What rationale(s) did Arab leaders use in opposing the emergence of Israel? Were these reasons justified enough to warrant the use of force?
Arab leaders opposed the formation of a Jewish state. They used the rational of a victim to justify retaliation which, in my opinion, could have been diplomatic retaliation rather than force. To be able to give a good example of this, we need to step back and see an unrelated idea from viewpoint of the Arab. Imagine that you live in a country called Slokaxia. Slokaxia is a small country with great fertile land which you and your family have seeded and harvested for centuries. Soon though, a group of people immigrate to Slokaxia and start buying land. In thirty years they will own 10% of Slokaxian land and the native Slokaxians will own 90%. Imagine that the immigrants start saying this is our land and we want our own country here. A few Slokaxians don’t mind, but most do. The immigrants and the natives start battling. They also involve higher powers, who tend to side with them, and the United Nations, who decides to split up the Slokaxian land almost 50-50. You would feel angry, confused about how this could happen, and violated. If you replace the natives with Arabs, Slokaxia with Palestine, and immigrants with Jews, you will understand the rationale of the Arab’s disapproval and opposition to the emergence of a Jewish State. The moral question involved is, “does this reason warrant the use of force?” I don’t know. I am too close to the issue to make an objective decision. I do think that diplomatic actions could be taken, but that is not the question. So, does this warrant (justify) the use of force? I would say it does not justify the use of force, but I do understand why they would use force.
