Israeli-Arab Wars and Palestinian Population Displacement

[charter6]

Just as a clarification, I'm not saying I would have supported an Israeli expulsion of more Palestinians in '67, just that I could see a rational policy basis for them to have done so, while a similar rational justification does not exist for outright genocide. That having been said, I'll continue playing devil's advocate.

Hope I'm not making a nuisance of myself.

--------

All true Tequila, but at the same time it would have removed the demographic time bomb that Israel faces from the table, and would have left Israel with a Jewish majority in a state with relatively defensible borders. Question of whether the positives would have outweighed the negatives. Birthrate will be the weapon of the 21st century, after all.

Rex, I doubt if the numbers we're talking about would have tipped the balance in Jordan. Hussein was willing to use any amount of force, and his Jordanian arab tankers of the 40th and other divisions proved themselves politically reliable enough to do the job, regardless of the unpleasantness of the fight. Amman was a tough nut to crack, but it cracked in the end just the same. An army with the political will to use overwhelming force will win a kinetic fight in urban operations.

I also don't think the shift in Egypt would have been significant if there'd been a more widespread displacement of Palestinians in the West Bank -- the Egyptians were recovering from quite a drubbing, and their own losses would surely have been more prominently in their minds than Palestinian displacement. Syria is a trickier one, I don't know enough about the post-war atmosphere there to say anything intelligent.

[Norfolk]

Just as a clarification, I'm not saying I would have supported an Israeli expulsion of more Palestinians in '67, just that I could see a rational policy basis for them to have done so, while a similar rational justification does not exist for outright genocide. That having been said, I'll continue playing devil's advocate.

Hope I'm not making a nuisance of myself.

You're not making a nuisance of yourself and I certainly didn't take it that you would have favoured any such action.

However, given that Jordan as of at least several years ago had a population that was 70% Palestinian, if the entire Palestinian population of the West Bank had been forced into Jordan proper from 1967 in order to avoid a Arab demographic time-bomb within Israel itself, I suspect that the successes of the Jordanian Government in the early 1970's vis-a-vis rebellious Palestiaians may have proved very temporary.

[Rex Brynen]

Rex, I doubt if the numbers we're talking about would have tipped the balance in Jordan. Hussein was willing to use any amount of force, and his Jordanian arab tankers of the 40th and other divisions proved themselves politically reliable enough to do the job, regardless of the unpleasantness of the fight. Amman was a tough nut to crack, but it cracked in the end just the same. An army with the political will to use overwhelming force will win a kinetic fight in urban operations.

Actually, it was a close run thing. Despite post-conflict Jordanian military myth-making, the Jordanian 40th Armoured Brigade did quite poorly: when the Syrians/PLA blundered into the Jordanian formations, the latter showed little tactical skill and the Syrian armour eventually inflicted heavier casualties and pushed the Jordanians off the ridges at al-Ramtha.

By the end of the battle on 21 September 1970, Husayn feared that he had lost the war. The Syrians looked like they would break through to Amman, where the Jordanian 4th Mechanized had made only limited headway against the PLO (indeed, much of the capital was still in PLO hands at this time).

The next day was critical: the Jordanians launched massive air attacks against the Syrian/PLA troops. Syrian DM Hafiz al-Assad feared escalation, and refused to commit the much larger Syrian AF, despite orders to do so. It was over the next two days that Syrian intervention was defeated, and the Syrian/PLA troops withdrew. Without Syrian/PLA support, the PLO would eventually lose too, although it wasn't until April 1971 that they lost control of the last Jordanian towns, and they weren't fully defeated until July.

Would al-Assad been able to do this if the Israelis had done a Kosovo or 1948-style ethnic cleansing of the West Bank? I'm doubtful, given political dynamics in the Syrian Ba'th Party at the time.

Moreover, ethnic cleansing would have added over half a million additional bitter refugees to the PLO's potential recruit base, and probably further radicalized Palestinians in the Army (several thousand of which defected in any case).

Had the SAF been committed against the RJAF, Israeli and/or US intervention would likely have followed. The IAF could have taken on the Syrians, but at the cost of further delegitimizing King Husayn. I'm doubtful the regime would have survived.

