Palestinians mark Naqba

[IndianaGreen]

Palestinians mark Naqba

UPDATED ON:
Saturday, May 15, 2010

Palestinians across the world are marking on Saturday the 62nd anniversary of Naqba, which means catastrophe.

In 1948, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced and many became refugees due to the formation of the state of Israel.

Mass gatherings commemorating the day of "catastrophe" in the West Bank and Gaza displayed a rare instance of unity between various political factions.

VIDEO at link:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/05/201051512357719711.html

[shira]

1. Juan Cole's historically accurate, or is that hysterically inaccurate version, of the Nakbah

"Thousands of Palestinians rallied in Gaza on Saturday to commemorate the Nakbah or national catastrophe of 1948, when European Jewish settlers brought into the Mandate of Palestine by imperial British policy expelled 700,000 Palestinians from what is now Israel and then sealed the border, confiscating all their property without compensation. These actions turned the bulk of the Palestinians into poverty-stricken camp dwellers and/or stateless persons living under the rule of others, and prevented the rise of an independent Palestinian state such as was envisaged by the League of Nations and the British government just a decade before."
http://www.juancole.com/2010/05/palestinians-observe-nakbah-or-catastrophe-day-raise-hopes-of-unity.html

:eyes:

[aranthus]

2. The latter. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

3. Juan Cole is nowhere mentioned in OP or in Video

but you go ahead spinning your rightwing shit.

Insert your Goldstone rant here:

[shira]

5. The thread is about the Nakbah so I quoted Cole on the Nakbah

And since when is exposing bogus history "rightwing"?

[aranthus]

4. False history doesn't serve them well.

The line, "In 1948, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced and many became refugees due to the formation of the state of Israel." is simply false. Palestinians became refugees because of the war ((which I believe they started), and not because of the mere creation of Israel.

[Eg-ptiangirl]

6. Not even 1% true

They were displaced right after the partition by terrorist groups and before the war.

[aranthus]

7. Bull

The Palestinians started the fighting almost immediately after the partition plan was voted on. That's what started the war.

[proteus_lives]

11. You need to crack more history books and less propaganda pamphlets.

[proteus_lives]

10. +1

[Chulanowa]

92. You'd be incorrect

The 1948 war was waged between Arab states and Israel; there were Palestinian combatants, mostly fighting in Jordanian uniforms, but for the most part the Arabs of the Palestinian Mandate were civilians caught between the two forces. Israel engaged in blatant ethnic cleansing during the course of the war, emptying and often murdering villages. Would you like a list of the villages and towns emptied, one way or another, by the Israelis in this time period?

Abu Sinan
'Amqa
'Arab Ghawarina
'Arab al-Na'im
al-Bassa
Kabul
Kafr 'Inan
Majd al-Kurum
al-Manshiyya
Mi'ar
Ras al-Nab'
Sha'ab
Suruh
Tarbikha
Umm al-Faraj
al-Zeeb

Those are just a few out of Acre. There are similar lists, many larger, out of the districts of Baysan, Bethlehem, beersheba, Gaza, Haifa, Hebron, Jaffa, Jericho, Jerusalem, Jinin, Nablus, Nazareth, al-Ramla, Ramallah, Safad, Tiberias, and Tulkarm. If you really like, I could list those - and give you the names of the Jewish towns and settlements built over them, in many cases.

I suggest you look at some maps of the time. The "mere creation of Israel" involved military conquest of a great amount of the Arab portion of the partition, complete with ethnic cleansing.

I suppose that, in the same vein, you believe the Jews brought Russia's pogroms and krystalnacht down on their own heads? 'Cause that's the sort of logic you've got going here.

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. the naqba

From: Scars of War Wounds of Peace: The Arab Israeli Tragedy by former Israeli Foreign Minister and Oxford trained Historian, Shlomo Ben Ami

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."


and from page 43:

" Benny Morris found no evidence to show 'that either the leaders of the Arab states or the Mufti ordered or directly encouraged the mass exodus'. Indeed Morris found evidence to the effect that the local Arab leadership and militia commanders discouraged flight, and the Arab radio stations issued calls to the Palestinians to stay put, and even to return to their homes if they had already left. True, there were more than a few cases where local Arab commanders ordered the evacuation of villages. But these seemed to gave been tactical decisions taken under very specific military conditions..."

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.

from:

Fred M. Donner
Professor of Near Eastern History
The Oriental Institute
The University of Chicago
Chicago, Ill.

link:

http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/web_exclusives/more/more_

The population of Palestine (west of the Jordan River) in 1880 was under 590,000, of whom 96 percent were Arabs (Muslim or Christian); roughly 4 percent of the population was Jewish.

By 1914, the population of Palestine was about 650,000. Of this, the Jewish population was about 80,000, or a little over 12 percent. Of the 88 percent remaining, 570,000 people, Israeli and non-Israeli scholars estimate that at least 550,000 were Palestinians (Christian or Muslim) who were descendants of families in Palestine already in the 1840s — or almost 85 percent of the total 1914 population of Palestine. The great majority of them, in other words, were not recent immigrants.

