Busy law student needs help ... was Israel created via UN resolution?

[Maat]

In the sense that, what role did the UN play in establishing Israel, helping Israel, and protecting Israel?

[ET Awful]

1. Israel was created in 1948 after UN Resolutin 181 partitioned

the entire region known as Palestine into two regions. Israel would not exist as it does today if it were not for the UN.

[Maat]

2. Thanks so much.

n/t

[King Mongo]

3. actually

Greater Israel would have been created much sooner, if not for the partition plan. Furthermore, equality and citizenship for everyone in greater Israel would have been practiced much sooner too.

The partition plan was a proposal, I think, which resulted in slowing the creation of greater Israel.

This plan does not have the authority of international law, since the General Assembly can not make international law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict

The plan was also rejected by some Arabs, some Palestinians and some Jews. But, it's true that some folks used it as an excuse to grab land.

[ET Awful]

4. There is no such thing as "Greater Israel"

There is a nation called Israel. This nation would not have existed without UN assistance.

Wikipedia isn't exactly a reliable source, since it can be edited by anyone at any time.

[King Mongo]

5. Incorrect

While it is fair to assume something, an assumption is not a fact. Jews did not need the UN to create Israel and there are many different methods which can be used to create a nation.

Greater Israel exists in the minds of many people as demonstrated with the illegal settlements, Israeli maps and with Isreali policies.

The Likud party is even a major supporter and creator of greater Israel:

The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel.
http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm

[ET Awful]

9. Without the UN, they would have been seen as an invading force

and would have abandoned the backing they had from much of the world.

They woud have been obliterated almost immediately.

I like how you quote Zionist values as your source.

[King Mongo]

11. dependes

If Irgun terror had continued, then your opinion probably would have been correct. Yet, if democracy was used to determine the future political state of the area, then Israel may have been created democratically through the voice of the majority. Violence is not the only means of accomplishing things.

[ET Awful]

13. It is not the only means, but it is what would have happened.

Israel had the backing of many nations because of the UN resolution, without that resolution, and without the UN, they would not have had that backing. Without that backing, they would not have had the finances nor the arms to defend themselves, not coming so closely on the heels of World War II. The fledgling nation would have been utterly destroyed.

[King Mongo]

24. holocaust power

The holocaust gave Zionists what they wanted. The partition recommendation was unnecessary.

[King Mongo]

6. another source

The Partition Plan of 1947 was adopted by the United Nations without the consent of the Palestinians and in violation of its own charter, “Nothing in the Charter is to authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”.

snip

The creation of Israel is not just and its practices are not based on justice. In order for Justice, in all its manifestations, to prevail, Israel needs to accommodate itself to international principles and universal justice. The world can’t afford a standard of behavior for Israel and its supporters and another for the rest of the world.

Center for Advanced International Studies
http://www.caisglobal.org/essay/justice.htm

[ET Awful]

10. Ummm, this source actually says that, as I stated, Israel would not

exist without the UN's efforts.

The quote you cited above says that the creation of Israel (vis a vis Resolution 181) is not just.

[King Mongo]

12. Jews had a choice

They could accept or reject the partition plan. They did not have to follow it. The Jewish Agency did accept the partition plan but the Hagannah expanded beyond it and thus it was not recognized given that Israel was not created based upon the borders recommended by the partition plan.

[The Magistrate]

17. Unfortunately, Your Grace

Whoever wrote the thing you have cited is in error concerning Charter application. No state existed for anyone to interfere in its internal affairs. The territory was a chattel of the United Nations, inherited from the previous League of Nations, which England ruled only as an agent of the international body. The United Nations had a perfect right to direct the territory as it saw fit; it was the sovereign authority in question itself, and a sovereign authorities own actions in its own affairs hardly constitutes interference inthem. Your Grace may feel this state of affairs to have been wrong or unjust, but it is certainly what the state of law in the matter was....

[Zebulon]

50. Would you agree with?

In order for Justice, in all its manifestations, to prevail, Israel needs to accommodate itself to international principles and universal justice. The world can’t afford a standard of behavior for Israel and its supporters and another for the rest of the world.

My edit:

In order for Justice, in all its manifestations, to prevail, Saudi Arabia needs to accommodate itself to international principles and universal justice. The world can’t afford a standard of behavior for Saudi Arabia and its supporters and another for the rest of the world.

[Darranar]

15. And, especially with controversial issues, quickly gets fixed...

if there is a serious debate, the differing claims are given.

It's an excellent source, far more objective than most others.

[King Mongo]

7. Resolution 181 is null and void

Resolution 181 was never implemented and Israel now considers it null and void. Although as noted nothing more than a General Assembly proposal (and therefore not binding or enforceable under international law) and subsequently killed by Arab rejection, the European Union still refers to the Partition Resolution as the basis for a solution of the Jerusalem question.

