Frozen in time, addicted to pity

[hack89]

But that pattern doesn't cover Palestinian refugees. They are a special case. For many reasons, various populations across the planet are displaced; only the Palestinians cling to their "refugee" status decade after decade. They present themselves as helpless victims of Israeli aggression. They await rescue-- as they have been awaiting it for three generations, since Israel was founded in 1948. Members of other history-battered groups choose to live by an urgent ethic: Get up, get going, make a new life. Palestinians have a different approach: Sit down, wait, stay angry till the world provides for you.

The Arab countries love the Palestinians, praise them and pray for them. They just don't want them moving permanently into their neighbourhoods. The Arab League advises Arab states to deny citizenship to Palestinians, "to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland."

They pretend it's a favour. It also means Arabs can hire Palestinian workers when they need them and send them home when the economy sags.

And no politician, ever, compares the Palestinians to other refugees. Sol Stern, trying in a recent City Journal article to bring some perspective to the Palestinian question, noted that in 1945 about 11 million ethnic German civilians, living in Central and Eastern Europe, were expelled from their homes "and force-marched to Germany by the Red Army, with help from the Czech and Polish governments. Historians estimate that two million died on the way." The survivors built new lives as best they could. Some still speak of reparations they deserve. None argue that they should live in squalor until they receive justice. The enemies of Israel have taught the world to pity the Palestinians and grant them an almost sacred position among the victims of colonialism. They deserve pity, of course, but pity for what their fellow Arabs have done to them.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/Frozen+time+addicted+pity/3371479/story.html#ixzz0w8rMFouX

[kenichol]

1. Death numbers are uneven

When I see 10, 20, 50 Palestinians killed for every one Israeli killed, I see Israel as the aggressor.

[aranthus]

2. What does that have to do with who started the war?

"Aggressor" means the side that started it, not the side that has superior firepower, and not the side that's winning. The US killed far more Germans and Japanese in World War II than the other way around. We didn't start that war, and Israel didn't start this one.

[azurnoir]

3. so the war between the Palestinian people and Israel continues to this day

it never ended

[aranthus]

4. That's correct.

Likewise the war against Israel by Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and any of the other states that have attacked Israel over the years, except for Egypt and Jordan.

[azurnoir]

9. so you admit that Israel is engaged in an endless war with an ethnic group

and the peace agreements have in fact been fake or false flags

[aranthus]

12. Would you like me to stop posting so you could just have this conversation with yourself?

Or can you deal honestly with what I have posted, instead of putting words in my mouth? Because what you posted doesn't follow from my post at all. In fact, just the opposite. What I have said is that the Arab states have made war on Israel, and are still at war with Israel, except Egypt and Jordan. How does that translate into the peace agreements being fake? I haven't said that at all. I also haven't said that the war is endless. It's gone on for a long time, of course, but that doesn't mean it's endless.

[azurnoir]

26. then what was Oslo call it an accord or agreement that Israel boasts of "killing"

but I would think carefully about claiming that Israel is in a state of war with Palestinians or is one of those infamous we are but we aren't things so rules do not apply

[aranthus]

29. Israel doesn't boast of killing Oslo.

Some in Israel do, but certainly not all, and probably not most. Even so, how does that prove that the peace agreements with Jordan and Egypt were fake? Or any of the other agreements with the Palestinians?

[azurnoir]

32. Why are you babbling on about Jordan and Egypt ?

the debate is about Israel's on going war against an ethnic group and it was Netanyahu who is the PM of Israel not just some Israeli that made that boast

[aranthus]

33. Because your post #9 claims that the peace agreements were false,

and Israel has peace agreements with Jordan and Egypt that are not false. It also has agreements with the Palestinians other than Oslo, ande they aren't fake either. I'm aware that it was Netanyahu who boasted of killing the Oslo accords. Did he negotiate the Oslo accords? If not, then his claiming to have killed them doesn't prove that they were fake. It only proves that he killed an agreement reached by a prior Israeli government.

[azurnoir]

36. So in other words Jordan and Egypt are strawmen

because the debate is about Israel and the Palestinians this is your comment

aranthus (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Aug-09-10 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. What does that have to do with who started the war?

"Aggressor" means the side that started it, not the side that has superior firepower, and not the side that's winning. The US killed far more Germans and Japanese in World War II than the other way around. We didn't start that war, and Israel didn't start this one.

you are the one trying to change the parameters

[aranthus]

37. Now you've lost me.

Your post #9 claims that the peace agreements are false. It doesn't qualify that by limiting it to the Palestinians, so the peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan are evidence that not all of Israel's peace agreements are false. But let's leave Egypt and Jordan out, and focus on the Palestinians. Oslo was not a false agreement. Wye River was not a false agreement. All you have is the current PM's claim that he killed Oslo. How does that make it false?

As for my post #2, what does that have to do with whether any of the peace agreements with the Palestinians are fake? All that post says is that the relative body count isn't evidence of who is the aggressor in a war. It doesn't prove that one side or the other started it. Nor does the fact that the Palestinians started the war with Israel say anything about whether any of the peace agreements are fake.

[azurnoir]

38. If you can not follow the subject based on your own post

then there is little purpose in continuing

[aranthus]

39. I can follow it fine.

It's your logic that escapes me, and that I was hoping you would explain. I'll try to make this as clear as possible. I maintain that the war between the Palestinians and the Israelis has been ongoing since 1947, and is not yet at an end, because there has been no final peace agreement. There have been several interim agreements, but no actual peace agreement. So, how does the fact that there is no final agreement make the interim agreements fake? That's the part that doesn't make sense.

[azurnoir]

50. so there is a continuing state of war even with the agreements?

and that still does not explain Israel's current PM boasting of killing at the very least Oslo and publicly stating he would not abide by any agreements Olmert made with the Palestinians

[aranthus]

61. Unfortunately, yes.

As far as Netanyahu and Oslo, what is there to explain? I'm not defending what he did. But he wasn't the PM who negotiated Oslo. Someone else did. So what Netanyahu does about it afterwards doesn't make Oslo a fraud, false or fake. It's a process that the current government of Israel has abandoned and claims to have sabotaged.

[kenichol]

8. Disproportionate response

From some perspective's, Israel began by taking over land that had been Palestinian.
I was speaking of the injustice I see with such a disproportionate response by Israel.

[aranthus]

14. That's a nonsensical response.

First of all, I understand that the Palestinian perspective is that Israel began by taking over "their" land, but just because the Palestinians believe that doesn't mean that it's true. In this case it isn't. In any event, what you originally posted was that you thought Israel was the aggressor because of the disparate death toll. However, that just means that Israel commands greater firepower. It says nothing about who started the war and why.

[Shaktimaan]

109. But the goal isn't to match the other side's body count.

That doesn't make it fair. In fact, demanding that something like war fit itself into a mold of "fairness" seems to be a waste of time. War is very rarely fair. Rarely just. Smart, strong, trained, men are kittet out with the latest equipment and weaponry. This is life and death though. Why would any of those soldiers take off some of their gear to even up the fight? Is it more honorable to fight at a lesser ability just so the other side has a fighting chance?

Battles do have objectives though. And it may take 5, 15, 273 or lots more people to die in the completion of that objective. For example:

> So, Israel has to get rid of the rocket attacks. No question there. Nor any room for compromise.

> Both sides make a tenuous temporary peace. Score!

> They try negotiations. Fail.

> They try heavily veiled threats. Fail.

> They use their intelligence network. Fail.

> They beef up their security measures but the rockets are quickly advancing past them; they're carrying bigger payloads, can travel farther and are more accurate.


So what do you do now? Some people think that Israel merely has to evacuate the OPT, give EJ to the Palestinians, and institute full ROR for any Palestinians who left during the naqba. Oh, and apologize to everyone and admit they were wrong. This way the Palestinians would feel too guilty to attack us after we gave them everything.

So barring that, what sort of action would you take? Hopefully before something important or fluffy is rocketed.

[Chulanowa]

19. Israel began its purges against the Arabs in "Jewish Territory" from the first

Over four hundred villages and towns had their citizens either killed or exiled by the terrorist groups that would later form the backbone of the IDF. These attacks started days before the other Arab states mobilized against Israel. While it's very probable that these nations would have attacked Israel anyway, Israel was no innocent babe i nthe woods once the artillery started flying.

Again in 1956, Israel struck first, attacking Egypt with French and British backing after Egypt nationalized the Canal, in an effort to return rhte Canal zone to british hands under the pretense of "UN Mediation." The UN did not fall for it, the US and Russia both stepped up to tell Israel to knock it the fuck off, and lots of egyptian and a few Israeli lives were lost needlessly.

1967, Israel launches a surprise attack against Egypt. It cites the "necessity" of doing so because Egypt has armed forces at the border. Seeing as how Israel had already launched an attack on Egypt in the past, troops at an enemy border seems fairly reasonable to me - ask South Korea. egypt's allies get involved, and ISrael launches its largest ethnic cleansing program / land-grab since 1948.

1973, Egypt is attacked by Egypt and Syria. Egypt is nearly driven completely out of the Sinai, until the US delivers aid enough to turn the tide against the United Arab Republic. The egyptians and Syrians lose the fight, and their union dissolves fairly quickly due to that loss and Syria's warniness of being dominated by Egypt.

1982, using attacks from PLO bases in southern Lebano nas an excuse, Israel launches an attack across all of Lebanon, occupying hte southern half of it and later seekign to form a Christian majority country in southern Lebanon to serve as a "buffer state." Israel maintains this occupation until 2000.

1991, Iraq attacks Israel with scud missiles. Israel opts to not get involved in the war against Iraq, at the behest of the United States.

2006, a raid by Hezbollah against Israeli soldiers in the occupied Shebaa region leads to the all-out air assault and failed ground assault by Israel against Lebanon. The kidnapped soldiers turn out to have died in the kidnapping attempt; their bodies are returned in exchange for prisoners after the official fighting has ceased.

2008, Israel violates a cease-fire agreement with Hamas by launching missiles into Gaza city and bombing suspected tunnel locations in Rafah. Hamas responds, and Operation Cast Lead commences. Israel cries foul when the Hamas leadership declares it will not pursue a renewal of the cease-fire, which is odd as Israel had not only vilated the cease-fire portion of it, but had also not held up its end of the bargain regarding border crossings.

Just because history doesn't mesh with the bullshit of Israel being an innocent victim at all times doesn't mean it should be ignored.

[aranthus]

28. What evidence is there that Israel began "purging" Arabs prior to December 1947?

You mention that Israel began forcing Arabs to leave their villages a few days before the Arab states attacked. However the war had been going on for months prior to that, at least since January, 1948, and arguably since December, 1947. So when before that were Arabs forcibly removed from a village by the Jews?

By the way, I don't claim that Israel is innocent; far from it. There is blame on both sides. Both sides are wrong; the Arabs are just more wrong.

[Chulanowa]

42. Key point is that they were forcibly removed or killed

For the crime of not being Jewish.

Attacking those who are fighting is one thing. Ethnic cleansing is a whole other thing.

[aranthus]

62. Your key point is a lie.

First, you claimed that Israel "purged" the Arabs, "from the first". The truth is that Israel did not do that. Instead what happened is that the Arabs began a war against the Jews to drive them out (or at least to prevent them from having their own state). It was not until then that the Arabs were forcibly moved, and not merely for the "crime of not being Jewish", but because they were a military threat. Even then, only a few thousand were intentionally displaced. Most refugees simply ran away from combat zones (which is what happens in all wars). That's why if there ahd been no war, there wouldn't be any refugees.

[Douglas Carpenter]

94. to quote former Israeli Foreign Minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami from his book,

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Scars-War-Wounds-Peace-Israeli-Arab/dp/0195181581/sr=1-1/qid=1166681762/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books

from page 42:

"The reality on the ground was at times far simpler and more cruel than what Ben-Gurion was ready to acknowledge. It was that of an Arab community in a state of terror facing a ruthless Israeli army whose path to victory was paved not only by its exploits against the regular Arab armies, but also by the intimidation, at at times atrocities and massacres it perpetrated against the civilian Arab community. A panic-stricken Arab community was uprooted under the impact of massacres that would be carved into the Arabs' monument of grief and hatred."


From page 44:

"The first major wave of Arab exodus in April-May 1948, essentially in the wake of the Dir Yassin massacre that was perpetrated by Lehi and Irgun with the Haganah's connivance and the unfolding of Plan D, might perhaps have taken the leadership of the Yishuv by surprise. But they undoubtedly saw an opportunity to be exploited, a phenomenon to rejoice at -- Manachem Begin wrote in his memoirs, The Revolt, that 'out of evil, however, good came-and be encouraged. 'Doesn't he have anything more important to do?' was Ben-Gurion's reaction when told, during his visit to Haifa on 1 May 1948 that a local Jewish leader was trying to convince Arabs not to leave. 'Drive them out!' was Ben-Gurion's instruction to Yigal Allon, as recorded by Yitzak Rabin in a censored passage of his memoirs published in a censored passage of his memoirs published in 1979, with regard to the Arabs of Lydda after the city had been taken over on 11 July 1948....Plan D, however, was a major cause for the exodus, for it was strategically driven by the notion of creating Jewish contiguity even beyond the partition lines and, therefore by the desire to have a Jewish state with the smallest number of Arabs.

from page 44:

"The debate about whether or not the mass exodus of Palestinians was the result of a Zionist design or the inevitable concomitant of war could not ignore the ideological constructs that motivated the Zionist enterprise. The philosophy of transfer was not a marginal, esoteric article....These ideological constructs provided a legitimate environment for commanders in the field to encourage the eviction of the local population even when no precise order to that effect was issued by the political leaders. As early as February 1948, that is before the mass exodus had started but after he witnessed how Arabs had fled West Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion could not hide his excitement."

