You know what? They shouldn’t abandon the Gaza Strip or Judea and Samaria (“West Bank”, re-known to rid the name of its Jewish connection of this historically Jewish land). The West Bank was lost by the Jordanian Arabs (“Palestine”) in the 1967 6 day war after THE ARABS STARTED IT. And they lost that land as a result. You know what I say? Boo-friggin’-hoo. (I won’t even mention how Jordanian forces illegally annexed the “West Bank” in 1949, and Israel simply gained it back…or should I?)
I’m doing a lot of research and am going to post something on my website to dispute this idea that Israel is “taking over” the whole Arab Middle East and that it’s an “expanionist” and the “aggressor” against all Arab nations. Balogna! (hehe) So stay tuned.
I guess Abbas could stand by and offer support when Israel understandably uses disproportionate force in response to the latest outrage. Or, I guess, the Israelis could blow up a busload of Muslim clerics to make it fair.
Interesting straw man, I haven’t seen any such claims that Israel is “taking over” the whole Arab Middle East, that it’s “expansionist” or that it is the “aggressor” against all Arab nations here. During your research, you might want to take a deeper look at the 1967 war and who started it, since your statement that THE ARABS STARTED IT doesn’t become true through use of allcaps. If Israel hadn’t attacked preemptively, Egypt and Syria were planning on attacking, but the 6 Day War was started by Israel in a surprise attack.
As long as Israel occupies the West Bank, there is going to be resistance from the Palestinians, unless you plan on ‘terminating’ them.
Krillan, you do know that Israel must remain first and foremost a Jewish state demographically and politically. The country has no intentions of ever absorbing every single displaced Palestinian in the West Bank. Palestinians and Israeli Arabs have a higher birthrate than Israelis do and if I’m not mistaken, it has been predicted that the Arab population within Israel will be about even with the Jewish in a generation. The fact is that an increasing Palestinian population would still be a threat to Israel existence even if the terrorists were to disappear (which would be WONDERFUL, IMO). The issue remains: what to do with all those Palestinians.
BTW, this is why nobody suggests that Israel be a bi-national state. In fact, suggesting that Israel be a country of all its citizens and be culturally a Jewish state can get you barred from running in an election in Israel.
Palestians DO live in Jerusalem, however they are subject to some interesting property laws .
Simple, Israel is building settlements in the West Bank and Gaza for in order to expand its territory. You would think that if they want to ensure security for Israelis, they wouldn’t be building civilian homes there and having innocent Israelis needlessly killed. Having miltary bases there should be enough to meet security needs. But not only is Israel building more settlements, they are also encouraging people to live there by offering cheap housing and other benefits.
Settlements have another “benefit.” It makes declaring a Palestinian state that much harder. If Palestine were an independent state, and Israel only had military bases (which presumably the Palestinian state would not recognize) in the former OTs, then by international law, Israel would become an foreign military force and must leave. However, if there are civilians there, Israel can argue that they cannot extricate themselves from the OTs because they have civilians to protect.
And your point is? Remember that Israel was also vanquished by war–by the Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, and Ottomans. Should we have told the Jews, “There was a war ages ago, you lost, therefore your homeland is gone. Boo-friggin’-hoo?” when they were most desparate for a homeland? And remember that modern Israel was established not through force of arms but by the realization that giving a homeland to the Jews was the right thing to do. Why shouldn’t the same expression of humanity be extented to the Palestinians?
And yes, the West Bank was lost by the Jordanians, but the Jordanians were not in the land formerly known as Palestine. They were in Transjordan. King Abdullah gained the West Bank during the 1948 war and announced the establishment of the kingdom of Jordan. What does this have to do with the Palestinians’ right to a homeland? And how did Jordan gain the West Bank “illegally”? You just said that Israel had a right to the West Bank when the Jordanians lost it in the 1967 War. Israel also gained territory during the 1948 War. Was that illegal too? Furthermore, the UN’s original partition plan for Israel didn’t include the West Bank It didn’t include Jerusalem either. Israel gained Jerusalem in the same war.
BTW, my source of information is “A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict (4th Ed.)” by Ian Bickerton and Carla Klausner.
I don’t know why you think they wouldn’t. This bombing really shattered something in a metaphorical sense. I’m not sure I can properly put it into words, but Israeli ‘resolve’ must be at an all time high.
