Challenge- Arab Israeli Settlement by 1973

Derek Jackson · Aug 7, 2005

Is there any circumstance under which an Arab Israeli settlement could have been reached before, and therefore preventing, the Yom Kipur war which would have given Palestinians a viable state and which would have ensured that Arab states and Palestinians accept the right of Israel to exist?

(I am assuming 1967 still happens but am open to suggestions)#

I am guessing it would help if a prominent Palestinian seeks Peace and is murdered by his own extremists.

aktarian · Aug 7, 2005

Israel accepts 1971 Sadat's peace offer. No war, Camp David-like agreement 8 years sooner.

Raymann · Aug 7, 2005

No, period. What fueling that conflict is anti-semitism pure and simple. Look that the website for the PLO and you'll see a map of Palestine, hmm it looks just like Israel.

Bulan · Aug 7, 2005

It's complicated.
Egypt needed that war to some degree, because in the eyes of the Arabs they had to get their land in the same means it has been taken from them - and many in Egypt see the redrawal of Israel from the Sinai peninsula a direct result of the Yom Kippur war.

With Syria things were more complicated.
And ofcourse you still have the Palestinians and the upcoming Lebanese civil war, already set in motion by 1973.

MerryPrankster · Aug 7, 2005

Raymann said:
No, period. What fueling that conflict is anti-semitism pure and simple. Look that the website for the PLO and you'll see a map of Palestine, hmm it looks just like Israel.

It is true that the PLO at the time was run by "drive Israel into the sea" nut-balls (aka Arafat).

However, I am sure that many Palestinians, once they get a state of their own, will stop supporting the nut-balls. They'd have something to lose.

George Carty · Aug 7, 2005

Raymann said:
No, period. What fueling that conflict is anti-semitism pure and simple. Look that the website for the PLO and you'll see a map of Palestine, hmm it looks just like Israel.

Anti-Semitism? Would Arab, Muslim or even European critics of Israel be any less hostile if it were a Christian neo-Crusader state instead of a Jewish state? I don't think so - it's Israel's status as a 'settler colony' which drives hostility towards it...

Bulan · Aug 7, 2005

George Carty said:
Anti-Semitism? Would Arab, Muslim or even European critics of Israel be any less hostile if it were a Christian neo-Crusader state instead of a Jewish state? I don't think so - it's Israel's status as a 'settler colony' which drives hostility towards it...

But what if it was an Arab country with it's Arabs coming from say Iraq and N. Africa? then the Arabs would have no problem with it.

And if it was a Christian country then most likely many european countries would have supported it - look at the case of Greek Cyprus vs. Turkish Cyprus.

I think only the anti-Christian communist bloc would have criticised a Christian state in the region.

George Carty · Aug 7, 2005

Bulan said:
But what if it was an Arab country with it's Arabs coming from say Iraq and N. Africa? then the Arabs would have no problem with it.

And if it was a Christian country then most likely many european countries would have supported it - look at the case of Greek Cyprus vs. Turkish Cyprus.

I think only the anti-Christian communist bloc would have criticised a Christian state in the region.

The Greek Cypriots weren't relatively recent settlers though...

Raymann · Aug 7, 2005

George Carty said:
it's Israel's status as a 'settler colony' which drives hostility towards it...

1. A colony of what nation?

2. They crushed the partially Chritian nation of Lebenon as soon as they could.

3. It was the Arabs that started the war and the Arabs who told their people to leave Israel.

4. The Arab countries are in no position to argue about displaced people, they helped make Iseral the power it is today buy kicking all their Jews out to there. Half of Israel's population are children of people who've been kicked out of Arab countries.

5. Europeans used to control the entire Middle East, there was nowhere near as much violence while it WAS a real colony then when they claimed Israel was one.

Derek Jackson · Aug 7, 2005

Raymann said:
3. It was the Arabs that started the war and the Arabs who told their people to leave Israel.

It is accepted by Israeli scholars that many Palestinian Arabs were driven from their homes by the new state.

Still, accepting there was deep hatred on all sides, could a settlement have happened.

(remember that in OTL France and Germany got together very quickly after 1945)

Raymann · Aug 7, 2005

First of all, France again tried to have Germany dismembered after WWII. It was only after the Communist become a severe threat (and after Germany bent over to lick France's boot) that they became friends.

Second, it was the Arabs who told the Palastinians to leave their homes, the Israelites wanted them to stay.

In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-49 said:

Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.

Monsignor George Hakim, a Greek Orthodox Catholic Bishop of Galilee in 1948 said then:

The refugees were confident their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two...their leaders had promised them that the Arab Armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile.

