Arabs win 1967 War with Israel

First, I'll say I do not consider you antisemitic by posting your views on political happenings. I may consider you misinformed, but that's about it. ;)

But talk to some actual Palestinians, and read about the conflict with an open mind, and you find a whole different story.

I'm sorry, but that's just not the case. I met the original Palestinian peace delegation in the early 90's and hung out privately with them for a bit, they were very well educated, did not speak ill of Israel or Israeli's and simply just wanted a state - a return to the 2 state solution.

When we got out to the conference hall where they were to do a panel, the story was different. It was full of other Palestinians, many not so well educated or well spoken, spouting a lot of the same revisionist rhetoric you did below.


Israel forced an entire people off their land,
Actually, no. A majority of them left for various reasons. Let's start with the claim on numbers, often around a million - The 1949 Government of Israel census counted 160,000 Palestinians and arabs living in the country after the first war. In 1947, a total of 809,100 Palestinians and Arabs lived in the same area. This meant no more than 650,000 Palestinians and Arabs could have become refugees. A similar report by the UN Mediator on Palestine at the time came to an even lower figure — 472,000, and calculated that only about 360,000 Palestinian and Arab refugees required aid.

The Israeli declaration of independence also called for Palestinians and Arabs to remain -

"In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions....We extend our hand in peace and neighborliness to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all."

Secondly, the onus falls on the Arab states for creating any exodus - had they accepted the UN's two state solution in 1947, we wouldn't be having this discussion (and that would make for a better alternate timeline). The fact is they did not accept it. Leading up to the war, they literally called for Palestinians to "get out of the way" and leave the oncoming advance. Add to that the 30 thousand of wealthy Arabs that left before the war to wait it out, and the many more that simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire.

In the closing of January 1948, the exodus alarmed the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, which literally asked neighboring Arab countries to refuse visas to these refugees and to seal their borders against them.

And contemporary sources also reported it - the January 30th, 1948 edition of the Jaffa newspaper, Ash Sha'ab, reported: "The first of our fifth-column consists of those who abandon their houses and businesses and go to live elsewhere....At the first signs of trouble they take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle." The March 30th As Sarih came down on Arab villagers near Tel Aviv for "bringing down disgrace on us all by 'abandoning the villages.'

And their own reports confirm this even further - Hajj Nimer el-Khatib, the leader of the Arab National Committee in Haifa, said Arab soldiers in Jaffa were mistreating the residents. "They robbed individuals and homes. Life was of little value, and the honor of women was defiled. This state of affairs led many residents to leave the city under the protection of British tanks." Jordan's Arab Legion commander. John Bagot Glubb, said: "Villages were frequently abandoned even before they were threatened by the progress of war."


Once the war was in full swing even contemporary press reports of the time that were covering major battles in which large numbers of Arabs fled ,mention no forcible expulsion by the Jewish forces. The Arabs are usually described as "fleeing" or "evacuating" their homes. In fact, places like Tiberias and Haifa were evacuated under British supervision, and the local Israeli government left standing orders not to touch any property or belongings. While Zionists are accused of "expelling and dispossessing" the Arab inhabitants of such towns as Tiberias and Haifa, the truth is much different. Both of those cities were within the boundaries of the Jewish State under the UN partition scheme and both were fought for by Jews and Arabs alike. They fled Haifa because forces led by Fawzi al-Qawukji, were mounting an attack, and there were rumors that Arab air forces would soon bomb the Jewish areas around Mt. Carmel. A British police report from Haifa, dated April 26, explained that "every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe. They even sent Golda Meir there in an effort to persuade Palestinians to stay, but to many (just like today) were to worried about being labeled as traitors.


waged four wars of aggression,
LOL, that depends on who you talk to and whether or not you choose to ignore the building up of forces and military activities by the other sides leading up to said wars. Much like many southerners in the US still refer to the Civil War as "The war of yankee aggression".

maintained an occupation over Palestine for 40 years which routinely violates the political and personal rights of the people in the occupied territories, stolen land to build settlements in violation of international law
Ah yes, you're speaking of those lands that were occupied by Egypt and Jordan for 20 years, against the very same UN resolution? That they also built settlements and such on in violation of international law? It's always funny how revisionism manages to have amnesia about that 20 year period, when there was not a peep about those "occupied lands", or basic rights and care (when many were being treated as second class citizens by these countries) or statehood from the Arabs or the Palestinians. And most notably by the Palestinians, whose land was taken away by those Arab countries. In fact, the only thing you heard was to still refer to the Israeli land set up by the UN as "occupied".