"Ben-Gurion's reaction when told, during his visit to Haifa on 1 May 1948 that a local Jewish leader was trying to convince Arabs not to leave. 'Drive them out!' was Ben-Gurion's instruction to Yigal Allon, as recorded by Yitzak Rabin in a censored passage of his memoirs published in a censored passage of his memoirs published in 1979, with regard to the Arabs of Lydda after the city had been taken over on 11 July 1948....Plan D, however, was a major cause for the exodus, for it was strategically driven by the notion of creating Jewish contiguity even beyond the partition lines and, therefore by the desire to have a Jewish state with the smallest number of Arabs.

Basic facts about the Naqba have been know for a long time - by scholars in the Western World –

Thanks to the scholarly works by such writers as of Irish journalist Erskine Childers who wrote way back in 1961:

Examining every official Israeli statement about the Arab exodus, I was struck by the fact that no primary evidence of evacuation orders was ever produced. The charge, Israel claimed, was "documented"; but where were the documents? There had allegedly been Arab radio broadcasts ordering the evacuation; but no dates„ names of stations, or texts of messages were ever cited. In Israel in 1958, as a guest of the Foreign Office and therefore doubly hopeful of serious assistance, I asked to be shown the proofs, I was assured they existed, and was promised them. None had been offered when I left, but I was again assured. I asked to have the material sent on to me. I am still waiting.

...

Even Jewish broadcasts (in Hebrew) mentioned such Arab appeals to stay put. Zionist newspapers in Palestine reported the same: none so much as hinted at any Arab evacuation orders.

The fact is that Israel's official charges, which have vitally influenced the last ten years of Western thought about the refugees, are demonstrably and totally hollow. And from this alone, suspicion is justified. Why make such charges at all? On the face of it, this mass exodus might have been entirely the result of "normal" panic and wartime dislocation.

We need not even -touch upon Arab evidence that panic was quite deliberately incited. The evidence is there, on the Zionist record. For example, on March 27, four days before the big offensive against Arab centres by the official Zionist (Haganah) forces, the Irgun's radio unit broadcast in Arabic. Irgun, a terrorist organisation like the Stern Gang, was officially disowned by Ben Gurion and the Haganah. Yet just four days before the Haganah offensive Irgun warned "Arabs in urban agglomerations" that typhus, cholera and similar diseases would break out, "heavily" among. them "in April and May.

....There is one recorded instance of such an appeal. It is beyond dispute even by Arabs, that in Haifa the late gentle Mayor, Shabeitai Levi, with the tears streaming down his face, implored the city's Arabs to stay. But elsewhere in Haifa, Arthur Koestler wrote in his book that Haganah loudspeaker vans and the Haganah radio promised that city's Arabs escort to "Arab territory," and "hinted at terrible consequences if their warning were disregarded." There are many witnesses of this loudspeaker method elsewhere. In Jerusalem the Arabic warning from the vans was, "The road to Jericho is open! Fly from Jerusalem before you are all killed!" (Meyer Levin in Jerusalem Embattled). Bertha Vester, a Christian missionary, reported that another theme was, "Unless you leave your homes, the fate of Deir Yassin will be your fate." The Haganah radio station also broadcast, in Arabic, repeated news of Arabs fleeing "in terror and fear" from named places.

Still, however, we have plumbed this exodus only so far as panic is concerned. There are U.N. and Economist reports of forcible expulsion, which is something else. How much evidence is there for this? And were only the "unofficial" Irgun and Stern forces responsible? This is what Nathan Chofshi, one of the original Jewish pioneers in Palestine, wrote in an ashamed rebuttal of an American Zionist rabbi's charges of evacuation orders:

If Rabbi Kaplan really wanted to know what happened, we old Jewish settlers in Palestine who witnessed the fight could tell him how and in what manner we, Jews, forced the Arabs to leave cities and villages ... some of them were driven out by force of arms; others were made to leave by deceit, lying and false promises. It is enough to cite the cities of Jaffa, Lydda, Ramleh, Beersheba, Acre from among numberless others. (in `Jewish Newsletter,' New York, February 9, 1959).

http://www.users.cloud9.net/~recross/israel-watch/ErskinChilders.html

[Chulanowa]

108. Clearly a self-hating Jew n/t

[aranthus]

113. Except everything mentioned in your post happened after the war began.

The war between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine began at the latest in January, 1948, and arguably as early as December, 1947. The events Ben-Ami writes of occurred in April-May, 1948, afte the war began. Not only that, but he writes that it came as a surprise to the Jewish leadership, which indicates that it wasn't planned before hand. So where is the evidence that the Jews planned to forcibly expel Arabs if there was no war?

[Dick Dastardly]

114. He also convieniantly leaves this part out of his posted quote

"The mass exodus was, however, inadvertently encouraged by the leaders of the Palestinian community when, in their eagerness to trigger the invasion of Palestine by the Arab armies, they blew up out of all proportion the atrocities committed against Arab civillians. The Arab armies came in eventually, but by puffing up the atrocities, local leaders such as Dr Hussein Fakhri Al-Khalidi, the head of the Arab National Committee in Jerusalem who gave explicit instructions to the Palestinian media to inflate the reports, helped enhance the magnitude of an exodus driven by fear and hysteria"

[Douglas Carpenter]

116. there is no question that the Palestinian leadership were not prepared and not able

to resist the creation of the State of Israel. Propaganda and exaggeration are one of the things that goes along with all wars. There is also no question that the Palestinian leadership tried albeit frequently in vain to convince the Palestinians to stay put:

"Even Jewish broadcasts (in Hebrew) mentioned such Arab appeals to stay put. Zionist newspapers in Palestine reported the same: none so much as hinted at any Arab evacuation orders.

The fact is that Israel's official charges, which have vitally influenced the last ten years of Western thought about the refugees, are demonstrably and totally hollow. And from this alone, suspicion is justified. Why make such charges at all? On the face of it, this mass exodus might have been entirely the result of "normal" panic and wartime dislocation.

We need not even -touch upon Arab evidence that panic was quite deliberately incited. The evidence is there, on the Zionist record. For example, on March 27, four days before the big offensive against Arab centres by the official Zionist (Haganah) forces, the Irgun's radio unit broadcast in Arabic. Irgun, a terrorist organisation like the Stern Gang, was officially disowned by Ben Gurion and the Haganah. Yet just four days before the Haganah offensive Irgun warned "Arabs in urban agglomerations" that typhus, cholera and similar diseases would break out, "heavily" among. them "in April and May."

from Irish journalist Erskine Childers report written in 1961:

http://www.users.cloud9.net/~recross/israel-watch/ErskinChilders.html

[Douglas Carpenter]

115. formerly pre-planned, hard to say - ideologically consistent with their agenda, no question

The Zionist movement also knew for certain that the Palestinians would react the same way that all indigenous people in the history of the world have reacted to a colonizing movement. It is more than just a little bit cynical and disingenuous to fault or criticize the Palestinians for doing what they themselves would have done and anyone else would have done under a similar situation.

It is outrageous to imagine that the Palestinians would have accepted the Zionist claim to sovereignty in Palestine (or half of Palestine) - based on a 2000 year-old claim if they thought (albeit incorrectly) that they had the means to effectively resist.

No indigenous people anywhere would have accepted such a claim of sovereignty based on the claim that the area was under their sovereignty 2000 years ago. Can the Palestinians have been expected to believe that a group of primarily very secular European Jews had sovereignty rights? If this had been in Alabama or Luxembourg would they have accepted it, based on a 2000 year-old claim? Would Israelis today accept yielding half of current Israel to Palestinian refugees based on a 60 year-old claim given that they do undoubtedly do have means to resist?

If Ze'ev Jabotinsky a man who virtually founded the Israeli right --a man unashamed and unapologetic of his racism and advocacy for the use of terror -- if even he could recognize that Zionism was above all a colonizing enterprise and that all indigenous people throughout the history of the world have resisted and would resist as long as they had a gleam of hope an alien usurpation of a land they had every natural right to consider their homeland could be stopped - If even he could recognize that reality way back in 1923 when the Israeli state was still a dream...I would surmise that modern 21st century liberals 60 years after the establishment of the Israeli state should be able by means of natural human empathy to conceive of that too.

"Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of foreign settlement. This is how the Arabs will behave and go on behaving so long as they possess a gleam of hope that they can prevent Palestine from becoming the Land of Israel".

--Ze'ev Jabotinsky 1923

In a similar vein, he also wrote in 1923:

"The Arabs loved their country as much as the Jews did. Instinctively, they understood Zionist aspirations very well, and their decision to resist them was only natural ..... There was not misunderstanding between Jew and Arab, but a natural conflict. .... No Agreement was possible with the Palestinian Arab; they would accept Zionism only when they found themselves up against an 'iron wall,' when they realize they had no alternative but to accept Jewish settlement." (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 90)

------------

Again from Shlomo Ben Ami in Scars of War Wounds of Peace: The Arab Israeli Tragedy


from page 44:

"The debate about whether or not the mass exodus of Palestinians was the result of a Zionist design or the inevitable concomitant of war could not ignore the ideological constructs that motivated the Zionist enterprise. The philosophy of transfer was not a marginal, esoteric article....These ideological constructs provided a legitimate environment for commanders in the field to encourage the eviction of the local population even when no precise order to that effect was issued by the political leaders. As early as February 1948, that is before the mass exodus had started but after he witnessed how Arabs had fled West Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion could not hide his excitement."

http://www.amazon.com/Scars-War-Wounds-Peace-Israeli-Arab/dp/0195181581/sr=1-1/qid=1166681762/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books

.

[shira]

45. Your facts are wrong again, for example the 1967 war...

Maybe this will help you:
http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/threats.asp

And if 1967 was just a 'land grab', which it wasn't, why did Israel immediately offer all land captured in that war in exchange for peace? The Arab League responded with the 3 no's of Khartoum.

[Chulanowa]

48. CAMERA?

You don't even pretend anymore, do you?

[shira]

52. When you find anything factually incorrect WRT camera's claims, lemme know. n/t

[Tripmann]

54. When you eventually use an unbiased source, let the board know. We won't hold our breath

[shira]

55. When you can distinguish between bias and honesty, fact from fiction - lemme know. n/t

[Tripmann]

56. ROTFLMAO, says I/Ps resident queen of bias!! Too funny shira.

[oberliner]

58. What are some sources that you use for your information?

I agree with you that CAMERA is biased towards a particular point of view.

Can you identify some sources that you use that you feel are not biased and can be relied upon to provide accurate information?

[Chulanowa]

70. Entertainingly one of my sources is also one cited by CAMERA

Different book, same author.

Power, Faith, and Fantasy; America in the Middle East 1776 to the present by Michael B. Oren
The Great War for Civilisation; the Conquest of the Middle East by Robert Fisk
Once Upon a Country by Sari Nusseibeh
A History of the Middle East by Peter Mansfield
A History of the Arab Peoples by Albert Hourani

Granted, these are general (though the first two are very expansive on the conflict, considering their scope covers Morocco to Pakistan) rather than specific. I'm always shopping for more, at reasonable prices, but my local bookstores are a little limited. if I wanted information on how to weave myself some wicker lawn ornaments, or make my own compost, plenty of books for that... this is such a goddamned Granola place :rofl:

I've been reading through Jimmy Carter's "Palestine; Peace Not Apartheid, which I picked up just last week. Unless it has some sort of explosive conclusion, I'm not seeing what the big deal was. His writing makes jello look tough. I'm also looking at orderng Benny Morris' "Righteous Victims."

I've also gone over more websites than I can remember off the top of my head. I only keep one in my bookmarks, even that is only because it provides a comprehensive list of towns and villages lost to Israel in 1948 - 1967, their current names as Israeli towns and settlements, the fates of the people who lived there, all divided by region of Israel they now fall under. It also provides a nice number of quotes from the Israeli side regarding Palestinians and Arabs.

[oberliner]

77. Are you talking about Salah Mansour's website?

Is it called Palestine Remembered? If so, I think you cannot help but agree that the site is very much agenda driven and biased. The founder (and editor) of the site is not shy about expressing his opinions with respect to the conflict in general and the Palestinian right of return in particular.

I think while the site does a great job of gathering information from primary sources about pre-1948 villages in Palestine and the people who lived in them, it also contains FAQS about Zionism and "explanations" of the events that have taken place in the history of the conflict that reveal a very particular slant on those topics.

I would also argue they are as guilty as CAMERA of providing a series of out-of-context quotes from a specific set of sources that are meant to paint a certain picture that is consistent with the narrative the site wishes to promote especially with respect to the Israeli perspective.

I'm not sure why folks think it is ok to dismiss CAMERA with peals of laughter because of its pro-Israel slant but not ok to apply that same skepticism to sites that are also clearly slanted but in a different direction.

