On June 5, 1967 Israel launched the Six Day War. An opportunity for peace came in its aftermath, but it wasn’t taken. The why’s and what’s of that missed chance at peace have the pundits buzzing on this 40th anniversary.

Meir Shalev was born during the 1948 war. He grew up with Israel and next year they will both turn sixty: “Neither of us is young anymore, but I am pleased to report that I look far better. Israel cannot hear anymore, doesn't see well, can't really grasp matters or understand clearly. Worst of all, Israel refuses to undergo the operation that would return it to good health.”

Tom Segev says that “more and more Israelis realize today that Israel gained absolutely nothing from the conquest of the Palestinian territories.” What would have happened if Israel had simply defeated the Arab armies and withdrawn to its 1948 borders? Segev can only imagine the possibilities.

Terence Smith remembers the brief time after the 1967 war when “peace seemed likely and shopping rather than shooting was the major interaction between Israelis and the Palestinians on the West Bank.” No more. Defiant Arab leaders and radical settlers left an opportunity for peace for the selfishness now shown nightly on television screens.

Bret Stephens says that the Six Day War gave Israel the opportunity it needed for survival: “when the sun rose on June 5, 1967, Israel was a poor, desperately vulnerable country, which threw the dice on its own survival in the most audacious military strike of the 20th century. It is infinitely richer and more powerful today, sure in its alliance with the U.S. and capable of making concessions inconceivable 40 years ago.”

The Senate returns to work today to resume debate on the immigration bill. It’s a massive bill that claims “comprehensive reform” which means there’s plenty to complain about.

Mickey Kaus argues that, “far from being a sensible centrist departure from the sort of grandiose, rigid thinking that led Bush into Iraq, ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ is of a piece with that thinking. And it's likely to lead to a parallel outcome.” He backs his argument with ten similarities.

The New York Times worries that as the Senate continues to debate the immigration bill, it will be gutted of its most rational proposals. The Senate should be particularly worried about John Cornyn’s (R-Texas) back handed amendment that would destroy the hopes of citizenship for millions.

Charles Krauthammer warns against an immigration bill that claims to be “comprehensive.” You never know what you’re going to find in a 280 page bill. Example: the dissolution of the HB-1 visa, “a special category for highly skilled, world-renowned, and indispensable talent. Great musicians, athletes, and high-tech managers.”

The Washington Times says there is no “sugar coating” the implications of the immigration bill: it “contains massive loopholes that will make it easier for terrorists and criminals to enter and remain in the United States. It will facilitate the migration of much of Mexico's illegal-alien underclass to the United States, resulting in trillions of dollars in additional federal, state and local spending on welfare programs and other public services along with considerable tax increases over the next three decades or so to pay for it all -- tax increases that will largely take effect after most of the current membership of the Senate is dead.”