Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Anonymous
Anonymous asked in TravelAfrica & Middle EastIsrael · 1 decade ago

If the Arab armies had not attacked Israel and the UN partition plan of 1947 was adopted, what would be?

the situation in Israel and Palestine today?

http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/UN_Part...

16 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    It would be what Ben Gurion dreamed of.........2 countries one jewish with an arab minority and one arab with a jewish minority working side by side, sharing information, customs, food and etc.....

    Even if they did not attack, they would still have sent in militias and fighters into their territories through Jordan. Notice how Israel controls all borders for a reason.

    "The thing about arab leaders is they are only good at talking but not executing while Israeli leaders are good at executing but not talking."

    This is the problem with arab leadership, the fact that they believe they are one ethnic group. The fact that they fight against each other all the time due to differences within each other's culture whether it be iraqi, bedoi or lebanese means they should all mind each other's business and not conspire.

    "they were clearly taken by surprise."

    Zeno can you show a source for this theory. They knew arab armies would attack from British and American intelligence to they took control of parts of Transjordan. When Tel Aviv and Haifa were shelled by iraqi militias and when Deir yassin was taken over by Iraqi militias, irgun started expelling villages.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    This attack is a myth that is spread by the Israeli propaganda and unfortunately does not get challenged enough by the pro-Palestinian side. "Attack" implies an act of aggression. The one who attacked were the Zionists who started attacking Arab towns and villages nearly 5 months before Arab armies arrived. The Arab armies only intervened to defend the part of Palestine which was allocated to the Arab state by the UN partition plan, and they had explicit orders of not attemping to attack any land beyond that allocated to the Arab state. By the time Arab armies (20,000 in total) arrived, the Zionists had already occupied 1/3 of the land allocated to the Arab state. By the time the war was over, Israel occupied more than 50% of the land allocated to the Arab State by the UN.

    So Israel was the aggressor and the Arabs were just defending their land from Israeli occupation. Had the Arab armies not arrived (though too late), all of Palestine would have fallen to the Zionists in 1948.

    Israel was the aggressor again in 1967 when they attacked Egypt, Jordan and Syria and occupied the remainder of Palestine and parts of Egypt and Syria.

    Even the 1973 war, which was the only war started by Arabs, Israel was not attacked. Egypt and Syria were just trying to liberate their lands occupied by Israel in 1967. So the attack was not on Israel, but on occupied Egyptian and Syrian lands.

    Other wars (1956, 1982, 2006 and 2008) were all started by Israel. This is not mentioning the countless number of attacks Israel has launched on Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq and even Tunisia throughout the years of the conflict. So the only common thing in this conflict is that Israel has always been the aggressor.

    So the answer to your question is:

    Had the Arab armies not intervened in May 1948, Israel's borders in 1948 would have included the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians would have been far greater than the one occurred in 1948.

  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    because of the fact the Partition plan became into no longer honest to the Arabs. The Arabs at that component have been majority (2 thirds of the inhabitants) and owned a minimum of 80% of the land in accordance to the british possession records (some aspects even say that the Arabs owned ninety 3% of the land). The Jews who have been under one 0.33 of the inhabitants owned approximately 10% of the land. The Partition plan gave the Jews fifty six% of the land and the Arabs 40 3% of the land. The (a minimum of) 37% of the land that the Arabs owned and went to Jews became into no longer compensated for. And the vendors of those lands objected yet weren't heard. to boot to that, Balfour assertion needless to say denied the Arab self selection interior the land and the Arabs have been petrified of that component and for that reason the 5 armies attacked "Israel" no longer in 1947 yet in 1948 to end its advent..

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Arab countries were occupied when they tried to defend the poor civilians in Palestine at that time. The zionist gangs of terrorism were attacking and killing villagers and civilians everyday in Palestine before and after the partition plan. They used the British weapons and other weapons of terror they brought.

    If the Arabs tried with their limited effort and weapons, that doesn't give any right to zionists to kill as much as they like from little kids and women. I don't think you need a list of the massacres against Palestinian villages with poor and weak people inside their homes.

    I just hope that only the criminals will pay the price of what they did and not everybody including others who didn't kill or supported the killings.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    There would be 2 countries, 1 Jewish, 1 Arab, living side by side in peace. And 1000s of lives on both sides would have been spared.

  • Zeno
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    The Jewish Territory that was accepted by the Jewish Agency on Nov 29,1947 was not invaded by the Arab Legion which on May 15 1948 was in Transjordan,miles from Jerusalem when it was attacked by Jewish militants operating well inside the Palestinian territory. It then proceeded to occupy the greater part of the Palestinian territory to protect it from further incursions. Egypt,Syria and Lebanon also sent forces. All found heavily fortified Jewish positions throughout the Palestinian territory. The Jewish onslaught was very well planned and showed central coordination. The Arab response was obviously lacking in these qualities; they were clearly taken by surprise. You are simply repeating stale propaganda. Historians know who attacked who.

    Had the the legal successor to the Jewish Agency,the so-called Israeli government,adhered to it's agreement of Nov. 29,1947 there would have been no war on May 15,1948 and today the Palestinians would at least have 45% of their original territory. The Jews were awarded the best: 55%,including almost the entire coastline,all major ports as well as the fertile Galilee. But they had no intention of seriously accepting the Partition Plan; they wanted it all and today they hold 100% of former Mandate Palestine,22.5% of it illegally,as well as the Golan Heights, illegally annexed in 1981.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    400000 arabs who by the partition plan had to live in Jewish State would immediately demand Autonomy.Israel would refuse.Arabs would start the civil war against Jews.The arabs from that heighbouring arab state would run "to help our brothers oppressed by the Zionists".Other arab counries would run to help"our brothers in Palestine".Israel would beat the hell out of them...

    You know the rest of the story.