I apologize if Palestine Remembered is not the site you were talking about.

[Chulanowa]

93. Yes, as a matter of fact

That'd be the one. And yes, I agree it is strongly biased and agenda-driven. That is why I do not use it as the nearly sole source of my information and I do not cite it here, as Shira and some others regularly do with ChronPalWatch and CAMERA. It provides information on those villages taken, what htey are now, and what happened to the people there. When I use this information, I verify it as best as I can, rather than take it at face value as being "ABSOLUTELY TRUE BECAUSE IT AGREES WITH MY TEAM!!"

If I were to post a list of quotes and say "This is true because Palestine Remembered says it is!" then I would expect to be met with the same peals of laughter that I give when someone cites MEMRI or CAMERA in the same fashion.

This is one of the benefits of having a deep interest in the situation beyond trying to prove "my team" is i nthe right, Oberliner; I can look at something that superficially agrees with what I believe, and still be able to see the bullshit in it, thanks to a fairly broad base of knowledge from my previous explorations on hte topic. I'd reccomend some others around here to put down their Jonah Goldberg and Daniel Pipes, and give variety a try.

[oberliner]

95. I pretty much agree with everything you've written here

I think it is very important for people to verify the information they come across (especially on Wikipedia) before accepting it as fact. I think both "teams" have some representatives who do not always do a good job of that.

I think it is very valuable to be able to see the bullshit, as you said, in items that appear superficially to agree with what you believe.

The more strenuously I make an effort to do that, the more bullshit I end up finding - from all corners.

A little extra research can go a long way - which is why I particularly have a major beef with people who use Wikipedia as some sort of definitive source, but that is a rant for another time.

[Chulanowa]

99. Well, in defense of wikipedia...

Most Wikipedia entries we would use in this debate have a list of sources and citations the length of my arm, simply because of all the contentiousness and the malleable nature of the site. The end result is a condensation of the facts, which does distort things a bit. Problem is, most people just don't have fat libraries full of this subject matter. Even if they head to a public library, unless it's a major branch, they won't find too much on the subject, since libraries these days seem to cater more to entertainment reading than research (nothing wrong with that, until you want to do some research)

Given then that many people are restricted to what they can dig up online, Wikipedia actually provides a fairly neutral source and has plenty of leads for additional information. Seriously, do a google search for information on the 1967 war. I did, for a previous part of this discussion. What I found (besides Wikipedia) was a lot of over-the-top pro-Israeli bullshit, with a few mentions of the USS Liberty thrown in. Pretty much nothing from the Egyptian side of things, much less any other Arab perspective. I gave up five pages in, granted, which is probably still deeper than most people would go.

A key difference in the bullshit is, pro-Palestinian / anti-Israel bullshit is generally poorly done and lacks the coverage or financing to go anywhere. Your average pro-Palestinian site looks like TimeCube. On the other hand, the same sort of site from the opposite angle still reeks of manure, but it looks very slick and authorative, and can generally pass as an actual "news" site, like Artuz Sheva does. Thus it simply takes more work and time to expose the pro-Israeli bullshit, which is why I spend more time on it.

If the Hamas Mickey Mouse were as successful at catapulting the propaganda as Chucky Krauthammer (Feisal does not have a syndicated column in the US that I am aware of, for starters) then maybe I would go the other way.

[Shaktimaan]

104. I recommend...

the Shlomo Ben-Ami book that Douglas quoted from above. I found it insightful and unbiased.

There were a bunch of things with Carter's book. My main issue with it was a tendency towards selective historical editing. He didn't say anything that was untrue, but he would leave out important events that provided context to the ones he did discuss. Another thing that annoyed me was how he would describe some events as told by people like Arafat or Assad. They might say things that were not accurate but since Carter was just repeating their statements, he was technically being truthful. The reader, of course, would have no reason to question the accuracy of Arafat's account. All in all it was just incredibly biased and not very accurate.

[Chulanowa]

105. Yeah, I wondered if Carter took a long, long nap between 1980 and 2000

As for quoting Arafat and Assad... :shrug: if you want to hear the Israeli side of things, all you have to do is turn on a TV. I for one enjoy reading what Assad and Arafat had to say, if only because I'd never heard it before. I'm not going to accept their assertions as complete truth at all times, and to be totally honest, I don't think Carter needed to play ball for the Israel side of the argument when delivering these quotes; he does plenty of that through the rest of the book.

Well, actually I'd heard plenty of Assad's position before, from those sources I cited. There doesn't seem to be much variation, and he strikes me as one of those guys who's a total asshole, but happens to have a few decent ideas even so. Ariel Sharon was like that, too, all-around a piece of shit guy, but sometimes he could surprise you with something intelligent.

[Shaktimaan]

106. Really? You founds parts pro-israel?

I certainly didn't. I have no issue presenting arafat's take on stuff. But this book is meant as a historical primer for people who don't know anything about the conflict. So he has a responsibility to present things in a historically honest way. I think anyway. For instance, if you're making a timeline and you decide to put in an example of jewish terrorism against arabs from the late 30's, then you also need to include the context... ie: the great arab uprising. It's not like people learn this history from the tv news or anything. And it's a complex history.

[Chulanowa]

107. Exactly, it's a primer

Primers aren't comprehensive. And it's really only meant to cover 1973 - Present, at that.

The timeline is worthless beyond the criticism you give it; about the first half of it takes the Bible as literal historical truth. When it gives an exact date for a guy who didn't exist leading an event that never happened, you can pretty much dismiss the rest of it, as well, or at least realize that you're going to need some salt.

And yes, he takes a pro-Israeli stance. Where you might be stumbling is the fact he's simply not as extreme with it as, well, most of the pro-Israeli posters here on DU, or the assorted and sundry pundits. And you know how the extreme right assumes anyone not as far-out as them is for "the enemy?" Yeah, same deal.

[aranthus]

66. It's a list of quotes.

Many of which are available from other sources (The Israel-Arab Reader, for one). Either they are accurate or they aren't. Either they are cherry picked or they aren't. Sure, CAMERA is biased, which is reason to not accept their opinion on things, if you want. But how does that disprove the quotes?

[azurnoir]

49. so Israel offered ALLl of the land back does that include the OldCity

or East Jerusalem? your statement

"And if 1967 was just a 'land grab', which it wasn't, why did Israel immediately offer all land captured in that war in exchange for peace? The Arab League responded with the 3 no's of Khartoum."

now more about Khartoum

The resolution has often been presented as a clear example of Arab rejectionism. For example, Benny Morris wrote that the Arab leaders "hammered out a defiant, rejectionist platform that was to bedevil all peace moves in the region for a decade." Still, he laid some of the blame with Israel, saying that "in part stand was a response to Israel's unwillingness or inability to consider withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza as part of any peace settlement"<2>—an interpretation echoed by UNTSO Chief of Staff General Odd Bull.<3>

Avi Shlaim argues that Arab spokesmen interpreted the Khartoum declarations to mean "no formal peace treaty, but not a rejection of peace; no direct negotiations, but not a refusal to talk through third parties; and no de jure recognition of Israel, but acceptance of its existence as a state" (emphasis in original). Shlaim claims that the conference marked a "turning point" in Arab-Israeli relations, noting that Nasser urged Hussein to seek a "comprehensive settlement" with Israel. Shlaim acknowledges however, that none of this was known in Israel at the time, whose leaders took the "three noes" at face value.<4>

In the event, indirect negotiations between Israel, Jordan and Egypt were eventually opened through the auspices of the Jarring Mission, and direct talks were also held in secret between Israel and Jordan, but neither avenue succeeded in achieving a meaningful settlement, setting the stage for a new round of conflict.

This page was last modified on 13 April 2010 at 14:59.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum_Resolution

[shira]

53. Here's a better source than anything that references Avi Shlaim...

http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/khartoum.asp

[azurnoir]

60. you already posted that same CAMERA link

I read it

[aranthus]

67. Bit of a stretch to blame Khartoum on Israel.

First the facts. This from the Myths and Facts section of Jewish Virtual Library: "After its victory in the Six-Day War, Israel hoped the Arab states would enter peace negotiations. Israel signaled to the Arab states its willingness to relinquish virtually all the territories it acquired in exchange for peace."

Okay, so "virtually all" isn't "all". But it's close enough to support the claim that the Six-Day War was not a land grab.

Second, Morris does say what is cited to in the Wikipedia article. However, it's a one sentence blurb in the entire chapter. So even Morris didn't think it was a big reason for Khartoum. It's a big stretch to think that there would have been a major difference in the declaration if Israel had immediately offered the return of all captured territory in exchange for a peace agreement, rather than most of it. As even Avi Schlaim admits, the Arabs weren't thinking in terms of a peace agreement. At most they would have offered to not launch another war that they couldn't possibly win, while continuing their demands for Right of Return, etc. There was no way that the Israelis would have or should have accepted that.

[Douglas Carpenter]

90. this is the "virtually all the territory" Israel was willing to return in exchange for peace

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/allonplan.html


The Allon Plan

On July 26, 1967, Defense Minister Yigal Allon presented a plan to then-Prime Minister Levi Eshkol for a settlement with the Palestinians, which came to be known as the Allon Plan. The plan was clarified publicly in a 1976 Foreign Affairs magazine article.
http://www.mideastweb.org/alonplan.htm

[oberliner]

98. This map does not include the Golan Heights or the Sinai Peninsula

Both of which were offered to be returned by Israel to Syria and Egypt respectively as part of a peace agreement.

[Douglas Carpenter]

103. Sadat in February of 1971 offered peace talks to the government of Golda Meir but was rebuffed

rather unceremoniously.

Again,

as former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami put it in his book,"Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Arab-Israeli Tragedy"

http://www.amazon.com/Scars-War-Wounds-Peace-Israeli-Arab/dp/0195325427/ref=pd_sim_b_5/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&qid=1180427457&sr=1-2

from page 115

"But Golda Meir's intransigence derailed this last initiative as well. It is difficult to imagine a greater gulf which exited between the resourceful statesman Sadat, and the trivially immobile government led by Mrs. Meir"..
"The rejection of his last overture signaled for the Sadat the beginning of the countdown to war."

the from page 145, "But Sadat's strategy did not aim at military victory. His was a political move by military means. His was a political war a classic Clausewitzian move that complemented his peace strategy, his quest for a settlement."..."Sadat then betrayed both the Syrians, who never saw this as a political war--they fought for the liberation of the Golan Heights, pure and simple"

Who Wanted Peace? Who Wanted War? History Refutes Israel's US Image

By Sheldon L. Richman

One is that Israel has been saying yes to peace talks with Arabs decade after decade—as Anwar El-Sadat proved, to Egypt's everlasting gain. Second reality: for all those decades every other Arab nation refused to make peace, refused to talk ....

In fact, it takes an enormous evasion of reality to believe this. Arab leaders have repeatedly tried to make peace. Even Egyptian President Sadat's famous effort in late 1977 was not his first. He made a significant peace overture in 1971 and was rebuffed. But neither was Sadat's earlier offer the first from Egypt. His predecessor, Gamal Abdul Nasser, made "a major effort for a settlement with Israel" in the spring of 1955. The words are those of Elmore Jackson, a Quaker representative to the United Nations, and the go-between in Nasser's initiative.

....

The Egyptians' terms included some repatriation of Palestinian refugees, compensation for those unwilling or unable to return, and boundary adjustments to link the Arab communities. Sharett's response was generally favorable, and each side regarded the other as serious. "Our meeting closed with his saying he would go anywhere to talk to President Nasser—even to Cairo," Jackson wrote. "He said, 'Nasser is a decent fellow who has the interest of his people genuinely at heart. "'In conversations with Nasser, Jackson learned that Egyptian leaders had conducted informal discussions with the Israeli government after Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion retired and Sharett succeeded him in 1953. But the discussions broke off when Ben-Gurion returned to the cabinet as defense minister and Israel resumed attacks against Palestinian guerrillas and Egyptian soldiers in the Gaza Strip. (Palestinian refugees would infiltrate Israel to retrieve crops and property as well as to exact vengeance for their dispossession.)

The biggest Israeli attack occurred Feb. 28, 1955, at the town of Gaza, ostensibly in retaliation for Egypt's hanging of two saboteurs in the 1954 Lavon affair, in which Israeli agents tried to sabotage Egyptian American relations by planting firebombs in US diplomatic installations in Cairo and Alexandria. (Israel denounced the Egyptian charges as fabrications, only to come clean six years later. The surviving agents ' released from Egyptian prisons, were welcomed as heroes in Israel.)


Confidence-Shaking Measures

Nasser's confidence in the possibility of a settlement was shaken by the Israeli escalation of violence. Back in Israel, Sharett and Ben-Gurion told Jackson that, because of the guerrilla attacks, they had ordered a massive strike against the southern Gaza town of Khan Yunis. The order was canceled when Jackson warned that the attack would probably end the short-lived negotiations. Egypt accepted a cease-fire proposed by the UN Truce Supervision Organization, but Israel equivocated. A short time later, Ariel Sharon's Unit 101 went ahead with the attack on Khan Yunis. It struck an Egyptian police station and also terrorized a village. Thirty six people were killed, including civilians.

snip: "According to Jackson, Nasser felt increasingly vulnerable to Israeli military might (warplanes routinely violated Egyptian airspace). He could not accept the conditions the Eisenhower administration insisted on attaching to an arms sale. At a press conference after the Czech deal, Nasser said: "Egypt has no aggressive intentions toward Israel. War is not an easy decision for anybody, especially for me."
''''

Nasser's feeling of vulnerability was no fantasy. A year later, in 1956, Israel, Britain and France attacked Egypt. When the war broke out, Sharett, who by then was out of the cabinet, wrote in his diary, "We are the aggressors," Israel conquered the Sinai for the first time, but later gave it back under US pressure. Israel would conquer it again in 1967.