Christians for Israel
http://www.c4israel.org/

[ET Awful]

8. Israel considers it null and void? That doesn't make it so.

Sorry, but Israel doesn't have the right to declare it null and void anymore than Bush has a right to declare any UN resolution null and void. That's complete nonsense and you know it.

Of course Israel has never respected the UN anyway, considering they have more UN resolutions against them than pretty much any other nation, all of which they've ignored.

[King Mongo]

14. Agreed

Agreed. They accepted the partition plan, but did not follow it and used it to create their own state based upon how much land they could get.

[pelsar]

16. respect the UN?

that is precisly the point....with so many resolutions against israel, its makes the whole thing in to a joke, not to be taken seriously.

as far as 48 goes and the borders....its always comes down to "being responsable for ones actions"....the arabs thought that they had some easy prey and attacked and killed many jews who actually managed to survive the holocaust.

bad news for the arabs, these survivors weren't so passive and the attacking arabs lost some land....dumb idea and the culture of the time (1940s) was one of the attacked nation has rights over the land taken...

sorry king, israel was well within its rights to keep its spoils in 48. Remember the lesson, because its valid today:

dont shoot at us..and dont even threaten to..it makes us nervous

[King Mongo]

18. creating greater Israel

Taking land is not a problem for me, but racial cleansing is a problem. I don't have a problem with greater Israel as long as the people who live on the land are treated with respect, equality and given one vote per person. From my perspective, Israel can have all of the land, but removing the people from it creates many problems as we can see.

[pelsar]

19. well guess it depends...

for those arabs, like in the village next to mine...who didnt shoot at us in 48 (pharadese), they live peacefully with us, work with us, etc. The village elders at the time made it clear to those in the village, that they will not be attacking any jews.

for those who werent willing to follow their example....well, they paid a certain price. And for those caught up in between, life simply isnt fair.

However, in the big picture, be it israeli arab, or Egypt the country and Jordan the country, its so obviouse I dont see the whats confusing.

dont threaten us, dont shoot at us, live with us, and we can then start living in peace.

we have proved it via Egypt, via Jordan, via israeli arabs....the palestenians send mixed messages, its very confusing and its not our responsability to sort them out and try to figure out what is what.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. That's not quite right, Pelsar...

Staying out of hostilities in 1948 was no guarantee at all that they wouldn't 'pay a certain price'. There were villages where the inhabitants were expelled despite the fact that they lived peacefully. If I snap out of lazy, public holiday mode tonight, I'll get you a list of some of those villages...

dont threaten us, dont shoot at us, live with us, and we can then start living in peace.

And that goes both ways. The Palestinian people have every right to the same expectations...

Violet...

[pelsar]

25. Violet...hi

i was writing very generally...we all know that some (i dont know the number) were raized to the ground simply because they were in the "wrong place". And for one sad example, the inhabitants of Ein Hod, still live within walking distance of their old village, now a quaint artist colony....so no, i had no intention of "white washing" that aspect.

There were more than 2 options, and some arabs took it upon themselves to do something by talking to their jewish neigbors. (there are other examples as well....)

as far as the UN limitless condemnations against israel, using the S. Africa example doesnt work with us. The PLO,PA, has an international status, within the UN as well as other places, hence it has taken upon itself to be responsable for its people and factions.

the fact that there actions have not received specific condemnations shows us how absurd they are. Blowing up busses and their celebration certainly deserves some sort of condemnation.....

In fact if you want proof of how absurd the UN can be, after the Entebee rescue the UN condemed israel for a response as excessive and as a violation of Ugandan sovereignty.

and after hearing that....how can i possible take the UN seriously?

[QueerJustice]

26. ``after the Entebee rescue the UN condemed israel for a response as ..

``excessive and as a violation of Ugandan sovereignty.``

That is truly absurd and sums up the UN attitude to Israel....Majority are allowed to discriminate against a single country with no protection for a minority discriminated against country and people .


:crazy:

[Violet_Crumble]

28. Israel and South Africa...

I don't really understand why the many resolutions against South Africa wouldn't be seen as picking on South Africa, while it's seen as picking on Israel. For that to be a valid argument, the majority of resolutions would have to be petty and vindictive ones. But from what I know, most of the resolutions I've seen have been about things that any state behaving in that manner should get a rap over the knuckles for (and I'm not convinced that the paper-producing factory white noise that is the GA is really all that much of a deterrent to states being a bit naughty). While the PLO gained permanent observer status at the UN, that doesn't make it or the Palestinian people responsible for the occupation. For example, the route of the barrier is something that Israel, not the PLO, is rightfully being taken to task for by the international community...