I can go on and on, but in short they shouldn't have left in the first place. Even after the war, Israel offered them to return but their leaders like Arafat said no because to do so they would need a treaty with Israel (which meant officially recognizing it) which they refused to do. Look at it this way, the Arab nations kicked out as many Jews as Palestinians who voluntarly left Israel. I wouldn't make that argument but if there is going to be a solution to this problem, the past has to be left alone cause Israel would win on those points and thats not fair to the current generation.

benedict XVII · Aug 7, 2005

Raymann said:
First of all, France again tried to have Germany dismembered after WWII. It was only after the Communist become a severe threat (and after Germany bent over to lick France's boot) that they became friends.

France did not want Germany dismembered, it suggested that a federal form of government would make it less likely to become aggressive again, and wanted some special rights to economic production in the Saar and the Rhur.

It got the economic rights, which was only fair after all. As for the Federal form of Government, the Brits and Americans thought it was not appropriate - Frenchies can come up with such weird ideas, can't they? - but that's eventually what Germany became...

aktarian · Aug 7, 2005

Raymann said:
Second, it was the Arabs who told the Palastinians to leave their homes, the Israelites wanted them to stay.

In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-49 said:

Monsignor George Hakim, a Greek Orthodox Catholic Bishop of Galilee in 1948 said then:

Since we are quoting leades from that time....

David Ben-Gurion

"They [Mishmar Ha'emek people] faced a cruel reality ... [and] saw that there was [only] one way and that was to expel the Arab villagers and burn the villages. And they did this. And they were the first to do this."

"I do not accept the version [i.e. policy] that [we] should encourage their return. . . I believe we should prevent their return . . . We must settle Jaffa, Jaffa will become a Jewish city. . . . The return of [Palestinian] Arabs to Jaffa [would be] not just foolish." If the [Palestinian] Arabs were allowed to return, to Jaffa and elsewhere, " and the war is renewed, our chances of ending the war as we wish to end it will be reduced. . . . Meanwhile, we must prevent at all costs their return,"

And let's not forget Chaim Weizmann

It was a miraculous clearing of the land

And if Israel offered to return why is Arafat blamed for collapsing various offers by demanding "right of return"?

Dave Howery · Aug 7, 2005

there was a short window of opportunity for peace after the 6-Day war... Israel was willing to give up the conquered territories for peace treaties. I'm not sure if they would now, as they view the Golan as particularly strategic high ground... still, in '67 at least, there was a chance of it...

Valamyr · Aug 7, 2005

Israel changed its stance on the issue, i guess. I remember some jewish leaders made pleas to the arabs not to leave, but its clear that once they had left, they didnt want to return to the previous situation.

I'm gonna butcher spelling her name big time, but i believe Golda Mier had made an heartflet plea for them to stay, back then, staying the jews could prove them that it was still their home, too.

Grimm Reaper · Aug 7, 2005

There was the minor matter of hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from the Arab and Muslim nations after 1948-49. After taking all of them in Israel could reasonable claim that they already did their part, taking in a majority of the refugees, and it was up to the Arabs to handle the rest.

Bearing in mind that the Arab refugees fled a war that the Arabs started while the Jewish refugees were expelled through bigotry and greed, as they were far from the war zone and the expulsion worked to Israel's benefit.

As I have mentioned on the board, it is an interesting question as to whether an Israel with half the population could have survived the next few decades.

In any event, the matter is long resolved. There was a population exchange, as in Greece-Turkey, India-Pakistan, and half of Europe after WWII.

MerryPrankster · Aug 7, 2005

There was a village called Deir Yassin where some Jewish zealots massacred the Arab population. The Arab leaders broadcast what had happened, hoping to enrage the Palestinians to fight the Israelis, but instead the Palestinians all ran.

At least that's what "The 50 Years' War" said. I imagine the overall situation was more complicated than that.

Grimm Reaper · Aug 7, 2005

Practically the major military accomplishment of the Irgun, which may have had some effectiveness against British occupation but which went on to be militarily useless and forcefully disarmed by Israel's own nascent armed forces.

Which is probably a major reason Israel would go on to be a successful state as the list of new nations which did NOT disarm the violent fringe movement once they drove out a colonial power is long and sad.

aktarian · Aug 8, 2005

Dave Howery said:
there was a short window of opportunity for peace after the 6-Day war... Israel was willing to give up the conquered territories for peace treaties. I'm not sure if they would now, as they view the Golan as particularly strategic high ground... still, in '67 at least, there was a chance of it...

And once Sadat made offer for peace in exchange for territory it was rejected with "we will not withdraw".

Wozza · Aug 8, 2005

The Arab-Israeli confict was in large measure fuelled by the Soviet Union.
1967, as someone has already stated, was probably the best opportunity.

However, when the Soviets promised an endless supply of weapons the Arabs rejected the Israeli offer through the Khartoum declaration.