From Israel’s founding to last month’s attack on Gaza, it has constantly portrayed itself as a victim defending its right to exist from aggressive Arab enemies intent on its destruction. This includes the War of Independence, the 1967 War, the 1982 Lebanon invasion, and multiple invasions of Lebanon and Gaza in the early 2000s. I’ve deliberately omitted the 1956 Suez War because Israel never claimed it was defensive. But it was surely an alliance of colonial powers (Britain and France) together with Israel to overthrow Nasser and take back control of the Suez Canal. As such it is part and parcel of Israel’s wars of aggression and conquest.
In 1948, or so the story goes, the brave Jews of Palestine declared independence in the face of insurmountable odds in the form of Arab armies from Jordan, Egypt and even as far away as Iraq, who poured into Israel in a massive invasion. They somehow managed to pluck victory from the jaws of defeat and the Jewish state was born.
In 1967, Egypt’s fiery dictator Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran and threatened to “throw the Jews” into the sea.” By a miracle of almost divine providence, Israel turned the tables and won a miraculous victory. In 1982, Lebanon had become a nest of Fatah terrorists hijacking planes and engaging in similar acts of terror. Palestinian assassins even murdered an Israeli diplomat in London, which was the precipitating act for Ariel Sharon’s invasion of Lebanon.
Throughout the 2000s, Israel invaded Lebanon and Gaza multiple times either to retaliate against the killing of Israeli troops (Lebanon, 2006) or the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel. These Israeli assaults were always acts of self-defense to root out terrorists who refused to permit Israeli civilians to live in peace.
But a new report in Haaretz based on research in Israeli government archives shows that almost none of this is true. Israel was never the underdog (except perhaps for the first few days of the 1973 War) in its military battles. The notion of a beleaguered country facing enemies many times its own military strength is a myth long-cultivated by the Zionist movement and pro-Israel apologists.
In 1948, Ben Gurion knew that declaring a state would bring an Arab invasion. But he believed he had the upper hand and that his own forces were more than capable of turning back the threat of the combined Arab armies. He was right.
In 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike which decapitated the Egyptian air force, thus ensuring an Israeli victory. In 1982, Sharon exploited the attack in Shmuel Argov by the renegade Abu Nidal faction to remake Lebanon to Israel’s liking. He sought, once and for all, to eliminate the PLO from the country and to proceed to bring the Phalangist Christian fascists to power. By installing what would in effect be a pro-Israeli puppet regime, the Israeli defense minister sought to remake the geo-politics of the region to Israel’s liking. Due to the Sabra and Shatilla massacre and assassination of Israel’s designated presidential candidate, Bashir Gemayel, things did not turn out as Sharon had anticipated.
The narrative of self-defense and a Jewish state beset by enemies is belied by a far more realistic counter-narrative. In fact, Israel’s founding prime minister, David Ben Gurion had, since the 1920s, planned the expulsion of indigenous Palestinians. One of the pillars of Zionist ideology was the necessity of a Jewish majority to ensure that the new state would be by, of, and for its Jewish citizens. As such, Palestinians were a threat; and eliminating them, as he did during the Nakba, fulfilled a long-standing Zionist vision.
But that was not all. Once Israel assured its internal demographic Jewish supremacy, it turned its attention to the frontline Arab states. It sought to ensure that none of them could threaten Israel’s interests. And it planned to do so by aggressive conquest, occupation and absorption of the territory of its rivals. It would fight wars of conquest, not wars of self-defense.
Adam Raz begins his Haaretz report:
For years, most Israeli historiography maintained that the country’s decision makers were taken by surprise by the fruits of the victory that were harvested with lightning speed in June 1967. “The war,” Defense Minister Moshe Dayan said, three days after its conclusion, “developed and rolled into fronts that were not intended and were not preplanned by anyone, including by me.” On the basis of these and other statements, the view took root that the conquest of the territories in the war was the result of a rapid slide down a slippery slope, a new reality that no one wanted.
However, historical documentation stored in the Israel State Archives and the Israel Defense Forces and Defense Establishment Archives in recent years demands that we cast doubt on the credence of that view.
In fact, the very lands Israel has occupied and annexed, and other swaths of territory it invaded but did not retain, were long coveted by Israel’s military planners going back well before 1967 (in some cases as far back as the early 1950s):
The documents describe detailed preparations that were made in the military in the years before 1967, with the intention of organizing…the control of territories that the defense establishment assessed – with high certainty – would be conquered in the next war. A perusal of the information indicates that the takeover and retention of these areas – the West Bank from Jordan, the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt, and the Golan Heights from Syria – were not a by-product of the fighting, but the manifestation of a strategic approach and prior preparations.