When it comes to specific condemnations from the UN, do you mean GA resolutions or statements from the Secretary General? If it's the former, does the GA issue condemnations for each specific act of violence carried out elsewhere in the world? I don't remember seeing anything condemning attacks carried out by the Tamil Tigers, who are way more prolific when it comes to killing civilians than any Palestinian group. And if the GA were to do this for every attack around the world that could fall under the label of terrorism, I doubt there'd be enough hours in the day to condemn every act, let alone shuffle the mountains of papers that make up the work that the GA gets through each year. If it's the latter, there have been specific condemnations from the Secretary General. A now tombstoned poster tried to argue that the Secretary General doesn't represent the UN when he makes these speeches, but since he's speaking in his role as head of the UN, the argument sort of sunk like a rock...

What I think is that the UN is guilty of inconsistancy more than anything. The US gets away with stuff all the time and only does so because of its power and the way it bullies and bribes smaller states. Smaller states like Israel don't get away with it. Instead of believing that Israel should be able to get away with it because some other country did, I believe that none of them should be allowed to get away with it...

Violet...

[eyl]

30. Well, an example from memory

consider the resolutions against Israel in the 50s for attacks on Syria and Jordan (e.g. UNSCR 111). Despite the fact that those operations were in response to attacks on Israelis, only Israel was condemned in these resolutions.

While the fact that the PLO gained permanent observer status at the UN might not "make it or the Palestinian people responsible for the occupation", it does mean that the level of attention that the UN pays it should be at least close to that payed to a state - unlike tha Tamil Tigers or other terrorist groups, which are not recognized by the UN. Yet there has been, to my knowledge, not UN resolution condemning PLO terrorism. Not to mention resolutions such as the one mentioned above condemning Israel for the Entebbe rescue.

Even among small countries, the UN's treatment of Israel stands out. There were, for example, no emergency UNGA sessions dealing with the genocides in the Balkans, Rwanda, and Sudan. In contrast, of the 10 emergency sessions convened, 6 have dealt with Israel. Furthermore, the Israel-related issues for which these sessions have been convened are, for the most part, much more petty than the non-Israel ones. For example, the 10th emergency special session was originally convened to discuss Israeli settlement activity in Har Homa. Even assuming all the allegations on the basis of which the session was convened were accurate, and no matter what you think of those actions, do you think they merit more attention than Soviet invasions of Hungary and Afghanistan? (keep in mind that no session not dealing with non-Israeli issues has reconvened; the 10th session, OTOH, has reconvened 12 times, becoming in effect a permanent tribunal on Israel).

Then there are the structural problems. There are more UN bodies, rapporteurs, etc dealing with Israel than with any other single subject. At the same time, Israel is excluded from participation in various bodies - it is the only nation which cannot be a member of the UNSC.

I good go on, but I think you get my drift.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Did you miss this bit of my post?

Instead of believing that Israel should be able to get away with it because some other country did, I believe that none of them should be allowed to get away with it...

Having said that, you give me a post full of nothing more than what is merely an argument that if anyone else gets away with it, Israel should. Was there something in what I said that you don't agree with?


While the fact that the PLO gained permanent observer status at the UN might not "make it or the Palestinian people responsible for the occupation"...

Might not? Try definately not...

Violet...

[eyl]

33. You missed my point

(or maybe I missed yours)

You said that the UN justly condemned small countries, while giving big countries I pass. I showed that even looking at small countries alone, Israel is still singled out. Also, even in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict alone, Israel is singled out for condemnation - when Israel and another country are wrong (assuming for the sake of argument that Israel is justly condemned in all cases) in the same incident, still only Israel is condemned, and there have been to my knowledge almost no resolutions condemning anyone (icluding the PLO, which granted recognition by the UN should be given more attention that various groups worldwide) for actions against Israel except in the most general terms. And when the UN does do something against Israel, it's out of proportion to the UN's actions against any other actor. In addition, Israel faces structural difficulties at the UN faced by no other nation (in particular, ineligibility for various UN posts).

[Violet_Crumble]

36. Nah, you missed my point...

I thought my point was incredibly clear, but I think it's not getting through for some reason. But while we're talking about resolutions. You mentioned that Israel copped some criticism from the UN during the 1950's, and you brought up SC111. So, what was the Syrian attack that brought on a response that left 50 Syrians dead? It must have been something that caused a lot of Israeli deaths to have brought on that response, right? And another security council resolution from the 1950's would have been about Qibya. Guess I must have skipped the bit where Jordanian troops entered an Israeli village and massacred men, women and children, cause if there wasn't a resolution condemning Jordan doing that, then yr absolutely right and everyone's picking on Israel...

btw, I think you may have to update yr information. Israel is eligible for various UN posts. It's part of the WEOG regional grouping thingy...

Violet...