We'll never know though, will we?

[charter6]

Norfolk, I agree with your last comment completely. I think we'd be looking at a very different Jordan today. Where we probably disagree is that I think there is a strong case to be made that the benefits of an annexed and secure West Bank would outweigh the cost of a hostile Jordan.

Rex, I'm aware of the difficulties Jordanian armor had, particularly in Amman. It's one of those textbook cases on using heavy armor in built-up areas. I'm unconvinced that additional refugees would have changed the basic calculus of the situation though. Frankly, in the aftermath of 1967 I think the Arabs would have expected Israel to expel the Palestinians from the West Bank -- the Jordanians did after all expel Jews from East Jerusalem, and Jews were not really welcome in much of the arab world after 1948.

I think the really interesting thing about the Jordanian-Palestinian fight is the effect IAF overflights of PLA columns must have had on Syria's decision-makers, especially with the IAF's performance in 1967 such a recent memory. With regard to what you said, I don't think the IAF had to take on the Syrians, the mere threat of them doing so was enough to convince the Syrians that it wasn't worth committing their rebuilt air force to a fight they must have been sure they couldn't win.

[Schmedlap]

Well, let that be a lesson to me. I wanted to type a quick question asking why the Israeli-Palestinian issue was not included and whether we should consider that a small war or something else.

Regarding the phrase in question, for clarification, it would have been better to state that Israel could have (and, with their nat'l security interests in mind, probably should have) stomped the Palestinian resistance/terrorists/insurgents into submission long ago. Kind of like how I was gloating last week that the Patriots slaughtered every team that they've faced this season, but those teams are all very much alive. In hindsight, neither the wording above nor in the hyperbole in my original post were necessary for the question.

The decades-long ###-for-tat conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, though it experiences lengthy ceasefires in lethal/kinetic terms, seems like a pretty good example of a poorly funded and underequipped force effectively drawing a powerful opponent into a seemingly endless small war. The bulk of the warfare takes place in the information domain and the lethal actions taken by the Palestinians all appear to be timed and located purely for effects in the information and cognitive domains, with no regard to any expectation of militarily defeating the Israelis or of whittling away at their population.

Small war or not a small war?

[Rex Brynen]

Well, let that be a lesson to me. I wanted to type a quick question asking why the Israeli-Palestinian issue was not included and whether we should consider that a small war or something else.

Thanks for the clarification!

While there are those on both sides who seek "total victory" --that is destruction of Israel (Hamas, PIJ), or the annexation of all of the West Bank (NRP)--the mainstream battle is largely about ending Israel's colonial-type presence in the West Bank (and, previously Gaza). As the polls show, a large majority of both Palestinians and Israelis seek territorial compromise.

In this sense, it looks much like other anti-colonial struggles (which I think we would all consider "small wars" too). These were rarely won militarily, on the battlefield, but rather in the larger diplomatic and political arena. Insurgent action didn't need to defeat the enemy, only sway opinion in the metropole (Algeria) and raise the costs of occupation well above the benefits (South Yemen, Mozambique, Angola, etc).

The difference here is Palestinian violence--when aimed at targets inside the green line (Israel proper)--increases Israeli security concerns and makes it less likely to withdraw from territories occupied in 1967. (Interestingly, when the second intifada was initially aimed largely at the IDF and Israeli settlers, it weakened Israeli support for occupation.. it was when the targets shifted to civilian targets in Tel Aviv, etc. that the real backlash set it.)

[goesh]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/914670.html

Last update - 15:55 19/10/2007

"Israel refuses to open talks with Lebanon over Shaba Farms

By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent

Israel has refused a recommendation by a United Nations ambassador to begin negotiations with Lebanon over the disputed Shaba Farms area. According to the envoy, Geir Pedersen, the United Nations is becoming increasingly convinced that Shaba Farms belongs to Lebanon......."

