The Iron Wall
"'Fascinating... Shlaim presents compelling evidence for a revaluation of traditional Israeli history.' --New York Times Book Review. For this newly expanded edition, Avi Shlaim has added four chapters and an epilogue that address the prime ministerships from Barak to Netanyahu in the 'one book everyone should read for a concise history of Israel's relations with Arabs' (Independent). What was promulgated as an 'iron-wall' strategy--building a position of unassailable strength--was meant to yield to a further stage where Israel would be strong enough to negotiate a satisfactory peace with its neighbors. The goal still remains elusive, if not even further away. This penetrating study brilliantly illuminates past progress and future prospects for peace in the Middle East"
Stats for nerds
0recommend
5mentions
3people
2024years
100% neutral
What Hacker News says
- > Didn't the FLLF attack Palestinians?
Yes, and?
> Did it try to assassinate it's ambassador to the UK?
See below quotes. It also did try to assassinate US diplomat John Gunther Dean.
> Do you have other references to the theory that the reason Israel went to war with Lebanon was FLLF's operations that it blamed on Palestinians? Why would it go to war over people killing each other in Lebanon, it doesn't pass the smell test.
Not the sole reason in itself, rather a critical part of whipping political support.
[1]
> From his first day at the Defense Ministry, Sharon started planning the invasion of Lebanon. He developed what came to be known as the "big plan" for using Israel's military power to establish political hegemony in the Middle East. The first aim of Sharon's plan was to destroy the PLO's military infrastructure in Lebanon and to undermine it as a political organization. The second aim was to establish a new political order in Lebanon by helping Israel's Maronite friends, headed by Bashir Gemayel, to form a government that would proceed to sign a peace treaty with Israel. For this to be possible, it was necessary, third, to expel the Syrian forces fro Lebanon or at least seriously weaken their presence there. The destruction of the PLO would break the backbone of of Palestinian nationalism and facilitate the absorption of the West Bank into Greater Israel. The resulting influx of Palestinians from Lebanon into Jordan would eventually sweep away the Hashemite monarchy and transform the East Bank into a Palestinian state. Sharon reasoned that Jordan's conversion into a Palestinian state would end international pressures on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank.
> Sharon and Eytan, realizing there was no chance of persuading the cabinet to approve a large-scale operation in Lebanon, adopted a different tactic. They started presenting to the cabinet limited proposals for bombing PLO targets in Lebanon, expecting that the guerillas would retaliate by firing Katyusha rockets on Israel's northern settlements and that this would force the cabinet to approve more drastic measures. The idea was to implement Operation Big Pines in stages by manipulating enemy provocation and Israel's response. A number of confrontations took place in the cabinet as a result of these tactics. Ministers opposed to a war in Lebanon because they recognized where these proposals were intended to lead.
> Sharon himself displayed the same deviousness in his relations with the Reagan administration as he did in his relations with his cabinet colleagues. He fed the Americans selective information intended to prove that the PLO was making a mockery of the cease-fire agreement and to establish Israel's right to retaliate.
This coincides exactly with the FLLF terror campaign.
> On 3 June the casus belli that the hard-liners had been waiting for materialized. A group of Palestinian gunmen shot and greviously wounded Shlomo Argov, Israel's ambassador to London, outside the Dorchester Hotel.
> Mossad sources had intelligence to suggest that the attempt of Argov's life was intended to provoke an Israeli assault on Arafat's stronghold in Lebanon in order to break his power.
> Avraham Shalom, the head of the General Security Service, reported that the attack was most probably the work of the faction headed by Abu Nidal and suggested that Gideon Machanaimi, the prime minister's adviser on terrorism, elaborate on the nature of that organization. Machanaimi had hardly opened his mouth when Begin cut him off by saying, "They are all PLO."
[1] Shlaim - The Iron Wall, chapter "The Lebanese Quagmire"
- > when one side routinely pretends to be civilian
Israel actively promotes illegal, violent settlements that kill Palestinians under IDF protection. [1] / [2]
---
Israel has on a number of occasions provoked border disputes and then claimed that IDF soldiers killed in those disputes were civilians.