I think Israel is almost ready. Another “peace process” having to undergo a terrorist bloodbath followed by a heavy dose of combat with the ubiquitous civilian casualties. Hopefully this peace process is more resiliant, and the players more attuned to reality.
There was always a Jewish presense in what’s known as Israel today, but sometimes as little as tens of thousands. None of those invaders ever claimed the land for themselves, either. And the Jews allllllllways came back and rebuilt.
Because the very notion of a Jewish presense is appalling to the 'Palestinian" Arabs, plain and simple. This isn’t about the Judea and Saramia territory, this is about ALL OF HISTORIC PALESTINE. The Arabs want it all…it’s that simple. Here
“We must distinguish the strategies and long-term goals from the political-phased goals which we are compelled to accept due to international pressures.” But the “ultimate goal is the liberation of all of historical Palestine.” “Oslo has to be viewed as a Trojan Horse.”
–The late Faisal Husseini, Arafat’s Jerusalem representative, May 2001, Interview with Egyptian Newspaper El Arav.
Wrong. Jordan IS in the land formerly known as Palestine. What makes up Israel, Jordan, and the “West Bank” today is all of historic Palestine at the time it was mandated to the British after WWI. The British sliced the Palestine into two administrative districts. East of the Jordan river was for an Arab-Palestinian nation, which was named Trans-Jordan, which was 75% of all the original Palestine. West of the Jordan river, the other 25%, was to be a Jewish Palestinian homeland (this is INCLUDING THE WEST BANK). But sharing wasn’t a part of the Arab psychological makeup then, nor now.
And we must get something straight. The “Palestinian” people aren’t a people. They’re a mixture of Jordanians, Syrians, and Lebenese. So from what I’ve stated above, the Arab-Palestinians HAD THEIR HOMELAND, JORDAN! But read on…
You’re right, it didn’t. But the Jewish-Palestinians accepted the U.N. Resolution 181 (which divided up the 25% of original Palestine up EVEN MORE to form a second Arab-Palestinian state) and the Arab-Palestinians rejected it, because they wanted all of historic Palestine, both East AND West of the Jordan river. Talk about self-centered…
Then, of course, came that 1948 declaration of the Jewish state, whereby right afterwards (the next day, actually…), seven neighboring Arab nations (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia) invaded Israel. Israel survived after the 19-month war, and the Arabs that were in Israel at the time became today’s Israeli-Arabs, and the ones that fled became the first wave of “Palestinian Arab refugees”. The end result of this war for Israel’s independence was the creation of a Jewish state that was slightly larger than that proposed by the U.N. in 1947’s resolution 181. The rest of the originally proposed second Arab-Palestinian state was taken over by Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan (“West Bank”).
Then, in 1950, Jordan formally merged the “West Bank” into itself and granted the “Palestinian” Arabs living there Jordaniam citizenship. Which is why it was renamed from Trans-Jordan to Jordan. So the final analysis was that 85% of all original Palestine was under the Arab-Palestinian control, which was called Jordan but was in reality the Arab-Palestinian state. But of course, this was still not 100%, thus continued the fighting between the Arabs and the Jews for “Palestine”.
But what confuses me is that, from 1949-1967, when all of the “West Bank” and Gaza strip were under 100% Arab (Jordanian and Egyptian) control, no effort was ever made to create a second Arab-Palestinian state for the Arabs living there. Surely you don’t expect the Israelis to provide these same Arabs with their own (second) state when their fellow Arabs failed to do so back then!
Curiously enough, Arafat created his PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization, cosmetically renamed to the Palestinian Authority) in 1964, who’s purpose was to regain the lands that they would lose 3 years later after Jordan’s attempt to destroy Israel. And in those 3 years, did they even CARE to create their (second) Arab nation when they were clearly able to do so? Of course not. It’s because they want it ALL, not just the “West Bank” and Gaza Strip. But to add to that, it is also curious that, between those same 3 years after the PLO formed, Arafat and his cronies discovered their “ancient” identity and a need for “self-determination” and “human dignity” on this very same “West Bank” ONLY AFTER Israel regained this territory in 1967.