Nasser's successor, Sadat, would make his own bid for peace in 1971, only to have it rejected by Israel and the Nixon-Kissinger administration. It took another war to force Israel to take Sadat's bid for peace seriously. "



link to full article:

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/1091/9110039.htm

[Jim Sagle]

125. HERE'S a map for ya, buddy boy.

Proving once and for all that the whole I/P controversy ain't nuthin' but a crocka chickenshit bullshit.

[Violet_Crumble]

126. Could you explain why you think that map proves the I/P conflict is bullshit?

Are you trying to say that seeing Israel isn't very large geographically, that it somehow makes Israel's occupation of territory that doesn't belong to it legitimate?

[Jim Sagle]

127. It's self-explanatory actually. I know you can dope it out.

[Violet_Crumble]

128. No, it's not self-explanatory. Please answer the question you were asked..

Could you explain why you think that map proves the I/P conflict is bullshit?
Are you trying to say that seeing Israel isn't very large geographically, that it somehow makes Israel's occupation of territory that doesn't belong to it legitimate?

on edit: If you refuse again to explain why you think the map you posted proves the I/P conflict is bullshit, then I'll take that as you agreeing in advance that the conclusion that I draw over what you said is correct...

[Violet_Crumble]

135. Okay, seeing you refused to explain why you think the map proves the conflict is bullshit...

Here's what you appear to be arguing: Because Israel is a small state in size, people should shut the fuck up and ignore it when it overruns territory that doesn't belong to it. After all, it's only an iddy-biddy country so people need to stop taking notice of it. No one understands that international law should be ignored if a country is small like Israel. It's really small, so why can't it make itself a bit less smaller by expanding?


Only problem with such a silly argument, Jimbo, is that when someone tells you that size doesn't matter, they're spot on. Israel's violation of international law and the long-term belligerant occupation of the Palestinian people would be just as wrong if Israel was the size of Australia....

[Ken Burch]

138. The map explains nothing.

the Six Counties of Northern Ireland/Ulster are an even smaller area, and you don't challenge the validity of the feelings on both sides of that.

Neither do you challenge those of the Chechens against Russia(and Chechnya is a very small area too).

At some point you're going to have to accept that sympathy for the Palestinian people is NOT driven by antisemitism. Or at least openly admit it, since you've always known that being pro-Palestinian didn't equate to hatred of Israelis, or of Jewish people living anywhere else.

You've lied everytime you made the accusation, or even the insinuation.

Palestinians ARE an oppressed people, and those who feel sympathy with them would do so no matter WHO oppressed them.

[Douglas Carpenter]

129. In your heart you know the Palestinians are right

[Jim Sagle]

134. Sorry, no. And I didn't vote for Goldwater, either.

;)

[Ken Burch]

139. In your MIND you know that sympathy for Palestinians is NOT antisemitism

n/t.

[Jim Sagle]

141. But a fixation with Palestinians that crowds out an entire world of trouble may well be.

[Ken Burch]

142. You can't assume that pro-Palestinian people HAVE that much of a fixation

The existence of this forum creates a distorted picture, because here we ONLY discuss the Israel/Palestine dispute.

[Jim Sagle]

145. Good point.

[Shaktimaan]

102. This is incorrect.

The vast majority of Arabs who left Palestine in the naqba fled on their own. They were not forcibly expelled. The fact that it happened before the other arab states got involved is irrelevant. There was already a civil war going on and the expulsions that did occur were strategically necessary. Deir Yassin, for example, was destroyed in order to break the siege of Jerusalem.

The groups that perpetrated that massacre did not form the backbone of the IDF either. The Haganah did. Your understanding of a lot of these facts leaves me kinda cold... like your six day war analysis here. Egypt violated their agreement, expelled UN peacekeepers (who were doing fine watching the border), closed off a major Israeli shipping lane, massed troops at the border and made several statements bragging about how he was going to attack Israel and destroy it.

In 2008, Israel didn't violate any agreement with Hamas. To be accurate, there never was a real agreement but rather and "understanding." This understanding was violated by both sides on several different occasions, but essentially held. Israel blew up a tunnel that Hamas was digging INTO Israel. Which they should have done. Hamas' decision to drop the cease fire can't be blamed on that instance.

[shaayecanaan]

5. I imagine if the Jews had not been provided with a homeland...

then perhaps they themselves would be still sitting in refugee camps, bewailing their fate and beseeching the world to come to their rescue.

If the author is tired of Palestinian lachyrmosity perhaps he should support the establishment of a Palestinian state. Then the woe-begotten residents of the camps would have somewhere to go to.

[aranthus]

6. Well that's total bull.

For starters, the Jews were not "provided with a homeland". They built it themselves in the face of a war. Aside from that, the comparison is about as fatuous as it gets. And of course, the Arabs of Palestine could have had their own state at the same time if they hadn't chosen the path of war.

[shaayecanaan]

11. So are you saying that the Jews forcibly took the land?

rather than it having been given to them by Britain or the UN?

[aranthus]

13. It's more complicated than that, as you should know.

It's true that that neither Britain nor the U.N took land from anyone, nor gave anything to the Jews. You have to remember that most of the land of Palestine was not privately owned. The government owned it. At first, the Jews bought private land. However, most of the land of the new Israeli state was government land abandoned by the British. However, once the Palestinians set the stakes by starting the war, then the Israelis seized some land by force.

[shaayecanaan]

24. So it wasnt given to them, but it wasnt taken by them either?

"The government owned it" (presumably the British government?) and they "abandoned it" - sort of like an old couch or television set on the side of the road, where the first person who picks it in their car gets to keep it?

So I presume that anyone could have picked up the land while it was "abandoned"? Maybe the Arabs could have taken it, or even some Jamaicans on holiday?

Just out of interest, exactly when did the British abandon the land?

[aranthus]

30. It wasn't initially taken by force.

That didn't happen until after the Arabs of Palstine attacked. The British gave notice of their intention to abandon the Mandate in 1947, and actually withdrew on May 14, 1948 (give or take a day).

[Chulanowa]

44. So, there was no such thing as "Jewish Territory"?

If there was nothing given and nothing taken, then whence did this term come from? Who drew the maps, if there was no such place?

[aranthus]

63. What do you mean by "Jewish territory"?

I suspect you mean something more than merely land that was owned by Jews (which there was obviously). To me the phrase means territory over which Jews were or are sovereign. That's the same definition that I give to the phrase "Palestinian territory". So before the Jews created Israel, was there such a thing as "Jewish territory"? No, there was not, any more than there was Palestinian territory. There was only territory over which each side claimed sovereignty. Once the British left, the Jews declared their sovereignty over areas that they claimed, in part because they were the majority in those areas. The Palestinians could have declared their own state in areas of Palestine where they were the majority, but instead they threw that away to try and take everything.

Now, of course there were maps. Several sets of them, in fact. There had been several international efforts during the 20's and 30's to mediate the growing conflict between Arab and Jew before the Partition Resolution. None of them took. And none of those maps controlled the process. They weren't graven in stone. They were all suggestions to the parties as to how they could resolve the dispute. They didn't create "Jewish territory" or "Palestinian territory". They only suggested what might be. All of which was lost because the Arabs of Palestine chose war.

[Chulanowa]

68. I suggest you have a look at the UN partition plan of 1947

The one set forth by UN resolution 181 that defined "Jewish Territory "and "Arab territory." You know, the one that you like to buttfuck while proclaiming the Arabs deserved what they got when they rejected the plan? Yeah, that one.

Of course, I won't distress your poor little head with an explanation of why they rejected it. I imagine discovering that the Un had actually done exactly what you're claiming never happened is going to be enough of a shock to your psyche for one day.

[aranthus]

69. Have you ever read it?

If you had, then you would know that it was just a suggestion. The UN did not actully do anything except make a suggestion. And I don't claim that the Arabs deserved what they got because they rejected the Partition Plan, as you would know from reading my posts instead of making things up. But they did start a war. That has consequences that go way beyond rejecting the Partition Plan.

[Chulanowa]

71. If that's what makes you happy, man

You're completely full of it, but you seem to enjoy yourself.

[aranthus]

72. Do you have anything to support your opinion, or is that just what you want to believe?

I have the UN Charter that defines the powers (or lack thereof) of the General Assembly, the Partition Resolution itself, and several histories (Elusive Victory among them) that support mine. Where's your proof?

[Chulanowa]

101. See below for what your position leads to n/t

[Shaktimaan]

156. I don't understand this argument at all.

What was posted about the UNGA resolutions is accurate. Unless the Partition Plan was approved by every entity it affected then it became null and void. All UNGA resolutions are basically "suggestions" that demonstrate the collective will of all the states represented. So they are political tools, but there is no enforcement mechanism if anyone decides to ignore or reject a resolution targeting it.

I am surprised that you seem unaware of this fact, but I'm even more surprised that you seem to reject it outright! People are often under the mistaken impression that the Partition Resolution "created" Israel... that the UN "gave away" Arab land to the Zionists and that in rejecting it the Palestinians had no choice but to take up arms.

The reality is that the Palestinians were free to reject the plan without fear of having it forced upon them by the UN. And while the Palestinians had every right to reject any, (or even every), plan that involved sharing their homeland, once they initiated a civil war against the Jews of Palestine they lost both the ethical high ground as well as the ability to participate in any negotiating process. By choosing violence they then became committed to the result, whether for good or ill. Choosing war over negotiating was a tremendous gamble. In losing the war the Palestinians also lost the right to contest the results when they ended up with far, far less than they anticipated. The entity that unnecessarily chooses to fight before other options are exhausted makes for a rather unsympathetic victim in the event that they lose said fight.

I often hear about the Palestinian's right to reject the UN's partition plan, and their right to use force in resisting the advance of Zionism on what they saw as solely their homeland. And I would agree that the Palestinians possessed these rights, however I would also argue that the Yishuv equally had every right to defend itself from threats. The right to reject Zionism's claim to Palestine exists, but it is far from risk free. By employing their right to defend their nascent nation's integrity they risked losing far more.

One can not defend the Palestinian's right to reject a Jewish claim to their homeland only to then admonish the Zionists for treating the Palestinians as a violent entity. You can't have it both ways. If you accept the Palestinian's right to reject attempts at partitioning the land, and their right to expel the newly arrived European Zionists from Palestine, then you must also accept the potential consequences of those actions. The right to fight is not the equivalent of a guarantee of victory.

[shaayecanaan]

78. So the Arabs could declare a state in parts where they are the majority?

For example, the northern district of Israel, including Haifa and Nazareth?

[oberliner]

80. Israel is a sovereign nation

Mandatory Palestine, by definition, was not.

[shaayecanaan]

84. So is/was Serbia

and indeed, so is/was Jordan. Nevertheless, most Kosovars did not want to remain part of Serbia, and the Western nations did not seem to be overly bothered by any niceties concerning Serbian sovereignty. And as the Russians remarked when the US objected over South Ossetia: "Kosovo creates a precedent."

The poster seems to be arguing (although it is difficult to understand him at times) that Israel has no inherent claim to its territory on the basis of any UN resolution, and that it possesses its territory mainly on the basis of having outfought the Arabs for it after the British left

As a realist, I am quite prepared to accept that argument - although I would point out that that argument comes with certain consequences.

Of course, I would also note that the native Americans were not a sovereign nation, nor the Australian Aborigines nor the Zulus or Maoris. If the poster wants to whitewash the theft of Palestine, then by necessity he (and you) whitewash the theft of all lands from all indigenous peoples.

[oberliner]

89. Each situation is unique

Although I should probably step out of this discussion since I haven't really followed the exchange closely enough to be able to contribute anything particularly useful.

[shaayecanaan]

92. You're already making more useful contributions

than the other poster, although as benchmarks go that is not a very difficult one to exceed.

[Chulanowa]

20. Yes, that is total bull

What you wrote, I meant.

Learn some fucking history, will ya?

[Ken Burch]

17. One sickenening probability...

If Israel had NOT come into existence, the politicians who fell all over themselves to self-identify as "pro-Israeli" would be doing all they could to keep those Jewish refugees from being admitted into the U.S. and Canada-just as their hateful kind did in the 1930's and 1940's(like the Canadian immigration official who said "ONE would be too many" when asked what an acceptable number of Jewish refugees to Canada).

In one horrible respect, the creation of Israel, whatever else you could say about it, was a boon to the antisemites of North America-it helped them to keep the jewish population of this continent as small as possible. That should NEVER have been a reason for anyone to back Zionism, but for a lot of political figures in the English-speaking world, it was a huge one.

[Chulanowa]

21. Well ,the whole idea behind western support of the state...

Comes from the notion that Israel is integral to the return of Jesus. And of course, when Jesus shows up, first thing on his list is to massacre the Jews of the world.

