This is part 3 of our introduction articles. We highly recommend reading them in order.
In mid May 1948, the state of Israel was officially established on the ruins of Palestine. Having ethnically cleansed approximately 80% of the Palestinians in its newly acquired territory, the following years would consolidate Zionist control of the land and pave the way for discriminatory ethnocratic laws and policies that would institutionalize the theft of everything Palestinian.
The ethnic cleansing of Palestine would not stop after the war; Palestinians in the Naqab, as well as those close to the ceasefire lines, would continue to face mass expulsions into the 1950s. In the same period, Israel issued the infamous Absentee’s Property Law. This law was instrumental in systematically seizing the property of all the refugees it had created, including their homes, farms, land and even the contents of their bank accounts. Through this law, the state took control of everything remaining behind when the refugees fled, and if not “contested” or “claimed”, they would then become the property of the state, free to be utilized in any way it saw fit. Given the fact that any refugee attempting to return was shot, you can see how this law served merely as a fig leaf to legitimize what can only be described as naked theft.
This in conjunction with the Land Acquisitions Law allowed for the mass transfer of the entire Palestinian economy to the Israeli state. Practically overnight, the state gained control of over 739,750 agricultural acres, the vast majority of which were of excellent quality as well as 73,000 houses, 7800 workshops and 6 million pounds. This dropped the cost of settling a Zionist family in Palestine from 8000$ to 1500$, effectively subsidizing the creation of the Israeli state and kickstarting its economy.
“..always feared that a personality might arise such as arose among the Arab rulers in the seventh century or like [Kemal Ataturk] who arose in Turkey after its defeat in the First World War. He raised their spirits, changed their character, and turned them into a fighting nation. There was and still is a danger that Nasser is this man.” This would also be a chance to acquire some of the territories Israel did not conquer in 1948.
While this aggression would be a military success, it would ultimately become a political defeat, as the three countries were pushed into withdrawing their forces after world outcry and threats from the United States. This only strengthened Nasser’s position and cemented him as the most popular leader across the Arab world.
The United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was created in the aftermath of the 1956 war on Egypt to secure peace, and patrol both sides of the border between Egypt and Israel. Despite being the aggressor, Israel refused to cooperate with the UN force, and rejected the idea of any peace-keeping force on their side of the border, while Egypt accepted the UN force and cooperated with them. Not only did Israel refuse to cooperate with UNEF, but over its decade-long existence Israeli troops “regularly patrolled alongside the line and now and again created provocations by violating it“. This, however, was only the tip of the iceberg of Israeli provocations towards its neighbors after 1956. These would lay down the groundwork for Israel’s next war on its neighbors.
During these years of rising tensions, the Palestinian refugees did not sit idly by awaiting a savior. They started organizing themselves in their tent cities, and fought back with the goal of returning home. In this context, Palestinian leadership would slip away from the traditional urban and clan elites to those willing to pick up a rifle. It no longer mattered what your status was prior to the forced exodus, what was of worth now was how you would struggle to reclaim your stolen home.
A few years later in 1964, and with sponsorship from the Arab League, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) would emerge from this new refugee-led leadership. With the goals of liberating Palestine and allowing the refugees to return home, the PLO would come to be the official representative and voice for the entirety of the Palestinian people, both in Palestine and in the diaspora. The creation of the PLO in 1964 is why many erroneously believe that Palestinian identity was “invented” in the 1960s. Needless to say, as with all freedom movements at the time, the PLO as well as all Palestinian resistance groups were designated as “terrorists” by Israel and its imperialist allies. Meanwhile, the PLO would be embraced as an ally to liberation movements across the global south.
On the morning of June the 5th 1967, Israel launched a sneak attack on Egypt decimating its air force. Thus, began the 1967 war, which would last less than a week and enable Israel to finally conquer the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Egyptian Sinai desert and the Syrian Golan heights. Israel claims to this day that these strikes were preemptive self-defense, citing a number of concerns, such as Nasser’s forces in Sinai, the closing of the straits of Tiran and the situation in the Syrian Golan heights. As per usual, these claims should not be taken at face value, as even the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian villages which had signed non-aggression pacts with the Yishuv was framed as self-defense. If you are interested in a detailed debunking of these pretexts, you can [read more about this here].