In 1961, an IDF military strategist prepared a report outlining the anticipated conquest of the West Bank in a future war, a vision realized six years later in the 1967 War. Two years later (1963), the army’s operations branch, then headed by future chief of staff and prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, drew up a detailed plan that envisioned not only the conquest of the occupied territories, but set its sights on far bolder objectives:
…[The] directive [detailed the] the organization of the [Israeli] military government in the territories. This order sheds light, in its words, on Israel’s “expected directions of expansion,” which in the assessment of the security personnel would be the focus of the next war. These territories included the West Bank, Sinai, the Syrian heights and Damascus, and southern Lebanon up to the Litani River.
Called the “Organization Order – Military Government in State of Emergency,” it stated that, “The IDF’s thrust to transfer the war to the enemy’s territories will necessarily bring about expansion [into] and conquest of areas beyond the state’s borders.”
In other words, four years before the 1967 War Israel was already planning to take by military conquest almost all the territory it eventually did occupy. The only objective it did not realize then was the occupation of southern Lebanon. That would have to wait another fifteen years till Sharon’s invasion.
The report envisions two possible scenarios after such military conquest:
…[It] stated that it would be necessary to install a military government quickly, because “these conquests might last for a short time only and we will have to evacuate the territories following international pressure or an arrangement.” The part that followed, however, was meant for those who would be tasked with administering the military government in the future occupied area, and it hints at the intention of the order’s authors: “However, a convenient political situation might develop which will make it possible to retain occupied territory indefinitely.”
It is no accident that Israel’s Occupation of Palestine has lasted for well over 50 years. Indeed, this was the intention of those who conquered it from the beginning. So the next time you read claims by Israel’s defenders that it never wanted to become an occupier; or that it never wanted war with its neighbors, remember this important piece of Zionist historical research.
Another little known fact is that the projected occupation of these Arab lands was to be modeled on the Israel’s Emergency Regulations which governed the lives of Israel’s Palestinian citizens until 1966. Those Palestinians not driven out of their homes in 1948 and who remained behind were subjected to martial law which severely restricted their everyday lives and set the stage for the apartheid, racist treatment they suffer up to this day:
Involving officers of the military government that had been imposed on Israel’s Palestinian citizens since 1948 in the planning was logical, because the organizational and military framework that operated vis a vis that community constituted the basis for rule in the territories that would be conquered in a war. In 1963, the units of the military government already had 15 years of experience in imposing “order” and supervision over those Palestinian citizens, by means of a strict regime of permits. From a military perspective, it made sense for this body to serve as the model for the structure of rule in the territories that would be conquered in the next war.
Let’s see… who is not able to distinguish between 48 when the freshly created Israeli state was attacked by multiple larger forces and managed to defend itself in clear self defence, to 67 when Israel instigated and triggered a war then refused to admit the occupation?
Israeli messianics, settlers (and self-interested corrupt politicians like Netanyahu), Islamist ideologists like Hamas. American evangalists and an ever growing anti Islamic coalition of neo-Nazis world wide. Who does see the obvious difference? All peace seeking Israelis and liberal parties, all of the Palestinians working daily in co-existence with Israelis and the various secular national movement factions, and pretty much all other countries of the world.
You are in good company
How do you explain the numerous bombings and massacres and the ethnic cleansing of hundred of thousands of Palestinian Arabs by Zionist militias even before the Brits left Palestine (that is before the Arab armies entered Palestine) and in areas outside the territory supposed to belong to the Jewish State according to the Partition Plan ?
If you want a few names: Sa’sa’, Hotel Semiramis, Deir Yassin, the list is long ….
“hundred of thousands? a bit of exaggeration. i was at a seminar at the Semiras hotel in 1971. what may have happened there before I do not know but then it was in tip-top condition.
from the other side because of the declaration of the state of Israel there were 850,000 Arab Jews thrown out of various Arab states with nowhere to go. I guess things worked out.
@ avram: Your comment is a complete non sequitur. It is a historical fact that a million Palestinians were expelled during Nakba. And it is a historical fact that “hundreds of thousands” were expelled even before the war began. Whether a hotel was in “tip top” condition 4 years aftger the war is utterly irrelevant.
As for what happened to the Arab Jews, it was in no way comparable. Nor is there any evidence to support your claim that “850,000 Jews were thrown out” of Arab countries. In some countries the Zionists engaged in false flag attacks which caused a stampede of indigenous Jewish inhabitants to flee to Israel, which was the intent of the Zionist terror attacks. In some countries, Jews left voluntarily because they chose to do so. And in some countries there were anti-Semitic atacks which did drive them to flee. As I said, an entirely different set of historical circumstances. And only Islamophobe/Arabophobes like you make a mess of such history for purely ideological purposes.
Do not comment further in this thread.
Also Jews went to Israel as part of recruitment to help build Israel, an in-migration,a “coming home”. “Come home to Israel”.
[comment deleted: comments must be on topic and relate directly to the post. Comments criticizing my editorial control of comments are off topic. Your next comment violation will mean moderation.]
