Palm BeachPost

June 5, 2007

Remembering the Six-Day'War

By Richard Sideman

On this 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War, the fundamental question informed people must ask is what, if anything, has changed? Are the prospects for a meaningful peace on the horizon? If not, why not?

Forty years ago, Arab nations led by Egypt and Syria tried to destroy Israel once and for all. They eagerly sought to accomplish what they had failed to do in 1948, immediately after Israel declared its independence. At the time, the Arab world had rejected the United Nations decision to create two states, one Jewish, the other Arab, in British Mandatory Palestine, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.

"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel," declared Egyptian President Gamel Abdul Nasser in May 1967, as he pledged to erase the Arab defeat of 1948.

What is so troubling on this anniversary is how little has changed, how opportunities for achieving a durable Arab-Israeli peace continue to be squandered.

With Iran threatening to wipe Israel off the map, stepping up financial and materiel support for Palestinian terror groups, and inching closer to producing a nuclear weapon, a climate of hostility reminiscent of the months leading up to the Six-Day War hangs over the Middle East.

It is important to recall that for Israel, the 1967 war, like the one in 1948, was defensive. It was a last resort after the failure of persistent international diplomatic efforts to secure the Arab world's recognition of Israel's legitimacy. Gaining control of the Sinai and Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria was the unintended consequence of the war.

Immediately afterward, Israel sought a negotiated peace with its neighbors. However, the Arab League, meeting in Khartoum in September 1967, famously responded by declaring its three "nos" - no recognition, no negotiations and no peace with Israel.

During the past 40 years, only two major Arab leaders have demonstrated publicly the willingness to grasp Israel's outstretched hand, Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Jordan's King Hussein. The two concluded treaties based on the landmark U.N. Security Council Resolution 242.

Adopted in November 1967, Resolution 242 embraced the principle of exchanging territories captured in the Six-Day War for peace within secure and recognized borders. It has been the basis for every Arab-Israeli negotiation, including the Oslo Accords of 1993, as well as the Syrian-Israeli talks launched in Madrid more than 15 years ago. But Syria continues to host in Damascus the leaders of Hamas and other terror organizations while lending support to Hezbollah in Lebanon - hardly confidence-building measures for peace.

In addition, nearly seven years ago, the Palestinian Authority rejected Israel's offer to give up more than 97''percent of the territories in Gaza and the West Bank captured in the Six-Day War, and to agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state on those lands. Incidentally, Egypt and Jordan occupied these very lands from 1948 to 1967, without any thought whatsoever of Palestinian independence.

Since Israel's historic offer, backed by the United States, to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at Camp David in the summer of 2000, and later sweetened at Taba in January 2001, Palestinian leaders reacted by reengaging in a campaign of violence and terrorism, a strategy the PLO had pursued since its founding in 1964, three years prior to the 1967 war.

The Palestinians had another historic chance two years ago, when Israel removed all its civilians and military from Gaza and transferred control of that entire territory to the Palestinian Authority. Today's brutal Palestinian-on-Palestinian violence in Gaza, plus the daily firing of rockets into Israel from Gaza, is the tragic result, and makes a mockery of the recent Saudi-brokered Hamas-Fatah deal to establish a Palestinian "unity" government.

Most recently, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, responding to the recent Arab League endorsement of a 2002 Saudi peace initiative, offered to meet face-to-face with Arab leaders to discuss ways to achieve peace. If and when any Arab leader does take Mr. Olmert's offer, he will need to remember that negotiations require flexibility by all parties, not Israel alone. After all, Resolution 242 does not require a complete return to the pre-1967 borders; rather, it required an exchange of land for peace within secure and recognized boundaries.

In 1967, the world, including the U.S., largely ignored or dismissed the increasingly volatile rhetoric emanating from Cairo and other Arab capitals and the military buildup along Israel's borders. Hezbollah's rocket war on Israel last summer, and Hamas' ongoing stockpiling of rockets in Gaza are clear signs that they and their state sponsors are not prepared to give up the false dream of eliminating Israel.

Time and again, Israelis have demonstrated that they are prepared to take bold steps for true peace with reliable partners. Arab interlocutors must show similar commitment, first by supplanting rhetoric with actions that contribute to advancing peace.

If the Palestinians are not willing to grasp Israel's outstretched hand, then other Arab leaders must come forward, for the sake of all in the region who desire an end to the conflict.

Richard Sideman is president of the American Jewish Committee.