There was a lot of immigration to Palestine between 1880 and 1948, of course, but most of it was by European Jews, who came in several well-defined aliyot ("waves"), drawn to Palestine by the Zionist dream or fleeing economic hardship and persecution in Europe. The first aliya (up to 1903) brought 25,000 new Jewish immigrants, roughly doubling the Jewish population of Palestine.

The second aliya (1904-1913) brought another 35,000 Jews. The third aliya (1919-1939) saw the arrival of 350,664 Jewish immigrants, according to British Mandate statistics.

In 1945, the Jewish population of Palestine stood at about 554,000, or about 30.6 percent of the total population of Palestine at that time, which was 1.8 million. Mr. Schell is absolutely right: Some Jewish communities have existed in Palestine for hundreds of years. But, as the figures above make clear, most Jews in Israel today are, in relative terms, newcomers — descendants of people who arrived during the past three or four generations; to call them "colonists," as Professor Doran did, is not inappropriate.

On the other hand, Mr. Schell is absolutely wrong to hint that Palestinians are generally newcomers: As we see, most Palestinians of today can trace their ancestry to families who have been resident in Palestine for hundreds of years. The debate over immigration figures is, of course, merely part of the broader effort by Palestinians and Israelis to delegitimize each other by claiming the other side to be interlopers. Mr. Schell's evident desire to cast doubt on the historical roots of the Palestinians' claim to their land suggests that he has been taken in, like many other people, by such works as Joan Peters’ tract "From Time Immemorial," which popularized for obvious political purposes the myth that many Palestinians were descendants of recent immigrants. Such a view is simply not supported by the evidence. "

and this article by world renowned Israeli hisorian Avi Shlaim of Oxford regarding transfer:

London Review of Books, 9 June 1994

While the ethics of transfer had never troubled Ben-Gurion unduly, the growing strength of the Yishuv eventually convinced him of its practical feasibility. On 12 July 1937, for instance, Ben-Gurion confided to his diary:

The compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had ... a Galilee free from Arab population .... We must uproot from our hearts the assumption that the thing is not possible. It can be done.

The more Ben-Gurion thought about it, the more convinced he became that "the thing" could not only be done but had to be done. On 5 October 1937, he wrote to his son with startling candour:

We must expel Arabs and take their places ... and, if we have to use force - not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places - then we have force at our disposal.

The letter reveals not only the extent to which partition became associated in Ben Gurion's mind with the expulsion of Arabs from the Jewish state but also the nature and extent of his territorial expansionism. The letter implied that the area allocated for the Jewish state by the Peel Commission will later be expanded to include the Negev and Transjordan. Like Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder and leader of Revisionist Zionism, Ben-Gurion was a territorial maximalist. Unlike Jabotinsky, Ben-Gurion believed that the territorial aims of Zionism could best be advanced by means of a gradualist strategy.

When the UN voted in favour of the partition of Palestine on 29 November 1947, the struggle for Palestine entered its decisive phase. Ben-Gurion and his colleagues in the Jewish Agency accepted the partition plan despite deep misgivings about the prospect of a substantial Arab minority, a fifth column as they saw it, in their midst. the Palestinians rejected the partition plan with some vehemence as illegal, immoral and impractical. By resorting to force to frustrate the UN plan, they presented Ben-Gurion with an opportunity, which he was not slow to exploit, for extending the borders of the proposed Jewish state and for reducing the number of Arabs inside it. By 7 November 1949, when the guns finally fell silent, 730,000 persons, or 80 per cent of the Arab population of Palestine, had become refugees. "

link to full article:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/It%20Can%20Be%20Done.html

Avi Shlaim was born in Baghdad in 1945, grew up in Israel, and studied at Cambridge and the London School of Economics. He is a Fellow of St. Anthony’s College and a Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford. He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 2006. His books include Collusion Across the Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, and War and Peace in the Middle East: A Concise History. He lives in Berlin.

Map showing the massive destruction of Palestinian towns after al-Nakba in 1948



http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story572.html

.


.

[shira]

16. No, that's Naqba revision. Lies and false narratives will not bring peace to the region.

FYI.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x311586#311631

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x311586#311635

[azurnoir]

19. Thanks I knew we only had to wait a bit before

you were promoting your own quotes-again

the words that figure prominently in those links are women, children, elderly, and temporary whom ever "encouraged" the Palestinians to leave their homes and according to eye witnesses it was both sides it does not change the fact that Israel has barred their return to this day, people flee warfare but are in most circumstances allowed to return to their homes but in this case Israel used it as an opportunity to create an ethnic majority to persists to this day

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. 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

[Tripmann]

18. Cheers for posting that douglas

It will be interesting to find out how the son of Irelands 4th president was in fact a jew-hater and sold inflatable hitler dolls to goldstone
:)

Isn't it strange how disputing the facts of the holocaust makes you a filthy holocaust denier, but disputing the facts of the naqba makes you a 'revisionist'.

