Top-Rated Free Essay
Preview

Who was most responsible for the ‘Nakba’ and Arab defeat in the first Arab-Israeli War of 1948-49?

Powerful Essays
1847 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Who was most responsible for the ‘Nakba’ and Arab defeat in the first Arab-Israeli War of 1948-49?
The Arab-Israeli War of 1948-49 was an extremely significant event in the history of Arab-Israeli conflict. At the time it was the first military conflict the new state of Israel has been involved in. Never before had its forces been truly tested in the field of conflict, and its military capabilities was still relatively unknown. However it was significant as it highlighted the true power the Israelis had, with the result of a crushing defeat for the Arabs, and the Israeli’s ability to retain the independence of their newly created state. However there is much disagreement over which side was in fact responsible for the ‘Nakba’ (catastrophe in Arabic). Although the Israeli success can be seen as major indicator of their military strength, it can also be judged that due to the weaknesses of the Arab coalition and the difficulties they faced during the war, this may have been the most significant factor in contributing to the ‘Nakba’. A piece of evidence that strongly supports the view that the Israeli’s were responsible for the Nakba and overall Arab defeat is Brooman, J, Conflict in Palestine: Jews, Arabs and the Middle-East Since 1900 (p.11-12). The evidence that supports this hypothesis is when it states that the Israeli army’s strength had been raised to ‘nearly a million’ and that due to this and their additional increase in weaponry, the Arabs ‘could not match the strength of the Jews’. This clearly highlights that the Israelis had been long preparing for conflict and at no stage had defeat been seen as a possible outcome. Evidence of the Israelis preparing their forces for conflict can be shown further by Scott-Baumann, Crisis in the Middle East: Israel and the Arab States 1945-2007 (p.23-34). Despite stating that ‘at the start of the war, the Israelis only had about 30,000 soldiers’ and ‘inferior’ weapons, they had built up their army to ‘65,000 by July’ and had nearly “100,000 arms” by December 1948. To add to this, the Israelis had used the UN enforced truces to obtain more vital equipment from Europe, and as a result were “better armed for the rest of the war”. Once again this is clear evidence of the Israelis superior preparation and overall military strength and capability in comparison to their Arab opponents. To further this, Scott-Baumann argues that because roughly “25,000” Israelis had fought in the British army during the Second World War, it had led to them obtaining ‘valuable experience in training, organisation and technology’, which the Arabs didn’t receive. In comparison, the only Arab force that was as well-trained and equipped as the Israelis was the “10,000 of the Arab League of Transjordan”, which highlights the severe lack of quality training given to the Arab forces. By and large, the preparation, superior numbers, and quantity and quality of weaponry available to the Israelis was clearly a major factor in contributing to the Arab defeat and therefore highlights the Israelis as being responsible for this. An argument that also supports the view that the Israelis were responsible for the Nakba was the support and assistance they received from many western states, again which the Arabs did not have. The assistance given to the Israelis stemmed back to the fact that the Zionists had wanted Britain to agree to a separate Jewish state, and to leave Palestine. They had agreed that this was more possible to be achieved by going through the US. They would receive support from the American Zionists of whom could pressurise the American government into agreeing to a separate Jewish State. Evidence of American Zionist pressuring and lobbying congress is found in Scott-Baumann (Ibid., p.17). Here he states that they “launched a propaganda offensive” and “lobbied members of government and Congress, in order to gain support”. This in turn led to the accomplishment of their first aim; getting Truman to support the partition of Palestine. This partition, which had been formally agreed upon by the UN General Assembly, gave the Jews the larger area of land, which was shown to have strong international support. This was extremely significant during the war, and gave the Israelis an important advantage over the Arabs, which ultimately contributed to the Nakba and the defeat of the Arabs. This can backed up by evidence from Pavlov, M, The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition. Here he contributed the Israeli victory down to the fact that the forces had significant ‘financial, military and other support from the USA, and other imperialist countries’. This was a major advantage for the Israelis that once again the Arabs did not receive. This therefore supports the view further that the Israelis were responsible for their overall victory and in turn the defeat of the Arabs. However, it is also suggested that due to British Suppression during the Arab revolt of 1936-39, this indirectly contributed to the Israeli success, and hence Western support was not the only reason for the Arab defeat. Brooman, Op. Cit., p.11, gives a clear indication and reason why this contributed to the Israeli victory. He Argues that the Arabs had ‘significantly greater difficulty in preparing for war’ due to their fighting strength being ‘virtually destroyed in 1939, when the British crushed the Arab rebellion’. The consequence of the British crushing this revolt was that the Arabs simply lacked the manpower and effective leadership to succeed in the Arab-Israeli was of 1948-49. This therefore shows that the Israelis had a significant advantage over the Arabs before the war had even begun. The Palestians were both depleted in men and equipment, whilst in stark contrast the Israelis had contrinuing support from the West both before and during the war, allowing them to gain a siginifcant advantage over the Arabs, and hence significantly contribute to the overall Israeli victory. Although the Israelis were clearly a formidable fighting force, and had important advantages before the war, significant blame for the Arabs defeat must be placed in the hands of the Arab League. This was Palestinian coalition which in theory, was firmly united in fighting against the Israelis and were determined to prevent the existence of a Jewish state in the Palestianian region. However the Arab league had many divided aims, which in turn caused limited cooperation. This meant that they did not present a united and effective front against the Israelis, and for this reason, were defeated with more ease. This can be validated by Smith, C, Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (p.204-205). He says that there was ‘no coordination of Arab military movements because the participants were mutually suspicious of one another’s territorial ambitions’. The main suspicion centred around President Abdullah of Transjordan. This was due to his desire to control the area allocated to the Palestinian Arabs under the partition, in order to expand his own empire. This meant that since the Israelis were well aware of Abdullah’s aspirations, their aims were only divided over the issue of Jerusalem, of which the Israelis were left the western section. There is further evidence of increased divisions between the Arab nations. Scott-Baumann, Op. Cit., p.29 states that Abdullah had decided to “remain neutral” and did not support the Egyptian forces, but at the same time “never invaded Jewish, Israeli territory”. This is further evidence to highlight the individual aims of Abdullah to expand his own territory, without cooperating with the Arab League, thus helping to deepen the already present divisions. As clearly stated by Scott-Baumann, Israel was able to exploit the understanding with Transjordan in order to “deepen the divisions in the Arab coalition and pick off its Arab opponents one by one”. The nations within the Arab League all had individual goals, all wishing to gain a piece of Palestinian territory. This view is also voiced by The History Learning Site (Israel and the 1948 War) which states that once the armistices were being agreed, the separate Arab nations ‘negotiated their own peace talks. This is a further sign that the Arab nations were simply only united by their desire to attack Israel’. In conclusion the lack of effective, and united leadership significantly contributed to the problems faced with the Arab League, which in turn greatly affected their efforts in the war. The Arabs were strongly weakened and handicapped by their inability to provide a united front against the Israelis which significantly contributed to the eventually defeat of the Arabs.