killed many times more Palestinian civilians than it has lost (I'm not excusing Hamas terrorism,
That's one area where we can agree to a point, though that point ends on a) Historically urban warfare has larger casualties, regrettable as they are and b) Hamas (like Hezbollah) tend to use their surrounding civilian population as a buffer (as was reported by the UN and Amnesty International).

used weapons such as white phosphorus that violate international law...need I go on?
That's a little off there. White phosphorus is not a violation of international law - its premeditated use as a weapon in certain circumstances is. And in fact it is commonly used by militaries across the world as a smoke inducing and illuminating bomb - which is what Israel used it as during the Gaza engagement. It's use and governing by International Humanitarian Law is pretty well laid out here. What the issue was, is that Amnesty International accused Israel of using white phosphorus improperly. However, the International Red Cross (who was actually there) stated there was "no evidence to suggest it is being used improperly or illegally."
 
Last edited:
The Palestinians tried that - and had their homes bulldozed as a "thank you".

Sorry, but bulldozing (no matter how much I disagree with it as well) was done specifically as a response to each bombing, not as some generic happening during lulls of inactivity as your statement claims. It was a sort of misguided deterrent meant to dissuade suicide bombers from carrying through - i.e. "If you carry it out, your family will loose their home."
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Try to keep chat level material out of this thread. Of course, a controversial POD like this is practically chat from the start.
 
If the Arabs win the war then we would now have a much more peaceful middle east (disregarding butterfiles)

LOL, yes, because it's always been such a stable area and all the inter-arab conflicts and wars there are as a result of Israel.

There would be no Hamas, weaker or non exisistant Hezboallah.
Huh? Hezbollah's existence has to do with Syria's attempt to control and dominate Lebanon, which began under the guise of "resistance to Israel" when Israel launched the "Operation Peace for Galilee". The PLO was launching cross border attacks from Southern Lebanon (which was their base of operations at the time thanks to Jordan kicking them out). This was during Lebanon's civil war when the government was in chaos. Syria had stepped in during 1975 to provide troops and became increasingly affluent in the government. The mandate for the troops and Syria's presence was renewed several times before it officially expired on July 27, 1982, at which point the Lebanese government refused to request that the mandate be renewed by the Arab League (and by '86 had asked them formally to leave). Conveniently, this is when the Syrian backed Hezbollah popped up and the Anti-PLO operation by Israel in Southern Lebanon. Syrian troops remained in Lebanon, considered occupiers by the international community, until they raided the presidential palace in 1990 toppling the elected leader. They signed a "treaty" with loyalists in the government in 1991 which requested troops stay again. Anti-sentiments came up again until the Cedar Revolution in 2005 when Syrian troops were finally forced to leave. Meddling in the government via Hezbollah and other loyalists continues.


Isreal would probably be at the borders of 1947.
*double blink* What did you think the '47 war was for? They refused to acknowledge the existence of Israel, did not wish it to exist, and in fact most still refuse to acknowledge it. If Israel had lost, there would be no Israel. Simply land divided up between Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria.

The Arabs would never destroy Isreal or they would have a very pissed of America and Europe to deal with.
That was the point of the war in the first place. No Israel. And Israel and Europe were playing both sides, both had troops in neighboring countries at the time. The US even had troops in Egypt during the 6 day war under agreement to provide assistance to the Egyptians in the case of Israel making to far an inroads in to Egypt. Jordan also had US military training and weapons support.

.
There would be no occupation of Palistinian lands, they would probably be part of Jordan and Egypt.
That's an occupation.

Isreal would not have as many bombings and insecurity as now.
Of course not, because there would be no Israel. Hard to have bombings against something that would not exist.


