This explanation may make sense to those who do not dig deeply into the events at that time.

President Johnson was pressuring Israeli government to agree to a cease-fire armistice. The Israeli government, stalling for time because it had not achieved its objectives in the Golan Heights was trying to give the impression that they were ready to agree to a cease-fire in order to maintain the needed US logistical support. However, they were redeploying significant units from their successful site in front in the Sinai to the Golan Heights to resume their offensive there. The USS Liberty, a spy ship, was located in almost an ideal position to pick up the electronic signature of the redeployment of Israeli forces. Had this information been gathered and sent to Pres. Johnson he might have cut off further aid needed by the Israeli military to continue operations. I would suggest that the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was an intentional act to prevent discovery of the actual intentions of the Israeli military.

I outline this incident not because I wish to be anti-Israel. Rather, I believe that each nation takes actions that it considers as being in its own best interest at the time. There can be no question that Israel was fighting for its very life in the Six Days War of 1967. This does not justify the killing of 34 American sailors and wounding of approximately 170 others, especially since these American military personnel were virtually unarmed in the face of the air and sea attacks. I have no doubt that the decision to disable and attempt to sink the Liberty did not come easily for the Israeli government but that they believed it was necessary. In short, it was in their best interest at the time. The brave sailors of the USS Liberty deserve that the truth be known, not what may be politically expedient.

With the end of the fighting and a cease-fire in place, Israel was now in control of the entire Sinai Peninsula and the east bank of the Suez Canal. It pushed Jordanian and Arab troops across the Jordan River and pushed the Syrians from the shores of the Sea of Galilee across the Golan Heights, taking possession of the high ground. More importantly, from a morale point of view, Jerusalem, the holy city with the Western Wall was now totally in Israeli hands. While these victories were costly for the Israelis, these defeats were even more costly to the Arabs.

To understand the impact that complete defeat in the 1967 War had on the Arabs we must consider a number of factors. Consider first the analogy that if the Middle East and the Arab countries are considered to be the size of a football field the country of Israel would be little more than the size of a postage stamp on that football field. While many Americans have little understanding of world geography in the Arab countries the relative size of countries is well understood. For the combined Arab armies to loose to such a tiny country after the years of promises and vows of victory was a great disgrace shared by all Arab people. Their honor had been violated at the very moment they believed they were to be redeemed. The reader must understand this emotion if they are going to have insight into what has followed 1967.

With the loss of significant areas of land and the clear defeat of its military forces the Arab world stepped back and returned to its vocal condemnation of Zionism. It was impossible for the Arab world (Islamic world) to consider that it could be wrong or that its policies could be in error. Between 1967 and 1973 little changed in the official Arab rhetoric. However many things were going on that had significant impact on the events we deal with today. The Palestinian organizations grew in size and shifted to violent tactics (hijacking aircraft, the 1972 Olympic Village Attack, etc) to bring their issue to the world stage in a violent way. Their leaders had decided that this was the proper tactic as a generation had gone by since they had left their home after Israeli victory in 1948.

On 16 September 1970, in response to an attempted coup d’etat by the Palestinian fedayeen (volunteer fighters) King Hussein of Jordan declared martial law. The Jordanian Military engaged and drove the Palestinian fighters out of Jordan and the event was called Black September. The name Black September was subsequently given to a more radical group within the Palestinian fighters who believed that greater violence was required to achieve their ends. It was this group that claimed responsibility for the 1972 Olympic Village Massacre.

When the Palestinians were driven out of Jordan, many fled to Lebanon where a weak central government was unable to prevent their establishment of significant control in parts of Lebanon. The impact of these more radical elements was one of the factors that led to the devastating Lebanese Civil War (1975-1991) and in some ways can be tied to Hezbollah and the continued strife in that country. Those of you old enough to remember Pres. Regan sending the marines to Beirut as a result of the Palestinians actions in south Lebanon.

In the next chapter we will continue through the 1970s and the changing impact of events.

Part 5. Islam and Terrorism
Terrorist attacks against western targets began in a serious manor after the Arab defeat in the 1967 war. Frustration among the Palestinian exiles, who had believed they would go back home after the predicted Arab victory dramatically increased. The expansion of Israeli control over even larger areas of captured lands sent another exodus of Muslim Arabs to neighboring countries.