But after the 1967 war, Israel “occupied” the “West Bank”, Golan Heights, and Gaza strip because of Jordan’s, Egypt’s, and Syria’s failed attempt of genocide against the population of Israel. Had Israel of lost this defensive war, the Arab-Palestinians and their allies would have executed or driven out every last Israeli they could get a hold of, and taken over the rest of “Palestine” as they wanted. And even now, 36 years later, Israel is STILL allowing the Arab-Palestinians to have a state in much of the “West Bank” and Gaza as long as they stop sending suicide bombers in to the populace of Israel (talk about misplaced compassion). And Israel is the bad guy? Give me a break.
After the Israelis defeated ALL THREE of the Arab nations in 1967 – as I have said before – Syria lost Golan, Jordan lost West Bank, and Egypt lost Gaza AND THE ENTIRE SINAI DESERT. But after Israel was victorious, they gave back the Sinai Desert to Egypt for a peace treaty with them (which is probably hanging on a thread at the moment). Also, the Arabs in the “West Bank” and Gaza strip were ready to pack up and leave after their defeat, but (I believe his name was) Moshe Dayan, an IDF General, persuaded them to STAY! (The Arabs were probably thinking "Damn, we know that if WE would have won, you all would be DEAD or DRIVEN OUT right about now…) Dayan’s (I hope that’s right) plan was to educate them, offer them modern medical treatment, provide them with employment not only in the “West Bank” and Gaza, but even inside Israel, living amongst each other in hopes of building bridges to the Arab world. But of course, that didn’t satisfy the Arab-Palestinians either.
My entire point of this huge, long history rant is that Israel has been solely trying to prosper like any other newly found country, but the Arabs simply didn’t want its existence, despite all of the land the Arab-Palestinians already had from their FIRST state, and despite the fact the the Arab-Palestinians themSELVES failed to create the second Arab-Palestinian state when they had the chance to.
Sorry, but I’m on the side with logic.
P.S.: I don’t believe Israel has done everything right, but my rant shows that my feelings towards the Arabs is not very strong, considering the historical facts and the hypocrisy and hatred involved in their actions.
Well, I’ve made this correction several times now over the last couple of years. Might as well do it once more…
Not really. Historically “Palestine” ended at the Jordan river. Now it’s true the British Mandate of Palestine did initially include the Transjordan ( for just a couple of years ), but it was a rather ahistorical territorial unit and the British never really had much administrative control, the reason being that the Hashemites had entered in force ( bringing with them a mobile population of Bedouin w/traditional tribal ties and loyalties to that dynasty ) after the end of WW I and had usurped de facto control of the region. Rather than get involved in a nasty skirmish with a valued ally ( the Hashemite dynasty ) over a not very valuable bit of real estate, the British accepted a fait accompli and signed the Transjordan over ( as a vassal state ) to prince Abdullah. It was never designed to be an Arab homeland - it was just a sop to assertive “friendlies”, already pissed off about having been forced out of Syria ( where another prince, Faisal, future king of Iraq, had established a provisional government only to be ousted by the French demanding their piece of the colonial pie ).
If you had said, they weren’t a separate people, you’d of had a better argument. However for better or worse, the Palestinians have embraced nationalism in the 20th century, particularly since the failure or Nasserism in the late 60’s, and now in both their eyes and in the eyes of their Arab neighbors they represent a distinct cultural unit. They are a people now and that’s pretty much all that matters. How they viewed themselves in the 1890’s is pretty irrelevant in terms of modern politics at this point.
No, the Jordanian monarchy depended first on its tribal Bedouin supporters, secondarily on another fairly recent immigrant group, the Circassians and then rather more distantly native East Bankers, and not at all on the West Bank Palestinians who occupied a distinctly second-class status in Jordan. Black September happened for a reason. In no way could the Bedouin-dominated government and army of Jordan be considered Palestinian.
I understand the impulse to cast Jordan as the perfect answer to the Palestinian problem, given its demography. But I’m afraid it ignores certain historical and political realities. And the notion that Jordan was created to be the Palestinian homeland in the first place is erroneous.
I perhaps should amend that slightly - it ended not far east of the Jordan, but probably could be said to include the immediate fertile and settled strip along the east bank.
