What if the Arabs had recognized Israel in 1948?

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

What if the Arabs had recognized Israel in 1948?
by Cost-of-Progress
07-Apr-2011
 

What if the Arabs had recognized Israel in 1948?                    3/20/2011

Summary of an essay from Abdulateef Al-Mulhim

When in Saudi, aside from the English language programs such as CNN International, BBC and Bloomberg on the tube, there is the Arab News in print that one can scan for news and opinions of the day.
On March 20th, while I was quietly celebrating the Persian New Year, I saw an article in the Arab News newspaper from a retired Commodore of the Saudi Navy (Royal Navy , that is) that caught my eyes. His name is Abdulateef Al-Mulhim. Once you get passed his lament for lost Arab Monarchies in the region since 1948, he makes a few good points which I have summarized here. I must stress that these are his words and not mine and to make clear no plagiarism is intended here. So, before you start calling me AIPAC or MOSAD, know that I only summarized and restated his words.

As I have noted in the past, I personally do not concern myself too much with the Arab-Israeli conflict especially since the dawn of the theocracy in Iran, but I believe Mr. Al-Mulbim argument here is undeniable and reinforces the fact how this conflict is used by the regional thugs – or governments – to further their own cause and strengthen their own position and grip on power than to help the Palestinians. This is also an issue that depending on how it finally evolves could have grave consequences on the security and prosperity of the region, namely our own Iran.

I particularly recommend reading this to the few bleeding heart chest beaters of the regime of the unelected clergy who roam the pages of Iranian.com. Enjoy!


Throughout the past decades, there have been many chances for the Palestinians to make peace with the Israelis and solve their problem, especially, the Camp David agreement between Israel and Egypt. What if the Arabs and the Palestinians accepted the presence of Israel and its right to exist on May 14, 1948? How would the region be different than what it is today? Would the region be more democratic, more advanced and more stable than it is today?

If that had been the case:
- Palestinians would have been able to free themselves from the hollow promises of some Arab dictators who kept telling them that the refugees will be going back to their homes and Israel will be sent to the bottom of the sea.
- Some of the Arab leaders would not have used the conflict for their own agenda to suppress their people and stay in power (gee, who and what does that remind you of?)
- No Arab politician longing to become a leader and a hero in the Arab world would have been able to shout out loud that his intention was to destroy Israel, (without ever mobilizing a single soldier).
- There would have been no need for a coup in Egypt against King Farouq in 1952, and no attack on Egypt in 1956 by UK, France and Israel.
- There would have been no war in June 1967 and the size of Israel would not have been increased and the Arabs would not have needed a UN Resolution to beg Israel to go back to pre-1967 borders.
- There would have been no war of attrition between Egypt and Israel that killed more Egyptians than Israelis.
- US would not have become an strategic ally of Israel (because of the war of attrition). Most people may not be aware that the Israelis fought that war with mainly French and British weapons. At the time, the US Government refused to supply the Israelis with more modern aircraft and weaponry.
- The Palestinian “cause” would not have been used to topple another stable monarchy in Iraq and replacing it with a bloody dictatorship (led by Abdul Karim Qassim). While the bloodshed continued in Iraq then, one brigade sent to “free” the Pals turned around and went back to take over Baghdad. Years later, Saddam used the excuse to liberate Jerusalem and invaded Kuwait.
- The 1968 coup would not have taken place in Libya and Qaddafi would not have taken over.
- Other coups such as those in Syria, Yemen and Sudan would not have taken place.

Mr. Al-Mulhim even goes as far as saying this:
“Even a non-Arab country, Iran, used – and still uses - the Palestinian issue to divert the minds of its people from internal unrest and oppression. Khomeini declared that he would liberate Jerusalem via Baghdad and Ahmadinejad making bellicose statements about Israel though not even a single firecracker has been fired from Iran toward Israel.”

He goes on to conclude that now the Palestinians are on their own as each Arab country is busy with its own crisis and struggle to survive. For now, the Arab countries have put the Arab-Israeli conflict on hold.


It is hard to reconcile this with how the theocracy in Iran beats the Palestinian drum as these are trying times for every regime and system in the region. I would add to the remarks about Iran’s bleeding heart stance that it is also trying to score points with the Arabs and Hezbollah (their proxy army). The more people support your existence, the better your chances are for survival.

Cheers!

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by Cost-of-ProgressCommentsDate
The Real Iranian Top Gun
15
Aug 21, 2012
It Happened
92
Jul 16, 2012
Work Sets You Free
11
Jul 16, 2012
more from Cost-of-Progress
 
LoverOfLiberty

Bavafa,

by LoverOfLiberty on Sat Apr 09, 2011 03:26 AM PDT

Bavafa: "No one really knows what would have happened if Arabs had just swallowed yet another imposition and theft in 1948 (surprising they did not considering they are quit use to it) but I think what is more relevant and matters, is what we have now, today, and what should be done or accepted."

I'm curious.

So, the earlier imposition that you imply here is...?

 

(PS - Sorry, but I think it is more accurate to say that the Vietnam War was a civil war with roots dating back before WWII that was "started" by Vietnamese people and largely fought between Vietnamese people.  There were countries that supported either side, of course, such as France, the US and China. But, I think it is patently false to imply that overall conflict was "started" by outside forces.)


