Why did the Israel's neighbors attack it in May 1948?

[LuisDantas]

I realize that there were strong tensions and lots of insurgence in the region at those times.

But still... what did they see as justification for waging war against Israel just like that?

What is the current perspective of Arabs and Muslims on the matter? Particularly those who disapprove of the existence of Israel?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War

Edited to add: far as I have learned, tensions were very high and unhappiness with the British policies of the last few decades was widespread among all of the people in the Middle East.

Still, what did motivate Iraq, Egypt, Jordan and Syria to basically attack Israel without provocation? Or did they see some justification that somehow I never learned of?

How do Arabs and Muslims think of those conflicts these days? Are they seem as a mistake? Or are they unsatisfied for not having been victorious only?

 

[Gharib]

I think you made a post in another thread about the formation of Israel and how within Palestine they declared an independent state.

Wouldn't that be a cause of war and opposition?

Moreover, Israelis seized Palestinian land by force:

The United Nations General Assembly voted to partition Palestine into independent Arab and Jewish states, with a special international regime for Jerusalem. The Arabs rejected the partition of Palestine, but the Jews declared the independence of the State of Israel in May 1948. During the 1948 Palestine War, Israel overran far more territory than was proposed by the Partition Plan; Jordan captured the region today known as the West Bank, while in the Gaza Strip the All-Palestine Government was announced in September 1948. In what is known as the Nakba, or "Catastrophe", hundreds of Palestinian villages and over 70,000 Palestinian homes were ruined and destroyed .[9] 700,000 Palestinians fled or were driven out of their homes by the Israelis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine

 

[LuisDantas]

I think you made a post in another thread about the formation of Israel and how within Palestine they declared an independent state.

Wouldn't that be a cause of war and opposition?

Not if the territory was bought piece by piece along several decades from the people that lived or owned it previously. Far as I know, that is how it happened.

Or are you implying that while Jewish People were allowed to buy and own land in Palestine, they could not expect to have political independence there?

I realize that it may be inconvenient to see people decide to secede, but why would that be reason for military action of any kind?

Moreover, Israelis seized Palestinian land by force:

The United Nations General Assembly voted to partition Palestine into independent Arab and Jewish states, with a special international regime for Jerusalem. The Arabs rejected the partition of Palestine, but the Jews declared the independence of the State of Israel in May 1948. During the 1948 Palestine War, Israel overran far more territory than was proposed by the Partition Plan; Jordan captured the region today known as the West Bank, while in the Gaza Strip the All-Palestine Government was announced in September 1948. In what is known as the Nakba, or "Catastrophe", hundreds of Palestinian villages and over 70,000 Palestinian homes were ruined and destroyed .[9] 700,000 Palestinians fled or were driven out of their homes by the Israelis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine

As I understand it, Israel expected and reacted to an invasion by three neighboring territories and captured a lot more territory than it originally had.

Invaders can hardly complain that their aggression turned against them.

 

[Gharib]

Not if the territory was bought piece by piece along several decades from the people that lived or owned it previously. Far as I know, that is how it happened.

Or are you implying that while Jewish People were allowed to buy and own land in Palestine, they could not expect to have political independence there?

I realize that it may be inconvenient to see people decide to secede, but why would that be reason for military action of any kind?

As I understand it, Israel expected and reacted to an invasion by three neighboring territories and captured a lot more territory than it originally had.

Invaders can hardly complain that their aggression turned against them.

So if Arabs bought property and land in your country and then declared an independent state that would be fine wouldn't it.

If all the China Towns around the world declared themselves an independent state or an extension of China that's no cause for military intervention of some sort?

As for buying land, I do not oppose that. If they chose to live in Palestine and were allowed to (became citizens) I have no problem of them owning whatever they could buy.

 

[LuisDantas]

So if Arabs bought property and land in your country and then declared an independent state that would be fine wouldn't it.

In what I understand to be regular circunstances, sure.