[eyl]

41. About 111

UNSCR 111 was a condemnation of an attack on Syrian military posts (Operation Kinneret), which was a response to a series of repeated Syrian attacks on Israeli communities near and fishermen on the Sea of Galilee (hence the name). How many people died in the attacks up to the point I don't know (several hundred Israelis were killed by Syrian fire during the 50's), but it's instructive that while the killing of Syrian troops by Israel merited a condemnation, the killing of Israeli civilians by Syrian troops which led to that merited only oblique mention.

As for Qibya - I don't intend to defend the operation - in the most generous interpretation, it was a colossal screwup. But again - the continued killing of Israeli civilians because of which the raid was mounted was only elliptically mentioned ("there is substantial evidence of crossing of the demarcation line by unauthorized persons, often resulting in acts of violence" - UNSCR 101, section B1)

Regarding your last post - it's true that Israel was recently admitted to membership in the WEOG group (on a temporary basis, though the term was extended indefinitely in 2004). However, it did so under limitations. Israel is only considered a part of the WEOG group in New York; it cannot participate in the UN as part of a group in Geneva, for example, where several important UN councils are based. Also, to avoid messing up existing rotation schemes, Israel's acceptance into WEOG was contingent on not running for various bodies for a certain number of years - for example, Israel will not be eligible to run a candidate for the UNESC until 2021.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. Operation Kinneret and Qibya...

Yr claiming that Operation Kinneret was in direct response to repeated Syrian attacks on Israeli communities and fishermen. That's not what I've been reading, and considering Avi Shlaim has referenced Moshe Sharett's diary, amongst other sources, when he says that the attack on the Syrians was completely unprovoked, someone's going to have to prove to me that Moshe Sharett was lying about it. The Syrians did not attack Israeli fishermen - they fired only on Israeli naval boats when they came too close to the shore. This much more credible version of events would explain why there was no condemnation of the Syrians..

the continued killing of Israeli civilians because of which the raid was mounted was only elliptically mentioned ("there is substantial evidence of crossing of the demarcation line by unauthorized persons, often resulting in acts of violence" - UNSCR 101, section B1)

Okay, so was the continued killing of Arab civilians prior to Qibya mentioned at all? And those 'unauthorized persons' tended to be Palestinian civilians who were trying to return to their land. Israelis would shoot at them, which in turn resulted in them arming themselves. There was violence on both sides, though of course those incidents can't in any way be found to be on the same scale as Qibya, which is why what happened at Qibya quite rightfully earned a resolution...

I'd be a bit careful of complaining about Israel being hard done by as a member of the WEOG group. Israel held the presidency of the group twice, which I'm assuming if Israel was being picked on, would never have happened. I guess some folk might complain that it's not fair that Israel can't be a member of the regional group that it's geographically a part of, and that it just sucks so bad that it's in with those European countries, but Australia and New Zealand are in the same situation. They're both members of WEOG, even though geographically there's a regional grouping that they could be part of...

Violet...

[eyl]

49. Uh

If Syria was only shooting at Israeli military forces (and again, if you think this is legitimate, why do you object to operation Kinneret - all the Syrian dead were military), how come several hundred (at least 140) Israeli civilians were killed by Syrian fire during the 50s?

As for the WEOG, Australia and New Zealand can, unlike Israel, be lected to all UN bodies, so your comparison is invalid.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. Because...

You claimed that operation Kinneret was a direct response to repeated Syrian attacks on civilians. It wasn't, and I pointed that out. Operation Kinneret was an unprovoked attack that had been in the planning for a while. So why are you still claiming that Operation Kinneret was a direct response to attacks on Israeli civilians?


I asked you earlier what bodies Israel can't be elected to. You didn't respond. I think you've already explained the reason why Israel may not be able to sit on some bodies, and if yr correct, it's got zero to do with Israel being 'picked on' but a lot to do with bureacratic bullshit...

Violet...

[eyl]

53. Actually,

the references I've seen indicate the operation was in response to a series of incidents of Syrian fire on Israeli fishermen, not naval vessels. But even if you're correct that only Israeli military forces were fired on, that's still a provocation. And since, in your version, the casualties on both sides were military, there's still no reason to condemn one side and not the other (if the Israeli casualties were all military personnel and the Syrian casualties all civilians, that would be explainable, at least to some extent).

As for the UN bodies Israel is barred from: I haven't been able to find a complete list of UN bodies in general, much less one specifying which functions where. I have been able to find a few examples (in no particular order): the World Intellectual Property Organization, the governing body of the International Labour Organization, the Human Rights Commission, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Commission on the Status of Women (I'm not completely sure about the last two). I've also seen reference that Israel's acceptance by the WEOG was contingent on the understanding that it would not try for a seat on the UNSC.

