Anti Semitism does not help Palestine

My friend is travelling to Palestine this summer,so will be interesting to see what she thinks of the whole thing. She's doing this outreach program thing with Palestinian youth to highlight the problems faced by young Palestinians.

Situation on the ground is pretty awful, what with the lack of supplies. Not to mention the constant encroaching by israeli settlers on palestinian land. Sadly, I don't see a solution to this issue any time soon :/

I've dug up my old dissertation on the wars with Israel now. I think it's fairly undeniable that opposition to the partitioning of palestine, as it then was, was predominantly coming from the arabs. Whether the Jewish concurrence was in good faith or not, it was the arabs who overtly opposed it.

I'm pretty sure even the most contemporary historical view on this is that the jury is very much out. The egyptians, jordanians and syrians had all mobilised their military forces and placed them on to the border with palestine. And whilst there is some evidence to suggest egyptian mobilisation was defensive, the syrian military force was very clearly intending to invade.

And it was reasonable (in my opinion) for the israelis to assume that if Syria did attack, that egypt would support them.

This view would be supported by the egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran, which contravenes international law and sets a precedent for egyptian hostility towards the israelis.

Given how dependant the Israelis were on the imports through this passage - especially for oil

And that's before you take into account that we know egypt and syria had already shown their willingness to undertake unprovoked military action against the israelis, when they invaded in 1948.

All this is true, but the 1948 war between the israelis and the arabs was indisputably initiated by an arab invading force from egypt and syria.

So whether a plan for this partition to be implemented was ever on the table is essentially moot, as political attempts to settle were curtailed when an arab force attacked the israelis.

I mean that in each instance, the loss of land to the israelis was a result of aggression initiated by arab forces. Whether the jury is out on the six days war or not, the hostilities in 1948 which lead to the first loss of land to israel was because the arabs attempted to invade israeli land.

I'm not sure I agree with that position. I'd struggle to believe that Sadat was going to enter a war he knew he'd lose, essentially signing up to tens of thousands of his own people dying, as a bargaining ploy.

But beyond this, I find it even harder to believe the syrians would sign up to this. What exactly did they gain out of this arrangement?

And that's not the point anyways. My point was that the Yom Kippur war was an example of an unprovoked military attack on israel by her arab neighbours.

I don't agree with that. Even if I went along with you that the six days war was unprovoked, the other two instances of war between israel and her arab neighbours were undeniably initiated by the arabs.

History shows that the two groups can live side by side and indeed help defend each other.

If they could do it for over 1000 years, then they could start doing it again.

I read somewhere that people in the Israeli government have calculated the number of calories that the palestinian population would require so that they can limit it through this blockade.

Indeed, but too many external factors are influencing the situation, for example, Jordanian and Egyptian interests (both historically and today).

On the whole, yes, but my point was that it's simplistic. It's not a case of resolution - the Palestinians say no - therefore war. The Yishuv leadership had few illusions that the plan was actually going to be implemented, either de jure or de facto. They had long expected and prepared for a war (the Palestinians, by contrast, were almost completely unprepared for war). This is all without discussing the actual content of the partition proposal.

I've never heard this claim. Indeed, quite the opposite - in the lead-up to the Six Day War there were fears of an Israeli attack on Syria (though the Soviets exaggerated this threat). The Syrian Army was considerably smaller and weaker than the Egyptian Army, and going to war without Egypt would have been unthinkable.



Even if they had thought that, they could have prevented or at least forestalled such an Egyptian action by agreeing to the redeployment of UNEF on the Israeli side of the border with Egypt.

Nasser had been willing to negotiate and submit to arbitration over the Straits closure - for example, he offered to let the ICJ decide on it.

Not very dependent at all - oil being the only significant exception. Apart from oil, only a very small proportion of Israel trade passed through Tiran. Very few Israeli-flagged ships actually passed through the straits. And besides which, Egypt stopped enforcing the blockade after a few days anyway.