[2]
> On that very day, however, a high-level decision was taken by the IDF to send a patrol of soldiers dressed up as policemen to al-Hamma at the farthest end of the southern DMZ. The patrol was intended to show the flag in an area that was under complete Syrian domination. The Syrian army responded violently, by shooting and killing seven members of the patrol and hampering the evacuation of the rest.
> [...]
> The cabinet met on 5 April and, in the absence of the foreign minister, accepted the prime minister’s recommendations to destroy three Arab villages inside the DMZ, bomb from the air the Syrian post and police station in al-Hamma, boycott the MAC, and lodge a complaint with the UN Security Council on the murder of the seven “policemen.”
[2]
> To achieve the first aim, Israel purchased land from the Arab villagers, developed Jewish settlements, established new agricultural settlements, built fortifications around them, and introduced soldiers disguised as civilians or policemen. To achieve the second aim, Israel seized an opportunity in March 1951 to move forcibly several hundred Bedouins who refused to accept Israeli identity cards from the central DMZ to Arab villages in northern Israel. In pursuit of the third aim, Israel refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the UN over civilian activities and even placed roadblocks to stop the UN men from entering the DMZs. Both Syria and the UN observers felt deceived and were disturbed by the direction of Israeli policy.
[2]
> Dayan did not like the compromise with the UN and pressed for extending Israel’s control over the DMZ through the introduction of additional soldiers masquerading as farmers. Ben-Gurion was persuaded to ask the cabinet to authorize the construction of two new “civilian” settlements in the DMZ.
---
Israel executed disabled noncombatants inside of a hospital while disguised as civilians. [3]
---
[1] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/third-intifada-israeli...
[2] Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall
[3] https://www.reuters.com/world/this-is-moment-israeli-command...
- > Palestine denied the 2 state solution.
No, they didn't.
> The Israeli leader was killed by local far right terrorists.
Incited in large part by Netanyahu, who was determined to sabotage Oslo and who openly denied the possibility of a 2-state solution.
[1]
> On October 5, the day the Knesset had endorsed Oslo II by a majority of one, thousands of demonstrators gathered in Zion Square in Jerusalem. The leaders of the opposition were on the grandstand while the demonstrators displayed an effigy of Rabin in an SS uniform. Netanyahu set the tone with an inflammatory speech. "Today the surrender agreement called Oslo II was placed before the Knesset," he said. "The Jewish majority of the State of Israel did not approve this agreement. We shall fight it and we shall bring down the government."
Also for all of Rabin's positives, he still insisted on expanding West Bank settlements during the Oslo interim period.
> after Palestine stepped out of the talks they launched the 2nd intifada
Ariel Sharon is responsible for the Second Intifada, his fascist march on the Temple Mount was a deliberate provocation.
> The political will in Israel has always been peace.
Liar.
[1] Shlaim - The Iron Wall
- > Hamas started terror attacks during the Oslo process IIRC, and intensified terror attacks before the elections after Rabin's assassination,
Portraying Hamas as a unilateral spoiler is completely disingenuous.
[1]
> In early January 1996 Peres faced another difficult decision. The Israeli General Security Service--Shabak--asked him for permission to assassinate Yahya Ayyash, the so-called "Engineer," who had personally masterminded several Hamas suicide atacks, which killed 50 and wounded 340 Israelis. The Israeli media presented him as public enemy number one, greatly exaggerating his status within Hamas and omitting to mention that the attacks he organized came as a response to the massacre perpetrated by Dr. Baruch Goldstein in Hebron in February 1994. In mid-1995 Ayyash went into hiding in Gaza, and the Palestinian preventive security service told the Shabak that he would not organize any more attacks on Israelis. But the head of the Shabak, who was about to be removed from his post for his failure to protect Rabin, badly wanted to be remembered for one last spectacular success. Peres gave the green light, thinking that apart from dealing out rough justice, the operation would boost the morale of the nation and of the security services. On 5 January, Ayyash was killed in Gaza by means of a booby-trapped cellular phone. The decision to kill Ayyash turned out to be the greatest mistake of Peres's political career.
This is what spurred Hamas attacks prior to Netanyahu's election, not opposition to Oslo.
[1] Shlaim - The Iron Wall
- > No, they didn't.
