International Reactions

Immediate Global Shock

The outcome of the June 1967 war produced an unusually rapid and intense wave of international reactions. In only six days, Israel had defeated three Arab states and occupied the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Golan Heights. Governments, international organizations, and publics around the world tried to interpret what this meant for regional stability, Cold War competition, and the future of the Palestinians and neighboring Arab societies. Reactions were shaped by preexisting alliances, ideological commitments, domestic politics, and different readings of international law.

The United States: From Restraint to Strategic Reassessment

In Washington, the war triggered both relief and anxiety. Before the fighting began, the United States had tried to avoid direct military involvement, partly due to the trauma of the Suez crisis in 1956 and the growing burden of the Vietnam War. When Israel prevailed quickly, many American policymakers were relieved to see a friendly state emerge as a stronger regional power that could, in theory, balance Soviet aligned Arab regimes.

This relief was accompanied by concern. The outbreak of war, the closure of the Straits of Tiran before hostilities, and the displacement of more Palestinians and Syrians created new political and humanitarian issues that Washington could not ignore. The United States did not recognize Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai, or the Golan Heights, and instead stressed that these were territories occupied in war whose final status should be resolved through negotiations. At the same time, many key figures in the American political establishment saw Israel’s military victory as demonstrating strategic value in the Cold War, especially against Soviet clients in Egypt and Syria.

Public opinion in the United States, especially among many Jewish Americans and a large segment of non Jewish Americans, was strongly sympathetic to Israel, which reinforced congressional support. Over time, the war laid the foundations for a closer U.S.–Israel strategic partnership, even though in the immediate aftermath Washington still tried to balance ties with Arab governments and to present itself as a potential mediator.

The Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc

For the Soviet Union, the war was an embarrassing setback. Moscow had invested heavily in Egypt and Syria, providing weapons, military advisors, and political backing. Their rapid defeat made Soviet equipment and training look ineffective, which had implications for Soviet prestige across the developing world.

The Soviet government’s immediate reaction was to condemn Israel as the aggressor, break diplomatic relations with Israel, and strengthen its military and political support for key Arab allies, especially Egypt and Syria. Soviet media portrayed the war as an imperialist and Zionist assault, fitting it into a wider narrative about anti colonial struggle and resistance to Western dominance. The USSR also pushed for strong language against Israel in international forums, including the United Nations, while seeking to preserve its influence in Arab capitals and prevent them from turning back toward the West.

Several Eastern European states followed Moscow’s line, severing or downgrading relations with Israel and emphasizing solidarity with Arab states. Yet there were subtle differences in emphasis across the bloc, particularly where there were domestic concerns about Jewish populations or about trade with Israel and Western countries. These internal debates rarely surfaced publicly at the time, but they influenced the tone and intensity of official reactions.

Western European Governments and Debates

Western European reactions were less unified. Governments had to balance concern for regional stability, dependence on Middle Eastern oil, memories of their colonial past, and evolving attitudes toward Israel and Jewish communities after the Holocaust.

France provides one notable example. Before 1967, France had been a major supplier of arms to Israel and had cultivated close ties. During the crisis, President Charles de Gaulle imposed an arms embargo that affected both sides but in practice hit Israel hardest, and after the war he publicly criticized Israel’s preemptive strike and territorial expansion. At the same time, French public opinion was often more divided, with some expressing admiration for Israel’s military performance and others warning about destabilization and occupation.

The United Kingdom, with its history as former mandatory power in Palestine, reacted cautiously. British leaders emphasized the need for a political settlement through the United Nations and a return to stability. London did not recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem and repeatedly affirmed that the fate of the occupied territories had to be negotiated. At the same time, British policymakers were worried about their relations with Arab oil producing states and about the security of maritime routes, particularly after the closure of the Suez Canal during and after the war.

In West Germany, the war touched sensitive issues of historical responsibility after the Holocaust and the status of Jewish communities. Many in the West German public and political class viewed Israel’s survival as morally important, which generated sympathy for Israel’s position alongside concern about the humanitarian consequences for Arab civilians and refugees. Other Western European states navigated similar tensions, often calling for negotiations and for respect of all states’ right to live in peace, while avoiding full endorsement of Israel’s territorial gains.

Arab States: Shock, Anger, and Calls for Unity

Arab governments and societies experienced the war as a profound shock. Official narratives before June had often promised victory against Israel, and the quick defeat severely damaged the prestige of leaders, especially Egypt’s President Gamal Abdel Nasser. State media that had previously projected confidence now had to explain a large scale military collapse and the loss of significant territories, including East Jerusalem with its holy sites.

Public reactions in Arab cities combined grief, anger, and calls for renewed resistance. Many people demanded accountability from their leaders, while at the same time rallying against Israel’s control of Arab land. Large demonstrations took place, sometimes supporting Nasser when he temporarily announced his resignation, and sometimes criticizing leadership failures more broadly. The loss of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the increase in Palestinian displacement, further heightened a sense of collective Arab humiliation and solidarity with Palestinians.

At the diplomatic level, Arab states convened the Khartoum summit later in 1967, where they adopted a unified public stance regarding recognition, negotiations, and peace with Israel. The specific content of that stance is explored elsewhere in the course, but from the perspective of international reactions, the summit signaled that Arab governments sought to negotiate from a position of collective firmness rather than as isolated states, while still depending heavily on external support, particularly from the Soviet bloc and, in some cases, from Western European states.

