more destructive war that could have endangered Israel’s existence.

Many Arab and Palestinian narratives, by contrast, highlight the imbalance of forces, the role of miscalculation, and the ongoing effects of Israeli territorial expansion. From this perspective, the war is seen less as an unavoidable clash and more as a turning point at which Israel shifted from a state within contested 1949 lines to an occupying power that ruled over other peoples, seizing lands that extended beyond what many in the international community considered legitimate boundaries.

Historians have debated the intentions and decisions of leaders on all sides. Questions include how seriously Arab governments planned for an offensive war, how Israeli leaders weighed diplomatic versus military options, and what role external powers played in encouraging or restraining conflict. Access to archives and official documents has allowed new interpretations, but many aspects remain contested, reflecting both scholarly disagreements and the political stakes attached to different versions of events.

The war also changed the language used to describe the conflict. Terms such as “occupied territories,” “security borders,” and “land for peace” entered diplomatic and public discourse. Competing claims of legality, morality, and historical right grew sharper in the aftermath, as each side sought to frame the outcome in terms that justified their positions and future strategies.

Why the Six‑Day War Still Matters

The significance of the Six‑Day War lies not only in what happened in June 1967, but in how its outcomes structured the decades that followed. The war created the territorial configuration that much of the world still associates with the conflict: Israel within its pre‑1967 boundaries, surrounded by territories under its military control in the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, Sinai, and the Golan Heights, though control over some of these areas later changed.

The emergence of a prolonged occupation, the debates over settlements and annexation, and the shape of later peace initiatives are all rooted in the new map that 1967 produced. For Palestinians, the war marked the beginning of a period in which most of them would live either under Israeli military rule, under other states as refugees, or in exile. For neighboring Arab states, the loss of land shaped later negotiations, wars, and internal politics.

International diplomacy around the conflict has repeatedly revisited the outcomes of 1967. Discussions about borders, security arrangements, and the status of Jerusalem almost always take 1967 as a key reference point. Many proposals speak in terms of withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967, of adjustments around the Green Line, or of resolving claims that emerged directly from the war.

The memory of the Six‑Day War also continues to influence identity and political culture on all sides. It is recalled as a moment of victory, disaster, awakening, or missed opportunity, depending on perspective. These memories help explain why debates over territory, security, and sovereignty remain so emotionally charged and why the events of a brief six day period still cast a long shadow over the present.