After the Black September murder of the Israeli Olympic Team at the 1972 Olympics in Munich, world condemnation and backlash did have some impact on the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) led by Yassar Arafat. It was reported that he ordered terrorist actions by the PLO to be limited to Israel and the occupied territories (those areas captured by Israel in the 1967 war). While this order may have been given it did little to stop actions taken by various groups in the name of the oppressed Arab peoples. During this period other terrorist groups (e.g. Baader- Meinhof Group in Germany, Red Army Faction in Italy, IRA in North Ireland, etc) cooperated in training, and operational actions with each other. This provided additional assets and abilities to existing Arab terror groups.

For those who understand the Arab sense of honor, it was obvious that it was only a matter of time before the Arab world would take action to redeem its honor lost in the 1967 defeat. Similarly, when the 1993 bombing of the twin towers failed to bring down the tower, it was destine to be targeted again. So it was only a matter of time before Israel would again face multi-front attack. With Nasser still the leader of Egypt it was not long before preparations were underway to rebuild his armed forces and then develop new plans to avenge Arab honor.

While the 1967 borders of Israel provided the Arab armies with good assembly areas and relatively easy borders to cross, after the 1967 war any attack would be more difficult. This was especially true along the Egyptian front. The Suez Canal with an almost vertical eastern bank rising up over 100 feet from the water's edge in many places made it very difficult for an attacking army to gain the element of surprise. The Egyptian plan using hoses to spray water on the opposing canal slope to create a breach through which Egyptian forces could move was brilliant in its concept and executed magnificently. Israeli forces had become complacent and many were Yom Kippur holiday.

Egyptian forces quickly swarmed through the breaches they created and overwhelmed many of the Israeli garrisons defending the east bank of the Suez Canal. Soviet-made and installed, fixed station air defense systems provided good protection to Egyptian ground forces as they move forward capturing most of the Western part of the Sinai. With the canal finally under Egyptian control; Egyptian forces halted and prepared to defend. In the Golan Hights, Syrian forces were unable to make significant progress. The broken compartmentalized terrain prevented effective use of massed armor thus negating the major advantage the Syrians had. The Israeli military's ability to quickly deploy partial units under an effective command allowed them to delay and prevent Syrians from overruning their positions. This ability to operate independently served the Israelis well, it bought them time to mobilize and bring forward their reserves.

With the Syrians facing stiff resistance and unable to retake the Golan Heights, President Assad, of Syria urgently requested that Pres. Sadat resume the offensive and take pressure off the Syrian forces retreating from the Golan Heights. Sadat ordered the Egyptian forces to resume the attack in the Sinai. It is at this point that the weakness of the Soviet-made, fixed station air defense weapons came into play. The original Egyptian plan using the fixed station air defense systems provided adequate protection to the limits of their intended advance.

When the Egyptian army resumed the attack they exceeded the range of the fixed station air defense weapons, thus losing their protection from the Israeli Air Force. Although initially successful, once in the open desert with no significant air defense the Israeli Air Force attacked with devastating effect. Additionally, Israeli ground units well-versed in the terrain they had occupied since 1967 were able to take advantage of the knowledge and turn the Egyptian retreat into a rout.

Not only did the Israeli retake the Suez Canal, but they crossed it and surrounded the last Egyptian army capable of resisting. If they wish to, the Israelis could have rolled into Cairo. In the Golan the Syrians fared no better with Israeli troops able to reach Damascus at will. Jordan had wisely stayed out of this conflict and suffered no additional loss. Again the Arab defeat led to embarrassment and humiliation adding to the hatred and disdain for the Jewish state.

On a personal note, while serving as the senior American officer, in Observer Group Damascus (part of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization) I routinely would have tea with the Senior Syrian Representative, Col. Fousi. During one of these visits the subject turned to Arab-Israeli conflicts. Col. Fousi stated that the Syrian army had never been defeated by the Israelis. I'm sure; the look on my face was one of surprise and disbelief as I stated that I had a problem with that as a fact. His response to my disbelief was to state, "we were never defeated by the Israelis, we were defeated by the American logistical system." From one perspective, there is an element of truth to this statement, for without American rapid resupply of war losses Israel may not have been able to accomplish what it did.