And you're perfectly right, the facts of the naqba have long since been known, even before it was necessary to dispute them on message boards to attempt to excuse the inexcusable.

Oh, and shira...

"Lies and false narratives will not bring peace to the region."

So, are you a naqba denier, or a revisionist, or neither?

[shira]

20. You're thanking him for posting propaganda?

It's like I wrote before, you are incapable of distinguishing between fact and propaganda.

You probably just think these are opinions that can be dismissed in favor of lies and fables that you prefer:
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=567

The question is, why do you prefer the anti-Israel narrative?

[Tripmann]

22. Oooh, a link to an israeli website

:eyes:

Think I'll link to a german site denying the holocaust

I wonder how long a holocaust denier would last around here

[shira]

34. That's pretty juvenille. Why not first try to demonstrate that a source's facts are questionable...

...rather than dismiss that source for being "Jewish" or "Israeli"?

I don't mind when Arab or Palestinian sources are brought into debates, so long as the arguments are sound and the information is credible and reliable.

[Tripmann]

61. You don't 'bring' jewish sources into debates

You revolve your debates around them, even hiding the source for fear of ridicule. No discussion, no proof, no evidence.

If I was on here contending I'm right about something and attempting to prove it by repeatedly posting links that happen to agree with me, it would be pretty pathetic.

But fuck it, they agree with you, so you're right :rofl:

[shira]

65. You can't dispute the facts or the logic/reasoning so you assault the source as being "Jewish"

That's pretty fucked up for someone posing as a liberal on a liberal board.

[Tripmann]

66. I don't assault the source, I ridicule you

for what you consider 'making your point'

[shira]

67. I use sources that are factually accurate, reliable and credible

What does it matter if they're "Jewish"?

If I constantly quoted from Chomsky, Finkelstein, Goldstone, and Judt, would you ridicule me for making my point with Jewish sources?

[Tripmann]

68. Brilliant

:rofl:

If camera is so credible why did you purposely not link to it for fear of ridicule?

[shira]

69. Ridiculous

"If camera is so credible why did you purposely not link to it for fear of ridicule?"

Answered:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x309704#309895

That thread, BTW, sums up everything that's wrong with your POV on I/P. You probably still believe Mohammed Omer's account is credible despite the evidence showing how dishonest his testimony was. You're a true-believer who is impervious to facts and reasoning. No amount of evidence, fact, or logic can shake you of your 'religious' beliefs on I/P.

[Tripmann]

70. Classic

What, cause jim sagle agrees with you?

Heres the proof about how credible camera is respected around here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x311362#312120

Read the 2 posts guys, little miss 'i post links to everything that takes my side' didn't even post a link, so respected is her source.

[shira]

71. What a load of shit

It shouldn't make any difference whether or not CAMERA is cited or not, only whether it's a credible and reliable source of information.

Are you so disconnected from reality not to understand that you can't just deride a source because "Shira likes it" or because it's "Jewish"?

:eyes:

Sigh.

I don't have the time or stomach for yet another pretend logical discussion with a true-believer.

Seriously - the only language your types understand is mocking and derision. You're absolutely impervious to reasoning.

[Tripmann]

72. If it makes no difference

why did you not post the link?

We all know why.

[shira]

73. I answered your question in #69 above

But since you obviously don't believe me after having asked me at least 5 times and getting the same reply, why do you think I didn't post the link?

Oh, and BTW, I didn't post a link to #69 or to my answer in that other thread.

Why didn't I do that? ;)

[Tripmann]

74. So you could post what you just posted.

oh...




;)

[shira]

75. Huh?!?

[proteus_lives]

9. Yep, it sucks when you lose a war you started.

[Eg-ptiangirl]

13. Telling me to start reading history books when you are the one who need it

It is not only that almost every American I meat doesn't know and doesn't want to know the TRUTH. But they insist in showing how ignorant they are about the situation in what they call middle east.

After the partition a serious of terrorist acts started to expel Palestinians, the war didn't start till May 48, There are many events that happened before that including the most famous Dier Yassin massacre that was done in April, I can lie although I don't like but I can't invent historic events. Plus UN already searched about what happened right after the refugee expel and the guy who headed the committee was killed by a Zionist terrorist group after saying the truth. If Palestinians are always lying and sniffing propaganda from the day they are born why it is always Israelis who are hating every fact-finding committee.

Go search well and read before teaching me like you are an expert. I know they teach you in American schools that wanting to be something is more important than learning how to do this certain thing but please if you want to start giving history lessons at least know what are you talking about. It is not hard to read, you don't get the right informations about something happening million miles away from you through media.