But that’s absolutely not true The British mandate from 1917-1921, was all of what’s Israel, “West Bank”, and Jordan today. This was apart of the entire Ottoman Empire which the Turks controlled pre-WWI, and when Germany, their ally, lost…The British and the French took it over. French got what’s part Lebanon and Syria today, and the British got what is historically known as “Palestine”, and then shortly after (1921 to be exact) was when what’s east of the Jordan river named Trans-Jordan. There’s no argument against it…but from 1517-1917, all of it was known as Palestine. Here’s a map showing the Turkish ruled land known as “Palestine”, and on the far left of the land you can see what’s known as Israel today. You see? Now here’s a map showing how Britain split Palestine into what’s west of the Jordan river (which is what was to be the Jewish Homeland [including West Bank as you can see…]) and what’s East of Jordan, Trans-Jordan, given to King Abdullah. This all happening in 1921. But of course, even after doing that, the Arabs still fought the Jews for their land SO MUCH that Britain just couldn’t handle it anymore, and gave it over to the U.N. in 1947. The U.N. of course took more of what the British allocated to the Jews and were to give it over to the Arabs (which were historically a bunch of, what we can call today, Jordanians, Egyptians, Lebenese, and Syrians, NOT “PALESTINIANS”! And they aren’t “PALESTNIANS” today! They’re the same “Arabs” as the rest of them!). And even after the Jews accepted the U.N. treaty, THE ARABS REJECTED IT! It wasn’t 100% of the land, so it wasn’t good enough.
Also, I don’t really think it should matter whether the rejects of Jordan, or “Palestinians” namely, weren’t welcome into Jordan. That doesn’t mean you go and fight Jews for their land. And even when they had two opportunities to establish a state (U.N. Resolution 181, and anywhere from 1949-1967), they didn’t go through with it. But now only AFTER they lost that land (because instead of gaining more land from Israel, as they historically are known for wanting, they actually lost some) they complain and whine. I’m not tolerant of such hipocrisy and self-centerness. Sorry…
Otherwise, I agree. But still, the Arab-Palestinians across the Jordan river were offered Jordanian citizenship in 1950, and also, the Arab controlled territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were NEVER made into a Palestinian state when they controlled it from 1949-1967 and could have easily made the Palestinian state they are complaining about today. Reason why it didn’t happen? Because they didn’t really care about just the West Bank and Gaza strip, they care about it ALL. Their idea of creating the second Arab-Palestinian state is removing Israel and taking the rest of historic Palestine over. Not even they deny this…read the quote I posted above. The man, Faisel Husseini, openly admitted the PLO’s true motives and goals shortly before his death on May 31, 2001, in an interview with that Egyptian newspaper.
While I concur with your historic analysis (the true “Palestine” disagreement aside), you didn’t (or couldn’t?) refute the fact that:
The Israelis let the Palestinian-Arabs stay in the West Bank and Gaza Strip after the '67 war, only to be repayed with the start of Arab-Palestinian terrorism. They didn’t have to let them stay, and the Arab-Palestinians weren’t even prepared to stay!
The Palestinian-Arabs that controlled the territory that they are NOW – after the '67 war – complaining about, NEVER made an attempt to establish a state when they very well had the chance and means to do so.
The Jews accepted Resolution 181 while the Arabs did not. Why not? Because it wasn’t 100% of the land. That’s why…and it’s ALL ISRAELS FAULT, FOR SURE!!! puke
P.S.: Forgive me for my many redundant points, but it has to sink in, you know?
My corrected comment, that it historically ended in the fertile lands east of the Jordan is correct ( calling it a “strip” in the context of Jordan and Israel was perhaps misleading on my part, though from a wider geographic view of the region, that’s exactly what it is ). Frankly the term “Palestine” ( like Syria ) is a bit vague in historical terms. There was a great deal of jockeying over where the borders between Syria and Palestine actually existed, for instance and the Ottoman borders on the east faded into desert - you’ll note on your map of Ottoman sanjaks, that the eastern borders remained undefined and there is a reason for that. A whole series of maps to follow…
A bunch of maps of historical Palestine, mostly from one source ( looks like a peacenik website, though I didn’t investiate it in detail )
They all show basically the same thing - Palestine generally runs east of the Jordan to the edge of the hilly country ( what were the fertile and semi-fertile settled areas ) and stops where it slopes off to the desert. i.e. it includes what is approximately the western third of modern Jordan.