Another important factor that should be considered to support the view that the Arabs were ultimately responsible for their defeat, was that in comparison to the Israelis, the Arabs severly lacked the manpower and necessary weapons to allow for military success. This lack of effective equipment and manpower gave the Israelis a huge advantage in the war, and ultiamelly contributed to their success. By using Brooman, Op. Cit., p.12, we can see that it is clear that both Arab numbers and weaponry were inferior to those of the Israeli forces. He states that ‘the armies consisted of around 20,000 men’ in comparison to the 65,000 Israeli troops. He goes on to say that the Arabs ‘ lacked modern weapons’. This point was even more significant as the Israeli troops began building up their armaments and numbers whilst the Arab forces remained relatively stagnant in comparison. Additionally to this, their lack of initiative made it difficult to maintain modern weapons. It is stated in Militaryphotos.net that due to the fact that “complex modern weapons require on the spot maintenance” and this means “delegating authority, information, and tools”, the maintenance of weapons is difficult for Arabs as their armies “avoid doing this and prefer to use easier to control central repair shops”. The effect of this was that the Arab weapons were often faulty, lacked agility and needed to be repaired often. As aforementioned, the Israelis had access to modern weaponry from the West, plus they increased their numbers and armaments considerably throughout the war. Therefore in comparison, due to their inability to gain weapons, numbers and their lack of initiative to maintain modern weapons, the Arabs put themselves in a particularly bad position which contributed considerably to their defeat.

Overall there were many substantial factors suggesting that both the Israelis and the Arabs were responsible for the ‘Nakbar’ and Arab defeat in the first Arab-Israeli War of 1948-49. Despite the arguments put forth suggesting the Arabs held primary responsibility for their defeat, such as the divided aims and limited cooperation of the Arab League, plus their inferior army and weapons, the main reasons for their defeat were those of Israeli advantages; their superior military strength, training and growth plus the support they had from the Western states. In particular, without the support of the Western states, they would not have gained the financial and military advantages they had over the Arabs in the midst of war, but also due to the British depleting Arab armies during 1936-39, they were placed in a much stronger position before the War even began. This element, beyond all else, provides grounds for the conclusion that the Israelis were most responsible for the ‘Nakbar’ and Arab defeat in the first Arab-Israeli War of 1948-49.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Israel’s success in dealing with the treats it came across was due to many factors. These included Israel’s military tactics; which is one of the most important ones. Israeli determination for an independent state, the disunity between the Arab people, territory and the role of the US all played a part in the triumph of Israeli survival in the years 1948 – 73.…