[oberliner]

14. Are you aware of the Hebron Massacre (1929) or the Hadassah Medical Convoy Massacre (April 1948)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre

The Hebron massacre refers to the killing of sixty-seven Jews on 23 and 24 August 1929 in Hebron, then part of the British Mandate of Palestine, by Arabs incited to violence by false rumors that Jews were massacring Arabs in Jerusalem and seizing control of Muslim holy places. This massacre, together with that of Safed, sent shock waves through Jewish communities in Palestine and across the world.

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

The Hadassah medical convoy massacre took place on April 13, 1948, when a convoy, escorted by Haganah militia, bringing medical and fortification supplies and personnel to Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus was ambushed by Arab forces. Seventy-nine Jewish residents of the British Mandate of Palestine, mostly doctors and nurses, were killed in the attack.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. fortunately the vast majority of Hebron Jews were spared because their Arab neighbors sheltered them

To quote from University of Montreal Professor of Jewish History Yakov M. Rabkin. "the killers were not residents of the city (Hebron) but had traveled there in response to campaigns organized by Zionist organizations of Jerusalem to appropriate the Wailing Wall. Spurred on by national pride--but without the slightest intention of praying there--thousands of Zionist had gathered in Jerusalem chanting, "The Wall to the Jews"....."Wintesses were to claim later that the massacre at Hebron appeared to have taken place as a fallout from the tensions that had developed elsewhere. Most of the town's Jews had found refuge with their Arab neighbors."

from page 115-116 of "A Threat from Within by Yakov: A History of Jewish Opposition to Zionism: by Yakov M. Rabkin

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Threat-Within-History-Opposition-Zionism/dp/1842776991/ref=sr_1_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178996570&sr=1-1

It should be noted that this was a particularly tragic and senseless massacre and all the more so because these were long-established local ultra-Orthodox, non-Zionist Jews who had nothing to do with the Zionist colonization of Palestine. The 1929 Hebron Jewish community numbered about 550 to 600 of which about 67 were killed in this brutal massacre.

_____________

During the Naqba of 1948 there were hundred of villages destroyed and along with that hundreds of cemeteries, mosques and churches.

[oberliner]

23. You seem only to present anti-Zionist sources for your claims

Yakov Rabkin is an avowed anti-Zionist who has argued that Zionism is a "revolt against Judaism."

I would encourage you to expand your horizons to include writers who do not all view these events from the same anti-Zionist lens.

If you look beyond the Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe, Yakov Rabkin universe, you might be able to broaden your understanding of these events.

For instance, the sentence you've excerpted with respect to the Wailing Wall omits mention of the steps that were taken in 1928 to prevent Jews from having access to praying there.

Also left out are the specific events of August 1929, whereby Jews who attempted to pray at the Western wall were physically attacked.

On August 16th, about a week prior to the Hebron massacre, a group of several thousand Muslim Arabs attacked the Jewish beadle and burned Jewish prayer books and other liturgical items.

These incidents represent the context for the demonstrations by Zionist Jews with respect to having access to the Wailing Wall.

The citation you've provided includes no such context and omits entirely the incidents and events by the Muslim Arab residents that were the direct cause of the "chanting" that is indicated.

Making the claim that these marches were simply "spurred on by national pride" without including any mention of the provocative incidents that preceded them is disingenuous to say the least, but not surprising considering the biases of the source.

Another deceptively composed sentence in your citation is the one that asserts that the Hebron riot was "a fallout from the tensions that had developed elsewhere."

In this case, the omission is the fact that those "tensions" were stoked by false rumors that were promulgated by al-Husseni, the Mufti of Jerusalem, who deliberately invented false stories about Jews killing Muslims in Jerusalem and elsewhere in order to foment unrest.

The Jewish community in Hebron had coexisted peaceful with its neighbors for many years. This continued even with the arrival of Zionist Jews from elsewhere who generally kept to themselves. And of course, after the riot, all of the Jews were forced to leave Hebron and were not permitted to return, their property seized from them permanently.

There was also a somewhat smaller scale massacre of the Jewish population of Safed just a few days after the massacre in Hebron resulting in the deaths of 18 Jewish people.

Here is an account of that massacre: "They slaughtered the schoolteacher, Aphriat, together with his wife and mother, and cut the lawyer, Toledano, to pieces with their knives. Bursting into the orphanages, they smashed the children's heads and cut off their hands. I myself saw the victims."

Not sure what excuse Rabkin provides in his book for that massacre.

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. at least now you're showing your true colors - you're no moderate

and never were one. No one is justifying the massacre in Hebron. So lets not hide the fact that the Arab community of Hebron did live in peace with their Jewish neighbors for generations and the vast majority of Jewish people in Hebron were sheltered and protected by their Arab neighbors or that these events happened in a historic context. I guess that doesn't fit into your "moderate" view of the blood thirsty-Jews hating Arabs. You cannot even understand what Ze'ev Jabotkinsky understood way back in 1922, or David Ben Gurion understood or Moshe Dayan understood - that an indigenous people would defend a land they had every natural right to consider their homeland and they would do just as fiercely as indigenous people all over the world have always done throughout history. Yeah, Oberliner, some moderate you are.