After the devastating defeat in 1973, Pres. Sadat began to rebuild the Egyptian army again. But Sadat was a thoughtful man and not as tightly committed to the continued assumption that the only acceptable answer was a military defeat of the Israelis. He was no longer sure that the destruction of another generation of Arab youth would achieve any more than had the previous four wars. He started to reduce Egyptian dependence and acquiescence of Soviet ties and made overtures to the United States. By the late 1970s he started to make overtures to the Israelis and was welcomed by the Israeli government. Again, entire books have been written on the lead up to and the actions resulting in the Camp David Accords. The meeting was sponsored by Pres. Carter with Pres. Sadat and Prime Minister Menachem Begin resulted in the first peace treaty between Arab country and Israel in 1979. It was hoped that the time, that with this peace time would heal wounds and friendly relations would result.

While the treaty between Egypt and Israel has survived over the last 31 years, there still remains pervasive hatred within Egypt for the Israelis. This hatred is propagated through the schools and activities of the Muslim brotherhood throughout Egypt. In those areas, that are the poorest, the Muslim brotherhood provides many of the basic necessities for the common Egyptian people. This gives him credibility and believability in the eyes of much of the Egyptian population. The current opening of the Rafa border crossing between Egypt and Gaza provides much-needed support to the Hamas-based government in Gaza.

The actions of Pres. Sadat in breaking with the accepted Arab policy towards Israel were heroic, to say the least. That his willingness to make peace with Israel ultimately cost him his life cannot be questioned. The Egyptian Islamic Jihad (a splinter group from the Muslim brotherhood) assassinated Pres. Sadat in the reviewing stand in Cairo during the annual victory parade that celebrated the 1973 Egyptian crossing of the Suez. Rest assured there are many in Egypt whose attitude has not changed from the attitude that took the life of Pres. Sadat.

I would point out (my opinion) to the reader that after the 1973 war a sense of loss entered into the Arab Islamic world. Having lost four wars with the Jewish state the Arab world is some ways took on an unspoken sense of loss of honor and hope in its policy. Not only had the Arab armies been unable to destroy Israel, as it stated it would, but Israel now controlled the Golan Heights, the West Bank, the entire Sinai Peninsula and Gaza. These were very hard pills for Arabs to swallow. Where do you turn when your hopes have been dashed? A resurgence in religious emphasis became a focal point for many who had lost faith the unfulfilled promises of secular Arab leaders. Remember this as we continue through the post-1973 events and start to hear the term Jihad used more often.

In 1994, King Hussein of Jordan signed a peace treaty with the Israelis. This made Jordan only the second Arab country to normalize relations with Israel. A number of factors led to this Treaty: the Western orientation of the Jordanian monarchy, mutual Jordanian Israeli agreement on border issues, and the belief that there would be progress in the recognition of the Palestinian Authority leading to a Palestinian state all played a part in Jordan's decision to make peace.

With Egypt's peace treaty with the Israelis and Jordan's refusal to participate in the 1973 war, the Syrians were effectively checked as a serious threat to Israel. The terrain in the Golan Hights does not lend itself to maneuver warfare and with the ability of the Israelis to focus on this area, it is highly unlikely that any military operation mounted by Syria could be successful.

With Nasser, Sadat and then Mubarak in Egypt strong leadership, sometimes referred to as dictatorships existed in that country. This strong leadership provided a level of assurance that its peace commitment would be kept at least in the letter, if not in intent. The Jordanian desire not to engage in another costly war and the strength of the monarchy made any military action along the Jordanian border unlikely.

Without allies, willing to wage war the Syrians understood any significant military action would be fruitless. Under the Baath party rule of Pres. Assad, a leader who tolerated little or no dissent, many terrorist organizations were permitted to have offices and operate within the Syrian borders. It was however, well understood by all, that any action taken without express permission within Syria would be met with harsh consequences. When a faction of the Muslim brotherhood in Syria attempted to usurp government control in the Hama uprising of 1982, it paid the price. All the details, are still somewhat shadowy, there is no question that the town of Hama was decimated with the number of dead ranging from 10,000 to 30,000 depending upon which figures you wish to believe.

