I’ve seen a lot of sites that say a lot of different things. Most main-stream opinion agrees that the Israelis were under threat, but some sources explain it like:
Israel was invaded
while others use the language:
In response to Arab threats, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike on the Arab armies massed along it’s borders.
Which is more representative of what actually happened?
Israel was invaded in 1948 by forces from surrounding countries. In 1967, Israel launched a preemptive strike. Your sources may have confused the two.
The most important facts are these:
Since Israel was founded, it’s neighbors have clearly proclaimed that their religion is offended by the very existance of Israel, & have publicly vowed to destroy it again & again.
Israel has tried to negotiate peace again & again, only to be rebuffed again & again.
If you’re going to be posting “facts” in GQ, try to get them straight.
It’s not a religious problem that Arabs have with the founding of Israel, it’s a cultural one. They see it as another form of colonialism that they have been subjagated to by everyone from the Turks to the British. They see it as their land that was taken from them by Europeans and given to someone other than them after they received independence.
I’m sure the good folks of Tennessee (and the rest of the US) would react wonderfully if the UN stepped in and removed half the state from the government of the United States and gave it back to the Tennessee tribe.
First and foremost, could you please explain why what you’ve posted are “the most important” to the factual question at hand?
Cite, please. Please be specific as to which neighbors and which neighbors’ religions are offended.
Please cite which neighbors you’re talking about. Please provide citation for and discuss why these neighbor should want to destroy Israel more than once. It seems that once would be enough.
Could you please provide some examples?
I prefer not to call 1967 a preemptive strike. Egypt had committed an act of war by closing the Straits of Tiran. Syria had been commiting acts of war by shelling Israeli villages in the North. It is not preemptive when you have adequate casus belli, and for all intents and purposes are already at war. I prefer to think of the large air strikes and actions of 5-7 June 1967 as an offensive in response to acts of war.
Before this is tossed in GD.
The events of 1948 are pretty clear-cut. Israel was attacked, with a major offensive beginning the day after Israel declared independence.
With 1967, there is some room for interpretation. Israel launched a huge attack in the beginning of June 1967 which decimated the armies and air forces of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. I prefer not to call it a preemptive strike. Egypt had committed an act of war by closing the Straits of Tiran. Syria had been commiting acts of war by shelling Israeli villages. It is not preemptive when you have adequate casus belli, and for all intents and purposes are already at war. I prefer to think of the large air strikes and actions of 5-7 June 1967 as an offensive in response to acts of war.
Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor: “[Israel’s neighbors] have publicly vowed to destroy it again & again.”
SimonX: “Please provide citation for and discuss why these neighbor should want to destroy Israel more than once.”
SimonX, are you really that dense, or are just trying to be a jerk?
The latter. :rolleyes:
My cite–read this book.
What Edwino said.
When you’ve got the armies of five countries massed around your borders, there’s no reason to wait to see what their intentions might be.
I mean, it’s not as if they’re there to ask if you have any Grey Poupon…
Neurotik:
Firstly, there are three “sets” of lands that Israel occupies. Lands that they bought from Egypt, Turkey, and individuals; lands that did belong to Arabs who fled Israel just before or during the first war in 1948; and lands that were unoccupied in the Gaza strip, Golan Heights, and the West Bank which Israelis occupied after the war of 1967. As to the first set, much of this land was purchased in the 1890s and then again in the early 20th C. As to the last set, the lands first occupied in the “occupied areas” were far away from any Arab occupied dwellings, but more recently have become closer and closer to “civilization.”
So, there was no “land taken from them by Europeans and given to someone other than them…” Europeans had nothing to do with it. Turkey (if you consider it “European” did sell some of the lands, but Turkey sold the lands and did not give them away. (The land was under the British Mandate after WWI, but Britain did not own any of the land and certainly did not give it to the Jews. Prior to the War, it was, of course, part of the Ottoman empire.)
Second, it is not a “cultural” problem. It is a religious problem. The Arabs would agree to have some Jews living in “Palestine” (their term for the whole area, which was what it had been called before the state of Israel), provided they be subject to an Arab government. The Arabs do not want a state of Israel, governed primarily by Jews. The Arabs, historically, have probably been the least anti-Semitic people on the planet, when you consider the Crusaders, the Inquisition, numerous pogroms, numerous exiles, the “final solution,” and now the present day anti-Semitism in many European countries. When Jews first emigrated to Palestine en masse (1890s), there was not much objection by the Arabs. In fact, many of the sellers were Arabs. But then when the talk of a Jewish state (Zionism) became known, the Arabs had a different view. They want no Jewish state. If they want to live there, they must be subject to Arab control.