Russia was in it because it figured it could woo the new state over to communism and get a warm-water ally.

[whosinpower]

7. Wow -

In a nutshell - it's all the Arabs fault that hundreds of thousands of palistinians were disposessed. If they hadn't of invaded in 1948......then all those palistinians would still be in their homes?!? Yes? Of course, of course, I never thought of it that way - and of course Israel would never forcibly MOVE them out(that is sarcasm btw)....so, in one dark sense, those invading armies did Israel a grand favour.

And according to the author, it is the rich Arab states and the UN that want to keep the palistinians poor for no other reason than as a living rebuke to Israel.

Well - let's play a game. Let's suppose that the rich Arab States and UNWRA divorce itself from the needs of the palistinians altogether. As the author aptly put, history-battered groups choose to live by an urgent ethic: Get up, get going, make a new life. So - let's pull it ALL out. We aren't doing them any favours by allowing them to stew in the condition they find themselves in, so we should pull ALL aid and force them to live within their own means. And the Arab states will no longer employ them, because even doing this - is exploitation.

In terms of Gaza, locked on all sides from Israel, and with 70? percent food aid dependant, 45 percent unemployed, devastated infrastructure - if ALL aid was withdrawn, what would we see? A crisis - yes or no. Perhaps then Israel will finally take account of the people it did displace...or perhaps it will watch with growing horror the day the Arab States and the UN turns away and decides the palistinians are all on their own.....for their own good.....to unlock their addiction to pity.

[shira]

10. Are Arab governments to blame at all for the Palestinian refugee problem, and if so how? n/t

[aranthus]

15. Yes, if there hadn't been a war, then there wouldn't be any refugees.

Have you any proof that the Israelis planned to move out Arabs even if there was no war? (Hint: there isn't any). The only evidence that exists is that the Israelis made plans to deal with the Arabs if there was a war.

[Ken Burch]

18. Read Benny Morris. He laid out the whole thing.

(Weirdly, Morris also thought the Palestinians had it coming).

[shaayecanaan]

25. You might have to be a bit more specific with this particular poster...

such as directing them to particular links:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet

[aranthus]

31. You'll notice that plan Dalet wasn't even created until Autumn, 1947,

and wasn't executed until 1948, well after the Arabs of Palestine had already started the war.

[Chulanowa]

41. So what's your opinion on PNAC?

The plan outlining hte utter destruction of Iraq was laid out in paper, mailed to Clinton as early as, what was it, 1994? And didn't get implemented until Saddam "Posed a threat!" Which, as I'm sure you're aware, was a false threat, conjured up purely to get the PNAC plan into motion.

You don't come up with a plan for ethnic cleansing if you're not planning to use it.

[aranthus]

64. Not true.

Neither PNAC nor Plan Dalet were plans for ethnic cleansing. They were war plans. Military organizations plan all the time. In the 1930's the US Navy had a plan for a war against the British. Do you think that the US actually intended to go to war with Britain? Of course, it didn't. But it's the job of the military to plan for every possible contingency. In the case, the case of PNAC and Plan Dalet (especially Plan Dalet), the chance of war was unfortunately high. For example, if there was a war, then the Jews could be pretty sure that the Arabs would try to lay siege to Jerusalem, and starve the Jews out (and that actually happened). So the Jews had to have a plan to deal with that situation (Operation Nachson). None of which would have happened except for the fact that the Arabs of Palestine went to war to take the entire territory.

[Chulanowa]

74. You raise an interesting point, considering your prior statements regarding territories

"None of which would have happened except for the fact that the Arabs of Palestine went to war to take the entire territory."

If, as you say there was no "Jewish territory" and there was only a polite suggestion from the UN for this, then it would seem perfectly reasonable to me that the land in question belonged solely to the original inhabitants, barring that which had been fairly sold to immigrants from abroad, by default of prior claim. Ergo, this being the case, it seems that the Palestinians were acting purely in defense of their land against an aggressive invading force from abroad, one which had previously engaged in terror and murder to force the hands of both British magistrates and Palestinian landowners.

They can't "take" what is theirs, after all. And if there was no internationally recognized "Jewish territory" as is your starting claim, then the entire place was the property of the Arabs living there and no one else - again barring those who had legally purchased title.

Feel free to revise your contradictory positions while I'm out earning my paycheck.

[aranthus]

76. You really want to go there?

Are you really going to take the position that the Palestinians are the "original inhabitants?" You are aware, are you not, that the Arabs only arrived in Palestine in the 700's, whereas the Jews had already had a state in the region for centuries before that? I don't think the "original inhabitants" argument is a particularly good way to parcel out sovereignty, but the Arabs fare worse on that than the Jews. Sovereignty in Palestine belonged to those national communities that existed at the time that were capable of exercising it. That means both the Jews and the Arabs.

There's nothing contradictory in my position. Nor do I have to show that the Jews were completely innocent to prove my point. Why do you think that you have to go to such an extent (and you really are reaching) to show that the Arabs were completely innocent?

[Chulanowa]

91. Actually I'm informing you of the piss-poor logic of your position

You can't on the one had say there was no Jewish territory, and on the other accuse the Arabs of "trying to take" said territory. it makes no sense.

And yes, let's go there. "The Arabs" and "The Jews" have no division as far as the original inhabitants of Palestine goes. Hate to break it to you, man, but the people who are today's Arab Muslim Palestinians were AD 600's Judean Jews and Christians of the Byzantine empire. There's no split there. There was no massive Arab immigration, for the simple reason there were not enough damn Arabs. The majority of the people of the Levant converted to Islam and accepted Arab rule (the taxes were cheaper than under Byzantine rule) but this did not make them a different people. Nor does it make the descendants of the Jews exiled from the Iudaea province by the Romans the rightful rulers, when they decided to come back thirteen hundred years later.

[Shaktimaan]

157. You are making a huge assumption yourself.

Why is it that you automatically determine any land that's not owned outright by Jews to be "Arab territory?" Palestine was a cosmopolitan area, inhabited by Bedouins, Druze, Jews, Christian Arabs, Muslim Arabs and so on. Yet you assume that everything not expressly owned by a minority group should be considered the property of a single entity.

What automatically makes all of that uninhabited land "Arab property?"

During the Mandate years Jews were discriminated against by passing laws which severely restricted the amount of land they could purchase. Then people cite the lack of Jewish-owned property as evidence of Arabs' natural sovereignty over all of Palestine. Does this slight-of-hand really express Arabs' rightful ownership of any unclaimed property to you?

While you are correct in asserting that no internationally recognized "Jewish territory" existed, you are ignoring the fact that no internationally recognized "Arab territory" existed either! Just by way of having been there longer than other minority groups does not impart Arabs with de-facto ownership over everything that isn't nailed down. Otherwise the vast majority of Iraq, including its oil fields, should rightfully be under Jewish sovereignty. I can't help but notice that it is not.

[oberliner]

57. Nice example of what is wrong with Wikipedia

The article you've cited is clearly slanted towards the perspectives and interpretations of Walid Khalidi and Ilan Pappe, two people who certainly have a very particular point of view on the subject.

As to Benny Morris, the historian referenced by the poster to whom you are responding, the article completely mischaracterizes his position claiming he shares the narrative presented by Khalidi and Pappe (with a few selectively chosen quotations) when he has written elsewhere, explicitly, that he does not.

To wit:

There was no Zionist "plan" or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of "ethnic cleansing". Plan Dalet (Plan D), of March 10th,1948 (it is open and available for all to read in the IDF Archive and in various publications), was the master plan of the Haganah - the Jewish military force that became the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) - to counter the expected pan-Arab assault on the emergent Jewish state. That's what it explicitly states and that's what it was. And the invasion of the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq duly occurred, on May 15th.

The above is from a letter Morris wrote to the Irish Times which is even cited, ironically enough, on his own Wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris#cite_note-8

This also illustrates the lack of internal consistency within the Wikipedia universe.

[aranthus]

65. Studying the history of this war is like walking throught a minefield,

except that you need a BS detector.

[shaayecanaan]

79. From Benny Morris' recent interview with Shimon Peres:-

http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/40409/making-history/

Morris: Perhaps ending the 1948 war with this demographic was a mistake?

Peres: No, moral considerations took priority over demographic considerations. Ben-Gurion knew that every war and conflict takes place twice—once on the battlefield and then in the history books. He didn’t want things to be written in the history books that were in dissonance with the foundations of Judaism. He really believed that without a moral priority there is no existence for the Jewish people. To expel he saw as contrary to his moral values.

M: But in 1948 he sometimes gave orders to expel.

P: He did not give orders to expel.

I suggest that Ben-Gurion did in fact give such orders, as when, on July 12, 1948, he authorized the expulsion of Arab inhabitants of the towns of Lydda and Ramleh on the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem road. Peres shakes his head. “I remember sitting in the room, when the matter of the expulsion of the Arabs from Haifa began, when Ben-Gurion telephoned Abba Khoushi and told him to do all he could to get the Arabs to stay . I heard this myself. I was there.” (It is worth noting that the Arabs of Haifa were not expelled but fled the city at the end of April 1948, due in part to a decision of the local Arab leadership.)

and:-

http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm

According to your new findings, how many cases of Israeli rape were there in 1948?

About a dozen. In Acre four soldiers raped a girl and murdered her and her father. In Jaffa, soldiers of the Kiryati Brigade raped one girl and tried to rape several more. At Hunin, which is in the Galilee, two girls were raped and then murdered. There were one or two cases of rape at Tantura, south of Haifa. There was one case of rape at Qula, in the center of the country. At the village of Abu Shusha, near Kibbutz Gezer there were four female prisoners, one of whom was raped a number of times. And there were other cases. Usually more than one soldier was involved. Usually there were one or two Palestinian girls. In a large proportion of the cases the event ended with murder. Because neither the victims nor the rapists liked to report these events, we have to assume that the dozen cases of rape that were reported, which I found, are not the whole story. They are just the tip of the iceberg.

According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were perpetrated in 1948?

Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field - they are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village - she is shot. There are cases such as the village of Dawayima , in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing and killed anything that moved.

The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram : at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.

That can’t be chance. It’s a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres.

What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion order. Is that right?

Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948, the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population. Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani .

Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?

From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created.

Ben-Gurion was a “transferist”?

Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist.

I don’t hear you condemning him.

Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here.

[oberliner]

81. Everything described in these interviews is with respect to events that happened during the 1948 war

The question asked was:

"Have you any proof that the Israelis planned to move out Arabs even if there was no war?"

Nothing in these interviews addresses that question at all.

Had the Partition Plan been accepted rather than rejected by the Palestinians, Syrians, Egyptians, Iranians, Iraqis, Lebanese, and Saudis, things could have potentially gone in a very different direction.

The argument being made is that the war created the refugees. The poster claimed that if there had not been a war, there would not have been a refugee problem.

Who can say where things would stand today if the countries I just listed would have agreed to the Partition Plan? Perhaps there would have been no war. Perhaps there would be no Palestinian refugee problem today. Perhaps the two states would have been able to live in peace.

[aranthus]

82. True.

However, it's important to note that the Arabs didn't go to war merely because they rejected the Partition Plan. In truth, the Partition Plan was developed in part because the Arabs intended to go to war, and was a last ditch effort to prevent that war. Had the Arabs gone to the Jewish Agency and offered to negotiate a different partition than that in the Plan, there would also be no war, and no refugees. The war did not result from the rejection of the Partition Plan, so much as the rejection of any peaceful compromise that provided for a Jewish state of any kind. That was the real choice that the Arabs had: compromise or war. They chose war.

[shaayecanaan]

86. Ben Gurion recognized the necessity of expulsion well before 1948...

this is quite well chronicled in Morris' "1948" book, in which Ben Gurion recognised that an Israeli state with a bare 60% majority of Jews would be unworkable, and that one way or another that demographic problem would need to be rectified.

[oberliner]

88. Ben Gurion was not the only person with a vision

As you are no doubt aware, there were several competing ideas with the Zionist movement. Early Zionist leaders envisioned a variety of scenarios where Jewish and Arab inhabitants of Palestine would be able to live peaceably side by side with no need for anyone being expelled.

[shaayecanaan]

97. I dare say Ben Gurion's vision was the vision that counted

along with the vision of Menachem Begin. Having a vision doesnt mean much unless you have a militia to enforce it.

[aranthus]

34. Which Morris book?

I assume that you're referring to Righteous Victims, which I have. If that's the one you mean, can you tell me where in the book Morris says that the Jews planned to evict the Arabs whether there was a war or not, because I haven't seen that. If it's not Righteous Victims, then what book is it?

[Chulanowa]

22. Actually, whether there are refugees or not is entirely in Israel's hands

So long as it refuses to acknowledge their human rights, they will remain refugees. it could comply with the geneva Conventions that it has signed on to, it could even impliment UN Resolution 242, or even - get this! - acknowledge UN Resolution 101 provides two states, not just one, and that israel must abide by that even if the Arabs acted like douches.

So long as Israel insists on violating international law, there will always be refugees.

[oberliner]

23. Where does UN Resolution 101 provide two states?

Here is the text of that resolution:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_101

You might be thinking of UN General Assembly Resolution 181, but, as a General Assembly and not a Security Council resolution - it represents a non-binding series of recommendations (recommendations which were rejected by every state in the region (Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen) as well as by representatives of the Palestinian people).

