It is virtually obligatory for this attack to be described by commentators today as “preemptive”. and Israeli intelligence assessed at the time that the likelihood Nasser would actually attack was low.
But to have been “preemptive”, by definition, there must have been an imminent threat of Egyptian aggression against Israel. It is commonly claimed that President Nasser’s bellicose rhetoric, blockade of the Straits of Tiran, movement of troops into the Sinai Peninsula, and expulsion of U. peacekeeping forces from its side of the border collectively constituted such an imminent threat. The CIA assessed that Israel had overwhelming superiority in force of arms, and would, in the event of a war, defeat the Arab forces within two weeks; within a week if Israel attacked first, which is what actually occurred.
In the whole of Palestine, Arabs owned 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent, which remained the case up until the time of Israel’s creation. The truth is that no Arab could be reasonably expected to accept such an unjust proposal.
For political commentators today to describe the Arabs’ refusal to accept a recommendation that their land be taken away from them, premised upon the explicit rejection of their right to self-determination, as a “missed opportunity” represents either an astounding ignorance of the roots of the conflict or an unwillingness to look honestly at its history.
The terminology of Israel’s “right to exist” is constantly employed to obfuscate that fact. N., but came into being on May 14, 1948, when the Zionist leadership unilaterally, and with no legal authority, declared Israel’s existence, with no specification as to the extent of the new state’s borders.
Ut Pact Essay - Israeli Conflict Essay
In a moment, the Zionists had declared that Arabs no longer the owners of their land – it now belonged to the Jews.In other districts, Arabs owned an even larger portion of the land.At the extreme other end, for instance, in Ramallah, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land. partition recommendation had called for more than half of the land of Palestine to be given to the Zionists for their “Jewish State”.This began to change with the onset of the Zionist movement, because the Zionists rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and wanted Palestine for their own, to create a “Jewish State” in a region where Arabs were the majority and owned most of the land.For instance, after a series of riots in Jaffa in 1921 resulting in the deaths of 47 Jews and 48 Arabs, the occupying British held a commission of inquiry, which reported their finding that “there is no inherent anti-Semitism in the country, racial or religious.” Rather, Arab attacks on Jewish communities were the result of Arab fears about the stated goal of the Zionists to take over the land.The British Hope-Simpson report of 1930 similarly noted that Jewish residents of non-Zionist communities in Palestine enjoyed friendship with their Arab neighbors. Rejecting the democratic solution to the conflict, UNSCOP instead proposed that Palestine be partitioned into two states: one Arab and one Jewish. It is often claimed that this resolution “partitioned” Palestine, or that it provided Zionist leaders with a legal mandate for their subsequent declaration of the existence of the state of Israel, or some other similar variation on the theme. Resolution 181 merely endorsed UNSCOP’s report and conclusions as a . recommendation to partition Palestine was rejected by the Arabs.“It is quite a common sight to see an Arab sitting in the verandah of a Jewish house”, the report noted. Needless to say, for Palestine to have been officially partitioned, this recommendation would have had to have been accepted by both Jews and Arabs, which it was not. would have had no authority to take land from one people and hand it over to another, and any such resolution seeking to so partition Palestine would have been null and void, anyway. Many commentators today point to this rejection as constituting a missed “opportunity” for the Arabs to have had their own state.These Palestinians have never been allowed to return to their homes and land, despite it being internationally recognized and encoded in international law that such refugees have an inherent “right of return”.Palestinians will never agree to the demand made of them by Israel and its main benefactor, the U. To do so is effectively to claim that Israel had a “right” to take Arab land, while Arabs had no right to their own land.Rather, the Arabs were acting in defense of their rights, to prevent the Zionists from illegally and unjustly taking over Arab lands and otherwise disenfranchising the Arab population.The act of aggression was the Zionist leadership’s unilateral declaration of the existence of Israel, and the Zionists’ use of violence to enforce their aims both prior to and subsequent to that declaration.