As for the "bureaucratic bullshit" - why is it that the only country which suffers from this particular BS is Israel? Removing those limitations (except the one caused by rotation quotas; I'd be interested in seeing how new countries fit into the rota system) is a simple matter of the other members' willingness.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. I suspect yr sources are wrong...

But I'd like to know what these sources are so I can hopefully take a look at them. Are they online or in print?

If you consider Syrian positions firing on Israeli patrol boats that came within 250 metres of Syrian positions to be provocation, does that mean you also consider Israeli troops firing on Palestinian militants coming close to them to be provocation by Israel, or does this provocation thing only come into play when it's done by anyone other than Israel?

You know for a fact that Israel is the only member that for one reason or another can't participate in less major UN bodies? How do you know this when you appear to not even know how new members are affected by the already existing quotas? Not that I know, but I'm not pretending I do. And far be it from me to point out the bleeding obvious, but if Israel really wants people to believe it wants to participate in the UN in a constructive way, then maybe it should start respecting UN resolutions and stop acting like it's the member of a club of two members that don't have to take any notice of piddly things like international law...

Violet...

[eyl]

56. Regarding the first part

of your post, see my PM to you

Regarding the UN: what I said is that I don't know how new members fit into the rotation. They're not barred from certain bodies entirely, the way Israel is. And regarding you're last sentence, first of all, it assumes the international system is fair toward Israel in turn - which I disagree with - and in any case, would have a great deal more validity if not for the fact that, for example, the UN Human Rights Commission countains some of the countries with the worst human rights records on the planet.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. Yeah, well the UN kept on picking on South Africa too...

What is it with so many resolutions against some of these states? Could it have something to do with the fact that they continually do the wrong thing? After all, SA scored a long long list of resolutions aimed at it and its system of apartheid. Any argument from supporters of apartheid that SA was just being picked on and why should they respect the UN comes across as exactly the same tactic those who complain about resolutions aimed at Israel use nowadays...

The late 1940's was definately not a time where the culture was of the attacked nation had the right to take over any land that was not part of its sovereign territory. It was a time of decolonisation, and territory taken by force during WWII was returned to the people who had been invaded. So that territory Israel gained in 1948 is NOT a valid lesson for today at all...

It's the ceasefire in 1949 that ended up marking the borders of Israel, and making Israel quite a lot larger territory wise than it had been when Israel declared its independence. Most people seem to accept that Israel can keep that territory, and though I don't really see any great moral argument to support that argument, I've never given it much thought. But it's the land-grabbing since then that makes me think a very satisfying solution and one that would please none (which is why it'd be so damn satisfying) is to go right back to the UN partition plan and make those lines the borders of Israel and the Palestinian state...

Violet...

[pelsar]

27. violet..good point....

after the 48 war, when israel was attacked and survived, for the most part those "new and improved" borders were then accepted by the world.

in 67 it seemed that the new borders were not acceptable.....whats the difference?

you call it "land grabbing"....when a fledging nation mostly made up of holocaust survivors beats back modern young attacking armies from the surrounding arab states, whos intention is beyond doubt, it less "land grabbing and borderline miracle, or a celebration of what overcoming incredible odds when the human spirit sets its mind to it.

the world was probably simply shocked that israel survived, hence the acceptance of the new borders. In 67, though the threat was similar (nassers words and actions were enough to scare israel into full mobillization.....), the second time around the world, though initially shocked, calmed down soon after.....and this time the arab league was organized with the arab countries having more exerience in world affairs, taking land was not longer acceptable, by the UN for smaller western countries....hence the difference.

btw the late 40s wasnt exactly a period for everybody of decolonization: the USSR, nor France were part of that party, quite the opposite. France had every intention of keeping its empire( http://www.indyflicks.com/danielle/papers/paper06.htm), and the USSR was quite busy in E.Europe and elsewhere.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. About the celebration of overcoming incredible odds...

What were these incredible odds? And what were the war aims of countries like Egypt and Jordan? It's just that 1948 doesn't seem to have been the david vs goliath type epic that Israeli history has in the past painted it as. And the resistance from Israelis generally to any hint that Israel wasn't the vastly outnumbered and disadvantaged party is that they think that if they admit they weren't the ragged, tiny, totally outnumbered party, the legitimacy of Israel is in some way affected...

The late 1940's definately was a time of decolonisation. The former imperial masters did take some persuading, and there's no doubt that Britain would have fought hard to keep its empire if it hadn't been virtually bankrupt after WWII. What they wanted didn't matter. There's no way after the experience of WWII that these former colonies would have meekly allowed their former masters to just walk back in...

Violet...

[eyl]

32. The war aims of Egypt, Jordan, and the rest of the Arab countries

both by declaration and action, were to destroy the Jewish state, plain and simple.

