Israel goes bat shit crazy and expels all the arabs after winning the 6 days war?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Warning
Possibly creates one of the biggest refugee crisis but what would middle east look like in 2021?....considering Israel won all the other wars decisively
 
Possibly creates one of the biggest refugee crisis but what would middle east look like in 2021?....considering Israel won all the other wars decisively
Likely either the Arab states don't give due to hatred and the far more is they try to get nuclear weapons given Israel is clear, expansionist threat that will cleanse them.
 
Define Arab. There are lots of different kinds of Arabs living within the Green Line/1967 borders of Israel, and the wider territories they occupied during the war. I imagine you think you are talking about the people who identify as Palestinians? Do they expel Egyptian civilians from the Sinai? How about Bedhouins? Does it include Israeli citizens who lived in the country since it was declared in 1948? Or are you just talking about the residents of the then newly occupied territories? Are Arab Christians expelled too? How about Arab Jews who emigrated from the Jewish diaspora of the Middle East and Subsaharan Africa?
 
Israel gets condemned internationally for it for about 1-3 years before some thing more important eclipses it.

People kind of forget just how insane the 60s were something like this would be a blip compared to the other insanity that happened that decade.
 
There are certain important international codes of behavior being ignored by this act. Codes which determined how places like the US reacted to later events such as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. "No country is allowed to profit from it's aggression!" (or words to that effect). Israel was clearly the aggressor in 1967. It attacked Egypt and Syria. Doesn't matter as they like to term it, a "pre-emptive strike". It was their planes what flew the first attack missions. Their tanks that crossed the borders. This thread is verging IMO on current politics and should be stopped immediately.
 
Israel was clearly the aggressor in 1967. It attacked Egypt and Syria. Doesn't matter as they like to term it, a "pre-emptive strike". It was their planes what flew the first attack missions.
It was a matter of hours or days before they were to be attacked. The 6 days war is a textbook example in international relations studies on valid pre-emptive attacks for defensive purposes.
Events-Leading-to-Six-Day-W.jpg
 
Perhaps they could expel Palestinians Muslims from the Gaza Strip, before incorporating it into the country.

If they try to do the same with the West Bank that would mean giving up on Jordan which has been one of the better ones as far as Israel and the Middle East relations are concerned. Legally though in 1948 the Jordan River was the border of the Palestine Mandate, and The Arab population of the West Bank was not that large. If a significant number of Arabs leave the West Bank, the size of the Arab minority of Israel 70 years later will be much smaller than OTL and a higher percentage of that population will be Christian. It is worth noting that in the last 20-30 years the Christian Arabs of the West Bank have been emigrating as as non-Muslims their position under the PLO governance has been difficult.

I could see them expelling people in eastern Jerusalem though, for security, and ideological purposes.

The problem is that this is really escalating thing, and would possibly open up for a earlier and larger 1973 Arab–Israeli War,
 
Last edited:
That is a matter of conjecture. Israel clearly was the aggressor.
It was nothing aggressive about it. They exercised self defence. If they didn't Israel wouldn't exist today. If anything the Arab states that were lining up around Israel forced their hand. Talking about aggression doesn't make sense here.

Israel justified its preemptive action with a review of the context of its position: Economic strangulation through the shipping blockade in the Straits of Tiran (90% of Israeli oil passed through the Straits of Tiran), the imminence of war on three fronts (hundreds of thousands of enemy troops and hundreds of tanks massed on its borders), and possible social and economic difficulty of maintaining a civilian army draft indefinitely.

Israel also maintains that its attacks were justified by the Egyptian closure of the Straits of Tiran, an international waterway, the closure of which constituted a casus belli under customary international law later codified in 1958 Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea. However, since the UAR and its Arab allies were not signatories to the 1958 Geneva Conventions, they argued that since the Gulf of Aqaba was not a waterway connecting two regions of open sea, it was not technically a strait, and therefore that it was not covered by the 1949 ICJ decision ruling that a country is required to allow passage through a strait. Moreover, the UAR disputed Israel's legal right to Eilat, which had been captured after the 1949 armistice imposed by the Security Council. However, the United States and the Western European nations agreed with the Israeli interpretation that Israeli vessels had a right of passage through the Straits of Tiran. On the other hand, Egypt's position was supported by much of the third world.
 