Non Arab Muslim Majority States

Beyond the Arab world, many Muslim majority states reacted with strong rhetorical support for Arab positions and condemnation of Israel’s occupation of Jerusalem and other territories. Pakistan, for example, framed the conflict in both political and religious terms, emphasizing solidarity with Palestinians and opposition to Israeli control of Islamic holy sites.

Turkey’s reaction was more complex, given its long established diplomatic relations with Israel and its own strategic calculations as a member of NATO. Turkish leaders publicly criticized Israeli expansion and expressed concern about the status of Jerusalem, while also being cautious not to break ties entirely. This ambivalence reflected internal ideological divisions within Turkey as well as its security concerns vis a vis neighboring states and the Soviet Union.

Over time, the war contributed to the development of broader Islamic and pan Islamic forums that discussed Palestine and Jerusalem as central causes. These reactions influenced future diplomatic patterns, including resolutions in multilateral organizations and voting blocs that brought together Arab and non Arab Muslim states.

The United Nations: Diplomacy, Ceasefire, and Resolution 242

The United Nations became the main international stage where reactions to the war were debated and translated into diplomatic texts. During the fighting, the Security Council called for a ceasefire, which took effect in stages as each front stopped hostilities. After the ceasefire, the central question was how to translate military outcomes into a political framework acceptable to major powers and regional actors.

The most important result of these debates was UN Security Council Resolution 242, adopted unanimously in November 1967. Different governments had different expectations of what this resolution would achieve, but its core elements were clear enough to gain broad support. It introduced principles about the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war, the need for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the conflict, and the right of every state in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. It also mentioned a just settlement of the refugee problem, which many read as referring primarily to Palestinian refugees.

Reactions to Resolution 242 reflected deep disagreements over interpretation. Some states emphasized withdrawal as the central obligation. Others highlighted the need for secure boundaries and mutual recognition. Arab states and the Palestine Liberation Organization debated to what extent the resolution could be a basis for negotiations, particularly given how it referred to refugees but not explicitly to Palestinian national rights. Israel, while accepting the resolution formally, argued that its call for withdrawal did not necessarily imply a return to pre war armistice lines. These differing reactions to a single text would shape diplomatic exchanges for decades.

Non Aligned Movement and the Global South

Many states in Africa, Asia, and Latin America viewed the war through the lens of decolonization and anti imperialism. For them, questions about whose land had been occupied and which powers backed which side were intertwined with broader concerns about foreign domination, economic dependency, and racial discrimination.

The Non Aligned Movement, which brought together states that did not formally align with either the United States or the Soviet Union, generally expressed support for Arab and Palestinian claims. Official communiqués criticized Israel’s occupation and the role of Western powers, and framed the conflict as part of a global struggle against colonialism and racism. At the same time, some non aligned states had pragmatic or historical ties with Israel, often in areas such as agricultural and technical cooperation, which complicated their responses.

In Africa, the war accelerated shifts in diplomatic alignments. Several states reexamined or severed relations with Israel under pressure from Arab governments and in solidarity with Arab causes. Others maintained or even deepened cooperation with Israel, especially in security and development assistance, while still supporting pro Palestinian resolutions in international forums. The result was a complex map of reactions that combined ideological positions with national interests.

Public Opinion, Media, and Intellectual Debates

Beyond official government reactions, media coverage and public debates around the world shaped how the war was understood. In many Western countries, early images of Israel’s vulnerability and then its quick victory created narratives of a small state defending itself against larger neighbors. This often produced admiration, which coexisted with later concerns about occupation and human rights as the long term realities of control over the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai, and the Golan Heights became clearer.

In Arab and broader Muslim public spheres, newspapers, radio, and later television focused heavily on the loss of territory and the status of holy sites, particularly Jerusalem. Commentators discussed military errors, political leadership, and the meaning of defeat for Arab nationalism and Islamic solidarity. Intellectuals and writers debated whether internal reform, external alliances, or new forms of resistance were needed, linking the war to wider questions about modernization, authoritarianism, and cultural identity.

The war also prompted renewed discussion among scholars, journalists, and activists worldwide about international law, occupation, and self determination. Some framed the conflict primarily in state centric terms as a dispute over borders and security. Others centered the experiences and rights of Palestinian refugees and populations now under occupation. These competing frames would influence later activism, academic work, and policy debates.

Long Term Diplomatic Realignments

The international reactions to the Six Day War did not remain frozen in 1967. They set in motion a series of diplomatic realignments that unfolded over years. Israel’s new territorial position, combined with global perceptions of its military capabilities, encouraged closer ties with some Western states, especially the United States, while deepening rifts with the Soviet bloc and many parts of the Arab and Muslim world.

Arab states, in response to defeat and occupation, turned more intensively toward external sponsors for arms and aid, particularly the Soviet Union and some European suppliers. At the same time, they used oil, diplomacy, and international organizations to press their case, seeking to translate regional grievances into broader international support.

For the Palestinians, the ways that different states and organizations reacted to the war helped shape their subsequent strategies. Their cause became more visible in global forums, yet they also had to navigate the fact that many key international actors framed the conflict mainly as a dispute among states. Over time, the tension between state centric diplomacy and the demand for recognition of Palestinian national rights would become a central feature of international engagement with the conflict, rooted in the varied and sometimes conflicting reactions that first crystallized in 1967.