While I haven't been able to track down an online source for orders of battle in 1948, all the sources I've seen indicate the Jewish forces were both outmanned and outarmed by the Arab forces, the Arab Legion in particular. (Remember that for all the rhetoric about "the US made Israel", the US imposed an arms embargo on Israel at the time, while the Arabs were supplied - and in the case of the Legion trained and led - by the British).

[Violet_Crumble]

34. Wrong...

Jordan was colluding with Israel to divvy up the spoils of the war between them. How exactly is that trying to destroy the Jewish state?

If the sources you've read indicate what you said, they're pretty whiffy sources. Have you read 'The War For Palestine'?. It's a series of essays from both Israeli and Arab historians, and shows how nonsensical the david vs goliath myth is. And the only arms embargo I know of is the one imposed on BOTH sides during the first cease-fire. If that's the one yr talking about, why did you not mention that it wasn't just imposed on Israel? As for the British training and arming the Arabs - where is that coming from? Glubb Pasha commanded the Arab Legion, but it's a real stretch to call that British involvement..

Anyway, I'd be interested to find out what yr sources are for the things you said about the war...

Violet...

[eyl]

40. In order

1) "Jordan was colluding with Israel to divvy up the spoils of the war between them."

This is the first I've ever heard of that - what are your sources?

2) "How exactly is that trying to destroy the Jewish state? If the sources you've read indicate what you said, they're pretty whiffy sources."

I'm basing it on their actions. While much has been said on the emigration/expulsion* of Palestinians in 1948, the fate of the Jews in the territories taken by the Arabs is usually glossed over - all of them were killed or expelled. (I find it ironic that people accuse Israel of trying to destroy the Palestinians, based on an emigration/expulsion* that left hundreds of thousands of them in place - their descendents form 20% of modern-day Israel's population - while the fact that every single Jewish community in the territory Jordan and Egypt took over was destroyed is somehow just a fact of war, hardly worth mentioning).

3) And the only arms embargo I know of is the one imposed on BOTH sides during the first cease-fire. If that's the one yr talking about, why did you not mention that it wasn't just imposed on Israel?

The one I'm talking about is the US arms embargo imposed on December 5th, 1947. While it was on all actors, the Arabs weren't buying arms from the US anyway (then); at the time, they got their weapons chiefly from Britain (Jordan and Iraq in particular, though I think they were also selling to Egypt). AFAIK, the US embargo was not lifted until 1962 (on Israel, that is; the US was selling arms to the Arab states before this).

4) "As for the British training and arming the Arabs - where is that coming from? Glubb Pasha commanded the Arab Legion, but it's a real stretch to call that British involvement.."

The Arab Legion had been created, trained, and supplied by British troops**. Also, I've seen a reference (to Shachar, though I haven't had time yet to track it down for myself) that RAF fighter participated in the fighting on Egypt's side towards the end of the war - 4 of which were shot down on January 7th, 1949.


*using both words to avoid turning this thread into another argument on whether they left voluntarily or not

**Upon rereading, I think you misunderstood me; I referred to training and leadership before the war, while as I noted above, the British were still selling weapons to them at least until the invasion began

[Violet_Crumble]

46. From 1 to 4...

1 - My source (I'm lazy tonight) for saying that Israel colluded with Jordan is:

The Iron Wall - Avi Shlaim (page 30 and page 38) "In the second half of the war, the special relationship between the Zionists and King Abdullah slowly began to reassert itself. In the summer of 1948 their armies came to blows, but even at the height of the war the two countries remained, in Uri Bar-Joseph's apt phrase, "the best of enemies." Throughout the war King Abdullah continued to pursue limited objectives and made no attempt to encroach on Jewish state territory. Ben-Gurion, for his part, showed no similar restraint and, in the first two rounds of fighting at least, acted according to the old adage "a la guerre comme a la guerre." During the long second truce, however, he had time to reflect on the advantages of adhering to the original agreement to divide western Palestine between Israel and Transjordan, an agreement that Abdullah showed every sign of wanting to restore."

If you check out the references for that chapter of the book, it'll lead you to a wealth of other material on the relationship between the Zionists and King Abdullah. And some of those sources are Israeli military documents...

2 - Yr claim was that the war aim of the Arab states was to destroy Israel. But yr basing that claim on a perceived sense of unfairness that any deaths of Jewish civilians isn't given the same amount of airplay as the expulsion (and trying to describe what was done to them as 'emigration' is way off the mark) of around 750,000 Palestinians. How on earth is that proof that the war aims of the Arab states was to destroy the Jewish state? Yr talking about something you claimed happened in the parts of Palestine that ended up being held by Egypt and Jordan, not what happened in the part of Palestine that became Israel...

3 - The arms embargo. You said the US stopped selling weapons to the Zionists in 1947. Have you got a source for that? It's just that I've not read anything about that. I take it that prior to 1947 the US was selling weapons to them? And didn't the Zionists buy weapons from Czechoslovakia, which gave them a huge advantage in weaponry?

