The Six Day War and its territorial consequences
Distinguish military victory, occupation and political settlement after June 1967.
Exam scope and assessment notes
Partial 2026 course: introductory context across the twelve AS topics, with selected document workshops, not full AS or A Level preparation. All three Paper 3 alternatives have introductory context, historiography and original interpretation exercises; Italy, Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany and Britain have introductory depth pathways across their four enquiries. The USA in the late 1940s/1950s and the 1960s/1970s have introductory American depth pathways; the 1980s/early-1990s theme now introduces all four enquiries with original teaching and two longer essay workshops. All four American themes now have introductory teaching and longer essay workshops, including US foreign policy, 1944–1992. The US–Soviet theme introduces all four enquiries through thirty core lessons and two longer essay workshops. Forty-one lessons introduce all four East and Southeast Asia enquiries: eight on post-war change, nine on Korea, twelve on Vietnam and twelve on Sino-American relations. Eight lessons introduce the African independence enquiry through Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, Kenya and comparative reasoning. Nine further lessons introduce government, economic and social challenges after independence. Thirteen further lessons introduce Cold War involvement, Chinese support, non-alignment and Pan-Africanism. Twelve further lessons introduce UN involvement in Congo and Somalia, with 1993–1995 explicitly labelled as later context beyond the theme’s 1992 endpoint. Ten lessons introduce the creation-of-Israel enquiry. Twenty further lessons introduce wars and peace efforts in 1948–1979. Seventeen further lessons introduce superpower motives, oil, American and Soviet policies and their consequences through 1991. Twenty-one further lessons introduce the Iranian Revolution, Iran–Iraq War and 1990–1991 Gulf War. All four 2026 Middle East enquiries have introductory lessons; broader reading, depth, specialist review and full assessment remain unfinished. The separate 2027–2029 requirements are not mapped by these 2026 lessons. A separately labelled revised-year orientation and Eastern Europe enquiries 7.1–7.4 introductions and South Africa enquiries 8.1–8.3 and Zimbabwe enquiry 8.4, followed by Malaya enquiry 9.1 and introductory sequences for Malaysia formation enquiry 9.2 and Indonesian nationalism enquiry 9.3, with partial preparation, revolution, 1950s challenges and New Order teaching in enquiry 9.4, are available; other revised teaching remains unfinished. Source summaries are original StudyForA paraphrases, not quotations, complete documents or simulated eyewitness sources. Primary documents, historians’ arguments and original exercises are identified separately. Guided source comparisons, interpretation exercises and analytical models are not full papers, calibrated marking or Cambridge grades. Broader authentic source reading, historical depth and subject-specialist review remain required. Conflict in the Middle East, 1948–1991 is one theme within the International Paper 4 depth study in 2026. The official paper is 105 minutes and 60 marks, with two questions from the chosen depth study. These lessons and original planning briefs introduce Conflict in the Middle East, 1948–1991; broader historical depth, full timed papers and calibrated marking remain unfinished. Develop your own supported judgement using precise evidence, causal relationships and counterarguments. The Paper 4 choice is independent of Paper 3.
Before you begin
- Place events in chronological order
- Distinguish a historical document from a later account and from a student argument
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
How should you begin a depth-study argument?
What you will learn
- Explain the key events and decisions in The Six Day War and its territorial consequences
- Compare the mechanisms and limitations in the linked evidence
- How far did the Six Day War produce lasting security? Compare military gains, civilian consequences and unresolved political settlement.
Build a depth-study argument
- Write your own evidence-based answer before opening the model.
- Define the judgement, connect precise examples, consider counterarguments and explain the relative weight of the evidence. The original brief is a planning aid, not a historical source to quote as testimony.