Last edited:
It was a matter of hours or days before they were to be attacked. The 6 days war is a textbook example in international relations studies on valid pre-emptive attacks for defensive purposes.
That's a common fallacy. Nasser did precipitate a crisis--to get the other arabs to rally around him restoring his leadership of the arab world. But the arabs had no intention to attack.
Arab rhetoric belied actual deployment; on all fronts deployment was defensive. In sinai, for example, there were only two divisions, both infantry, on the frontier manning defensive positions. The bulk of the armor was much farther back and was intended to counter an Israeli attack.
 
By 2020s world would generally forget about this. And Israel would have better opinion today (worse atrocity, but commited over fifty years ago, would fade away from people's memory faster than less atrocious but fresh events).
 
1956 was an un-provoked war started by Israel.

1967 - despite 'self-defense' claims - was started by Israel.

The track record is not great in this respect.

Why were the Egypt forces 'surprised' and not deployed? Maybe because they were not thinking of any armed conflict.
The Tirana strait is a a lame thing. These things typically get resolved by non-military means.

That leaves the OP question: expelling the 'Arab' from Israel.

As pointed out, what 'Israel' are we talking about? Israel as defined in 1948 or with its newly occupied land?

And as also pointed out: define 'Arab'.

Leaning on Tom Segev's book '1967' we can see that there were internal problems within Israel. As the Jewish immigration from typical Western countries to Israel started to dwindle in the 1965/66 time frame, the immigration was mostly from Morocco and other Arabic countries.

In essence: the Ashkenazi Jewish population was feeling under pressure. The birth rate of the non-Ashkenazi Jews was far higher than anything. This was further compounded by the birth rate of the remaining Arab non-jewish population within the 1948 borders of Israel.

Of course adding the occupied territory into it did not improve the 'safety' of the traditional Ashkenazi Israel. That Israel wanted to be regarded as a 'Western' country did not go well with a coming majority of non-Ashkenazi.

We can of course also chuck religion into the mix, but I do not believe we should go there today. After all, the underlying problems were overshadowing religion (in my opinion although religion could be used as an excuse for many things).

That emigration was a problem in 165/66/67 (due to the government-created recession) is a fact that Tom Segev is dwelling on.

Tp combat this, the word got around that non-Ashkenazi Jews would also be welcome.

Now to the OP:

Expelling non-Ashkenazi Jews and non-Jewish Arabs would lead to a serious deficit of the Israeli population in general.

There was a play in Israel that also got into this area. Written by an Israeli it had the title: 'I am an Israeli and my name is Ahmed'. Now that could also add value to this discussion.

The problem with expelling a large part of the population is of course: where do they go?

Hurling thousands of people across to Jordan? Egypt? Syria?

Not possible in any way without comparison to the Turkey/Ottoman genocide in 1916/7.
 
It was nothing aggressive about it. They exercised self defence. If they didn't Israel wouldn't exist today. If anything the Arab states that were lining up around Israel forced their hand. Talking about aggression doesn't make sense here.

Israel justified its preemptive action with a review of the context of its position: Economic strangulation through the shipping blockade in the Straits of Tiran (90% of Israeli oil passed through the Straits of Tiran), the imminence of war on three fronts (hundreds of thousands of enemy troops and hundreds of tanks massed on its borders), and possible social and economic difficulty of maintaining a civilian army draft indefinitely.
Post-ipso-factor justification. Israel attacked first, therefore it earnt the title of aggressor. It's claims about Arab intentions are not necessarily supported by facts.
 
