Six Day War Analysis

Since its inception in 1948, Israel’s position in the international system has been precarious due to its geopolitically vulnerable position. Located in the Fertile Crescent in the Middle East, Israel is surrounded by hostile Arab neighbors begrudged by the fact that Israel’s territorial boarders were carved out of their own countries. These neighboring states have actively sought the destruction and dismemberment of the new Jewish nation since it received its statehood. In the subsequent two decades, Israel was harassed by the surrounding countries; there were numerous skirmishes, terrorist attacks, and bombardments perpetrated with the goal of provoking Israel into a conflict. Israel got the message that war was inevitable. In June, 1967

Many argue that Realism or Neorealism explains the war most efficiently, however Constructivists claim that Realism’s disregard of the missing link between nation and state, identity and sovereignty, and statesmen and the international system shows that Realism is incapable of explaining the causes of the Six Day War (Wendt). Although both Realism and Constructivism explain most of the causes of Middle Eastern conflict, I argue that studying the Six Day War from a Neoclassical Realist viewpoint provides a more thorough working analysis because it clarifies aspects of the conflict included in all three levels of analysis to explain the motives, rationale, and behavior of the states and individuals involved. Neoclassical Realism provides the most thorough explanation of the conflict through its inclusion of relative power, state capacity and intentions, domestic politics, and, most importantly, the ability of state leaders to perceive the capabilities, intentions, and relative power of states in an effort to explain foreign policy

Created by Gideon Rose in the late 1990s, Neoclassical Realism combines the Classical Realist and Neorealist theories, specifically Defensive Realism. This new form of Realism is an addition to Waltz’s model of Neorealism, which fails to explain foreign policy. Rose describes the theory in his 1998 article titled Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy: “It explicitly incorporates both external and internal variables… The scope and ambition of a country's foreign policy is driven first and foremost by its place in the international system and specifically by its relative material power capabilities. This is why it is realist. The impact of such power capabilities on foreign policy is indirect and complex, because systemic pressures must be translated through intervening variables at the unit level. This is why [it] is neoclassical” (Rose