[aranthus]

35. And you accuse me of claiming my side is never wrong?

Do you think that the Palestinians have any responsibility at all for their current situation? Or is Israel simply obligated to roll over and die to please them?

As far as UNSCR 242, Israel has already implemented it with every neighboring state that has made a serious effort to implement it as well. The Resolution requires that Israel and the neighboring Arab states negotiate peace on the basis of a territorial trade for a peace agreement. Israel has done that with Egypt and Jordan. Syria and Lebanon haven't agreed to get serious about peace yet. It's those two countries that have yet to implement 242.

I'm going to assume that Resolution 101 is just a typo, and that you really meant UNGAR 181, commonly known as the Palestine Partition Resolution. Were you aware that of the relevant parties, Israel was the only one to ever accept it? The British refused to implement it, and the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors went to war to prevent it happening. And they were very successful. 181 was a General Assembly Resolution, which means it was only a suggestion, in this case to the British, who were the Mandatory over Palestine at the time. Once the Arabs rejected it and the British refused to implement it--suggestion over. UNGAR 181 no longer means anything, if it ever did.

[Chulanowa]

40. Are you Shira? 'Cause I don't recall accusing you of that

Your first line is idiotic. No, refugees do not owe a fucking thing to the states that have made them refugees. It is that state that owes them. What's really disgusting is that I am certain that you only want to apply this logic to Palestinians. I'll bet you're all for Burma paying the Karen back for what it's done to them, or the US giving full reparations to the refugees it has created in Iraq and Afghanistan. But when it's Israel, well, it's the Palestinians who we the Israelis?

That's just fucking dumb.

Is Israel obligated to roll over and die? Of course not, stop being stupid (or at least try.)

However, Israel does have an obligation to fix the situation it has caused. And let's not kid ourselves; the solutions to these problems aren't some sort of Gordian knot. if Israel's leaders comitted half the energy they spend making excuses and justifications to actually seeking solutions for peace instead, the problem could be solved in a few damn months. if I can figure out the solutions, then I'm damned sure people smart enough to be elected to power in Israel can figure it out, too. In fact, I know for certain many of Israel's leaders DO know what the solutions are. How to bring peace to Israel's borders, how to normalize economic relations with their neighbors, even how to fix the refugee problem. I'm sure there are even ways to heal the last sixty years of grievances without too much scarring. The trouble is, they simply choose not to do so. Why they make this choice is beyond me, I suppose it has something to do with the amoeba-like fluidity of Israeli politics.

The solutions are there. They have a damn neon light advertising their presence. it would be nice if the Palestinians could grab them and implement them, but they simply do not have the power to do so. Take the colonist issue. If Israel went out to the West Bank, fully armed and ready for a fight (as the "settlers" have advertised they will open fire in such a situation) and told these guys, "Okay, enough fucking around, get your ass back to Israel or we'll drag you back" then I imagine you would regard this as a point in favor of Israel, a motion towards peace. And it would be so, and I would join you in applauding their action. But then.. .What if the Palestinians did the same thing? Couple hundred police / militia pick up their guns, march up to the hilltop and say "This place is ours, get the fuck out or we will throw you out." Why, that would be terrorism! A blow against peace! How dare those evil hooknosed bloodsuckers try to drive people from their homes, oh the humanity! - even though those homes are illegally placed on Palestinian land.

Israel has the ability and the capital needed to accomplish measures towards peace. The Palestinians do not.

[shira]

46. Are you aware of Arab government responsibility for Palestinian refugees?

Try these on for size...
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=1102
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=1646

And please don't pretend in the future that you're unaware of this.

[Chulanowa]

47. Okay. So they can return the refugees to their former homes, then

I'm sure Israel will welcome them with open arms, right?

*Cough*

[shira]

51. Sure, right after all other millions of refugees of that time period are returned too.

Here's some more reading for you...

And the World is Lying” - The Plight of the Refugees
http://www.mideasttruth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8878&sid=e8a31ab02b3d1e7381817a789026d277

[Chulanowa]

73. You're doing it again

"Someone else is wrong too so that makes Israel right!!!"

[shira]

75. No, I'm pointing out your double standards and hypocrisy. Did you read the article?

Also, given that you could care less about Palestinian Refugees...remember our little discussion about the Build-Your-Own-Home-Program?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x329404

I find it odd you perceive yourself as a champion of their rights. Rights you were clear that you didn't give a damn about.

I'd like to believe that you're for resettling refugees into Israel in order to resolve the conflict, but I know better.

[Chulanowa]

96. Again, learn the definition of a term before you use it.

For me to hold a double standard, or for me to be a hypocrite, I would have to have a position that these other refugees your article mentions do not have the same right that Palestinians do. This is certainly not my position at all; they have every bit the same right as Palestinians.

And again; the build your own home program was designed to deny those rights, Shira. if Israel wanted to help the Refugees out, then it would recognize their Right of Return, a right shared by refugees the world over. Instead it offered to shuffle them around the West Bank and Gaza (or even third states) for a fee. http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=599

I very much am for resettling Refugees into Israel. Which is why I have repeatedly stated as much. Including my post which led to this particular discussion. I'm also on record as believing that a single state is ultimately the only viable long-term solution, which would of course involve such resettlement, or something very much like it.

Pay more attention, you might start to catch on.

[shira]

110. It's a double standard, Chuli

If you read Yemini's article, which I seriously doubt you did, you'd see that the Palestinian refugee situation is unique - with certain rights other refugee populations aren't privy to. Of all other refugee situations in the past century involving tens of millions of people, only in this refugee situation must the people - as well as their descendants (yet another stipulation unique to all other refugee situations in the history of this planet) - be allowed back to re-open old wounds, destroy the current state of Israel, etc. You're for it in this situation while knowing it simply will not happen in any other situation worldwide.

As much as I believe a one-state solution is ideal too, with open borders everywhere - and let's make this a worldwide phenomenon while we're at it - we both know one state with full return of refugees and their descendants is an impractical recipe for disaster and therefore a wet warmongerer's dream. If it's such a great idea, you'd be able to point to a successful situation elsewhere for which a binational state or something similar has been successful. It hasn't happened, Chuli. Why force the issue now? Do you realize the vast majority of Jews in that region, as well as most Palestinians are against one-state? Or that if the situation is forced, Israel will go through a very bloody civil war. Is that what you really want?

As for the build-your-own-home program, your link doesn't show that it was Israel's sinister intent to send refugees from the W.Bank to Gaza for relocation purposes. It doesn't even mention the PLO's flat out rejection of the program (due to the PLO's stated goal of intentionally perpetuating the refugee situation in order to keep the conflict going). The Israeli program didn't deny any individuals any rights, Chuli, and you know it. It gave individual refugees a choice - one that YOU are against - so people like yourself who are also pro-war (the one state solution) don't get to tout yourselves as humanitarian champions of Palestinian rights.

[Shaktimaan]

158. He didn't ask if the refugees OWE Israel anything...

he asked if the Palestinians bear any of the responsibility for their current situation. Frankly, I can't see how you would think otherwise. I mean, unless you honestly think that the Palestinians made the right decision EVERY time they were faced by a choice during the breadth of the entire conflict.

As one obvious example, by rejecting the UN Partition Plan and punctuating it by taking up arms against Palestine's Jewish inhabitants they started the civil war which would eventually lead to the Nakba. Admitting that some Palestinian actions helped create the refugee problem is not the same thing as saying that the refugee problem is entirely the fault of the Palestinians themselves.

By saying that they played no role you strip the Palestinians of any real ability to make choices that influence their future. If we expect Israel to react the same way towards the Palestinians, regardless of what they do, we are essentially saying that the Palestinians can't be trusted to make their own decisions. Had the Palestinians won that war and Israel was never born we all would have accepted the reality of it by now. But they lost and here we are now, demanding that Israel apologize for creating the refugee situation in the process of defending itself. That the Palestinians played a role in that historical event is routinely ignored, shifting the entirety of the blame upon Israel. In fact, the whole civil war itself is usually ignored, and the motives behind the Nakba is usually chalked up to racism or some similar evil that fits with people's preconceptions of Israel.

[Shaktimaan]

87. Not exactly.

The Arab states have almost always done their best to keep the Palestinians disenfranchised, that part is true. For example, there's no worry about them pulling out of the UNRWA, because they don't really contribute to it. In fact the Arab states don't really give the Palestinians much of anything in the way of aid, barring Saddam Hussein paying suicide bombers' families and the like. The UNRWA is primarily funded by the US. The EU provides a much smaller percentage.

By the time the Arab states attacked Israel in 48 the war was already underway. The Palestinians sparked a civil war in 47 following the UN partition resolution. Had this not happened, it's anyone's guess as to what would have happened. But most of the Palestinians left because there was a war going on, not because Israel expelled them.

Lastly, I don't think the author is suggesting that the Palestinians are still disenfranchised because we're giving them too much aid. It's because they have been treated differently than any other refugee group for political reasons. The welfare of the Palestinians themselves never mattered. So they are kept in refugee camps, denied citizenship, medical care and access to most types of jobs. Kuwait expelled hundreds of thousands of them after the first gulf war because their leadership was politically allied with Saddam. Even Arafat commented on it being worse than anything the Jews did to them.

Contrast this with how Israel treated the several hundred thousand Jewish refugees from middle eastern countries who fled or were expelled in Israel's formative years. They were accepted and given citizenship.

It's complicated. For the longest time the Palestinian narrative focused on eventually returning to their homeland... meaning Israel. So at times even the UNRWA acted against the people's interests in the hopes of furthering this goal. When Israel took over Gaza there was a plan to build houses, intended to replace the tents and shacks that populated the refugee camps. The UNRWA vehemently opposed this, describing it as a plan to dissuade the Palestinians from returning to their rightful homeland and the plan was shelved.

Most refugees are eager to get going, and build a new life somewhere different. The Palestinians were never given the opportunity to do so. And the fault for that rests not with Israel but with the Arab states.

[whosinpower]

111. It isn't complicated at all

Politically, Israel wants the palistinians to leave....leave Gaza, leave the West Bank. And you are suggesting that it is the Arab states fault because they won't take them in. Who is doing the disenfranchising???? If my cousin asks me to take care of his brother, and I refuse, it is somehow my fault the brother is in dire straits?!?

You suggest Unwra acts against their interests.....OK....knowing that the US, EU are the biggest donors - does this infer that they too work against the interests of the palistinians?

And later you say that the palistinians are a nationality....a nationality without a state that is supposed to give up, lay down and throw away their desire for self determination. Because, if the Arab states do take them in, with open arms, then their right to self determination is ceded. Or is this "nationality" one that does not wish to have the right to self determination....what kind of nationality would that be?

For over 60 years UNRWA has worked to provide critical services to refugees. Billions of dollars of aid flows to Israel and the Palistinian authority every year. It has become institutional. They (both sides) have not had, nor have they needed to find a settlement in real terms. One side or the other plays games, citing preconditions, undermining Oslo, and putting off what needs to be done. All that aid has acted as a dampener to find a peaceful solution. It was not intentional, but has been an unintended consequence. Neither side have been utterly motivated by a very real need....because we pay for it anyways, so they put it off. The palistinian authority could not exist, if not for aid. Israel has recieved billions in aid every single year.

After the six day war, when Israel took over the West Bank and Gaza it had a responsiblity to the people who live there. Like it or not. Their options are limited - finding a two state solution that would give palistinians their own homeland, or a one state binational state. This is entirely up to them. This is not up to the Arab states. They do not occupy the West bank or Gaza.

Legally, Israel cannot just evict them...but they can sure make it miserable for them to exist....hoping that they will leave....if only the Arab states would take them in.....and when they don't - then the whole matter is the Arab states fault?!? I'd laugh but the whole thing is too painful. UNRWA exists and while it works, it allows Israel to be blind to the needs of the palistinians, and abrogate its responsibility to the people it conquested....and it also allows the palistinians to demand grand terms for settlement.

I don't fault Israel alone in this. They have been allowed to wallow via unquestioning US support...support with UNWRA and political support, military support and aid. And the US profits selling arms and weapons, profits from conflict, so Israel is almost as much a victim as the palistinians. Because while all that occurs, as sixty odd years have shown, while all this is going on, Israel never enjoys real peace and the palistinians never do either, and they never learn to be good neighbors with each other.

[Shaktimaan]

133. Noooo. It's very complicated. As most things are once you look at them closely.

First of all, we're not really talking about the Palestinians living in the WB or Gaza because they're still in Palestine. They were internally displaced, but aren't refugees in the same sense that the people who reside in Lebanon, Jordan and so on are. Those people are being disenfranchised by their Arab foster states. Before the 67 war those refugees were kept in camps waiting not for a Palestinian state to be developed in the WB and Gaza, (otherwise those states could have helped, they did control those areas then) but for Israel to be overthrown and a state built there. Not a very realistic goal.

You suggest Unwra acts against their interests.....OK....knowing that the US, EU are the biggest donors - does this infer that they too work against the interests of the palistinians?

No. I'm suggesting that the UNRWA is an institution that employs thousands of Palestinians and is the sole source of income for many refugees. The US doesn't determine UNRWA policies, the Palestinians themselves do. Which creates an unusual conflict of interest... there's a reason that the UN usually never allows refugees to work directly for the aid groups assigned to helping them.

