Results 1 to 20 of 80

Thread: Israeli-Arab Wars and Palestinian Population Displacement

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    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?

  2. #2
    Council Member charter6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Posts
    28

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default Whoops

    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?

  4. #4
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    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.)

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default -Some Kindling For The Fire

    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)

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    19

    Default

    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
    Last edited by serviceman; 11-28-2009 at 08:06 PM. Reason: correction

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Vintages & What's the Point ?

    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.

  9. #9
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by serviceman View Post
    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.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  10. #10
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    19

    Default

    think troubles began in June 1920 when Herbert Samuel was appointed as be high commissioner in Palestine on June 30th 1920, this was not talen well by Arabs. Samuel was first Jew to govern Palestine for 2000 years. We are well aware that the U.N.s created the stste of Isreal, Britain held the Mandate for 17/18 years granted by league of natione. In 1946 britain told U.N.s they would give up mandate in 1948, this was due to American pressure on this country to allow refugees from camps to enter the then Palestine. At no time have i menitioned people being forced to move, people moved out on advice of village headmen

    If you are interested i was stationed at Neuhardof and Khayat Beach, which is what 10/12 miles down coast from Haifa
    Last edited by serviceman; 11-29-2009 at 10:50 AM. Reason: add

  11. #11
    Council Member Umar Al-Mokhtār's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cirenaica
    Posts
    374

    Default Well except for the fact...

    Quote Originally Posted by serviceman View Post
    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...
    "What is best in life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women."

  12. #12
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 82redleg
    Israel is established, as promised by the west, belatedly, in response to the Holocaust.
    What obligation did the "West" have in creating Israel? And why does the Nazi perpetrated genocide ennoble the Jewish population with perceived priveleges not granted to other victims of genocide (i.e. a new state)? Why haven't other victims of the Nazi genocide (homosexuals and Romani, for example) been given a state yet?

    Quote Originally Posted by 82redleg
    The Arab states tell the Palestinians to leave
    Population displacement is a feature in nearly all modern conflict as a consequence of military offensives, atrocities and transfers, the rumor mill, among other things. How is this conflict an exception and the Arabs solely responsible for the displacement of 300,000 persons?

    Quote Originally Posted by 82redleg
    (so they aren't in the way of the second Holocaust)
    The document submitted by the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the United Nations detailing the causes of the Arab intervention makes no mention of perpetrating another genocide against the Jewish people.

    Quote Originally Posted by 82redleg
    The Arabs attack several (3, 4) more times, with generally the same results. Israel expands.
    You forgot to mention that Israel also attacked the Arabs on several occasions, and that Jewish partians actively targeted and killed Arabs, Brits, and other foreign officials since before Israel even became a state. On that list of victims of Jewish (Israeli? Zionist?) terrorism is a high-ranking Swiss diplomat charged with mediating the conflict. And it's only the Arabs that don't want peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by 82redleg
    Arabs don't want peace, they want to kill Jews.
    Is that why Jordan and Egypt made peace with Israel? Is that why the League of Arab States unanimously passed a resolution outlining their terms for peace? I'd like to see evidence that the Arab population is somehow filled with some kind of natural bloodlust to murder and maim Jews.

    Quote Originally Posted by 82redleg
    Look at all the conflicts in the world today- the vast majority are between Islam and someone else.
    Islam is not a unitary actor so your statement is inaccurate and misleading.
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •