Because they can’t have everything.
I guess I’m just misguided by the American “bright line” notion of a formal “declaration of war” (or merely an authorization by Congress of the use of force.)
For instance, seizure of another country’s land is an act of war – but is Greece formally “at war” with Turkey over Cyprus?
Cyprus is not and was not part of Greece. The Turks specifically invaded because the Greek Cypriot government was going to unite with Greece(then ruled by “the Black Colonels” which would have been bad for Cyprus’ ethnic Turks.
This is not meant to defend the ethnic cleansing that went on or the continued occupation that’s nearly as old as the occupation of the West Bank(though it hasn’t generated nearly as much opprobrium).
I hope that the answer to this would not be forthcoming for a long time.
D’oh!
I meant of course, "how the Gazans would react to being ruled by the Israelis.
Considering how they were treated by Nasser, in stark contrast to how their West Bank counterparts were treated by King Hussein, it’s not surprising they’re not thrilled by such a prospect.
I’m still not following you. Were you intending to say “ruled by the Egyptians”?
Yes. I believe I may have developed Alzheimer’s a few decades early.
The way I see it, war starts when the parties start fighting and ends when they reach a peace agreement. An “act of war” is a justification to start fighting, not actual war.
As for the Israelis and Palestinians, they started fighting in earnest in late 1947, although neither had governments at the time, so there was - to the best of my knowledge - no actual official declaration of war. When the Palestinians took charge of Gaza in 2005 that was the first time since 1948 that they controlled any land of their own, so one might say that the parties simply continued where they had left off.