Of course, when we are talking about complicated political situations involving millions of people, things are rarely quite that simple. But people do have the right to pursue political autonomy.

If all the China Towns around the world declared themselves an independent state or an extension of China that's no cause for military intervention of some sort?

As long as they somehow manage to need no infrastructure from the places they declare autonomy from, I suppose not.

As for buying land, I do not oppose that. If they chose to live in Palestine and were allowed to (became citizens) I have no problem of them owning whatever they could buy.

So, what is the problem with Israel as an autonomous state? Why do Hamas swear to destroy it outright as opposed to attempting to convince them, convince the Arabs and Muslims living there to leave it, or whatever might be more morally sound than their campaign of violence? How do they justify that?

 

[Lyndon]

I suggest you research the topic form other than Israeli sources, there's at least two sides to every story.

 

[LuisDantas]

You realize that this topic is exactly about asking for that other side?

 

[Lyndon]

i thought the Jews were the initial aggressor in 1948, the Arabs the initial agressor in 1967. Is that way off??

 

[Lyndon]

According to Wikipedia, both sides were instrumental in starting the conflict, and neither side was without blame, except that the Palestinians were simply defending there age old home against for the most part fairly new Jewish invaders. Invaders that were massively preparing for war by acquiring arms where ever they could.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestine_war

 

[Nietzsche]

i thought the Jews were the initial aggressor in 1948, the Arabs the initial agressor in 1967. Is that way off??

This is the Middle East. When in doubt, the most likely answer is "Blame everyone". You will be shocked at how often that's the right answer.

Which is, again, why I support some new form of colonial overlordship over the region. ****ing children.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So if Arabs bought property and land in your country and then declared an independent state that would be fine wouldn't it.

Whose country was it prior to the UN vote?

 

[metis]

BTW, on a more positive note , there's a pretty strong indication that Hamas is preparing for another rocket/mortar/missile barrage against Israel sometime relatively soon, they think likely this summer.

BTW, one of my granddaughters will be there for a month, and her sister and her group had to be flied out on an emergency flight two years ago when one of the Hamas missiles hit 1/2 mile from where they were staying.

 

[Nietzsche]

Whose country was it prior to the UN vote?

Well technically after WW1, it(Palestine) was a League of Nations mandate that happened to be overseen by Britain(along with some portions of Germany's African & Pacific possessions, with France, Belgium and Japan getting the others). But after the League of Nations was disbanded they became de-facto British(or French or whatnot) colonies, but in '44 at the Yalta Conference the United Nations was formed and the former Mandates(except South-West Africa/Namibia) became United Nations Trust Territories.

So really, neither side owned Palestine. It's been one massive cluster-**** since day one.

Goddamn it Balian. If only, if only.

 

[LuisDantas]

i thought the Jews were the initial aggressor in 1948,

First I hear of that, honestly. I did hear the exact opposite.

 

[Nietzsche]

First I hear of that, honestly. I did hear the exact opposite.

It's too murky to really find a "first aggressor". There were Arab nationalist revolts for as long as the British were administering it, and on the more "the **** are you doing?" end of the scale there were radical Zionist insurgencies in the British Mandate for as long as they had it, including when the British were fighting Hitler.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's too murky to really find a "first aggressor". There were Arab nationalist revolts for as long as the British were administering it,

A fact that, it must be said, is all too understandable after the betrayal of the Arabs by the British at the close of World War One.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes–Picot_Agreement

and on the more "the **** are you doing?" end of the scale there were radical Zionist insurgencies in the British Mandate for as long as they had it, including when the British were fighting Hitler.

I am not one to insist that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but still... talk about unwise priorities.

 

[Kapalika]

Well technically after WW1, it(Palestine) was a League of Nations mandate that happened to be overseen by Britain(along with some portions of Germany's African & Pacific possessions, with France, Belgium and Japan getting the others). But after the League of Nations was disbanded they became de-facto British(or French or whatnot) colonies, but in '44 at the Yalta Conference the United Nations was formed and the former Mandates(except South-West Africa/Namibia) became United Nations Trust Territories.