Correct.
No, not exactly - It extends rather deeper into the desert.
Well, there is more to it than that of course. It was hardly a problem only of Arab agitation, as various Jewish groups were also quite determindly trying to force the British out.
Well what the British “allocated” is a dicey proposition as they tended to alter their position with the shifts of the political winds. If you mean an alteration from the original allocation of the Balfour Declaration, you are correct. But the British weren’t of the same mind by 1947 ( or even 1921-22, when Churchill got involved ). One could argue over the rightness of that, but it certainly wasn’t a case of “good-guy” British vs. “bad-guy” U.N…
As I pointed out, this is a singularly unhelpful, and, again, inaccurate representation of the modern situation. First of all, not Egyptian or Lebanese even historically ( Egyptians speak a different dialect of Arabic and the coastal Lebanese are fairly distinct culturally ). Second, as I said, the Palestinians are viewed as distinct now from Syrian or East Bank Jordanian Arabs, even if they weren’t half-a-century ago. They view themselves that way, other Arabs view them that way, and pretty much the world views them that way.
Quite true, though we need to qualify the point that this was hardly a democratic process at work in this rejection.
Well, I’m afraid it does matter. The Palestinians that are refugees or live in the occupied territories are unwilling to move and live under an alien Hashemite monarch ( and at this late date, it would appear the Hashemites are unwilling to have them ). They want their own state on the land they’ve lived in for generations, Israel is ( for sound reasons ) unwilling to make them all citizens of Israel even if that were an acceptable option, so a compromise has to be worked out.
The reason why it didn’t happen is Jordan wanted the territory and saw no reason to grant independence to what it viewed as its own restless subjects. But Jordanian intransigence is no fault of the Palestinian people. One shouldn’t conflate the desires of all Arabs to such an extent as you regard them as all wanting the same thing.
This indeed was the goal of the Arab states and the PLO. It still is the goal of groups like Hamas. However most realists in the Arab world and even among the Palestinians have long since come to the conclusion that its never going to happen and is a pipedream ( an immoral pipedream, at that ). It remains a driving force with some, but hardly all.
Well, I didn’t seek to refute that, though I’ll note that most Palestinians were unlikely to leave their homes voluntarily and any Israeli move to remove them would have been ethnic cleansing and further violation of both the Geneva Convention and basic humanity. Whether Israel could have expelled the Arab populace ( doubtless they could of ), it would have been a blight on the state to do so. Thankfully, they did not.
Before 1967 the Palestinian Arabs still cleaved to some extent to Nasserist pan-Arabism, at least theoretically. It is only after the failure of that idea, that real agitations towards full independence began. Besides it wasn’t the Palestinian people calling the shots, but the governments of Egypt and Jordan. The reason the PLO became so popular so quickly in the 60’s and 70’s, is that they finally represented an independent voice, however marginalized and extreme.
Who said it was all Israel’s fault? I hardly did, so remonstartion is unnecessary. I fully agree that the Arab states in 1948 were overwhelmingly culpable for the hostilities ( some Jewish elements get a much smaller part of the blame for inciting violence, but they were hardly worth sabotaging the partition ).
The only thing I was arguing with you is a couple of historical misconceptions. I’ve always been one to say it is the Israeli’s who have acted with the greater restraint ( often, by far ). They are, afterall, a democratic society, with all the positives that entail. But that doesn’t mean they’re squeaky clean. Nor does it mean Palestinian claims and complaints are always entirely without merit.
I don’t see what’s so surprising about this unless you view Arabs as a monolith. The Palestinians were a problem for Jordan; in fact they fought against a Palestinian uprising in 1970. Syria intervened on behalf of the PLO, but feared a full scale invasion because of Israeli threats. From Trevor Dupuy’s Elusive Victory, bolding mine:
Calling the war purely ‘defensive’ is seriously debatable. Again, while Syria and Egypt (though not Jordan) were planning on war, the war itself was started by Israel in a well planned surprise attack. The preliminary air strikes against Egypt and Syria had been rehearsed for months by flying the IAF out over the Mediterranean and dropping below radar coverage until it became routine for Egyptian and Syrian radar operators to view it and it no longer raised alarm bells of imminent surprise attack. Yes, you will find Arab propaganda from this period calling for driving the Jews into the sea, but you will also find Israeli propaganda calling the Arabs surrounding them ‘savages.’
