It is important to demonstrate that not only the Jordanians but also the Egyptians and the Syrians had planned the conquest of Israel and the expulsion or murder of much of it Jewish inhabitants in 1967. Many of the so-called "revisionist historians" today are claiming that the Arabs never had aggressive intentions toward the Jewish state and that Israel precipitated the Six-Day War in order to expand territorially. The documentary evidence refutes this claim unequivocally.
40 Years of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern World
Ann Lesser, Los Angeles: Do you agree with the recent article in The Economist that the Six Day War was wasted and that it has caused more problems than it solved?
Michael Oren: The Economist article's argument only holds if one believes that Israel's survival is a bad thing. If Israel had lost the Six-Day War, it would not exist today. Yes, it is true that the Six-Day War precipitated the controversy surrounding Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, the conflict over Israeli sovereignty in East Jerusalem, and contributed to the rise of Palestinian terror. But without Israel's 1967 victory, there would today be no peace between Israel and Egypt or Israel and Jordan. If the West Bank and Gaza remained under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation, as they were in 1967, there would be no talk today of creating a Palestinian state in those territories. And if Israel had not proven its military mettle over the course of six intense days, there would be no strategic alliance between the United States and the Jewish state. My guess, though, is that the Economist is not thrilled about that either.
Yaakov Slabiak, Dallas: Your concluding statements in "Power, Faith and Fantasy" suggests that the USA can bring a new world order of security and peace and even democracy to the Middle East by "responsibly wielding its strength and consistently upholding its principles." What can we reasonably expect for the Middle East in the near term and beyond from the politicians in Washington, DC in view of the divided domestic opinion on the Iraq war, and what may be a united international stand on stopping Iran's nuclear power ambitions?
Michael Oren: American policy-makers, whether Republican or Democrat, must convince the American people that there is no separating from the Middle East in the way that the United States separated from Vietnam in 1975, and this for the simple reason that the Middle East will not separate from America. Extremist elements in the region will continue to seek ways of harming American interests and killing American citizens long after the last U.S. soldier has left Iraq. It is imperative, therefore, that the American people are made to understand that this is a protracted conflict and one with invariable vicissitudes. There will be setbacks, much as there were in all of America's previous wars, but victory remains possible.
To this end, the United States must explore the possibility of maintaining permanent ground and naval forces in the Middle East (much as Jefferson did in 1801), invest heavily in intelligence, and actively promote reformist forces in the Middle East. The United States should continue to support the advocates of democracy in the Middle East, but without trying to impose American ideas and institutions on the peoples of the regions. Most importantly, the United States must uphold its own principles and avoid at all costs a repetition of the Abu Graib atrocities.
Even after taking all of these steps, American decision-makers will face a complex and potentially treacherous environment in the Middle East, one that will require patience, perseverance, and creativity to negotiate. In the long run, though, America has no choice.
To stop Iran, for example, Washington will have to combine international diplomatic action with the imposition of its own far-reaching sanctions, all the while maintaining a credible military threat. If diplomatic initiatives and economic strictures fail-and all signs seem to indicate that that will-the United States must act to prevent the Iranians from acquiring strategic capabilities. The use of force will at that moment become not only justified but mandatory.
Steve Lewine, Paradise Valley: The decision to give "Har Habiet" (the Temple Mount) to the Muslims, was it debated, was anything asked of the recipient, is it written in stone, did they even request this gift?
Michael Oren: There was no debate surrounding Moshe Dayan's decision to keep the Temple Mount or, as the Muslims call it, Haram al-Sharif ("the noble sanctuary"), under the aegis of the Muslim authorities or Waqf. The decision reflected Israel's policy of maintaining the status quo toward all holy sites, Jewish and non-Jewish, in the Old City. For example, Christian control of the Holy Sepulcher was also retained. Israeli officials in 1967 were deeply concerned that the world would not accord with Israeli control of the Old City and were anxious to show that Israel would respect the rights of all religions.
