Without 1967, would there be a Palestine today?

**Shek** · 17 Jun 06,, 03:02

I've made the assertion before that without Israel seizing the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, the process of moving towards a Palestinian state wouldn't even be on the table today.

I think that the record is clear that pre-1967, the Palestinian issue was only a false flag to attract anti-Israel attention. If the Arab world was serious about a Palestinian state, then Jordan and Egypt both would have provided for Palestinian rule of Gaza and the West Bank.

Post-1967, my take is that it then became easy for Arab governments to truly call for a Palestinian state, for at that point, they were offering up something they no longer had.

This brings me to my question - had Israel not decided to seize Gaza, West Bank, Golan, etc. in 1967, or had the diplomatic duel at the UN proceeded differently such that the West Bank remained part of Jordan and the Gaza Strip remained part of Egypt, where would the issue of a Palestinian state be today? Would it be buried in the territorial integrity of Egypt and Jordan, or would these two countries have provided these territories to some Palestinian authority for self-governance?

**ZFBoxcar** · 17 Jun 06,, 04:00

My guess is that Palestinian nationalism, although it wouldn't be as developed, would be directed almost entirely against Israel within the pre-1967 borders, with the hesistant and half-hearted support of Egypt and Jordan (who would be aware that Palestinian success would leave themselves as the target of Palestinian aspirations). However, Israel would still be seen as the underdog relative to the Arab world (since no 1967 means no peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan) and so Israel would have more freedom from Western pressure. On the other hand, without Israel's strike, the Arabs might have succeeded in destroying it.

**ArmchairGeneral** · 17 Jun 06,, 06:23

Maybe I'm wrong, but I had the impression that Palestinian Israelis assimilated just fine. Seems to me that if the West Bank and Gaza were not taken, the Palestinians within the borders would have been, for the most part, quite happy with their situation. I mean, per capita income 4 or 5 times their neigbors, have a say in their gov't without having to join that uncomfortable rioting stuff. Of course, there is the possibility that Israel would not have survived without striking first and taking those territories, but then again, they'd already survived 20 years, and at that point Israel's military superiority was really beginning to increase. Although I guess Yom Kippur gave them a pretty good scare. Dunno, really. It sure has caused a lot of grief and trouble for them, but then, it may have saved a lot more. What really matters, though, is that they clearly do not need it for security any more. All it is now is a hellhole full of crazy Arabs. That's reason enough to pull out, if you ask me.

It shouldn't be too long before all the factions start killing each other and they'll forget all about the Israelis.

**lemontree** · 19 Jun 06,, 05:28

Shek,
I agree with your points, as prior to 1967 the Egyptians and Jordanians were quite satisfied with their own occupation and had no intention of forming a Palestinian state.