The 1967 war did not materialize out of a vacuum, nor should it be understood as such. It constituted a continuation of Israel’s wars against the region to achieve maximum territorial expansion. Particularly, this war would finish what began in 1956. Following the political defeat in the previous war, much of Israel’s military actions were designed to goad Nasser and other Arab leaders into an attack, an example of this can be seen in the disproportionate Israeli assault on Samu in 1966, or the frequent unprovoked bombings of Syrian border positions. This is hardly our unique interpretation of events; at the time this was widely understood. For example the British ambassador in Israel explained that this tactic aimed to spawn a “deliberately contrived preventive war“.
There is ample evidence to show that Israel was intent on provoking a war. This war would finally give them an opportunity to expand into territories not conquered in 1948, as Ben Gurion lamented. This becomes exceedingly clear once we examine the diplomatic record, and the numerous times Israel sabotaged any attempt at mediation or diplomacy to avert the outbreak of war.
For example, throughout much of the crisis of 1967 Egypt expressed its willingness to resurrect and expand the Egyptian-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission (EIMAC), which was officially rejected by Israel in May. In the same month, the UN secretary-General personally attempted to avert an escalation by traveling to Cairo to mediate between the Egyptians and Israelis. Once again, Egypt agreed to the proposal in an attempt to lower tensions. Israel rejected the proposal. Brian Urquhart, who was a senior UN official at the time, wrote in his memoir that “Israel, no doubt having decided on military action, turned down [UN General Secretary] U Thant’s ideas“.
There were many other attempts at averting an escalation, for instance, the United States also tried its hand at mediation. High ranking American diplomats and politicians met with Nasser in late May in a meeting that was deemed a “breakthrough in the crisis”. In this meeting Nasser showed flexibility and a willingness to include the World Court to arbitrate in some of the issues. However, what was most promising was that Nasser agreed to send his vice-president to Washington within a week in an attempt to reach a diplomatic settlement for the crisis.
You may be wondering why you’ve never heard of such a meeting, or what its results were. That is because two days before the meeting, Israel decided to launch its surprise attack, torpedoing all efforts to reach a non-violent diplomatic solution to the crisis.
This shocked even the Americans, Dean Rusk, the Secretary of State at the time wrote that:
“They attacked on a Monday, knowing that on Wednesday the Egyptian vice-president would arrive in Washington to talk about re-opening the Strait of Tiran. We might not have succeeded in getting Egypt to reopen the strait, but it was a real possibility.”
Following the diplomatic chain of events at the time leaves no shadow of a doubt that Israel was purposely seeking war. It rebuffed all attempts at mediation and even deceived and humiliated its ally, the United States, by allowing it to continue with the charade of diplomacy when Israel knew it was going to attack anyway. On the other hand, this shows Nasser to have been far more flexible, and amenable to diplomatic solutions than many suggest. Yet until this day, Israel is portrayed as being forced into a defensive war, while Nasser is portrayed as a warmonger.
In his memoir, U Thant, the UN Secretary General at the time wrote that “if only Israel had agreed to permit UNEF to be stationed on its side of the border, even for a short duration, the course of history could have been different. Diplomatic efforts to avert the pending catastrophe might have prevailed; war might have been averted.” This was further confirmed by Odd Bull, chief of staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) at the time, who stated that:
“it is quite possible that the 1967 war could have been avoided’ had Israel acceded to the Secretary-General’s request.“
“This entire story about the danger of extermination was invented and exaggerated after the fact to justify the annexation of new Arab territories”.
Following this war, Israel would come to control the entirety of what was once mandatory Palestine. The Jordanians and Egyptians were pushed out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip respectively, and these areas were now subjected to Israeli military occupation. In addition to this, the Syrian Golan Heights as well as the Sinai Peninsula were seized by Israel. Similar to the 1948 war, the 1967 war provided cover for more ethnic cleansing campaigns. By the end of the war, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians would be ethnically cleansed from various areas of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Over 100,000 Syrians would also be ethnically cleansed from the Golan Heights, and their villages and communities demolished and erased.