When have hey ever accepted a two state solution? They have denied everyone since 1947, in Oslo they agreed that resolution 338 (the 1967 borders) should be the basis for negotiation but Arafat walked out of Camp David despite what many Palestinians considered favorable terms and what most Israeli's considered an over generous offer.
> Incited in large part by Netanyahu, who was determined to sabotage Oslo and who openly denied the possibility of a 2-state solution.
His rise to power happened 2 years after though, after an entire year of Hamas suicide bombings. He was not ahead in the polls until the security situation went completely tits up.
If a crazy person kills the president (like in Japan 2 years ago, or in America with JFK) there is no sudden far right take over. If a country is attacked by its neighbour, people who promise security tend to do well in the polls.
> Also for all of Rabin's positives, he still insisted on expanding West Bank settlements during the Oslo interim period.
The settlements are a complicated subject. There are some legitimate reasons for some of them, and the reality of the two state solution is that land swaps will happen.
The 1967 war ended in 6 days and ended with incredibly awkward borders. It is not unnatural that Israel and Palestine wrestle for borders that make more sense geographically. (Belgium and Germany did this post ww2 and now most of their border is forest or rivers, mountains. The usual suspects for national borders).
There are however also religious settlements, formed by crazy people based on ridiculous readings of the torah. All of those should be burned to the ground with every person on them jailed, and the leader of the movement who I shall not named probably put in a cross due to her devotion to religious literature.
Talking about settlements as a whole makes the conversation too broad and unfocused, and I doubt all military outposts that exist will be dismantled when peace is achieved.
> Ariel Sharon is responsible for the Second Intifada, his fascist march on the Temple Mount was a deliberate provocation.
Its pretty cool how people have no agency. Lets ignore that the temple mount is more holy to the jews than to muslims. And lets act like a far right agitator is purposefully going to somewhere holy.
Imagine Trump goes to the vaticam. Do you think that the pope would use a loud speaker to tell people to attack him Abu Qteish did?
Or that Italians would suicide bomb around american civilians for the next 3 years?
Like even if we take Ariel visit as provacation, even if we hold him repsonsible for the horrible mismanagement of the police during his interior minister time, we hold him responsible for every death occured in every over trigger happy incident. Why fall for the bait? Why kill innocent people who are not responsible for his actions?
Also if we are gonna use the word fascist, I think its important to note the different countries and structures between Israel and lets say Gaza. Fascism purges "the other", there are no minorities in Gaza. Israel has 20% arab population and 7% other (mostly chrristians). Fascism promotes youth and violence as means of authority. Gaza has the youngest population in the world, and a military dictatorship as a goverment. A big part of fascism is social hierarchy, in the case of Gaza a strong men over women duplicity is seen across all civilian and political life. And finally an important aspect of fascism is the idea of forming an empire. This tracks with two biggest groups in Gaza having ideas about a pan arabic caliphate.
> Liar. [1] Shlaim - The Iron Wall
To begin with "the political will" usually refers to the people
https://www.fpri.org/article/2014/02/an-opening-for-peace-is...
here is some of the data from 03 - 12 during a series of escalations of violence the Israeli opinion was still very much in favour of a two state solution. This has been the case since 1947.
Now in response to the book. I will say that I love the work the new Historians are doing but Shlaim is with Benny Morris one of the modern historians where its very easy to see their ideology through their work.
Here is an interesting interview with him.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070909015709/http://www.fromoc...
and here is Benny Morris (who despite being racist towards arabs recently has written and opened most of the secrets about the formation of Israel) talking about the blind spots of the Iron Wall.
https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/40847
Another thing to point out is that Shailm tends to ignore things that are inconvinient. For example in that interview he emphasises the push from Egypt to normalise relationships with Israel in the 50s. He somehow forgets that the Egyptian push for the 1947 was crazy. Azzam Pasha leader of the arab league said " it will be a war of elimination and it will be a dangerous massacre which history will record similarly to the Mongol massacre or the wars of the Crusades". With the King Farrouk later repeating the sentiment saying "the jews will be expelled from Palestine". So that same state "reaching out" less than 5 years later is pretty throny and it seems irresponsible to call that Israel rejecting peace, when at the time the Suez Crisis was bubbling and Egypt had tons of troops in Gaza.