Approximately 20% of the population of Israel are Arabs, and some are in governmental positions. That’s always been a problem for the Jews. Who to trust? Are these Arabs pro-Israel or pro-Arab? Another problem is that the state was set up as a Jewish state, and this was that the land would be a long-sought refuge for the Jews who have been persecuted, almost annihilated, and exiled throughout History. If they could form a Jewish state, they would, at last, not have to worry about the latest anti-Semitic fad to hit the general population. So, if enough Arabs become governmental officials, Israel may no longer be a Jewish state. A paradox. Israel is the only democratic nation in the area, but if enough Arabs are elected to the government, it may eventually no longer be a Jewish state, which would defeat the entire purpose of setting up the state in the first place. There is the added consideratio of Eretz Israel: the land promised by God to them, which accounted for the early immigrations.
What SimonX objects to is Bosda’s stemnt on religous motivation. Rerligous nationlism was a late-comer to the conflict, the 1948 and 1967 invasions wer under the banner of the secular philosphy of pan-Arabism.
Barbitu8, Britain (or more properly the mandate government) owned) over 50% of the land in 1948, ~8% was Jewish land, ~40% Arab land, about half of the Jewish land was bought after 1921-1948. Also unless something has changed in the last few years the only Arab government officals are currently confined to the Arab office.
The problems started at about the time of the Balfour Declartion due to fears of disposseion, the impostion of further foreign rule and he fact that the idea was counter to the Arab nationalism which had been encouraged and used by the British when fighting the Ottomans in WWI.
Europeans had everything to do with it in that the UN partition was largely done by Europeans (and European descended countries). Jews owned about 6% of Palestine, yet were given control of 50% by the United Nations.
Hence, Europeans took the land from the Arabs (ie, Arab control) and gave it to the Jews (ie, Jewish control).
**
Correct. That’s why it’s a cultural problem, not a religious one. It has mostly to do with Arab nationalism and pride. It’s especially evident that this is so considering Arab Christians feel the same way. The objection is to non-Arab Jews taking control of what Arabs consider to be their land, something extremely sensitive considering the imperialism of the Ottomans and the British/French that came before.
Once again, that’s what makes it a cultural problem and not a religious problem.
I’m aware, but this has nothing to do with either the OP or our little hijack.
OK, this is GQ last time I looked so all this crap about how Israel was founded and so forth is irrelevant.
The question is, did Israel launch a pre-emptive strike or was it invaded in 1948. I do not think that having enemy troops massed on the borders constitutes a causus belli here. However, if Israeli towns were being shelled, that definitely is a causus belli and would make any attack by Israel on the nation that did the shelling defensive in nature. I’m not sure that shutting down a strategic waterway is … would depend on whether that waterway was in Israeli waters, I imagine.
Try to stick to the point, people.
Re the OP Wikiopedia does a nice job on the 48-49 War (To use a Neutral term).
It is more complex than Arab Army Attacks – which only takes place in what Wikopedia calls the “Third Phase” of the War. A war which is essentailly a flat out continuation of the civil strife within the British Mandate.
The actual question seemed pretty well covered by Alessan in the original answer. Then the thread went walkabout…
Yes I’d agree Alessan’s was more than aceptable without going into an in depth discussion of motivation, though I would say that 1948 and 1967 were just the two major flare points in a conflict that has contiuned from about 1920 to the present day.
I define the 1948 war as a war of Arab aggression simply for semantics.
The UN General Assembly passed a partition plan on November 29, 1947. This split up the British Mandate into a Jewish and a Palestinian state, and gave an expiry date for the mandate of May 14, 1948.
Between that time, there was a lot of unrest, violence, and injustice perpetrated. But these were not acts of war in my book, because there was no state. jimmmy’s term “civil strife” seems to fit it more accurately. This was certainly not new (it had been going on since at least the 1920s), but it increased substantially between November and May.
On May 14, 1948, the Provisional government of Israel declared independence, as mandated by the UN General Assembly. Many countries immediately recognized it. Now we are talking about legitimate transnational actions, and we can put the word “war” on it. Accordingly, when the regular and irregular troops of the surrounding Arab countries began fighting against the new Zionist Entity, it was an act of war.