[oberliner]

52. In response to your comments

You wrote: "lets not hide the fact that the Arab community of Hebron did live in peace with their Jewish neighbors for generations"

I would note that I included in my post the following: "The Jewish community in Hebron had coexisted peaceful with its neighbors for many years."

You also wrote of another fact that should not be hidden, namely: "that these events happened in a historic context"

I would note that in my post I attempted to provide some of that historical context with respect to events and clashes going on elsewhere in the region.

You further note: "the vast majority of Jewish people in Hebron were sheltered and protected by their Arab neighbors"

It is true that only 10 percent of the Jewish population was wiped out in this massacre in two days, and the other 90 percent were not killed.

It is recorded that approximately 18-20 families of the tens of thousands of Arabs who were living in Hebron at the time did hide their Jewish neighbors rescuing them from being slaughtered by the Arabs who were carrying out the massacre.

I do not hold the disgusting perception of the Arabs that you imply in your post and it is despicable to suggest otherwise.

I would simply encourage you to attempt to acquire a better understanding of the events that took place during that time period, specifically from a source other that of the "New Historians" who appear to have a monopoly on your perspective of this subject.

[Eg-ptiangirl]

37. Talking about specific time

From Partition to War. Palestinians were UNARMED at this time.

Read one neutral book about this time and then tell me if you still insist on blaming Palestinians. Unless of course you think that Palestinians should be expelled and killed cause Jerusalem is written in the Torah many times.

[proteus_lives]

21. School? Media?

Ah, that's why you're so misinformed. I seriously doubt schools and media in Egypt tell the truth about Israel.

You can't depend on others to give you learning, you have to seek it out for yourself.

That's what I did.

[azurnoir]

25. a war who started?

the Palestinian women and children that were encouraged to flee? What if they had not what would have their fate then, should we use OLC as an example?

[oberliner]

26. "Let them celebrate today," she muttered. "Soon they'll all be dead."

Dec 8, 1947:

In Cairo, Arab League Secretary Abdel Rahman Azzam Pasha joined other Arab leaders in promising warfare on the Jews: "I cannot say where and when I will place my troops. I can only say we will fight and are preparing for victory." Azzam Pasha had just returned from a flying visit to Saudi Arabia's King Ibn Saud. In Azzam Pasha's pocket, said aides, was Ibn Saud's promise to use most of his U.S. oil royalties (about $20,000,000 a year) to modernize his Bedouin army and to arm Palestinian Arabs for the war on Zionism.

The Arab Higher Committee for Palestine pushed a recruiting drive for Arab soldiers, setting a quota for each Arab village: a minimum of 30 men from each, up to 120 in the larger ones.

The Arabs planned uprisings, an economic blockade, concentrated attacks on outlying Jewish settlements and pinpoint attacks against the long exposed borders of the crazy-quilt Jewish state. The Arabs seemed resigned to the prospect of an armed struggle. They regarded partition in its present form as so outrageous that there was no alternative.

War Next Summer? So far U.N. has made little provision to deal with armed disturbances. The U.N. plan calls for withdrawal of British troops by Aug. 1, 1948 (London said this week that they would probably leave sooner). After that the plan entrusts the policing of Palestine to Jews and Arabs themselves, in their assigned areas.

At best, there will be guerrilla attacks on Jews. At worst (unless U.N., having decided partition, enforces it), there may be general Arab-Jewish warfare as soon as the British leave. In Jerusalem last week a Christian Arab housewife looked down from her balcony on cheering Jews. "Let them celebrate today," she muttered. "Soon they'll all be dead."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,934119,00.html#ixzz0oJFzNW3Q

[azurnoir]

28. So words in Cairo justify

not allowing women and children to return to their homes?
You also fail to address what would have happened to the Palestinians had they not fled perhaps Deir Yassin had set a certain standard, albeit you attempt to use events that happened nearly 20 years earlier to justify that too.

[oberliner]

33. I don't know what you are talking about

I thought it was an interesting article in the context of what was being discussed.

Nothing justifies anything.

[azurnoir]

62. Really, your own headline belies your intent

but at least you admit the Israelis actions were not justified

[oberliner]

83. Historical contextual information is always helpful

I think we could all do well by reading what people were saying then rather than just what people are saying now.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

44. Of course war was an inevitable result of partition.

If someone tried to partition Britain between the British and the Hungarians, it would result in war too. That the Hungarians were quite happy with the deal and the British nominally started the war would not make it their fault.

[oberliner]

56. Palestine in the early 20th century was not similar to Britain

I would encourage you to read more primary source documents with respect to Palestine during the early part of the 20th century.

If the British were being ruled by a colonial power, say the Italians, and a proposal was made that would result in the Italians no longer ruling over the British, and the British, for the first time in their history, becoming a free an independent state with a portion of the country being establish as an independent state for the Hungarians who were recently slaughtered throughout Europe and had no actual country, there would be no need for war to be inevitable.