  •  
LoverOfLiberty

COP,

by LoverOfLiberty on Sat Apr 09, 2011 02:58 AM PDT

Why just consider the UN Partition Plan of 1947/48?

Between 1920 and 1948 there were over 20 proposals that were offered up by various parties regarding the future of the Mandate of Palestine.

And, if you ask me, the Arabs would have been better off if they had worked out a compromise with the Jews based on one of those earlier proposals than the 1947/48 UN proposal.

For example, the Peel Commission (1936/37) and subsequent Woodhead Commission (1938) proposals offered the Palestinian Muslims between 85 and 95% of the land comprising Palestine during a period when the Jewish percentage of the population in the Mandate was between 27 and 30%.  (In comparison, the percentage of Palestinian Muslims during that period was around 60 to 63%.)

So, in other words, the Palestinian Muslims essentially turned down an offer that would have given them 85 to 95% of the land within Palestine when they represented only 60 to 63% of the people of Palestine.

If you ask me, I think the Palestinian Muslims really screwed themselves, so to speak, when they didn't compromise with their Jewish neighbors concerning those proposals during that 1936-1938 period.

Ten years later, of course, the UN Partition Plan of 1947/48 offered them much less.

 


  •  
Siavash300

The problem originated from Islam and Judism

by Siavash300 on Fri Apr 08, 2011 09:33 AM PDT

Both these religions promoted "Eye for Eye and tooth for tooth". That is why we see conflict keep going in the middle east. On the other hand, Christianity promotes forgiveness: if someone smack your face turn around to smack other side. That is the reason we don't see another Palestine in western part of Turkey once Turks took over those lands in 1922. Those lands belonged to Greek prior to 1922. Unlike Palestinians, Greeks didn't make a battle out of occupation because they were Christian.

Sincerely,

Siavash  


  •  
Cost-of-Progress

Gentlemen

by Cost-of-Progress on Thu Apr 07, 2011 03:33 PM PDT

Thanks for reading my summary of Mr Al-Mulhim's solid argument about the recognition of Israel.

Mehrdad, I sometimes do the same thing, read the title and immediately draw a conclusion. Glad you went back and read the post. I know how you feel about this topic and I know how I feel. BTW, the points made here affect the entire region which unfortunately includes the NON-ARAB IRAN.

As for being away, I wouldn't call it a vacation. here read about it here:

//iranian.com/main/blog/cost-progress/norooz-arabestan

AO jon, being CoP's blog, I am sure the alliance of reesh-o-pashm will stay away. Besides, the points made are strong and cannot be challenged.

I do have one question for them though: What has the Arab world accomplished by NOT recognizing Israel all these decades? The answer is JACK SHIT!

____________

IRAN FIRST

____________


  •  
Bavafa

Well, since I rant about

by Bavafa on Thu Apr 07, 2011 01:21 PM PDT

Well, since I rant about the blog earlier, I thought it would be only fair to read and comment about its context as well so with that said here it goes:

It is not clear how much of the assumptions stated here are Abdulateef Al-Mulhim and how much of it is the author of this blog, COP, either way I believe they are what they are, only assumptions.

No one really knows what would have happened if Arabs had just swallowed yet another imposition and theft in 1948 (surprising they did not considering they are quit use to it) but I think what is more relevant and matters, is what we have now, today, and what should be done or accepted. I also believe we ought not to divert blame as it is important for future of man kind. Blaming the invasion and the subsequent killing of Iraqis by Americans, even partly on Palestinian issue, it would be the same as blaming a raped woman for dressing provocatively.

It is not an exaggeration that most ME regimes, IRI specially misuses the Palestinian-Israeli issue to divert attention from their own failed policies and crimes but that is not a fault of Palestinians nor should they accept some thing that is unacceptable to them because of some miserable regimes in their neighborhood.

Going back to the assumptions made, likewise there is no reason NOT to believe that Israelis would have been just happy with their 1948 acquisition. There are ample evidence that 1967 and other wars were not all started by the Arabs, much like the Vietnam war was not started by the Vietnamese.

Back to today, there has been an all Arab initiative on the table for a number years now that will recognize Israel with full diplomatic relation if Israel accept 1967 border, which is the legally recognized border but no bite on the Israeli side. Likewise, based on the recent Wiki leak, we all know that much more concessions was made by the Palestinians and still no joy.

Mehrdad


  •  
Bavafa

COP jaan,

by Bavafa on Thu Apr 07, 2011 12:00 PM PDT

First, welcome back. I trust you were on vacation for Norooz or any other reason and hope you had fun. You were missed here for a while.

Regarding your blog, don't meant to be critical here but for some of the folks that often have cried foul that this is IRANIAN site only , we are seeing awfully alot of writings about Arabs or Israel. Again, don't get me wrong I think it is every one's prerogative to write or concern themselves with any issue they like and ought not to be Iran or politics related. I welcome all articles. Just hope when others do it, we don't object as much.

Cheers & good to see you back

Mehrdad


  •  
Anonymous Observer

Oh, oh...COP Jaan...

by Anonymous Observer on Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:51 AM PDT

wait for the clueless, beret wearing, militant, bleeding heart, "citizens of the world" to descend upon your blog now!

Good luck my friend . :-)) 


  •