This defeat would come to be known as the Naksa, Arabic for setback. It would also crush the spirits of the Palestinians and the wider Arab population in general.
After decades of perfecting colonial control mechanisms for Palestinians inside the green line, Israel was more than equipped to impose an effective military governing system on the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In 1966, Israel would end its martial law regulations for Palestinian villages inside the green line only to impose them once again in the West Bank and Gaza Strip after its victory in 1967.
It was according to this plan that the colonial settlement enterprise in the West Bank and Gaza Strip was birthed. Settlements are colonies built on land under Israeli occupation outside the green line, and are open only to Jewish Israelis. Initially, Israel constructed settlements in all the territories it seized in the 1967 war, including the Sinai and Golan heights. For reasons which we will discuss in the next articles, the settlements in the Gaza Strip and Sinai were dismantled over time. However, in the West Bank and Golan heights, this has only worsened. There are over 200 settlements and outposts dotting the entirety of these areas. These settlements are home to over 600,000 settlers, living on stolen and occupied territory. According to international law, these settlements are absolutely illegal, and their existence is a stark violation of the Geneva conventions and other international norms.
If you were to look at the distribution of these settlements all across the West Bank, you will notice that there is a striking resemblance between their positions and the territory outlined in the Allon plan to be permanently seized by Israel. This is by design, and Israeli policy since the 60s has been to change the facts on the ground as much as possible so as to enable the theft of these lands. This colonization drive persists to this very day through various annexations and land confiscations, and did not even stop during times of peace negotiations. As a matter of fact, it accelerated during times of negotiations because the Israelis knew that the Palestinians would not want to jeopardize the negotiations they so desperately needed to establish a state. In addition to the settlements, the West Bank is dissected by military firing ranges, nature reserves and many other legalistic schemes to deny Palestinians access. This dissection is so severe, that the West Bank has jokingly come to be known as the West Bank archipelago, where small pockets of Palestinians are surrounded by Israeli controlled zones. This will be further elaborated upon in the next introductory article.
Despite the death of Nasser, Egypt remained determined to take back the territories it lost in the 1967 war. With the help of Syria, who had also lost its Golan Heights, they put together a plan to retake control of their occupied areas. This came in the form of the 1973 war, which was a gamechanger in the region.
In the first hours of the war, Egypt under the leadership of Anwar Sadat, was able to cross the Suez Canal and overwhelm the Bar Lev line, which was constructed by Israel to fend off any Egyptian attack. On the northern front, the Syrians were able to advance well into the occupied Golan heights. These early military victories were ultimately reversed as Israel strengthened its position with the aid of the United States. While the Arab forces would be repulsed, the war served as a warning sign to Israel that it cannot forever guarantee that it would always be a victor in war.
This laid the groundwork for the 1978 Camp David accords with Egypt, where the Sinai would be returned to Egypt (with certain stipulations), in exchange for peace, normalization and the Egyptian recognition of Israel. Furthermore, the fledgling Israeli colonies in the Sinai would be dismantled. Egypt would be the first Arab state to officially recognize Israel, and would begin to reorient itself towards the United States and the West Bloc.
Among the various clauses and provisions of the Camp David accords was the condition that the rights of the Palestinian people were to be recognized, and that some form of autonomy would be granted to the Palestinians. While vague and noncommittal, this would eventually pave the way for the secret negotiations between the PLO and Israel.
The Syrians, however, would not fare as well. The Syrian Golan heights remain occupied to this day, and the state of war between Syria and Israel has technically never ended. Israel has used this as a pretext to illegally annex the Golan heights, and colonize it in a manner similar to the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
This new status quo, and the perceived shift in the balance of power would ultimately culminate in the Palestinian Intifada and the Oslo accords, which would for the first time allow the PLO leadership to return to Palestine in an endeavor to establish a Palestinian state. This will be discussed in depth in the next article.