[proteus_lives]

29. Now?

There would be a Palestinian nation next to the Israeli one.

Who started it? The Palestinians and the various Arab countries that attempted to strangle Israel in it's cradle.

[azurnoir]

30. Please if that were true there would be a Palestinian country

my question was what would the fate of the Palestinians who did not flee have been yes there were Palestinian survivors of the Naqba but what id they had all stayed what then?

[proteus_lives]

31. If they had all stayed...

There would been a much better chance of building their nation and a healthy relationship with the Israelis. Inside of being the fodder for various states in the fight against Israel.

[azurnoir]

32. like Deir Yassin and Gaza ? n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

63. You forget that residents in Gaza and the West Bank after they were overun were treated very poorly

by the invaders (Egypt and Jordan)

[Eg-ptiangirl]

40. Arabs declared 48 war

Israel was made by the Partition but they NEVER accepted it. They started to take lands, destroy homes and and expel Palestinians right after the Partition, Arab countries that declared war in 48 were right about that, They declared it to save what it could be saved, West Bank including East Jerusalem , Gaza and the Palestinian situation in general would have been weaker if it were not for this war.

What is wrong with you? You give yourself the right to start wars in other countries, occupy other countries but somehow the Arabs were wrong to try to save what it could be saved? I think it is not enough that you are arming and funding Israel since 50s but you have to also blame Arabs for every thing. If you want to force 2 state solution do it, It is clearly not Arabs who is preventing it.

[proteus_lives]

45. Too much propaganda, you're blind.

Israel agreed to the original UN plan. The Arabs and Palestinians didn't and immediately launched an unprovoked war. Which they lost.

[Eg-ptiangirl]

49. You are Naive

If Jews agreed to Partition plan why they are the only country in UN that is with NO DEFINED BORDERS( Which is illegal and against the international laws)? Why are they making Settlements in West Bank? Why is Netenyaho referring to Torah in a political conflict?

I can't believe how can someone see the facts in front of his eyes and is stubborn enough to deny it.

[proteus_lives]

60. And you have been fed hate all your life.

It's the only thing that tastes good to you now.

I can tell because you say Jews instead of Israelis. It's telling.

[Eg-ptiangirl]

78. ?

Are you trying to be stupid or what. There was nothing called Israel at the time of Partition.

I have been Fed hate and it tastes good? Who talks like that, any way it is my fault I replied to you, you are clearly someone who will make it personal instead of making it a real discussion based on facts. Enjoy your idolization of the only democracy in middle east. I will go back to my hate snack.

[proteus_lives]

79. Facts?

Ha.

That would be a good conversation if you actually knew any.

Enjoy your snack Pr-opagandagirl.

[Eg-ptiangirl]

81. Okay lets leave the Childish name calling and talk only about Facts

What are the borders of Israel?

[proteus_lives]

87. Depends.

Are we talking about just the WB and Gaza or are you including the Golan Heights?

Are you talking about Jerusalem?

I don't believe that Israel should be forced to the pre-67 suicide borders.

[Eg-ptiangirl]

88. So it doesn't have defined borders?

Why?

[proteus_lives]

90. Because of the wars that has been waged upon them.

Take the Golan Heights for example. The territory seized by Israel was used by the Syrians to repeatedly attack Israel.

What should be become of that territory? Should it be divided up? Kept by Israel? Given back to Syria? Occupied by a UN peacekeeping force?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. The Arabs did not start the war, the colonists did.

The foundation of Israel was an unprovoked and unjustifiable act of aggression; the attempt to prevent it was entirely justifiable defence.

The Palestinians and the other Arab nations were entirely right to do their best to defend their homeland and prevent the foundation of a Jewish state in a land where the vast majority of the populace were not Jewish; what "sucks" is that they failed.

[oberliner]

39. Truly staggering that a person can believe this

Frightening revisionist history to call the foundation of Israel an "unjustifiable act of aggression" - amazing that you think it "sucks" that they "failed" to prevent the foundation of a Jewish state.

Seriously, it is unfathomable that a reasonable person on a message board like DU can promote these ideas.

[Eg-ptiangirl]

41. It was actually

The Partition has no legal basis. In international law Election must be done before it. Do you think Arabs have the right to declare a country in NewYork?
But Of course after all this years Arabs should be the ones to revise history, The foundation of Israel brought Peace and Love to this area for more than 60 years.

Any way Arabs accepted the Palestinian country in 67 borders but the only democracy in middle east wants more lands, This of course is Arabs fault again.

[oberliner]

55. What do you think should happen now?

Do you think something like the Saudi Peace Plan would be a fair resolution of the situation?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

57. I think aiming for a fair resolution of the situation would be a catastrophe.

I think that what efforts should be focussed on achieving is a viable resolution - which is to say something very roughly along the lines of the Saudi plan and/or the Geneva accord - Israeli withdrawal to Green Line, division of sovereignty over Jerusalem, no large-scale right of return.

