• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

To what extent was Israeli foreign policy from 1949 to 1967 only reactive?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

To what extent was Israeli foreign policy from 1949-1967 only reactive? In 1949 Israel and the surrounding Arab countries started negotiating armistices after the 1948 war, or the war of independence as the Israelis named it. In the time between this armistice and the ceasefires ending the Six Day War in 1967 Israeli foreign police went from being reactive developing into a more and more active policy. During the 1948 war around 550-600,000 Arabs fled from Israel (Gilbert, page 47). Around 280.000 of those into The West Bank and became refugees. The following years the refugees made guerilla forces called the fedayeen. The fedayeen groups attacked Israel during the night with the aim of harvesting fields, reunited with family, or to make sabotage. October 14th 1953 Ben Gurion reacted to the fadeyeen attacks with the Quibya raid where 69 people were killed including kids and women. The raid was very aggressive and it was denounced by the US, but it was still part of the reactive foreign policy in Israel, it was a reaction to the continuing fadeyeen raids. ...read more.

Middle

(Shulze, page 25) And Nasser did get MiGs. Nasser also decided to nationalize the Suez Canal and to close the strait of Tiran which left Israel with no connection to the red sea. So instead of negotiating the closure of the strait and because of Gurion being outraged about the Czech arms deal Israel decides to engage in the Sevres protocol with France and Britain. France who thought that Egypt was aiding the rebels in the French occupied Algeria wanted to remove Nasser from his powerful position in Egypt. Britain and Anthony Eden wanted Nasser removed because of the nationalization of the Suez Canal and because of Eden's interpretation of Nasser being the new Hitler. Ben Gurion with his aggressive approach had won over the diplomatic Sharett and he agreed to participate in the Sevres protocol. Therefore Israel attacked Egypt October 29th 1956. This action could be seen as a reaction to the Czech arms deal and the closure of Tiran but it was a preemptive attack, and it was Israel who took military in use. ...read more.

Conclusion

The fact that Nasser only asked for partial withdrawal confirms this. Israel chose to interpret this as an act of war and they launched their preemptive attack June 5th1967. This was a very active move and it confirms that Israeli Foreign policy was not reactive. Israel attached so they would not be the ones attacked, so they were not the ones who had to react. Israel's foreign policy started out being reactive with the Quibya and Gaza raid, but as she realized how powerful a military she had the foreign policy became more active with the Lavon affair and the Sevres Protocol. The foreign policy was more reactive than the Egyptian with all the fedayeen raids, but it is wrong to describe it as only reactive. The Sevres Protocol is a really good example of how active the foreign policy was - Israel engaged in covert operations and preemptive attacks. Also during the Six Day War Israel had a very active foreign policy. She attacked first and showed off her military superiority and in this way developed her foreign policy to a more active than reactive one. ?? ?? ?? ?? Emilie S´┐Żnderup History HL October 10th ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our International Baccalaureate History section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related International Baccalaureate History essays

  1. To what extent can Mussolini(TM)s foreign policy be described as a failure?

    the public imagination'1 as his previous two policies; the battles for grain and births were losing momentum. The benefits of gaining Ethiopia seemed manifold. For one, Italy would be able to have a colony from which she could extract resources and manpower.

  2. Effects of Nasser on Egyptian Society

    This explains why Nasser saw the Land Reform as the act that gave his Revolution Command Council (RCC) identity and transformed his coup to a revolution. The Land reform had of course a big impact on the Society, as the rich upper class of major land owners did not exist anymore and so the simple farmer obtained more power.

  1. Hitler's Foreign Policy

    This was one of his favorite techniques, to act boldly while soothing his opponents with the sort of conciliatory speeches he knew they wanted to hear. Next, Hitler signed a ten-year non-aggression pact with the Poles. This was something of a triumph for Hitler; Britain took it as further evidence

  2. To what extent is there validity to Ilan Pappes argument that the Palestinians were ...

    Looking back in history we can see that it was a very complicated issue with the Jews on one side already being refugees from Europe and then having the Palestinians being thrown out of their own homeland. But were they actually thrown out is the real question and this essay

  1. To what extent was the advent of the Cold War an outcome of Stalin(TM)s ...

    Too often Stalin, as an aggressive dictator, was blamed for the deterioration in East-West relation and eventually the advent of the Cold War. Stalin's policies, in particular, were accused of upsetting the Alliance by defying mutual agreements, such as the Atlantic Charter of 14th August 1941.

  2. Notes on the History and Development of the Arab-Israeli Conflict

    renounces terrorism, accepts UN Resolutions 242 and 338 US opens dialogue with the PLO 1989 May 'Shamir Plan' proposed, involving 20 points re Palestinian autonomy in the occupied territories - proposed a diplomatic solution 1990 June US suspends dialogue with the PLO August Iraq invades Kuwait 1991 January Start of

  1. Khrushchevs foreign policy was only a continuation of what had gone before. Explain

    Here we can see he is cooperating with capitalists, which he should not be doing just like Stalin did. Stalin cooperated with Britain and U.S.A before the WWII to gain some allies to protect Russia, and was also working with non-marxists states.

  2. Comparing Ancient Civilisations - Mesopotamia and Egypt

    that each of the main periods of Egyptian history was marked by some striking kings. Early in each dynastic period leading pharaohs conquered new territories, sometimes pressing up the Nile River into present-day Sudan, once even moving up the Mediterranean coast of the Middle East.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work