    • 963 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Best Essays

    Palestine, or is it Israel? Either way, it is a highly contested land between two major Semitic groups: the Arabs, and the Hebrews. From the late 19th century, and throughout the 20th century it has been the focal point of Arab nationalism and Jewish Zionism. Today, it has become the Jewish state of Israel with occupied Palestinian Territories called the West Bank, which lies on the West side of the Jordan River, and the Gaza Strip, which borders Israel and Egypt. But, should the Palestinians deserve a state of their own? This essay will investigate the Palestinian side of the argument, their Biblical and Quranic ties to the land, the State of Palestine should have been created under Jordanian Egyptian as well as Israeli occupation of the land, and finally Israel’s poor relations with Palestine and colonial occupation of the land has led to the formation of many radical groups.…

    • 2176 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Throughout the 20th Century relations between Arabs and Israelis in Palestine have undergone immense tension, change and deterioration, with both parties facing many barriers to peace. Foreign intervention is often listed as one such barrier to this peace. While the importance of foreign intervention cannot be omitted, other factors can be argued to have been both equally and more detrimental to the peace process. These include the founding of the Haganah, the 1948 War after the declaration of the State of Israel, and the rise of political extremism. The aim of this essay is to identify which barrier among so many was most significant in the hundred year period from 1900 to 2000.…

    • 1731 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Best Essays

    The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has proven to be one of the most complex and “intractable” conflicts of modern history – or as some may even add – of all time. And after many decades of failed attempts at peacemaking in this region, there still seems to be no conceivable end to the conflict. During those same decades, most of the parties involved as well as the international community have embraced the idea of a two-state solution, but the question we pose today asks whether this solution is still a viable option considering the present context, and if not, is it finally time to consider a one-state solution? This essay will argue that although a two-state solution remains the more desirable and popular option, keeping in-line with both nations’ desire for freedom, civic rights, dignity, statehood and nationhood, it may no longer be a possibility in the near future and as time passes. A one-state solution also has its faults however, as it simply fails to address the issue of inevitable future conflicts and retaliation, which would stem from the most problematic symptom of a bi-national state: the reduction of Palestinian-Israelis to second-class citizens within their own country. Finally, the essay will attempt to show that regardless of what the more desirable and feasible option may be, the context today points to a de facto one-state reality, which some argue would ultimately need to be embraced as the only option.…

    • 2385 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Six Day War (also known as “naksah,” or “failure” in Arabic) was an Arab-Israeli war fought in June 1967. Israel launched an offensive air strike that demolished almost all of Egypt’s air force on the first day, virtually guaranteeing air superiority for the rest of the war. Egypt’s allies quickly joined the fray, but to no avail—Jordan was reluctant to enter the war, and another airstrike by the Israelis wiped out two thirds of the Syrian air force. This crushing defeat for the Arabs and decisive military victory for Israelis had several consequences.…

    • 527 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Iron Cage

    • 2047 Words
    • 9 Pages

    In chapter one of The Iron Cage, Rashid Khalidi sets the stage for the premise of his book, by examining the conflicting evidence of the Palestinians’ plight. In order to do so, the narrative begins in 1948, following the eviction of more than half of the Arab Palestinian population as a result of the Arab – Israel conflict of that year. Khalidi goes on to enumerate a few of the respective differing Arab and Israel accounts of how it was that a people that once constituted the majority of the population of a land, became the minority. Revisionist Israeli historians have attempted to debunk traditional accounts that absolve Israel of any wrongdoing, such as the notion that Palestinians attacked the yishuv first, by looking at the newly opened Israeli, American, and British archives. Although Khalidi is appreciative of the latest attempts of objectivity, the author goes on to claim that Israeli revisionists continue to provide shortsighted narratives, because of an inability to incorporate Arab sources to the reinterpretations. Furthermore, Khalidi castigates Arab interpretations of the conflict as well, by noting the over emphasis they put on external causes, such as the superiority of the Israeli armed forces, or the alliance between Israel and Transjordan. Although Khalidi noticeably acknowledges many of the claims from both sides, his conclusion is nevertheless, that not enough attention has been paid to the internal reasons why Palestine as a nation has failed.…