A. Why would Israel expel non-Ashkenazi Jews? That's absurd. There's certainly prejudice among various Israeli cultural groups, but nothing of the sort being discussed here. The position of the Israeli government is that a Jew is a Jew is a Jew - the only question is whether somebody is a Jew, not what kind of Jew they are.
B. Israel expelling Arabs seems unlikely. Even under the Allon Plan, the Israelis envisioned making the Arabs of the parts of the West Bank and Gaza they directly annexed permanent residents with an option for citizenship or citizens outright. Notably, the bits the Israelis wanted to annex didn't include the major urban areas though. Moshe Dayan's Allon Plan involved annexing Ramallah and Bethlehem though.
C. If the Israelis adopted a policy of expulsion, they probably would do it in implementing some kind of Allon Plan which involves annexing more than what was historically considered - probably the southern West Bank and Rafah. But I'm skeptical that Israel would want to absorb the Nablus/Jenin/Tulkarm/Qalqiya/Jericho region. Internal reshuffling, moving people from the southern WB to the northern WB, seems more likely to me.

That's a common fallacy. Nasser did precipitate a crisis--to get the other arabs to rally around him restoring his leadership of the arab world. But the arabs had no intention to attack.
Arab rhetoric belied actual deployment; on all fronts deployment was defensive. In sinai, for example, there were only two divisions, both infantry, on the frontier manning defensive positions. The bulk of the armor was much farther back and was intended to counter an Israeli attack.

Even if this is true, in what world should the Israelis have just taken the Egyptians at their word that their throwing out the blue helmets and blocking the Strait of Tiran (in violation of the post-Suez peace agreement) was just nationalistic sabre rattling? The thing about existential conflicts is that you don't really take chances.

By 2020s world would generally forget about this. And Israel would have better opinion today (worse atrocity, but commited over fifty years ago, would fade away from people's memory faster than less atrocious but fresh events).

Yeah, this is probably true. Tragically, people will get over quick and final instances of tremendous cruelty but will become very bothered by drawn-out struggles.

Additional Palestinian refugees in Jordan might mean the Black September War goes differently. Jordan might end up as a Palestinian state here.
 
Last edited:
That's a common fallacy. Nasser did precipitate a crisis--to get the other arabs to rally around him restoring his leadership of the arab world. But the arabs had no intention to attack.
Arab rhetoric belied actual deployment; on all fronts deployment was defensive. In sinai, for example, there were only two divisions, both infantry, on the frontier manning defensive positions. The bulk of the armor was much farther back and was intended to counter an Israeli attack.

precipitate a crisis... he, the Syrians and their Soviet sponsors engaged in super dangerous brinksmanship

and the unfortunate thing with brinksmanship is that the other party might not tolerate it and appease you

Nasser and the Syrians did the following

1. Sponsor irregulars out of the Golan and elsewhere into Israel for the express purpose of attacks inside Israeli territory, and conduct border clashes and artillery strikes into Israeli territory
2. Have state and semi state radio whip up their populace with calls for a war off annihilation against Israel

and the big ones

3. Close the strait of Tiran. Egypt was party to an armistice treaty that promised safe passage of Israeli ships through the strait, this was approved via the UN ceasefire agreements in 1956 and 1957 and signed by all of the major world powers who affirmed Israel's right to transit the water way. Israel stated in public forums in 1956-57, 1962 and 1967 that they would regard closure of the straits as an act of war, the USA and others reaffirmed Israel's right to passage through the strait before and during the crisis. Full stop if you open a blockade on your neighbor, they aren't going to take that well, especially when they have announced clearly before hand that they consider it a red line for war

4. He kicked out the UN emergency defense force who where there, by treaty signed by Egypt in 1956-57 for the express purpose of not letting there be a new war in the Sinai. Israel had signed on to the 1957 armistice with this as a stipulation in order to have a promise of border security. This was far more aggressive given the concurring events than Hitler's remilitarization of the Rhineland