This is quite an anachronistic portrayal of the 1948 War. For a start, the Arab states were actually in general quite reluctant to fight at first - it was the huge flows of Palestinian refugees into their territory, as well as domestic pressure and a perceived need to save face, that caused them to intervene in the already-raging civil war.

Furthermore, Israel had been unilaterally declared (a move that surprised the Arab states) by the Jewish Agency a matter of hours before Arab troops moved into what had been Mandatory Palestine. At the time it had no recognition and, more importantly, had not defined its territory, thus rendering the idea that the Arab troops could be 'invading Israel' rather dubious.

Also, by this logic, Egypt could make the same argument regarding the 1956 Israeli attack on Egypt as proof of Israel's belligerence.

Not true, the war had been raging within Mandatory Palestine for months already. May 1948 merely marks the point when the war significantly changed as:
- the British left.
- The Yishuv/Jewish Agency became Israel and Haganah/Irgun/Lehi were merged into the IDF
- The surrounding Arab states entered the war.

See above. There were several months between the partition resolution and the Arab states entering the war. The resolution was known by pretty much everyone to be dead substantially before May 1948.

What, in your opinion, was "Israeli land" immediately prior to the Arab states' troops entering Palestine?

Well, Sadat had publicly declared he would be willing to sacrifice a million soldiers to retake Sinai, but admittedly that's a posturing public statement so hard to draw much from.

He didn't expect to lose, he believed he would be able to recapture a strip of land along the east bank of the Suez Canal, which he would be able to dig in and hold. This would provide a minor victory over Israel which he believed he would be able to use to either convince Israel to make peace (likely via the Americans), or use as a bridgehead for a further offensive at a later date. This is largely what the Egyptian Army succeeded in doing in the first phase of the Yom Kippur War - it was advancing beyond the captured east bank strip (due to a perceived need to strike due to Syria's military collapse) that cost Egypt the war.



Hafez Assad wrongly believed he would be able to retake Golan by force.

They didn't attack Israel, they never reached Israeli territory. They launched attacks into what was legally their own sovereign territory.

I thought you were talking about the 1948 Nakba/exodus of Palestinians when you talked about "evicting the Arabs"? I don't see how the other wars play into that.

Thank you for very interesting information. I'm waiting further revelations regarding these evil Zionists.

What do you think of the 2 state solution?

It's a difficult conflict to resolve, there's too many parties who makes it difficult to come to a solution. (Hamas, illegal settlements etc)

You don't think that if the Arabs all left things would calm down?

..and it didn't occur to you that, y'know.. a Palestinian activist in what is one of the most pro-Palestine countries/cities in the Western world might be a tad bit biased and hence liable to get 'creative with the truth' in the presence of (someone who seems to be) a fellow 'Arab'?

You don't think that if the Arabs all left things would calm down?

I personally don't think that the two state solution would really change anything. The Palestinians would still hate the Israelis, and the Israelis would still be much richer than the Palestinians, so I imagine that we'd see much the same. Palestinians throwing rockets at Israel, and Israel retaliating.

The only way I see an actual end to the fighting is if either the Israelis all left, or muslims and jews learn to get along. Unfortunately, both of those seem pretty far-fetched.

Final year of uni. Attended a free Palestine event with a friend. Got speaking to a few of the activists

Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence.

Deep within my heart,I do believe peace can be achieved and that both Israelis and Arabs can live side by side just as they once did.

It's so sad when you hear stories of Palestinians,whose ancestors lived in parts of Israel and who have been displaced and their homes bulldozed because they are not seen as Israelis. I also hear that Israelis are not allowed to marry Palestinians. Talk about ethnic cleansing

You've rather more faith than I do then. It'd take two incredibly able politicians to climb the ranks of Israeli and Palestinian government respectively, and especially in the case of hamas, that seems unlikely.

Due to the relgious authority presiding over marriages, no Jew in Israel can marry any non-Jew, it does not target Palestinians specifically. This is why many who wish to marry a non-Jew have their wedding in Cyprus.