A fair solution would entail a full right of return for all Palestinians and Israel's transformation from a Jewish state to a non-discriminatory democratic state, and the end of zionism. However, I think that most Jewish Israelis would probably literally fight to the death to defend their right to discriminate against non-Jews, and that trying to achieve a fair resolution at this stage would be a recipe for permanent warfare and bloodshed.

[oberliner]

58. Are there any countries in their current form that can fairly remain as they are?

In terms of fairness, is it correct to assume that transformations would need to take place in many (if not, most) countries in order to implement fairness?

Is Israel a uniquely unfair country in your view or is it similarly unfair as many (or most) countries are around the world?

Are there any non-discriminatory democratic states in the region?

I mean this not as a "look over there" moment but as a genuine means of understanding where you are coming from. Do you feel that many or most countries are unjust/unfair or is Israel relatively unique in this regard?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

64. I think both those statements are true.

"Do you feel that many or most countries are unjust/unfair or is Israel relatively unique in this regard?"

Actually, I believe both of those statements - that the governments of many countries, including most of those in the Middle East, are not merely as bad as, but in many cases much worse than that of Israel, but that Israel is near-unique - in quality, not in quantity - in that it is occupying land illegally. This is one of the justifications (not the actual reason) for talking more about Israel than about other nations: trying to stop foreign governments oppressing their own people is very hard, and usually does more harm than good (c.f. Iraq, Afghanistan). Trying to stop one government oppressing the people of a different "nation" (in the sense you've used it in previous posts, not in the literal sense) is hard, but not as hard, and sometimes does more good than harm (c.f. Kosovo).


Incidentally, I think we may be slightly at cross purposes - I said that I thought that any remotely viable solution would be unfair, not that Israel itself is unfair (I do emphatically *believe* that Israel is in many senses "unfair" in as much as that makes semantic sense, as I'm sure you know, but the noun in my previous post that unfair referred to was the solution, not Israel).

[oberliner]

82. Thanks for your response

Your comment, however, in your previous post included a statement that was wholly unrelated to Israeli occupation (presuming you do not believe that all of Israel proper is occupied territory). The comment I refer to is your claim that the fair solution would involve:

"Israel's transformation from a Jewish state to a non-discriminatory democratic state, and the end of zionism"

With that statement you are making it clear that an end to the occupation is not in and of itself a fair resolution of the conflict, are you not?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

84. Absolutely - no solution without full RoR would be fair.

I think it's the best resolution that's not *completely* impossible (I think that even the end of the occupation is almost certain not to happen, but it's not completely and utterly out of the question if one is blindly optimistic enough), but that any resolution that does not include a full right of return for all those Palestinians* displaced in the Nakba (and consequently the end, once they get the franchise, of Israel's being a Jewish state) will not be in any sense fair.





*In theory a solution which entailed RoR for Palestinians but not for Jews forcibly displaced from Arab countries in response to it would not be fair either, but in practice I care immeasurably less about this, not because their displacement was any less unjust but because it would surprise me if the number who chose to exercise such a right got out of double figures, and unsurprised if it didn't get into them.

[shira]

85. Are you for keeping refugees in camps another 60 years or for allowing them...

...to become citizens of the countries they're now in, if they so choose?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

43. Nonsense.

What's unfathomable is that so many people think that the foundation of Israel was morally justifiable, not that I think it wasn't. I think that the idea of a land without a people for a group of people without a land was a reasonable one, but that it would have required finding a land without a people first; the foundation of Israel was actually exactly like the foundation of the USA, Australia etc - a bunch of Europeans came to an area, drove out the natives and settled themselves, and in all those cases I think it's impossible to justify their doing so.

How would you justify the foundation of Israel?

[oberliner]

53. The Zionist movement and the Palestinian independence movement could have occured side-by-side

The anti-semitism that was enveloping much of Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century served as part of the impetus for the Zionist movement. It is clear from the events that followed during World War II that fears for the safety of the Jewish people during the period of the early Zionist movement were not unfounded as a fate worse than what was imagined ended up befalling the Jews of Europe not long after the early Zionists began moving to Palestine.

Look at the region in the late 19th, early 20th century. The Palestinian Arabs were not a free people. They had been under various forms colonial rule for generations. There were areas of Palestine that had well-established Arab villages; there were also areas that were very sparsely populated. There was no reason why an independent Palestinian Jewish state and an independent Palestinian Arab state could not have been established simultaneously and peaceably with no bloodshed or acrimony whatsoever.

[proteus_lives]

47. I bet you think that it "sucks" that the Holocaust failed too.

:puke:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

48. How much? You're on. N.T.

[Eg-ptiangirl]

50. We don't have any relation with the Holocaust

Why would the west make something awful and we are the ones to pay the price? Why would you hate and burn Jews for centuries when they were weak and we should be loving them with their nukes and give them our lands and our homes and allow them to divide the countries according to the Bible, right after the end of colonization and after we were enjoying the end of religion wars in the area and starting to have a new era of building non religious countries. Aren't we people like you who have dreams? Why would you solve European Jews problems by destroying our area with the same Bible ideas that destroyed Europe? And Why do you always bring the Holocaust to defend occupation when we were never part of it?