5. and final and most important, he mobilized his army, including the call up of reservists and sent them to the border; this condition is no different than 1914, no country with Israel's demographics could possibly go to general mobilization and just sit there its economically devastating to have the reserves called up; and even with their high quality intelligence services, they couldn't know for certain that Egypt and Syria would go to such extreme war like measures without actually being ready to start the war; it was clearly established international policy at that time and the wars that preceded it, that mobilization meant war

Israel fired the first shots, and their behavior after the fact in the conquered lands has been reprehensible, but the blame for starting the 6 day war belongs in significant share to Nasser and friends
 
precipitate a crisis... he, the Syrians and their Soviet sponsors engaged in super dangerous brinksmanship

and the unfortunate thing with brinksmanship is that the other party might not tolerate it and appease you

Nasser and the Syrians did the following

1. Sponsor irregulars out of the Golan and elsewhere into Israel for the express purpose of attacks inside Israeli territory, and conduct border clashes and artillery strikes into Israeli territory
2. Have state and semi state radio whip up their populace with calls for a war off annihilation against Israel

and the big ones

3. Close the strait of Tiran. Egypt was party to an armistice treaty that promised safe passage of Israeli ships through the strait, this was approved via the UN ceasefire agreements in 1956 and 1957 and signed by all of the major world powers who affirmed Israel's right to transit the water way. Israel stated in public forums in 1956-57, 1962 and 1967 that they would regard closure of the straits as an act of war, the USA and others reaffirmed Israel's right to passage through the strait before and during the crisis. Full stop if you open a blockade on your neighbor, they aren't going to take that well, especially when they have announced clearly before hand that they consider it a red line for war

4. He kicked out the UN emergency defense force who where there, by treaty signed by Egypt in 1956-57 for the express purpose of not letting there be a new war in the Sinai. Israel had signed on to the 1957 armistice with this as a stipulation in order to have a promise of border security. This was far more aggressive given the concurring events than Hitler's remilitarization of the Rhineland

5. and final and most important, he mobilized his army, including the call up of reservists and sent them to the border; this condition is no different than 1914, no country with Israel's demographics could possibly go to general mobilization and just sit there its economically devastating to have the reserves called up; and even with their high quality intelligence services, they couldn't know for certain that Egypt and Syria would go to such extreme war like measures without actually being ready to start the war; it was clearly established international policy at that time and the wars that preceded it, that mobilization meant war

Israel fired the first shots, and their behavior after the fact in the conquered lands has been reprehensible, but the blame for starting the 6 day war belongs in significant share to Nasser and friends

Agreed, if Mexico did something similar in 1916-1917 (I admit this is ASB territory as the Mexican government weren't suicidal idiots to the last man) after hearing Germany's proposal we would have been in Mexico City as quickly as the troops can march even if the Mexicans didn't fire a shot.
 
precipitate a crisis... he, the Syrians and their Soviet sponsors engaged in super dangerous brinksmanship

Nasser and the Soviets knew very well that their actions would provoke an Israeli attack. Nasser was told if he deployed his army in Sinai the chances of war (i.e. Israeli attack) would be 50%. If he ejected the UNEF the chances would rise to 80%. If he closed the titan strait, it would be 100%. But it's important to note that while the arabs were being very provocative they still had no intention of launching a full-scale war.

5. and final and most important, he mobilized his army, including the call up of reservists and sent them to the border

If fact only two regular divisions were sent to the border--to man static defensive positions.

... they couldn't know for certain that Egypt and Syria would go to such extreme war like measures without actually being ready to start the war

Israeli intelligence was very good (Yariv is said to have provided full intelligence "down to the quality of Egyptian field rations and lint on their belly buttons"). The Israelis obviously knew about arab deployments and their defensive nature so they'd have the initiative. At the time the Pentagon had predicted that due to shortcomings in Egyptian forces the earliest confrontation date would be 1970. Israel actually welcomed an opportunity to destroy arab forces before they were really combat ready.
 
It was a 6 days war. If the Arabs were ready for war it would have taken longer. Even with Israeli surprise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top