For over 60 years UNRWA has worked to provide critical services to refugees. Billions of dollars of aid flows to Israel and the Palistinian authority every year. It has become institutional. They (both sides) have not had, nor have they needed to find a settlement in real terms.

Generally I think the UNRWA does an incredible job. But I see your point and agree with you. There are problems inherent with both aid to the Palestinians and Israel that are not easily overcome. I don't think the answer is to allow a crisis situation to unfold that would force the parties to make peace or face destruction though.

After the six day war, when Israel took over the West Bank and Gaza it had a responsiblity to the people who live there. Like it or not. Their options are limited - finding a two state solution that would give palistinians their own homeland, or a one state binational state. This is entirely up to them. This is not up to the Arab states. They do not occupy the West bank or Gaza.

Noooo, it was never just up to them. It is, after all, a regional conflict. Back in 67 the Palestinians in the WB were all Jordanian citizens and Jordan claimed the land as its own. (Illegally, of course.) Israel could not legally claim the land for Israel and name its inhabitants Israelis either, particularly since they were already citizens of Jordan. (The only Arab country to accept Palestinian refugees.) As far as declaring a Palestinian state there, that was not really on the table then either. I mean, Jordan claimed the land as its own, the PLO's official position was that Israel (not the OPT) was Palestine, there was no Palestinian government to speak of to take power there or even to negotiate with, the Israelis certainly didn't WANT the Palestinians to have their own state... the whole idea of the OPT being used as a new Palestinian state didn't even really come about until 20 years later.

Nowadays it is still not just up to them. Israel still has no right to unilaterally declare a one state solution. (Not that they would anyway.) But they don't have the right to unilaterally decide on the terms of a Palestinian state either. That has to be negotiated with the Palestinians themselves. And a big part of the problem is that different factions in the Palestinian camp want different things. Hamas doesn't even accept the validity of the OPT as a sovereign state alongside Israel.

Not to mention the question of East Jerusalem! It's a real sticking point. There's no way that Israel would give over all of it, some of Judaism's most sacred religious and historical sites are there. But the same goes for Islam. And unfortunately it's a zero sum game there. One can't win without the other losing. So none of that can be decided unilaterally by anyone. It has to be messily hashed out through negotiations.

Legally, Israel cannot just evict them...but they can sure make it miserable for them to exist....hoping that they will leave....if only the Arab states would take them in.....and when they don't - then the whole matter is the Arab states fault?!?

I'm not talking about the OPT Palestinians. Besides, the miserable state of affairs in the OPT is directly related to security measures the Israelis took following increased terror during the second intifada. It's not tied to any grand scheme to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from the OPT.

I don't fault Israel alone in this. They have been allowed to wallow via unquestioning US support...support with UNWRA and political support, military support and aid. And the US profits selling arms and weapons, profits from conflict, so Israel is almost as much a victim as the palistinians. Because while all that occurs, as sixty odd years have shown, while all this is going on, Israel never enjoys real peace and the palistinians never do either, and they never learn to be good neighbors with each other.

I actually think that it's in everyone's best interests to have peace in the Middle East. I don't buy into the theory that the US profits from allowing the conflict to continue and therefore encourages it. Huge US support for Israel is also a relatively recent thing, it only really began in the 80's. It doesn't affect the politics of the situation as much as people might think. What it does do is provide the Israelis with enough of a military advantage over the Palestinians that they have wide latitude in their discretion to use force. If the Israelis were less equipped and the Palestinians posed a more serious threat then Israel would be far more inclined to use definitive violence during confrontations.

Again, I don't think the problem is too much aid for either side.

[Ken Burch]

16. A column from the most right-wing Likudnik paper in Canada

A paper owned for years by Conrad Black. THAT'S all you got?

It's not the fault of the other Arab countries that Palestinians are refugees.

And Palestinians are not "generic Arabs". Palestine was and IS their home, and if they're not going to get to go back, they should get compensation AND genuine apologies for being displaced.

Besides which, under most "Right of Return" proposals, only about 200,000 Palestinians would actually go back to their homes. Israel, a country with a population of seven million, could easily absorb that.

[azurnoir]

27. Can you think of another ethnic group where an article such as this

would be allowed to stand on DU? I for one can not

[Ken Burch]

43. The problem is that too many people here automatically refuse to recognize

the humanity of Palestinians.

[LTX]

59. No,

the problem here is the rote resort to diametric soundbites. Like yours.

[Shaktimaan]

83. Sorry, I have to comment on this.

I find this statement to be not only untrue, but offensive. Most of the debate here centers around different historical narratives and interpretations of various events. I have never heard anyone say anything that would support what you're suggesting... that Palestinians lack humanity or are somehow "less than" their Israeli counterparts.

You are assuming a despicable motive based on the fact that people disagree with you about specific things. This conflict is a complex subject, to say the least and people often have a wide range of opinions on it. One can (and should in my opinion) be both pro-israeli and pro-palestinian.

We waste enough time here arguing about accepted historical facts. To make broad accusations like this is pointless and counter-productive.

However I do think it's interesting as a lesson. We are all just talking about this on the internet. Most of us aren't directly affected by this conflict. Yet our differences of opinion are enough to spark comments like the one I'm replying to, which is not a factual argument, but an attack against the characters of certain people. I actually find this statement to be de-humanizing in itself. It attributes a disagreement to a flaw in someone's core values. It dismisses their argument by saying, "Of course you think that. You are clearly on a lower level than I am."

Major fail.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

131. My statement was based on the assumption that underlies almost all "pro-Israeli" feeling

towards the Palestinians:

The assumption that Palestinians(and Arabs in general)are somehow pathologically incapable of behaving like honorable, civilized human beings, no matter what situation they find themselves in. This is the rationale behind the Occupation, behind the Siege of Gaza, behind the daily harassment of the entire Palestinian population in the West Bank and the bizarre restrictions they face(Palestinians are the only nation in the world whose right to leave their OWN nation is controlled and usually sharply restricted by the government of ANOTHER nation).

If the Israeli government actually wanted peace, it would be working to get the people of Israel, and those who identify as "pro-Israel" in other countries, to let go of this notion and to accept the idea that Palestinians can be ordinary, decent, law-and-agreement abiding people like anyone ELSE can.

[Violet_Crumble]

136. Sorry, but I've got to correct you on something you said...

I have never heard anyone say anything that would support what you're suggesting... that Palestinians lack humanity or are somehow "less than" their Israeli counterparts.

I'd say that lack of seeing anything is down to you not being in this forum regularly at all. I've seen people come straight out with that sort of sentiment (though many have been banned when they get too blunt), and there's a constant attitude from a few 'supporters' of Israel where they don't appear to consider that Palestinians are equally as valuable as Israelis. This manifests itself in attitudes that think it's acceptable for the IDF to engage in disproportionate responses to things like rockets being fired from Gaza (the attitudes towards the deaths of Palestinians in OCL is a good example). Palestinians are supposed to not feel hostility towards Israel even though some pro-Israeli posters think it's only reasonable for Israelis to feel hostility towards Palestinians....

When it comes to attacks against the characters of other posters, I don't consider saying that some pro-Israel posters do behave in that way to be an attack. It's sweeping generalisations about groups of posters like the ones I've seen very recently in this forum from one or two 'supporters' of Israel who label pro-Palestinian posters the AIB and make all sorts of disparaging comments about them that are attacks on the characters of posters here. It's the same when it comes to sweeping comments about all pro-Israel posters.

[Ken Burch]

143. For the record, Shaktimaan, I wasn't applying that statement to you.

I've always respected you as having more humanity and empathy than a lot of the other "pro-Israeli" posters. Most of them are just interested in point-scoring, whereas, in my experience, you actually read your opponents' posts and engage them. So if you took that personally, it wasn't actually aimed at you.

[shira]

160. The harshest critics of Israel tend to be the most dehumanizing WRT their lack of empathy 4 Israelis

Mention how the barrier separating Israel from the W.Bank has saved Israeli lives and they shrug as though it's no big deal. Yeah, so what? As if Israelis are subhuman and don't deserve the protection that the barrier gives.

I rarely, if ever, find the harshest critics of Israel empathizing with Israelis and saying they understand the context and what Israelis are up against, but....

When all they bring to the table is criticism, hyperbole, and demonisation - no practical or reasonable alternatives - without so much as ever empathizing with Israelis, well....there's one word for that. And it's also dehumanizing.

[Shaktimaan]

85. Well, for one, Palestinian isn't an ethnic group.

It's a nationality that's comprised of several ethnicities.

I don't see what's wrong with this article. It puts the blame for much of the Palestinian's situation on the Arab states as opposed to Israel, an argument that has plenty of supporting evidence. It isn't saying that the Palestinians are a spiteful and lazy ethnicity or anything like that.

[azurnoir]

117. So is India to blame for the Tibetans still being refugees after 60 years?

as to the rest I would say that Palestinians as a group are far more homogeneous than say Jews are we to play the usual its not this but its not that shell game with identity

[Violet_Crumble]

121. You don't see what's wrong with this article???

You need to read it again then. It's got some really nasty bigoted overtones and I'm shocked you didn't spot them...

[stranger81]

118. I can't either. [n/t]

[Violet_Crumble]

112. No shocks that the author was a supporter of the invasion of Iraq...

Quite a nasty piece. What gets me about zealoted 'supporters' of Israel like him is why they insist on writing such shoddy, ugly and dishonest crap.

For many reasons, various populations across the planet are displaced; only the Palestinians cling to their "refugee" status decade after decade.

That may come as a shock to the refugees who after many decades are still residing on the Burma/Thailand border. That's just one off the top of my head, but I'm sure there's many others. What's quite ugly about his 'argument' is that he's using a similar style of argument as anti-semites use about Jews - that they get special treatment, that they manipulate people into believing they were/are victims, and that when it all boils down to it, they're to blame for, well, everything. I do find it revolting when it's aimed at Jews, and to see similar attitudes aimed at Palestinians is also quite revolting.

[stranger81]

119. More disgustingly racist bullshit.

I am sad that anyone in our party would endorse this kind of stunning nonsense.

[Douglas Carpenter]

120. Frozen in time, addicted to pity - who is that? the Jews?

when that crap is is stated against any other marginalized group - everyone immediately recognizes it for exactly what it is, a bunch of ignorant, bigoted bullshit.

Frozen in time, addicted to pity - who is that? the blacks?

It doesn't take some high minded PC inspector to spot obvious racism and bigotry. All it takes is applying the same standard to Arab and Muslim people and in this case to the Palestinian people that are applied by decent people to anyone else.

[Violet_Crumble]

122. I'd like to see DUers who found this OP acceptable to explain why they don't find it bigoted...

And whether they find that sort of attitude aimed at other groups like Jews to be bigoted or not.

[hack89]

123. Bigotry against Arab governments?

is that even possible?

The OP is talking about how the Palestinians are being victimized by the Arab world. It isn't the Palestinians fault - they can't force their Muslim brethren to accept them and allow them to make a new life. Don't you think that given the choice, many Palestinian would chose to become Jordanians or Egyptians? Would harm would it bring to either country?

[Violet_Crumble]

124. No, bigotry against the Palestinian people.

I gather you didn't read the posts directly above this and haven't seen my comment on it? 'What's quite ugly about his 'argument' is that he's using a similar style of argument as anti-semites use about Jews - that they get special treatment, that they manipulate people into believing they were/are victims, and that when it all boils down to it, they're to blame for, well, everything. I do find it revolting when it's aimed at Jews, and to see similar attitudes aimed at Palestinians is also quite revolting.'


Now, how is this sort of attitude acceptable when aimed at Palestinians, but not when it's aimed at Jews? I would have thought it's totally unacceptable not matter what group it's aimed at...

Also, yr comment: 'It isn't the Palestinians fault - they can't force their Muslim brethren to accept them and allow them to make a new life.' I find it creepy how some people focus on what religion or ethnicity people are, and the 'why don't their fellow Muslims look after them?' is an ugly attitude. Apart from the glaringly obvious fact that there's also Christian Palestinians, why would anyone think that people of the same religion are the only people responsible for the welfare of others of the same religion. It reminds me of some of the ugly stuff I've been seeing about the Pakistan floods where demands that Muslim countries be the ones that send aid have appeared.

Don't you think that given the choice, many Palestinian would chose to become Jordanians or Egyptians?

How about the choice to remain Palestinian? How about what they themselves want?

[oberliner]

149. Why do you make the analogy with Jews rather than with Israelis?

As I asked another poster, why not make the analogy with Israelis (since the piece is about Palestinians, not Muslims or Arabs generally)?

Have you not encountered pieces that have commented on Israelis in a general way with respect to the way their policies and behavior that is similar to this OP?

[Violet_Crumble]

152. I made it with both. Why don't you comment on the bigoted nature of the OP?

In answer to yr second question, yes...

Do you believe the attitude taken in the OP towards Palestinians is a bigoted one?

[oberliner]

154. The article in the OP is your typical right-wing piece

It is no more bigoted against Palestinians than any of the countless articles critical of attitudes among Israelis.

Is it bigoted to say that Israelis are behaving "as if they just came out of Auschwitz" ?

