Sex dating in creta oklahoma pros and cons of dating objects with carbon 14
It is virtually obligatory for this attack to be described by commentators today as “preemptive”. and Israeli intelligence assessed at the time that the likelihood Nasser would actually attack was low.
But to have been “preemptive”, by definition, there must have been an imminent threat of Egyptian aggression against Israel. It is commonly claimed that President Nasser’s bellicose rhetoric, blockade of the Straits of Tiran, movement of troops into the Sinai Peninsula, and expulsion of U. peacekeeping forces from its side of the border collectively constituted such an imminent threat. The CIA assessed that Israel had overwhelming superiority in force of arms, and would, in the event of a war, defeat the Arab forces within two weeks; within a week if Israel attacked first, which is what actually occurred.
In other districts, Arabs owned an even larger portion of the land.
At the extreme other end, for instance, in Ramallah, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land. partition recommendation had called for more than half of the land of Palestine to be given to the Zionists for their “Jewish State”.
It should also be noted that the partition plan was also rejected by many Zionist leaders.
Among those who supported the idea, which included David Ben-Gurion, their reasoning was that this would be a pragmatic step towards their goal of acquiring the whole of Palestine for a “Jewish State” – something which could be finally accomplished later through force of arms.
Rather, the Arabs were acting in defense of their rights, to prevent the Zionists from illegally and unjustly taking over Arab lands and otherwise disenfranchising the Arab population.
The act of aggression was the Zionist leadership’s unilateral declaration of the existence of Israel, and the Zionists’ use of violence to enforce their aims both prior to and subsequent to that declaration.
“It is quite a common sight to see an Arab sitting in the verandah of a Jewish house”, the report noted. Needless to say, for Palestine to have been officially partitioned, this recommendation would have had to have been accepted by both Jews and Arabs, which it was not. would have had no authority to take land from one people and hand it over to another, and any such resolution seeking to so partition Palestine would have been null and void, anyway. Many commentators today point to this rejection as constituting a missed “opportunity” for the Arabs to have had their own state.The terminology of Israel’s “right to exist” is constantly employed to obfuscate that fact. N., but came into being on May 14, 1948, when the Zionist leadership unilaterally, and with no legal authority, declared Israel’s existence, with no specification as to the extent of the new state’s borders.In a moment, the Zionists had declared that Arabs no longer the owners of their land – it now belonged to the Jews.It must be emphasized that the Zionists had no right to most of the land they declared as part of Israel, while the Arabs did.This war, therefore, was not, as is commonly asserted in mainstream commentary, an act of aggression by the Arab states against Israel.