Partial 2026 course: introductory context across the twelve AS topics, with selected document workshops, not full AS or A Level preparation. All three Paper 3 alternatives have introductory context, historiography and original interpretation exercises; Italy, Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany and Britain have introductory depth pathways across their four enquiries. The USA in the late 1940s/1950s and the 1960s/1970s have introductory American depth pathways; the 1980s/early-1990s theme now introduces all four enquiries with original teaching and two longer essay workshops. All four American themes now have introductory teaching and longer essay workshops, including US foreign policy, 1944–1992. The US–Soviet theme introduces all four enquiries through thirty core lessons and two longer essay workshops. Forty-one lessons introduce all four East and Southeast Asia enquiries: eight on post-war change, nine on Korea, twelve on Vietnam and twelve on Sino-American relations. Eight lessons introduce the African independence enquiry through Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, Kenya and comparative reasoning. Nine further lessons introduce government, economic and social challenges after independence. Thirteen further lessons introduce Cold War involvement, Chinese support, non-alignment and Pan-Africanism. Twelve further lessons introduce UN involvement in Congo and Somalia, with 1993–1995 explicitly labelled as later context beyond the theme’s 1992 endpoint. Ten lessons introduce the creation-of-Israel enquiry. Twenty further lessons introduce wars and peace efforts in 1948–1979. Seventeen further lessons introduce superpower motives, oil, American and Soviet policies and their consequences through 1991. Twenty-one further lessons introduce the Iranian Revolution, Iran–Iraq War and 1990–1991 Gulf War. All four 2026 Middle East enquiries have introductory lessons; broader reading, depth, specialist review and full assessment remain unfinished. The separate 2027–2029 requirements are not mapped by these 2026 lessons. A separately labelled revised-year orientation and Eastern Europe enquiries 7.1–7.4 introductions and South Africa enquiries 8.1–8.3 and Zimbabwe enquiry 8.4, followed by Malaya enquiry 9.1 and introductory sequences for Malaysia formation enquiry 9.2 and Indonesian nationalism enquiry 9.3, with partial preparation, revolution, 1950s challenges and New Order teaching in enquiry 9.4, are available; other revised teaching remains unfinished. Source summaries are original StudyForA paraphrases, not quotations, complete documents or simulated eyewitness sources. Primary documents, historians’ arguments and original exercises are identified separately. Guided source comparisons, interpretation exercises and analytical models are not full papers, calibrated marking or Cambridge grades. Broader authentic source reading, historical depth and subject-specialist review remain required.
Enquiry brief and analytical model
This is an original StudyForA enquiry brief, not a quotation, a primary document or a historian’s extract. Use it to plan your own argument and read the linked evidence. Conflict in the Middle East, 1948–1991 is one theme within the International Paper 4 depth study in 2026. The official paper is 105 minutes and 60 marks, with two questions from the chosen depth study. These lessons and original planning briefs introduce Conflict in the Middle East, 1948–1991; broader historical depth, full timed papers and calibrated marking remain unfinished. Develop your own supported judgement using precise evidence, causal relationships and counterarguments. The Paper 4 choice is independent of Paper 3.
StudyForA enquiry brief · The Six Day War and its territorial consequences
[1] Original analytical brief. Distinguish military victory, occupation and political settlement after June 1967. Develop a supported judgement using the linked evidence and its limits. This is StudyForA teaching prose, not a contemporary document or a historian’s extract. Write before opening the model.
1. How far did the Six Day War produce lasting security? Compare military gains, civilian consequences and unresolved political settlement.
Compare after trying
The Six Day War fundamentally changed territorial control because Israel occupied Sinai, Gaza, the West Bank including East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The speed of victory demonstrated military capacity and changed strategic positions, but occupation did not itself establish agreed sovereignty or a comprehensive peace. Those are different outcomes requiring different evidence.
For Arab governments, defeat damaged military and political standing without eliminating distinct national objectives. For civilians, the consequences included new occupation and further insecurity, which cannot be explained by troop movements alone. Local evidence is needed to investigate particular displacement and administrative experiences rather than assuming a uniform effect everywhere.
Resolution 242 shows the continuing diplomatic problem: withdrawal, recognition and secure peace remained matters for agreement. The war therefore strengthened Israel militarily while creating or intensifying unresolved political responsibilities and disputes. Whether it increased security depends on the actor, criterion and timescale. A full judgement must examine subsequent choices and conflict instead of treating the ceasefire as the permanent settlement of every issue.
Why this response fits
- Connect evidence to a specific causal mechanism and outcome.
- Compare explanations and keep contemporary claims, later interpretation and verified events distinct.
- This original analytical model is not a calibrated examination script or Cambridge grade.
A short war transformed control
The Six Day War began on 5 June 1967 and ended after fighting on fronts involving Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Israel achieved a rapid military victory. An explanation of that result should distinguish the immediate conduct of operations from the preceding diplomatic crisis. This introduction establishes the broad sequence and consequences; it does not claim a complete account of every air operation, army formation or command decision.
Israel occupied Sinai and Gaza from Egyptian control, the West Bank including East Jerusalem from Jordanian control, and the Golan Heights from Syrian control. These are distinct territories with different populations and earlier political circumstances. Do not describe them all as territory Israel had already held since 1949, or imply that a rapid military outcome automatically settled their sovereignty and final boundaries.
Security gains also created new responsibilities and conflict
The territorial outcome changed strategic depth and the positions of opposing forces. It also placed additional Arab populations under Israeli occupation and intensified questions about displacement, rights and future government. A judgement restricted to the map of military gains misses these political and civilian consequences. Wider local testimony is required to explain how particular communities experienced the war and subsequent administration.
Defeat damaged the standing of Arab governments and challenged assumptions about their military capacity. Yet a military defeat does not prove that national aspirations disappeared or that every government immediately adopted an identical response. Nasser’s regional authority, Jordan’s position and Syrian objectives require separate analysis. The consequences could stimulate different strategies, including renewed war, diplomacy and Palestinian political organisation.
Victory did not provide a final agreement
Security Council Resolution 242, adopted in November, connected withdrawal and peace with recognition, secure boundaries, navigation and a just settlement of the refugee problem. The resolution was a diplomatic framework rather than proof that withdrawal or reconciliation had been completed. Its existence demonstrates that the war’s outcome generated further international tasks, not that the June ceasefire had already settled them.
When assessing whether the war increased security, specify for whom and over what timescale. A military victory could remove immediate threats and strengthen bargaining power while leaving occupation and unresolved claims central to future conflict. Do not jump straight from 1967 to the 1979 treaty as if the intervening diplomacy and 1973 war did not matter. A supported judgement compares immediate capacity, civilian consequences and longer-term political settlement rather than assigning one permanent result to a six-day campaign.
Sources for this lesson
- Cambridge History 9489 · 2026 Version 3 · content pp. 9–41, assessment pp. 43–45, changes p. 52
- Cambridge History 9489 · December 2025 update · 2026 only
- Retired US Office of the Historian Six Day War overview · selected May escalation and June territorial outcome; later American institutional narrative, false report distinguished from proven Soviet intent, no comprehensive legal verdict
- Primary English texts of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reproduced with the 1978 Camp David documents at UCSB American Presidency Project; paired peace and withdrawal principles and ceasefire/negotiation tasks, not all language versions or implementation records read
Pause and explain
Which statement distinguishes outcome and settlement?
Worked example
Which territories changed control in June 1967?
Show the worked solution
- Identify Sinai and Gaza.
- Identify West Bank and East Jerusalem.
- Identify Golan Heights.
Answer Israel occupied Sinai and Gaza from Egyptian control, the West Bank including East Jerusalem from Jordanian control, and the Golan Heights from Syrian control. These gains changed military positions and placed additional populations under occupation. They did not automatically establish agreed sovereignty or final peace boundaries.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
Guided: Which territories changed control in June 1967?
Give me a hint
Distinguish the three fronts.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify Sinai and Gaza.
- Identify West Bank and East Jerusalem.
- Identify Golan Heights.
Israel occupied Sinai and Gaza from Egyptian control, the West Bank including East Jerusalem from Jordanian control, and the Golan Heights from Syrian control. These gains changed military positions and placed additional populations under occupation. They did not automatically establish agreed sovereignty or final peace boundaries.
Look for these in your work
- Uses specific dated evidence
- Explains the mechanism and retains the stated limit
Independent: Why is military victory insufficient evidence of lasting security?
Give me a hint
Compare immediate and later outcomes.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify changed military positions.
- Identify occupation and unresolved claims.
- Specify a timescale.
A rapid victory could improve immediate military positions and bargaining power, yet occupation and unresolved political claims could sustain future conflict. Lasting security needs evidence of subsequent conduct and agreements. The judgement therefore depends on whom security refers to and the period being assessed, not solely on the June campaign.
Look for these in your work
- Uses specific dated evidence
- Explains the mechanism and retains the stated limit
Transfer: A map labels the West Bank as Israeli-held since 1949. Correct the chronology.
Give me a hint
Compare the two wars.
Compare my reasoning
- Identify the 1949 control.
- Date the 1967 change.
- Separate control and sovereignty.
The West Bank was under Jordanian control after the 1948–1949 war and came under Israeli occupation during the June 1967 war. Correcting the date prevents two distinct territorial outcomes being merged. A map should also distinguish actual control from an agreed final sovereignty settlement.
Look for these in your work
- Uses specific dated evidence
- Explains the mechanism and retains the stated limit
Common mistakes
- Confusing 1949 and 1967 control
- Equating occupation and agreed sovereignty
- Ignoring civilian consequences
What can you explain now?
Which statement distinguishes outcome and settlement?
Compare with the explanation
Israel’s territorial victory left withdrawal, rights and peace to further political conflict and diplomacy
A battlefield result changes control without automatically resolving every political claim.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Which statement distinguishes outcome and settlement?
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.