    Nothing would change and we should be today where we are.There is not enough space in Palestine for Jews and arabs.Finally,someone will have to leave.I hope those who will stay will be Jews.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It was actually the other way around. Up to the British Mandate, the Jewish population was less than 5%:

    *According to Alexander Scholch, GERMAN JEW AND PROFESSIONAL HISTORIAN, the population of Palestine in 1850 had about 350,000 inhabitants, 30% of whom lived in 13 towns; roughly 85% were Muslims(Arabs), 11% were Christians and 4% Jews.Scholch, 1985, p. 503.

    Palestinian Demographics Link up to 1948

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

    The following link gives some UNBIASED statistics on deaths on BOTH sides-see whom has the right to protect themselves from whom-it sure isn't the Israelis:

    http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/10659472@N02/

    The Jews decided they wanted a country-up until then, they had none-they were just a peoples. The British occupiers agreed , and the UN ratified that the Arabs should give up their land so the Jews could have a country-naturally, the Arabs objected-Jews lived peacefully among the Arabs.Funny Americans did not offer half their land for the Jews. The Jews took it upon themselves to steal the land from the Palestinians forming murderous terrorist groups, the Irgun(now Likud) and the Stern gang in particular-the British actually labeled them as such. They slaughtered the Palestinians that stayed and told the others leave or be killed. The Jews of Israel were FOREIGN JEWS with little or NO ties to the Middle East.If the Jews had not become land hungry and blood thirsty misinterpeting the Bible promise of residency as ownership, there would be peace in the Middle East-the Arabs(Ishmael-1st born) were there FIRST and have ALWAYS been the MAJORITY.

    The Arabs of Canaan are the Arabs of Palestine. They were there AT LEAST EQUALLY as long as the Jews/Israelis, but they had a constant presence and a defined land. The Jews were nomadic and had NO land until what was taken from the Palestinians in 1948. Both Jews and Arabs have the same father, Abraham, whom although Semitic, possibly Hebrew, was not considered Jewish. Abraham, his parents, and his ancestry is from Babylon, which is, in fact, INSIDE the Arabian Peninsula, the origin of the Arab peoples.So he may very well have been Arab.

    Palestine is a name which has been widely used since Roman times to refer to the region that includes contemporary Israel and the Palestinian territories, parts of Jordan, and parts of Lebanon and Syria. In its narrow meaning, it refers to the area within the boundaries of the former British Mandate of Palestine (1920-1948) west of the Jordan River.

    Palestine can also refer to the Proposed Palestinian State.

    The name and the borders of Palestine have varied throughout history, though Palestine has certain natural boundaries that justify its historical individuality. Other terms that have been used to refer to all or part of this area include Arabistan, Canaan, Greater Israel, Greater Syria, the Holy Land, Iudaea Province, Israel, "Israel HaShlema", Kingdom of Israel, Kingdom of Jerusalem, Land of Israel, Levant, Retenu (Ancient Egyptian), Southern Syria, and Syria Palestina.

    Early archeological textual reference to the territory of Palestine is found in the Merneptah Stele, dated c. 1200 BCE, containing a recount of Egyptian king Merneptah's victories in the land of Canaan, mentioning place-names such as Gezer, Ashkelon and Yanoam, along with Israel, which is mentioned using a hieroglyphic determinative that indicates a nomad people, rather than a state.

    The promise that is the basis of the term "promised land" is contained in Genesis 15:18-21 of the Hebrew Bible:

    "On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abrham and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates - the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."

    The verse is said to describe what are known as "Borders of the Land" (Gevulot Ha-aretz). In Jewish tradition these borders define the maximum extent of the land promised to the descendants of Abraham through his son Isaac(2nd born-the Jewish lineage and Ishmael the 1st born and the Arab lineage) and grandson Jacob.Even according to Jewish customs, the oldest son, which is Ishmael, is entitled to the father's inheritance, but because Sarah despised Ishmael, she wanted Isaac to get the inheritance and had Abraham exhile Ishmael. Neither is Ishmael illegitimate but the legal son of his SECOND wife Hagar-Genesis 16: "And Sarah Abraham's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abraham had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abraham to be his WIFE(my emphasis).

    The promise is made to Abraham and the descendants of his son Isaac, and Isaac's son Jacob, Abraham's grandson as they are all given promise that their descendants will be given a territory from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates river.No where does it say the Israelis/Jews OWNED the land, nor were they to take it from, and, kill the Palestinians. The Israelis/Jews were given a land ONLY to reside in as many Jews already had among the Palestinians.God clearly states whom the land belongs to-"the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites." Of all these people, only the Palestinians whom are considered Canaanites, are still around. Except for Iran and Israel, Arabs own all of what was Canaan.

    It is Israel whom is illegally occupying the West Bank and Gaza strips, illegally building Jewish ONLY settlements and buffer zones from land stolen from murdered INNOCENT civilian Palestinians using machine guns and tanks, cluster and phosphorous bombs.It is not the Palestinians cutting off power,water, food, medicines, and jobs-just HOW would YOU protect yourself from annhilation by occupiers if your government couldn't?Americans, this is exactly what "the Right to bear arms is all about". If Americans exercised this right, the Israelis would call you terrorists for protecting your land and lives from their attacks.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Gosh Arieh, then only HALF of the Palestinians would have lost their homes and property.

    Which is still 50% too many.

    That's like asking, What if Europeans had only conquered half of the Americas? Would it have been correct to take "only" half the lands of the indigenous people?

    In both instances, it's wrong, no matter what way you look at it.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Sorry, but the question is really foolish.

    It simply could not be the other way.

    Syria considered Palestine always as South Syria.

    But Saudis and Egypt did not want this.

    That's how Palestinian people were invented and Israel has not much to do with that.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.