Israel gave back the Sinai in 1979 as part of the Camp David Accords, after Sadat broke with Syria and other Arab nations and negotiated peace with Israel after the 1973 war. The whole point of the 1973 war for Egypt was to force Israel to the peace table by demonstrating that it would be in its interests to negotiate a peace accord. They threw Soviet advisors out of the country prior to the war. I’d like to see some evidence that the accord is currently ‘hanging by a thread.’
And I’ve never claimed that the Arab nations do everything in the right, or that I have a dim view of Israel for its own hypocrisy. I’ve also never called the Israelis ‘the bad guys.’
You see, people still think Israel started the '67 war, when they really did not. Yes, they surprised Egypt and wiped out all of their air bases before they could blink an eye, but that’s because Egypt and Syria were completely lined up along Israel’s borders ready to strike. (Just as a side note, Jordan allowed Syrian and Iraqi troops to line up along the Jordanian border to do battle with Israel…you’ll see that later in some newspaper headlines I found)
If Canada and Mexico lined up along the U.S.'s borders and started launching mortars over the border, are you saying that the U.S. – given that the U.S. went after Canada and Mexico before they invaded the U.S. – would be the starters of the war? Absolutely not.
I looked up newspapers a month prior to the '67 war and found this:
On May 7, the New York Times reported Syria had shelled the Israeli village of Ein Gev.
On May 17, the New York Times reported that the Palestine Liberation Organization, headed by Arafat, pledged to “keep sending commandos” into Israel.
On May 19, the Los Angeles Times reported Egypt stood accused of using poison gas in Yemen.
On May 19, the New York Times reported Egypt had deployed its forces along the Israeli border.
On May 20, the New York Times reported Egypt forced U.N. peacekeeping troops to leave the Sinai Desert in anticipation of its attack on Israel.
On May 21, the New York Times reported Egyptian soldiers were massing in the Sinai.
On May 22, the New York Times reported that the PLO would be stepping up its attacks in Israel, that Cairo was calling up 10,000 reserves and that Iraq would be sending aid to battle Israel.
On May 23, every newspaper in the world reported that Egypt took the provocative action of closing the Gulf of Aqaba to Israel.
On May 24, every newspaper in the world reported that the U.S. declared Egypt’s military blockade of the gulf “illegal.”
On May 25, the New York Times reported that Jordan would admit Saudi and Iraqi forces into its country to do battle with Israel.
On May 27, every newspaper in the world reported Egypt’s fiery threats to destroy Israel.
On May 29, the New York Times reported the Egyptian buildup of military forces in the Sinai was continuing.
On May 29, the Washington Post reported that despite all of this provocation, Israel was still reluctant to have a showdown with its enemies.
On May 29, the New York Times reported new Syrian attacks on Israel.
On June 3, the New York Times reported that Britain declared the Egyptian blockade could lead to war. It also reported that four Syrian commandos were intercepted in Israel.
On June 5, 1967, the Six-Day War began. Israel rolled up all of its enemies faster than anyone would have believed. It took control of East Jerusalem from Jordan. It took control of Judea and Samaria on the west bank of the Jordan River from Jordan. It took control of the Golan Heights from Syria. And it took control of the Gaza Strip and Sinai Desert from Egypt. You can read these news reports for yourself. What can I say? Israel didn’t “start” the war…
BTW, Tamerlane…I appreciate your responses. But I just wanted to let you know that the Egypt DOES have a historical link to present day “Palestinians”…Who do you think possessed Gaza? Where do you think Arafat is from, China?
Had Israel waited until Syria and Egypt struck, then Egypt and Syria would have started the war. This didn’t happen; Israel took the initiative and stuck first, starting the war. I don’t fault Israel for doing this, but Israel started the war. The problem with using contemporary newspaper headlines rather than post war analysis is that newspaper headlines are based on incomplete information. Based on newspaper headlines from the latest war with Iraq, one would discover that US and Coalition forces captured Umm Qasr on numerous occasions. Egyptian and Syrian troops were not completely lined up at the border ready to strike; they didn’t expect the war to come for some time. Israel left a small defensive screening force facing Syria while they sought a decision against Egypt. From Dupuy and Dupuy’s Encyclopedia of Military History:
Syrian and Iraqi troops weren’t lined up along the Jordanian border, your own cite states only that “Jordan would admit Saudi and Iraqi forces into its country to do battle with Israel.” Iraqi forces that participated in 1967 were minimal, and their primary participation was having its air force lose 15 planes in action against Israel. Saudi participation didn’t even rise to this level.