So really, neither side owned Palestine. It's been one massive cluster-**** since day one.

Goddamn it Balian. If only, if only.

Wouldn't none of this be an issue if the Ottoman Empire was never disbanded? Typically when territories are broken up like that to not respect the geo-social realities of the region it causes these kinds of issues. For example national boundaries that cut like-tribes and areas in half and group together many areas that are diverse or don't like each other. Now normally uniting an entire region under one banner makes for more peace, but only when there is a body strong enough to enforce that unity (like a proper empire). But it's my understanding that with it's disbandment it just kind of all snow balled out of control to where it is today.

 

[Nietzsche]

Wouldn't none of this be an issue if the Ottoman Empire was never disbanded? Typically when territories are broken up like that to not respect the geo-social realities of the region it causes these kinds of issues. For example national boundaries that cut like-tribes and areas in half and group together many areas that are diverse or don't like each other. Now normally uniting an entire region under one banner makes for more peace, but only when there is a body strong enough to enforce that unity (like a proper empire). But it's my understanding that with it's disbandment it just kind of all snow balled out of control to where it is today.

The Ottomans were very anti-nationalism. More importantly, if they were around when the oil boom in the Middle East really took off all that wealth would've been concentrated with a single power(The Ottomans). This would've caused massive increases in standards of living, which generally speaking tends to destroy most "in-house" nationalist movements.

So yes, it is supremely unlikely that we'd have these problems if the Ottomans never fell. It is equally unlikely a bunch of Europeans who happened to be Jewish would've fled a victorious Germany after WW1, thus removing the impetus for Jewish-Arab conflict in the first place beyond a few radical pricks with more hate than sense.

 

[LuisDantas]

Wouldn't none of this be an issue if the Ottoman Empire was never disbanded?

I take it you don't think of that disbanding as an unavoidable fact, then?

From what I hear, the Empire was very much falling under its own weight already.

It is ugly that Europe was politically immature at the time to the point of insisting on devouring its own entrails, but I don't think there is any good reason to feel nostalgic for the Ottoman Empire either.

Typically when territories are broken up like that to not respect the geo-social realities of the region it causes these kinds of issues.

That is very much true, as shown for instance in Iraq.

It also misses the IMO very important point that it is ultimately the people's choice whether to conform to the expectations of "foreigners" or to seek other arrangements.

The British (and French) can only be blamed for the issues to a certain extent. The people actually living there should accept some responsibility for, at the very least, failing to attain good mutual understandings of their own volition.

For example national boundaries that cut like-tribes and areas in half and group together many areas that are diverse or don't like each other. Now normally uniting an entire region under one banner makes for more peace, but only when there is a body strong enough to enforce that unity (like a proper empire).

Except that this premise is doubtful at best. Are people to be forced into respecting each other? Do you think that makes sense?

And if it does, aren't you then claiming that the British were not nearly imperialistic enough for the good of the Ottoman Empire? That looks a lot like the ideology of White Man's Burden that is so deservedly despised these days.

But it's my understanding that with it's disbandment it just kind of all snow balled out of control to where it is today.

I just don't know what you are proposing as a realistic alternative. Hoping that somehow the Empire would find its way out of its decadence, perhaps?

 

[Nietzsche]

I take it you don't think of that disbanding as an unavoidable fact, then?

From what I hear, the Empire was very much falling under its own weight already.

It is ugly that Europe was politically immature at the time to the point of insisting on devouring its own entrails, but I don't think there is any good reason to feel nostalgic for the Ottoman Empire either.

It was falling apart between 1896-1910 or so. After their defeat by Italy over Libya, the Ottoman state began a serious overhaul, largely with German funds and companies. The "Baghdad-Berlin" Railway is just the most famous and as a project, single largest, of them.