i think Isreal winning the war of 1967 was a bad thing for both sides. Although Isreal got the land it wanted, it has had to pay a heavy price for it over the years in Isreali and Palistian blood.
*sigh* more revisionism. The '67 war was not about land, that's a revisionist theory that popped up many years later. Purely factual - Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force from the Sinai Peninsula, a peace keeping force put there after the British, French, and Israelis joined and ended the Suez Canal crises in '57. Egypt then amassed 1,000 tanks and nearly 100,000 soldiers on the Israeli border, and closed the Straits of Tiran to any ship with an Israeli flag. Syria was also regularly shelling civilian communities from the Golan Heights, and in '66 signed a pact with Egypt to join in any war if it were attacked. In '67, Jordan did the same and placed their forces under the command of an Egyptian general. After Egypt started amassing it's troops, both Syria and Jordan did the same. The president of Egypt publicly declared ""The armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria are poised on the borders of Israel ... to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not of more declarations."
Egypt then flew in commandos to Jordan and Soviet military equipment, whose job was to do cross border attacks to force Israel in to attacking Jordan - who they repeatedly sent government personnel to in an effort to dissuade King Hussein in joining in a possible war. Just before the attack, Egypt had massed 100,000 of its 160,000 troops in the Sinai as well as 900 tanks, Syria amassed most of their 75,000 troops and Jordan amassed their 55,000 as well as 300 tanks, 100 Iraqi tanks and then started calling up reservists. The Jordanian plan was to use and/or capture Latrun, Lod, Ramle, Motza, and Sha'avlim to be able to cut Israel in half and meet the Egyptians in the middle. In the case of Motza it was later verified they planned to kill every single resident as a deterrent. Syria also started resuming it's attempt to divert or stop the flow of water in to Israel via the Jordanian River.

It was at this point that Israel decided the best defense was a good offense and attack Egypt. They planned to only engage Egypt and remain mainly defensive against Jordan, hoping to return to the good relations they had been having until Hussein was swept up in the wave of Arab nationalism. That ended when Jordan immediately started shelling targets in west Jerusalem, Netanya, and Tel Aviv, had their air force attack Israeli air bases, and captured Government House in Jerusalem, the headquarters of UN observers at the time.
 
Last edited:

Keenir

Banned
Keenir, you're the one who suggested a Palestinian state would be established in this situation and I was noting that Jordan wouldn't think of surrendering the West Bank.

Which is true; thankfully the Mandate had more than just the West Bank to it.
 
Keenir, and after the Arab states, especially Jordan, get their share on top of the West Bank and possibly Gaza what, if anything is likely to be left for the Palestinians?:confused:


martyg, the US was FIGHTING Egypt in Yemen at this time, not supporting what was seen as a government closer to the USSR than Castro's Cuba.
 
Did not Israel had nuclear weapons in 1967, I do know that
they had them in 1973, if that is the case they would have
used them on Damaskus, Kairo and Amman and voilá no
more arab countries.
 
Israel dies

Very simply - there would have been a general massacre of Jewish Israelis - they would have gone down fighting literally 'tooth and nail'. Anyone who thinks that the Arab states would have been after a military victory only are just wearing blinkers. The situation was nasty on both sides.
 
martyg, the US was FIGHTING Egypt in Yemen at this time, not supporting what was seen as a government closer to the USSR than Castro's Cuba.

They may have been, however as has been shown in the past, the US usually makes behind the scenes deals with people they are "fighting" if it advances their interest in other areas. The troops and plan were part of a greater contingency plan by the US should Israel prove to successful -

http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2007/05/united-states-had-plan-for-attacking.html
 
Last edited:

Keenir

Banned
LOL, yes, because it's always been such a stable area and all the inter-arab conflicts and wars there are as a result of Israel.

for the most part, the Middle East has been a lot more peaceful than Europe. (particularly during the Ottoman era)
 

Keenir

Banned
They may have been, however as has been shown in the past, the US usually makes behind the scenes deals with people they are "fighting" if it advances their interest in other areas. The troops and plan were part of a greater contingency plan by the US should Israel prove to successful -

http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2007/05/united-states-had-plan-for-attacking.html

yes, like bribing Hitler to shoot himself, or asking Ho Chi Minh to please win the Vietnam War.
*facepalm*
 
*facepalm*​


martyg, we're supposed to believe that fable based on no evidence and a single item whose literacy, let alone historical accuracy, must be considered highly suspect?:rolleyes:
 
Revenge not needed - policy is sufficient

Just returned for a look at this thread and somewhat surprised by Mirza Khan. My remarks were based on 1967 reading of the forces available in Egypt, Syria and Jordan. I agree that the IDF vs the Jordanians would be 'Diamond cut diamond' for Hussein had a good army.

Martyg's info astonished me by its details and his personal experiences, but it was not the basis for my fears of a general massacre. Look back at Smyrna/Izmir in 1922 and you have the example of a massacre of 400,000 'inconvenient' Asiatic Greeks by Ataturk's army - whilst European naval forces watched. Egypt and Syria aren't the Young Turks, but they and the Palestinians in the 1970s would probably have apologised for 'spontaneous massacres'. The Jordanians would, I think, have shown more restraint, for at one stage in 1947 Golda Meir was sent to negotiate for an Israel under Jordanian protection.

Anyway, just a few points, for now I've a chilli to prepare.
 
Top