4- So there was never any training or arming of any Zionists prior to the war by the British?

Violet...

[eyl]

48. Very quickly

Violet

You referred me to Shlaim; I'll look over it, but I won't be able to do so in time for this thread (for that matter, I'll likely have very sporadic Internet access until the end of the month, so this will probably be my last post in this thread).

My claim of their war aims wasn't based on unfairness - that was just a side note (and pointing out something I see as ironic). What I was saying is that the Arabs' complete destruction of the existing Jewish presence in the territory they managed to take over (in case you respond that they were just trying to remove Jews from the territory allotted to the Palestinians - if you consider that justified - remember that this includes Jerusalem), especially along with statements their leaders made at the time, can be seen as an indication of what would have happened had their invasion succeeded. I don't understand your meaning when you say that "Yr talking about something you claimed happened in the parts of Palestine that ended up being held by Egypt and Jordan, not what happened in the part of Palestine that became Israel..."; those parts that became Israel were the parts the Arabs didn't hold and therefore they didn't have the capability to destroy the Jewish presence there. (also, consider this - since you say that the expulsion of the Palestinians gained more airplay because it was larger - what is better known, the massacre at Dir Yassin or the massacre at the Etzion Block? Keep in mind that the latter had considerably more casualties).

There was some training of Jewish forces by the British until the end of WWII, more or less; they didn't keep their arms, however. There certainly was no support during the war (which I've pointed out above)

[Violet_Crumble]

52. Even quicker...

Let me know when you've read The Iron Wall. This thread will have long sunk into obscurity by then, so feel free to PM me if you want. I don't see any purpose in continuing to discuss the 1948 war and the aims of the Arab states until then...

Violet...

[pelsar]

35. the IDF..1948...

The IDF in May 1948, was a ragtag bunch of jews with home made arms, some german bought equipment, some smuggled....some of those soldiers were taken right from the immigrant ships and sent straight to the front.....The core of the army was the palestenian jews who were born there, made up the hagana and had to train in secret, but the bulk fought, with no previous training or very very little as they entered battle....

from a point of view of trained soliders (arabs) with modern equipment fighting a semi organized poorly equiped, poorly trained force..the jews should have been wiped out. (Though i love the idea that the IDF is so invincible)

You ask what were the war aims of Egypt and Jordan?..I kind of lost for an answer....attacking a country at its birth, declaring their intenions of destroying it?

Azzam Pasha, the Secretary-General of the Arab League made the intentions of many Arabs clear when he declared, "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.

there are obviously others but the point being....telling a holocaust survivor and their relatives that we're going to kill you or some other more subtle message probably wouldnt be take very well.

so they fought....and yes against absurd odd....

The soldiers of the 71st and 72nd battalions of the Haganah 7th  brigade were mostly immigrants newly arrived from European DP camps. They spoke a variety of languages, but had almost no language in common.

The 73rd battalion consisted of relatively experienced Haganah troops under the command of Captain Haim Laskov, who had gained experience in WW II. Their armor consisted of about 15 vehicles of varied construction, half of which were probably Armored Personnel Carriers, some homemade armoured "sandwich" vehicles built in Haganah worships, and armored patrol wagos. They had no tanks. The bulk of the fighting however, was to fall on the relatively seasoned troops of the 32nd battalion of the crack Alexandroni brigade. The Jordanians had 17 armored battle wagons equipped with canons, the Israelis had none. The Jordanians had about 105 machine guns against 53 on the Israeli side. The Jordanians had  8 modern British 25 pound cannon. Against these, the Israelis had two  65 millimeter French guns manufactured in 1906 (affectionately known as "Napoleonchiks"), mounted on wooden wheels, and three home made "Davidka" pieces that were not used. According to one source (Collins and Lapierre, O Jerusalem), they also had a single 25 pound cannon

that was the battle of laturn...concentration camp survivors, who dont even speak the same language vs Jordanian Regulars, young, british trained, well equiped forces.

and that was not an isolated incident, but the most glaring.

as far as the colonies go...the brits dont represent the world...just one country that was bankrupt after the war....the Frence and Rusians like I mentioned thought and acted otherwise-colonalization was alive, and strong in the 1940-50s, unless you dont count them? and that would insult the French.

and Jordan?...hmm if there was collusion...how does losing E.Jerusalem to jordan fit in?, th battle of Laturn? Seems my father in law disagrees given that he fought the jordanian legion

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Where are those quotes from?