Prominent Israeli leftist Avraham Burg wrote just that in a recent op-ed piece with respect to current attitudes and trends in Israel today.

Is it bigoted to say that Israelis are "are little better than the neighbors of the concentration camps who saw no evil and heard no evil" ?

Noted blogger Richard Silverstein made those comments in a recent post on his site with respect to the prisoner photo scandal.

[Violet_Crumble]

159. Please answer the question I asked you...

I didn't ask you whether it's more or less bigoted than something else.

Please pay me the courtesy of answering the question I asked you, which was: 'Do you believe the attitude taken in the OP towards Palestinians is a bigoted one?' Is it possible for you to actually give me a yes or no answer to that one?

[shira]

161. Are the comments from Burg and Silverstein revolting to you?

You mentioned a few posts up that when aimed at Jews, such comments are revolting to you.

Here's a top-10 list of why Americans suck...
http://www.memefirst.com/000681.html

Is that bigoted or revolting to you too?

======

Lastly, you didn't answer Hack's question.

What if individual Palestinians wish to become Egyptian or Jordanian citizens? Do you have a problem with that?

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

164. I'm confused as to why the mods deleted my post...

I was explaining to anyone reading why I don't waste my time on playing yr silly games

So to ensure my explanation of why I won't be responding to you any longer doesn't get deleted, I'll just use some words from you that apparently don't break the rules of this forum, seeing as how when you said it it wasn't deleted, even after being alerted on several times.....


You deliberately distort my position and resort to personal attacks. It's about the best you can do since you're incapable of honest debate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=329950&mesg_id=330211

[Violet_Crumble]

163. Kick for Obie

I'd really like you to answer the question I asked you...

[oberliner]

148. What about Israelis?

This piece isn't generalizing about Arabs or Muslims so why would you jump to an analogy involving Jews?

The more logical question to ask would be with respect to someone writing a piece like this about Israelis.

People (including some prominent Israelis) have written similar pieces about Israelis, and I wonder if you would think such articles are racist and bigoted.

[Violet_Crumble]

153. Why is being pedantic more important to you than bigotry against Palestinians?

It's just that you haven't said a single thing in opposition to the bigoted attitude of the OP, yet have repeatedly replied to people who do have a problem with the bigotry by trying to split hairs with them over 'Jew' and 'Israeli'.

I recall you defending a 'supporter' of Israel who equated Jews with Israelis, so I find the way you only seem to have a problem with it (and note that neither Douglas nor I have equated Jew with Israeli) to be very telling...

[Ken Burch]

130. You could change it to "frozen in time, addicted to self-pity"

And the headline applies to the Israeli regime, its apologists, AND their bizarre conviction that Israel is the injured party in all of this.

[hack89]

132. I don't think they see themselves as victims

Israel is doing fine. The suicide bombings have stopped and the economy is doing ok. I suspect they are frustrated by the UN's double standard but they also understand how impotent the UN really is. Look at it from their perspective - the Palestinians are weak, divided and fighting each other. There is no real pressure on them to resolve the Palestinian problem and the status quo can be maintained for a long time - as the OP makes clear, the Arab countries hate and fear the Palestinians just as much as Israel does.

[ConsAreLiars]

137. If "the Arab countries hate and fear the Palestinians just as much as Israel does"

can you explain why only Israel has a 60 year history of massacring, torturing, collective punishment, unwarranted assassinations, and all the rest? How many butchered, imprisoned, driven from their homes? What crimes against humanity were by Jordan, by Egypt, by Israel? Got numbers to back up your insane equivalency jackassery? Of course not. Shouting bullshit does not change facts.

[hack89]

140. Black September = 10,000 dead Palestinians

The PLO had to flee to Lebanon where their attacks on Israel from Lebanese territory started a conflict that killed thousands of innocent Lebanese.

How about the War of the Camps? Thousands of Palestinians killed there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_camps

400,000 Palestinians expelled from Kuwait.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_expulsion_from_Kuwait

How about Palestianian persecution in Iraq?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians_in_Iraq

Jordan and Lebanon convinced the Arabs that the Palestinian were poison - genuine threats to their governments.

[ConsAreLiars]

144. Predictable nonsense.

I asked "can you explain why only Israel has a 60 year history of massacring, torturing, collective punishment, unwarranted assassinations, and all the rest? How many butchered, imprisoned, driven from their homes? What crimes against humanity were by Jordan, by Egypt, by Israel? Got numbers to back up your insane equivalency jackassery?"

If you want to pretend you are replying to a question, at least take the time to read it.

The relevant part: "only Israel has a 60 year history of massacring, torturing, collective punishment, unwarranted assassinations, and all the rest." This was not about whether some monarch or dictator has also treated Palestinians badly. They certainly have.

It is your disgusting assumption that because others have committed such acts that they "hate" the Palestinians not only as much as the Israelis and you do, but even more, and your lie that the scale of their crimes is even larger than those committed by Israel. Even if your "reasoning" was rational, your "evidence is pure garbage.

You mention the expulsion of of Palestinian workers after the US military took back Kuwait from the Iraq Army. Apart from the fact that this was initiated by the Israels main partner/henchman/advocate, and was not an independent act by Kuwait, it was not driving them from their homeland. They were guest workers, not citizens. You may believe the action by Kuwait was abhorrent, but it was nothing at all similar to what Israel did to the indigenous population.

By contrast, the Israeli occupation forces drove 7111,000 of a then much smaller total population from their ancestral homes in a year. And they have been seizing more land and property ever since. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#Palestinian_refugees_of_the_1948_war

So, the comparable figures for "driven from their homes" would be around a million by Israelis, 0 by surrounding QArab states.

[shira]

146. It's not just Kuwait or Black September...

Here's an article for you...

Palestinians in the Arab World: Why the Silence?
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1422/palestinians-in-arab-world

Remember the Nahr El Bared massacre a few years back?

How about the Hamas coup around the same time, when they were throwing Fatah members off rooftops?

In fact, since 2008 did you know over 1000 Palestinians have been violently killed by each other? :shrug:

===============

Meanwhile, before the 2nd Intifada, Palestinians worked among Israelis and could travel anywhere they wished within Israel. No roadblocks or checkpoints. Unlike Lebanon, they could choose any profession or line of work they wanted. In fact, comparatively speaking, Palestinians in or around Israel were economically better off than Palestinians throughout the rest of the middle east, and for that matter, better off than the average citizen in Egypt, Jordan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, etc.

Heck, Israel even tried to end the refugee problem in Gaza and the West Bank starting in the 70's with the build-your-own-home-program that would have taken Palestinians out of camps and into their own homes. The PLO started killing Palestinians who chose to make better lives for themselves before the UN actually made Israel stop.

http://www.csmonitor.com/1992/0526/26191.html

Tell me, would you be satisfied if Israel were to treat Palestinians like Arab governments have for the past 60 years?

[shira]

150. In addition, there's the 1976 Tel al Zaatar massacre of thousands of Palestinians in Lebanon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_al-Zaatar_massacre

Not to mention that in Kuwait 1991, besides the mass expulsion there were thousands of Palestinians killed there too.

[hack89]

147. Give me a hard number

of Palestinians killed by Israel. Remember to leave out the fighters. Then we will compare (the figure will be a lot lower than you think).

You have completely missed the point - the Palestinian have caused nothing but misery and grief for their neighbors. You cannot deny that they are hated and despised by the Arab governments. There is no reason to believe that they really want an independent Palestinian state. They are more than happy to see both Israel and the Palestinians kill each other for the foreseeable future.

That's what the OP is about - Israel is not the only party with a vested interest in the Palestinian status quo.

[Shaktimaan]

151. Are you kidding?

The Arab states' actions towards the Palestinians dwarfs anything Israel has done. First, and most importantly, Israel and Palestine are enemies. They have been in a state of conflict for almost a century. We would not expect the two nations to approach one another with a tremendous amount of compassion. But the Arab states have always paid lip service to being the Palestinian's allies. So when they act as bad or worse than Israel has in the past it is extremely significant.

Now aside from "individual" acts like expulsion from Kuwait, having their citizenships stripped away by Jordan, (which is not even legal incidentally), there is a systematic plan by the Arab League (thus, collectively every Arab state) to keep the Palestinians poor and disenfranchised for their own political purposes. It was the Arab League that decreed that no Arab state should allow Palestinians to gain citizenship, thus keeping them in a perpetual state of refugee status.

Now, in Kuwait, the effects of this are evident because even you refer to the place that they had been living for 50 years using terms like "Temporary. Guest workers, etc." 50 years and it's not their home? Also, it was absolutely an independent act by Kuwait, as punishment for the Palestinian population politically supporting Saddam. This is also why Saudi Arabia stopped giving them any aid. You seem to suggest above that it was America's idea to evict them from Kuwait??? What in the world makes you think that?

You may believe the action by Kuwait was abhorrent, but it was nothing at all similar to what Israel did to the indigenous population.

Actually, it was described by Arafat himself as, "...worse than what has been done by Israel to Palestinians..."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat

By contrast, the Israeli occupation forces drove 7111,000 of a then much smaller total population from their ancestral homes in a year. And they have been seizing more land and property ever since.

Not true. Israel did not "drive out" all of those people. Very very few were actually driven out or killed. Most left of their own accord to flee the fighting. Israel then let only a few thousand back in. Kuwait and Iraq ACTUALLY drove them ALL out! However, today 20% of Israel's citizenry is Palestinian. What percentage of Lebanon's citizens are Palestinian? Uh-huh. How about Egypt? Iraq? Kuwait? Syria?

Do you know that tens of thousands of Palestinians forced out of Iraq have been forced to camp out on the border with Syria, totally dependent on aid organizations for food and water. Syria won't let them in of course. Point being, there are endless examples of the Arab world screwing over the Palestinians every chance they get... there's been Black September, plenty of massacres in the camps in Lebanon, aside from just Sabra and Shatila, the list goes on. Both collective screwing and by individual Arab nations and rulers.

Here's what you asked for, "massacring, torturing, collective punishment, unwarranted assassinations, and all the rest? How many butchered, imprisoned, driven from their homes? What crimes against humanity were by Jordan, by Egypt, by Israel?"

Okay, well we've got more massacres by Arab states than by Israel. (Not wars, but MASSACRES.)

Collective punishment? Ha! How about this... after 1948 both Jordan and Egypt had control of the land that could have been a state for the Palestinians but they DENIED it to them. Not only that but they forced the Palestinians living there to live in tent camps, not allowing them to develop any infrastructure at all. Palestinians living in the OPT weren't even really refugees, they were internally displaced. Yet they were treated as though they were refugees living in someone elses country, made to live in camps, denied self-determination, and in Jordan's case, forced to renounce any claim to the West Bank if they wanted to be able to organize politically, (via the PLO.) That's why the PLO's first charter renounces any claim to the West Bank.

How about when Jordan STRIPPED ALL of the West Bank Palestinians of their Jordanian citizenship? All their passports were invalidated and they weren't allowed to even travel back into Jordan proper to visit family. Lebanon won't allow Palestinians living there to buy property, move outside of the camps, have access to state education or health care, work in most fields of employment, (and every field that's desirable) and so on.

Driven from their homes? I love that you won't consider any of these states their homes because they've only been there for 60 YEARS!!! So because it isn't their "homeland" then it doesn't count as their "homes" either? They were just "guest workers" for 60 years, huh? (You've gotta be kidding me here!) So it doesn't mean anything if they're thrown out as refugees again after 60 years without any other place to go, right? Because we all know that as a result of the Arab League these people will be refugees forever! The only state to offer Palestinians citizenship (and NOT take it away after a few years)...? ISRAEL! For years, (a few decades ago) Israel actually provided more aid to the Palestinians than the Arab world did altogether. THAT'S how badly the Arab states treat the Palestinians.

If it wasn't for Israel winning the six day war the Palestinians would never have had elections, gotten back Gaza or ever had the opportunity to have a state. The Arab states all collectively worked to deny the Palestinians a state at every turn. It is Israel, the EU and America that are making Palestinian self-determination a possibility, while the Arab states worked to keep them disenfranchised. It's codified right into the Arab Leagues' minutes and motions. Meanwhile, Palestinians living in East Jerusalem have the option of applying for Israeli citizenship if they want it. Thus Israel offers the Palestinians something that every supposed "ally" has denied them, forcing them to subsist on American and European aid for 60 years.

[ConsAreLiars]

155. Your whole "argument" boils down to "defending" the atrocities commited by

the leadership in Israel and supported by the population as OK and justified because the neighboring Arab states do similar things to the Palestinians. Sorry to need to point out the obvious, but it's rather like, let's say, an Austrian apologist of a certain era arguing that, let's say, that persecuting and butchering, let's say, Romani people is OK because everybody around here is doing it. Or pick any similar parallel. After all, everyone knows they are baaad!

The difference of course, is the land issue. The Roma of that period, like some others, were not allowed to own land. It was simple, politically expedient racism. That much is similar.

In the current conflict it is much more about seizing the land from those who lived there. Fostering racism is one of the means being used. This is undeniable.

And your not-so-hidden subtext is that all who do such things to the Palestinians are justified in doing them, because the Palestinians are a crazed, murderous, conniving, dishonest, untrustworthy people who deserve total subjugation at the very least and, eventually, extermination

(edit to add a little)