The reader should note that prior to the 1970s the Baath party in both Syria and Iraq were the same party. A split occurred after Saddam Hussein took power in Iraq. During the Muslim brotherhood uprising in Syria, Saddam Hussein provided assistance to the Muslim brotherhood. It is because of this support that Syria participated with the coalition forces against Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War of 1991. Remember, that in the Middle East temporary alliances that serve a given purpose are often entered upon. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The Syrian participation in the Gulf War did not mark any change in Syrian policy, it merely provided an opportunity to avenge a previous wrong done to the Syrians by Saddam Hussein. There will be no peace between Israel and Syria as long as the Golan Heights remain in Israeli hands. There may be some wiggle room in the exact location of any future border, but unless there is a change in the leadership of the Syrian government from the Assad family a state of war will continue to exist.

Thus far we have addressed issues concerning Israel's neighbors to the south and east. This leaves Lebanon as the remaining border country. Lebanon is unique among the Arab countries because it is not majority Muslim. Lebanon consists of a mix of Christian, Shia Muslim, Sunni Muslim and Druze Muslim is the primary population mix. Distrust between the groups is rampant and has prevented any truly effective leadership within the country. It is because of the division between the groups, and the distrust, that the PLO was able to establish itself in Lebanon after it was forced out of Jordan. PLO sponsored activity (raids, mortar and rocket attacks) continually harassed and endangered Israelis along the northern border.

The Abu Nidal group was a violent secular splinter group that broke off from the PLO. In 1982, the Abu Nidal group attempted to assassinate the Israeli ambassador to England, this along with a series of border incidents led to the Israeli Army invading Lebanon. Israeli forces were allied with Christian Phalangist militia groups in their fight against the PLO and Syrian forces. The reader is reminded that this occurs during the Lebanese Civil War that began in 1975 pitting Christian and Sunni against Shia forces (the civil war portion) into this mix came Syrian Army units, the PLO who had fled from Jordan and Palestinian refugees mainly housed in enclaves of refugees from the 1948 and 1967 wars.

I know this sounds confusing, you can’t tell the players without a program, type scenario, so let me add a few additional players just to keep you confused. It was with the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the defeat of the PLO in Lebanon that we have the formation of the Shia based Hezbollah. Hezbollah formed as a Shia militia to operate against the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon and took on the responsibility to provide social services to the local Shia population establishing schools, medical clinics, food banks and providing fund to rebuild (homes and businesses) after Israeli attacks and damage. Again, this process endeared Hezbollah to the local population.

I would remind the reader that by 1982, Iran was an Islamic Republic. The Shah had left in January, 1979 and the Shia based Islamic Republic under Ayatollah Khomeini was established in April, 1979. Remember the basis of Iranian Shia belief and the duty to usher in the return of the 12th Imam. Israel along with the United States (its ally) occupies Islamic lands and presents a western influence in the Islamic world. While Iran does not share a border with Israel and can not directly attack Israel, through alliances with groups such as Hezbollah it can. Much of the funding that allows Hezbollah to operate militarily and run social programs comes from Iran through Syria.

But Syria is not an Islamic republic; rather it is a secular state. Why would the religious leaders of Iran support or be allied with a secular Arab state? After the Islamic Republic was formed in Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini and the collapse of the Shah, the once powerful Iranian military was no more. With the student seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran and the ensuing Iranian Hostage Crisis, the U.S. would no longer provide munitions, repair parts or technical support for the equipment that was the mainstay of the Shah’s military. Without this support Iran had little functional military hardware left for its Revolutionary Guard.

Saddam Hussein (yes, the guy we know from Iraq) saw a weak Iran and with it a chance to gain a larger section of coastal area for Iraq’s oil facilities. In September, 1980 Iraqi forces attacked Iran initiating the Iraq-Iran War (1980 to 1988). Initially, devastating for Iran, the war settled into a stalemate as it dragged on. Again, I only touch on this issue because it sets the stage for the linkage between Iran and Syria. Remember, Saddam, had supported the Muslim Brotherhood’s uprising in Syria against Assad. The enemy of my enemy is my friend; Iran and Syria now have a common enemy in spite of very different agendas. Thus the supply lines from Iran through Syria to Hezbollah in South Lebanon.

During the same time frame as the Iraq-Iran War we have the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1979 to 1989). With this invasion of an Islamic country we find the resurgence of Islamic religious fervor take the form of actions on a wider scale. The appeal of Islamic fighters coming to the aid of poor, outnumbered and oppressed Muslims provided a sense of purpose and was a way to redeem Arab honor for some.

We will continue with this line as we progress into the next chapter.

Continued....