When you sit down to figure out who attacked first Palestine or Israel, you're basically walking into a historical minefield. There isn't one "Start" button. It isn't like a football game where a whistle blows and the clock begins. Honestly, depending on who you ask, the answer changes by decades. You'll hear 1948. Or 1967. Some people will point to 1920.
It’s messy.
If you're looking for a simple "Person A hit Person B on Tuesday," you won't find it here because history doesn't work that way in the Middle East. Instead, we have to look at the flashpoints. These are the moments where the simmering tension boiled over into actual, organized violence.
The 1948 War: A Question of Perspective
Most people start the clock here. On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion read the Declaration of Independence in Tel Aviv. The British Mandate was over. The very next day, a coalition of Arab states—Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon—invaded. From a strictly military standpoint, the Arab armies moved across the borders first in 1948. That’s the "attack" most history books cite.
But wait.
If you ask a Palestinian historian, they’ll tell you the violence didn't start on May 15. They'll talk about the "Nakba" or catastrophe. For months leading up to that date, there was a brutal civil war. Paramilitary groups like the Irgun and Lehi were active. Villages like Deir Yassin saw horrific violence in April 1948. So, did the Arab states attack first to "liberate" Palestine, or were they responding to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people that was already happening? It’s a chicken-and-egg scenario that has fueled seventy years of resentment.
Why 1967 Changed Everything
Fast forward to the Six-Day War. This is where the debate about who attacked first Palestine or Israel gets even more legally technical. In June 1967, Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt’s air force. They wiped it out on the ground in hours.
💡 You might also like: JD Vance River Raised Controversy: What Really Happened in Ohio
Technically, Israel fired the first shot.
However, Israel argues—and many historians agree—that the "attack" had already begun. Egypt had blocked the Straits of Tiran, which is a legal casus belli (an act of war). Gamal Abdel Nasser had kicked out UN peacekeepers and moved his tanks to the border. Israel felt they were about to be annihilated. Was the preemptive strike an attack, or was it a defensive move against an imminent invasion? Your answer usually depends on your political leaning.
The Cycles of Modern Conflict
In the modern era, the timeline gets even tighter. We see it in the 2000s with the Second Intifada. It started after Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount. Palestinians saw it as a provocation; Israelis saw the ensuing suicide bombings as an unprovoked wave of terror.
Then you have the Gaza-Israel escalations. Usually, it follows a grim pattern. A rocket is fired from Gaza, or a militant leader is assassinated by an Israeli drone, or there’s a police raid at Al-Aqsa Mosque. Within hours, the sky is full of missiles and Iron Dome interceptions. In these moments, "who started it" feels almost irrelevant to the people living through it because the cycle is so fast.
Basically, it's a series of retaliations for the previous retaliation.
Examining the 1920s: Before the State
If we really want to be nerds about it, we have to go back to the 1920s. Before there was an Israeli army or a Palestinian government. There were the 1920 Nebi Musa riots and the 1929 Hebron massacre. In 1929, rumors spread that Jews were planning to take over the Al-Aqsa Mosque. This led to Arab mobs attacking Jewish communities.
📖 Related: Who's the Next Pope: Why Most Predictions Are Basically Guesswork
Then again, the Jewish community was growing rapidly due to Aliyah (immigration), which many Arabs viewed as a colonial invasion. When a group of people moves into an area with the stated goal of forming a state where you already live, is that an "attack"? Or is the physical violence that follows the "attack"?
Fact-Checking the Common Myths
You've probably seen the memes. One side shows a map of "shrinking Palestine," the other shows a map of "invading Arab armies." Both contain truths, and both leave a lot out.
- The "Unprovoked" Myth: Neither side ever acts in a vacuum. Whether it’s 1948 or 2023, there is always a "because of X" behind every "Action Y."
- The "Empty Land" Myth: Palestine wasn't empty before 1948. It had thriving cities like Jaffa and Haifa.
- The "Colonial" Argument: Israelis point out that Jews are indigenous to the land, citing archeology and DNA. Palestinians point out they’ve lived there for centuries and were displaced by a European-backed movement.
Moving Beyond the "Who Started It" Blame Game
The reality of who attacked first Palestine or Israel is that the conflict is a "clash of two rights." You have two groups of people who both have deep, legitimate, and historical ties to the same tiny piece of land.
- The Jewish Perspective: After the Holocaust, a state wasn't a luxury; it was a survival mechanism. Being attacked by five armies the day you're born tends to create a "defend at all costs" mindset.
- The Palestinian Perspective: They were living in their homes, under British rule, and suddenly they were told their land was being divided. When they resisted, they lost everything.
How to Dig Deeper into the History
If you really want to understand the nuances, you have to look at the primary sources. Don't just read Twitter threads.
Check out Benny Morris. He’s an Israeli historian who was one of the first to use declassified Israeli military documents to show that, yes, in 1948, there were cases of forced expulsion of Palestinians. On the flip side, read Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian-American professor at Columbia. He lays out the "Hundred Years' War on Palestine" from the perspective of a people resisting what they see as a settler-colonial project.
Actionable Steps for Further Research
To get a truly balanced view, you should look for specific historical documents rather than opinion pieces.
👉 See also: Recent Obituaries in Charlottesville VA: What Most People Get Wrong
First, read the Peel Commission Report of 1937. It was the first time a two-state solution was proposed. It explains why the British thought the two groups couldn't live together. It’s dry, but it’s the "smoking gun" of the early conflict.
Second, look at the UN Resolution 181. This was the Partition Plan. See what it actually offered and why one side said yes and the other said no.
Third, study the 1973 Yom Kippur War. This is one of the few instances where there is zero debate on who attacked first. Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. It’s a clear-cut case of an offensive strike, yet the reasons behind it—trying to regain land lost in 1967—add that inevitable layer of complexity.
Stop looking for a villain and a hero. In this story, there are mostly just victims of a geography that neither side is willing to give up. If you want to understand the future, you have to realize that both sides feel they are the ones "defending" themselves. And as long as both sides believe they are the ones being attacked, the "first shot" will keep being fired.
To truly grasp the situation today, start by mapping out the timeline of the British Mandate from 1917 to 1947. This thirty-year window is where the groundwork for every modern "attack" was laid. Understanding the transition from the Balfour Declaration to the 1948 war provides the context that most news bites skip entirely. Focus on the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt as a starting point; it was the first major organized uprising and set the stage for the military structures that both sides would use for the next century.