@Avram Stern
Haganah planted bombs in the Hotel Semiramis in the Qatamon neighbourhood on January 5th 1948, dozens of people were killed, mostly Christian Palestinians (including the owner and most of his family including children) who were attending a Christmas gathering, also a Spanish diplomat.
We really don’t care whether you went to that hotel in the 1970s, your ******* !
@ Anders: Your nonsense proves precisely my point: military history shows that a large military force that is poorly trained and of low fighting ability can easily be overwhelmed by a smaller force that has high unit cohesion, strong motivation and is well-equipped. This is precisely what happened in 1948. The only force that was a match for the Palmach was the Jordanian army, which had been trained by the British. And the hardest fighting was indeed in the Jordanian sector. But even there, the Palmach largely prevailed after extended struggle.
The 1948 War was provoked by Ben Gurion’s declaration of independence. He knew it would provoke war and knew if he held off with such a declaration there would not be war. He chose a path that would deliberately lead to war. So calling it a war of self-defense is true only in the sense that once he provoked the war Israel was invaded and it had to defend itself.
Utter nonsense. Liberal “peace seeking Israelis?” Where? In any of the mainstream parties? Nah. Palestinians working for co-existence with Israelis? Who? Palestinians want their rights, full stop. Co-existence is a smokescreen obscuring the need for a political settlement that offers Palestinians full rights and equality in a single state.
Co-existence is the only alternative to the ethnic cleansing and/or utter annihilation of some 8 million people, either on the Palestinian side or on the Jewish side of this conflict. A political settlement that offers Palestinians full rights is utterly indistinguishable, in its end result, from the holocaust. In moral terms, such a political settlement is analogous to the complete ethnic cleansing of all lands between the Jordan and the sea.
@ DV: “Co-existence” is a concept created by the occupier to make his actions more palatable. If there is “Co-existence” in some vague form, the victim harbors the illusion that the current system might somehow, someday be reformed into one that is a little less damaging to him/her.
Real, true equality and rights for Palestinians and Israeli Jews lies in a single democratic state. That is the only solution that means anything.
Arguing that a single state solution is another Holocaust is not only a lie and deeply offensive. But it violates this blog’s comment rules. Nazi parallels must be carefully drawn and supported by historical fact. Do not use such comparisons when they are entirely invalid (as in your case) . Evoking the Holocaust is a shameful bit of pandering and absolutely not permitted here.
No Palestinian is interested in ethnic cleansing of Israeli Jews. This is the “throw the Jews into the sea” tired old nostrum dressed up in New clothes. Not even Hamas supports this. Other than some far left outliers this view is completely non-existent among Palestinians.
You are done in this thread. You’ve had your two shots at hasbara-peddling. Move on.
You really are a serious historian too. If it’s all so obvious one can only wonder how it is you who finds himself in the same bed with Chrstian fundamentalists, Jewish Messianics and Islamists and all the rest of the world begs to differ. It might have something to do with adapting theories to facts instead of adapting facts to suit the theory
@ Anders: I have absolutely nothing in common with the list of reprobates you mention. Are you really claiming “Christian fundamentalists and Jewish messianics” support a one state solution and a democratic secular state of all its citizens as I do? Because if you are, either I’d like you to introduce me to them; or you’re full ‘o s*t.
You are done in this thread.
It makes sense that leaders had to keep up the narrative of the need for defense on every front;Israel is beleaguered by forever enemies that want to push it into the sea. Be fearful. Remember what happened to us in history recent and for centuries. The need to push this narrative was also about international law which makes it illegal for a member country (or any country?) to capture territory through war other than in defense.The long occupation rests legally on that claim of the need for defense if I am not mistaken. So the defense story must be maintained. Were the case to be adjudicated by an international entity somehow, Israel would lose. The United States has been behind Israel’s long occupation too, if not in word (though that) in deeds for sure.
The resistance to the occupation, both Palestinian and from the nearly evaporated Israeli peace movement there and abroad, becomes anti-Israel.In the case of the Palestinians, it’s evidence of the terrorist threat they pose still aiming to push Israel into the sea.
This a sort of communal psychosis or PTSD/ insecurity, always remembering suffering of the Jews in history, especially the Holocaust. Israelis/Jews can’t trust anyone. And for “tiny Israel” they must keep playing up threats all around. It seems to be self-fulfilling.
This narrative is full of bunk.
According to SIlverstein, Israel wanted to go to war with Jordan.
One item can disprove all of this. Israel had at the beginning of the 1967 sent a message to Jordan pleading with them to stay out of the war.
@ Your Fault: OF course Israel didn’t want to fight the Jordanian Legion. It was the best fighting force in the Arab world. And of course Israel knew that Jordan would fight alongside its Arab brothers and the IDF was prepared to take on the combined Arab armies as it did and win, as it did.
But sure, if Jordan had stayed out of the war Israel would have fought the Syrians and Egyptians and beaten them even less than 7 days. So what’s your point? No need to answer that question–it speaks for itself.