Again, I don’t fault Israel for starting the war. The war was inevitable, and Israel had laid out conditions under which it would go to war. Nassar planned on war, violated the conditions that Israel had laid out, but foolishly didn’t think that Israel would strike first.
Oh, to be sure. I was just just saying that culturally the Palestinian Arabs and Egyptian Arabs were a bit more distinct to begin with, including speaking similar but different dialects of Arabic ( Levantine Arabic - spoken in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel vs Egyptian Arabic - spoken in Egypt - both have sub-dialects as well ). The Palestinian Arabs are culturally a little closer to the East Bank Jordanians and southern Syrians, despite the years of Egyptian occupation of Gaza ( which didn’t exactly engender tons of fertile cultural cross-pollination ).
As for Arafat himself, he did spend many years in Egypt, but his Palestinian connection is through the Husseini family, one of the most important of the old feudal Arab houses of Jerusalem. One of the more prominent Palestinian moderates, Sari Nusseibeh, hails from another, something of traditional politcal rivals of the Husseini’s in Jerusalem.
Well, now you’re doing to parsing the meaning of ‘start’. It’s a perfectly valid position to say that the person who starts a war is the one that announces its warlike intentions and then begins building forces on your border. Hell, blockades are seen as acts of war. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say that the Arabs committed an act of war by mobilizing the way they did, and Israel responded defensively.
Or let me ask you - If the Americans had found the Japanese fleet off the coast of Hawaii, and intercepted messages indicating that the Japanese were about to launch their aircraft at Pearl Harbor, would the Americans be starting the war by attacking the fleet? Or would the aggressive intent of the Japanese be the measure?
Is it really so simple as, “The one who fires the first shot”?
I think Sam Stone is using the same logic as I am, and a similar scenario as the Canada and Mexico one I used. I don’t think it’s as simple as “The one who fires the first shot”. That’s not the way it works. Egypt’s blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba was in fact an act of war, an aggressive act. Britain said that it was grounds to start a war. Also, all the newspapers in the world reported of Egypt’s threats to destroy Israel. And Israel is suppose to wait for Egypt to attack when it’s crystal clear that Egypt would definitely do just that? The mobilizing of Egypt’s forces in the Sinai is what “starts a war”, not who strikes first. Israel just knew the inevitable and decided to strike first, but they didn’t bring the war to the table…
Tamerlane, I do believe that Arafat was actually born and raised in Egypt. Correct me if I’m wrong. That right there shows me that the “Palestinian” people are nothing but Arabs like the rest of the Arabs. Different dialect doesn’t make a different people. Think of it this way: Northeners and Southerners in the United States…different dialect, accent, with very suttle differences, but all still Americans. The French have significant differences among the people in the North from the South, but they’re all still French. The “Palestinian” people have very suttle differences between the Jordanian Arabs and the Syrian Arabs, but they’re all still Arabs. What makes a people? Language, Culture, Religion, Cuisine, garb, etc. The “Palestinian” people all speak the same language, have the same religion, same culture, same cuisine, as the other Arabs. They’re obviously not a separate people.
I’m not really seeing the distinction you are trying to make Krillan
So are Americans the same people as some Canadians for instance, or the British? And if not, what in your definition is the seperating factor?
Again, how about the people in Belgium that speak French, are they French too? How about French-speaking Swiss or Luxembourgois? Your main criteria for deciding who is a separate people seems to be whether you think they should be.
The British mandate from 1917-1921, was all of what’s Israel, “West Bank”, and Jordan today. This was apart of the entire Ottoman Empire which the Turks controlled pre-WWI, and when Germany, their ally, lost…The British and the French took it over. French got what’s part Lebanon and Syria today, and the British got what is historically known as “Palestine”, and then shortly after (1921 to be exact) was when what’s east of the Jordan river named Trans-Jordan. There’s no argument against it…but from 1517-1917, all of it was known as Palestine. 