    • 2047 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The Arab Israel conflict remains one of the most considerable and complex dilemmas facing the international community. The enduring quarrel between Israelis and Arabs has directly and indirectly propagated many regional wars in the past five decades, jeopardized Western entrance to important oil resources in the Middle East, provided a good reason for increased militarization throughout the region, and caused a high amount of civilian deaths as consequence of terrorism. However, Israeli-Palestinian (Arab) peace prospects are not very hopeful because the ongoing clashes frequently sabotage every peace settlement between the two nations which eventually affect regional peace. The issue holds a significant place in US foreign policy since its birth and White House had spawned serious efforts to create peace in the region. Apart from bringing peace to the region, Washington has its own reasons of involvement in Middle East such as oil resources, economic interests, terrorism but the core problem plays a major role in US participation in the affairs of the region. Every US president from Truman to Obama has advocated many peace plans which even reached towards a settlement but at the end, proved to be futile. To determine the background for understanding the current situation, it is necessary to evaluate the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and probable solutions to end the controversy.…

    • 4784 Words
    • 20 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    However, the bible and events thousands of years ago have been ‘stepping stones’ in the outcome of 1948. Accordingly, I will concentrate on the more recent ‘stepping stones’ that facilitated the creation of the Israel state. Some of the areas that have been selected include the Zionist Movement, World War One, World War Two and myriad of politics that came to the fore during this period. In particular I will discuss the Balfour Declaration and its effect on the situation, and comment on whether it was a turning point in the Zionist quest for the creation of the state of Israel.…

    • 3079 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    After watching the documentary, Al Nakba: The Palestinian Catastrophe 1948, I did not know exactly who to sympathize with.…

    • 370 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    It’s June 5th 1967 and whole world is witness of Israel’s pre-emptive strike on Arab countries: Egypt, Jordan and Syria. During the Six Days War Israel showed her military superiority with destroying air forces in Egypt, Jordan and Syria only by one day. Later on, after five days of fighting Sinai Peninsula, West Bank with Jerusalem and Golan Heights are conquered in almost record breaking time. Consequences for Egypt and Jordan are not only unbearable in forms of lost soldiers and land, but the sole defeat was enormously humiliating. The effect of the Six Day war was a significant aspect which led to dramatic events in Europe and Middle East. Civil war in Jordan and Palestinian expulsion to Syria, hijacks, formation of Black September and its massacre in Munich during 1972…

    • 879 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Six-Day War

    • 1098 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Plus, the Israeli occupation created the context for a "peace process," the seemingly never-ending quest of Israel to trade occupied land for "peace"--in other words, recognition of Israel by Arab governments. The outcome of the Six Day War also contributed to a historical narrative--largely based on myth--that has colored Western perceptions of Israel and the Middle East since. The image of plucky little Israel, threatened with destruction, winning a smashing victory in a pre-emptive war against its more powerful neighbors, has become commonplace.…

    • 1098 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Yom Kippur War took place in 1973 between Israel and the Arabs furthermore the 2 superpowers played subtle roles in this event . Israel won the war however with a higher cost then any previous wars . While the war did not conclude in an Arab military victory, both the Egyptian and Syrian armies had regained their honour and prestige(1). The War of Yom Kippur suprised the world in the means that it showed that the Arabs were a force to be reconed with. In summasation the war paved the way for significant changes to take place in Arab-Israeli relations.…

    • 4260 Words
    • 12 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Hi Im Gosu

    • 507 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The 1948 war, also known as the war of independence for Israelis, was caused by many factors during and before 1948 as both the Arabs and Israelis was to blame. However, the one important aspect is how the previous events leading towards the 1948 war. Another would be how British was a major influence to this war but with Zionist from America also supporting the return of the Jewish race also helped to promote war. Most importantly, it was because of the attitudes of both sides, the effects before the war and finally because of the seize of land.…

    • 507 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Arab nationalism both grew and declined during the years 1967-1979. The Arab went from war to peace and, peace to war in a matter of days. I will be highlighting the significance of foreign powers within the area, as well as how and if there was any influence on the nature of the nationalism. The first thing to be highlighted will be the 6 day war. The six day war, despite Israel’s win, did not bring peace to the Middle East. The years following would bring further tensions and moments of struggle. Another point will be made on the Palestinian Liberation Organisation and how their activities reflected whether or not the influence of foreign powers had an effect on Arab nationalism. I will also mention other points, from the ‘Yom Kippur’ war to Camp David and the transition from war to peace. Following this I will conclude my answer with how strong the influence of foreign powers was and how they affected the nature of Arab nationalism. I will be showing how much influence the foreign power had on the nature of Arab nationalism.…

    • 1560 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Israeli air campaign had obtained the major objectives sought. They had gained total control of the air and could attack the Arab ground forces at will. And all was accomplished with a force much smaller than the combined air power of the Arab nations. Therefore, we need to look at the significant factors that tipped the warfare scale in favor of the Israelis.…

    • 806 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays

Related Topics