Pelsar, there is so much that's not factually correct in what you've posted that I'm going to go through it bit by bit tomorrow (it's after midnight here and I need to get some sleep). In the meantime, have you read anything about Jordan's role in the war other than the traditional Israeli mythology?

on edit: just a comment on British imperialism being 'just one country'. Do you realise how massive the British Empire was before the outbreak of WWII? And it wasn't only the British, but the Dutch and other former imperial masters that were given their marching orders by the native populations. That the French wanted to cling to the past doesn't mean that decolonisation wasn't the flavor of the time - it just means that the French had to be prised from their former possessions. The US surprisingly strongly opposed the former European powers clinging to the idea of ruling over far-flung parts of the globe, as did the UN. The US only changed its view on native rule when it got all fidgety about the 'threat' of communism in Vietnam...

Violet...

[pelsar]

39. a bit...

but Im rather weak on it...I asked my father in law for a bit more....

the single url i grabed off the web...didnt seem to disagree with my other knowledge of it...(the latrun fiasco was the famous one)

http://www.mideastweb.org/latrun.htm


but the jist, is that of an immigrant army/country attempting to take care of its new immigrants, fight a war, build up a modern infrastructure all at the sametime.....

asking some of the 48 veterns one hears of stories of no rifles, no ammunition, no language.....but..things improved vasty soon after, not so much in language, but in equipment, moral etc, so a large part of the discussion is just "when". battles and wars have a strange flow to them..when losing its very difficult to "turn things around" as a soldier moral is zapped, once that goes......

so in 48, once the IDF had the momentum, that would "dwarf" lack of equipment etc.

talk to you in the morn....

[Violet_Crumble]

47. What I noticed...

That article you posted a link to portrayed the Arab states as being highly organised and unified. I think if the Arab states had thrown everything they had into it, the outcome would have been very different than it was, but their efforts were pretty half-arsed, and they didn't commit anywhere near what they could have to the war. Yr link said that Israels military had miscalculated and assumed they wouldn't be fighting Jordanian troops, but wouldn't a reason for the underwhelming input from the Arab states have been because they thought it was going to be a walk in the park for them? Why commit massive amounts of troops and equipment when they didn't need to?

Have you read The Iron Wall by Avi Shlaim? It's a really great book and I think you'd enjoy reading it. There's some books on the war that I read parts of last semester, but some of them were a bit dry and boring...

Tonight's book recommendation brought to you by:

Violet...

[drdon326]

38. No shit....

"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.


oh....but things have changed.:eyes:


really.



sure.

[rfkrfk]

21. Israel has nothing to do with the UN

Israel was created by the British, out of
a portion of the League of Nations mandate.
.
UN involvement, is-was limited to talking about things that
were going to happen anyway.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Britain handed the mandate to the UN...

They were losing control of the situation in Palestine as they had both the Zionists and Palestinians hostile to them, and after being drained dry by WWII, couldn't financially afford to bring in the large number of troops that would have been needed in an attempt to bring things under control. So they washed their hands of it and handed the mandate over to the UN to sort out...

I don't think the UN actually created Israel. What it did was come up with a partition plan to divide Palestine up into a Jewish and an Arab state. That gave the Zionist venture the legitimacy that it needed, but who really created Israel was the Zionists themselves, not the UN, at least that's how I see it. Otherwise we could also say that the UN created a Palestinian state, but when I check out maps, I'm not seeing that state yet....

Violet...

[sabbat hunter]

42. palestine

the palestinian people should as angry at their own arab bretheren as much as they are at israel for not having a country of their own. between 1948 and 1967 Gaza was ruled by Egypt and Jordan ruled the west bank. Why didnt Egypt and Jordan allow the Palestinians to have a Palestine then?

Hells Jordan had no intention of a Palestine. The very fact that King Abdullah I changed the name of the country from Transjordan to Jordan (to reflect the fact that he controlled both sides of the jordan river) shows that he, and Egypt didnt care about the Palestinian people.
It wasnt until 1967 that those areas came under the control of Israel that the arab world started to scream about the Palestinian people having their own nation.

david

[rfkrfk]

43. 'Palestine', is the western part of the Brittish Mandate

,the eastern part of the post-partition British
Mandate came to be know as Trans-Jordan.
The UN gave it's approval, to what the
Brits wanted.
Palestine, is just a 'governance' issue.
The differance between 'Palestinians' and 'Jordanians' is
comparable to the difference between
northern South Dakotans and southern North Dakotans.

[sabbat hunter]

44. not entirely true

there are those in jordan who are of palestinian descent, but many who descend from bedouin tribes who are not.

yes they are both arabic, but there are tribal differences between.

finland and sweden are both scandinavian countries but there are differences (other than language) between the two.


david

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[centristo]

57. ROTFL

Maat,

And you thought you were asking a simple question. Almost 50 replies later and there is still no consensus.

I guess I would go here to look first:

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

I suggest reading the original source and making your own judgements. Clearly many on this board will see the facts and distort to whichever preconceived notions they may have already formed, myself included.