I guess the UN will have to come up with official condemnation #12,834 for Israel ( I may have exagerated that number by a hundred or so)

[Schmedlap]

I'd just like clarify something: I didn't start this thread. My post at the beginning was actually made on this thread, if memory serves me right, that discussed various small wars and I wondered by the ongoing Palestinian struggle against Israel was not included. Being a relative newcomer to the site at the time, I made a rather poorly worded, quickly typed response, not realizing that I would be assumed to be advocating genocide when merely exaggerating...

Seems to be me that the Palestinians have very effectively managed to leverage every non-lethal asset available to deter Israel from simply wiping the Palestinians from the planet, which Israeli could have (and probably should have) done long ago, while gaining significant concessions from the Israelis.

This was clarified...

Regarding the phrase in question, for clarification, it would have been better to state that Israel could have (and, with their nat'l security interests in mind, probably should have) stomped the Palestinian resistance/terrorists/insurgents into submission long ago. Kind of like how I was gloating last week that the Patriots slaughtered every team that they've faced this season, but those teams are all very much alive.

Just wanted to throw that out there because the absence of context makes this look kind of odd. Upon reading this 2+ year old thread, I was scratching my head for a while wondering why/when I wrote this until I finally jogged my memory.

Only on the internet do I need to assure people that I am not in favor of genocide.

[serviceman]

well Mr Owen, i am a very young 82 year old and remember well you did not give me facts about casualties this started after ww 1 when Lawence promised the land to Arabs then Balfour wanted the Jewish people to have a homeland and started pressing the league of nations for this Balfour never lived in the country and this is why i say to much out-side pressure is not good I know people who say that all the bombers were correct to recover their homes Personally i don't agree, and have spoken out on this. asked people to name one incident where Jewish forces retalilated until enought was enought

[jmm99]

OK, we now know that serviceman is a young 82 (roughly in the same vintage as Ken White), I'm a not so young 67 when I crawl out of bed in the morning, and Wilf is a handsome 46 (a mere babe, especially considering that our dads saw combat in the same theatre of war). And Schmedlap is a newly-born, even though he was probably 38 at 18.

Since age carries no particularly weight, we must look to the message and not the messenger. I can find all sorts of messages about Palestine-Israel before, during and after 1945-1948. E.g. (among many sites I've visited over the years), Palestine Remembered and The Jewish Agency for Israel. I've gone through both sites (the territorial nomenclature tells us their positions from the gitgo), with some "rigour" as Wilf might say. Compared to others here, my background in matters Palestinian and Israeli is minimal.

So, serviceman, what exactly are your points for discussion ? Take your time; please puntuate your sentences; and give us an organized presentation of your thesis.

Thanks in advance

Mike

PS: Schmedlap - your Moral Foundations Chart proves that you have a distinct adversion to causing harm (3.8 . Marct and JMM were at the lower end of that scale (2.0 and 2.3); explained in our cases by too much genetic input from warriors who fought each other at the Battle of the Windmill.

[William F. Owen]

well Mr Owen, i am a very young 82 year old and remember well you did not give me facts about casualties this started after ww 1 when Lawence promised the land to Arabs then Balfour wanted the Jewish people to have a homeland and started pressing the league of nations for this

Serviceman, with all due respect to your age and involvement, it actually all started when Theodore Hertzl and others created the political movement to re-establish the State of Israel.
Britain did not create the modern State of Israel. The UN did, and did so in the full expectation that the nation would cease to exist within one or two years.

My point of caution to you is, that arguing about the population movements that occurred as a result of military action in 1947-49 based on personal involvement, doesn't actually help - This long running debate is mostly fact and history free.

Mazal Tov.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

this started after ww 1 when Lawence promised the land to Arabs

that TEL had absolutely no authority from London to "promise" anything to the specific group of "Arabs" to whom he was seconded, outside of arms and support as it pertained to Allenby's Palestine campaign.

While TEL certainly was instrumental in getting Fisal at least a small role in the Versailles talks, the Sykes-Picot agreement trumped much of his father Hussien wanted in regards to territorial gains. But that's realpolitik for you.

Also, IMO "Arab" is a very nebulous term to use when making a general argument about the ME since Arab unity is far far from unified.

Just sayin...