[proteus_lives]

59. Your land?

When has Israel ever taken your land? If you're referring to the Sinai peninsula, then you should back-up. Because your country only lost it temporarily after launching one of their failed wars against Israel.

I mentioned the Holocaust because I was disgusted by the other poster's hate. I don't always bring it into the conversation.

I'm not defending any occupation, I'm defending Israel. There's a difference. I think Israel should yank the WB settlements out. But I fear that's not enough for posters like you or Rankin. I think you both want to see Israel destroyed and that's not right.

BTW, stop pretending that Israel is the cause of all the Middle East's problems. It's dishonest.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

76. I don't want Israel destroyed; I do want its political system destroyed.

I want to see Israel become a secular, non-discriminatory state.

This wouldn't entail destroying it in any vaguely sane sense of the word - exactly as the end of Apartheid was not the destruction of South Africa.

But it *would* mean the end of zionism, and I suspect that to a lot of zionists this qualifies as destroying it - I think that to a lot of them, "discriminates against non-Jews" is the defining property of Israel, and that if it stopped doing that it wouldn't be Israel any more.


Also, I'm calling your bluff: I think that your statement that you want Israel to yank the settlements out of the WB is a barefaced lie; I bet that what you actually mean is that you want Israel to yank some of the settlements out while annexing others - probably quite a lot of others, at a guess.

For what it's worth, I *don't* want Israel to "yank" all, or even very many of the settlements out of the West Bank; I think that they should be turned over to a Palestinian state but that all or most of those not built on privately-owned land should be allowed to remain, under Palestinian sovereignty.

[proteus_lives]

77. "The foundation of Israel was an unprovoked and unjustifiable act of aggression"

There's only one liar here and you see him in shaving mirror every morning.

You're like a lot of anti-Israel types. "Destroy it by bomb or ballot."

Go, ahead call me out to deflect your own hate. Free feel to google my DU statements about Israel giving up the settlements. I've said often enough and you need a slice of humble pie.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

80. Just because I opposed the conception does not mean I support infanticide.

I think that Israel should never have been founded. Given that it was founded and has existed for 60 years I do not think it should be destroyed. I strongly support it being changed significantly by the ballot; I am 100% opposed to it being destroyed by the bomb. So no, it is very definately you and no I who is lying.


It took me three pages of google search to find you expressing the view that "the settlements must be removed". Once again, let me ask you: do you mean "some of the settlements" or "all of the settlements"?

Incidentally, I have beard and don't shave.

[proteus_lives]

86. All of them.

Israel doesn't need the WB. The Palestinians do.

They need their own nation. Let's hope once that happens, peace will follow.

You're still a liar who is trying in vain to back-pedal from your hate-filled comments.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

89. Including Jerusalem?

Your calling me a liar is, as far as I can see, in reference to my statement that the foundation of Israel was an unprovoked and unjustifiable act of aggression. Now, I may be mistaken in that claim (although I'm confident I'm not), but I can assure you it is not a lie.

I, by contrast, was calling you a liar based on a suspicion (inspired by observation of which comments you do and don't take issue with) that when you stated that you support "the removal of settlements" you actually meant some and not all settlements. If that wasn't what you meant and you genuinely support a full Israeli withdrawal to the Green Line and the removal of all settlements then I apologise and withdraw the accusation; if you support continued Israeli control of East Jerusalem then I don't.

As to hate-filled, I am proud to state that I hate racism of all forms, and I think that Israel's current laws and status as a Jewish state are explicitly racist, and so I very definately do hate those; I think that anyone who doesn't should be ashamed of themselves. I do not hate Israelis; I do hate the current and most of the past governments of Israel (while I would piss in Bibi's face if his teeth were on fire, I would take care to avoid his mouth); I do not hate the state of Israel but I do hate its status as a Jewish state; I do hate many of Israel's policies and actions both past and present; I do hate the philosophy of zionism but do not hate most of those who defend it (although I think they are utterly wrong, and there are a non-trivial minority of them I do actively hate); I think that hatred is only a vice when directed at things not worthy of it, and that not hating things that should be hated is exactly as bad as hating things that shouldn't.

I hope that clarifies matters.

[proteus_lives]

91. Jerusalem is a separate issue.

I don't believe it can be divided peacefully. The perfect solution to me would be to make it an UN open city locally governed by Jews, Christians and Muslims equally. But with the history of violence from both sides about the issue, I don't support dividing it again. If that's not good enough for you, then so be it.

I disagree with you on the issue of the Jewish state and Zionism. I believe it is needed and history supports that.

[Tripmann]

12. Ah yes

Naqba denial.

Holocaust denials ugly cousin.

And how many palestinian women and children caught in the Naqba 'started a war' exactly?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

24. Israel has a massive problem with Nakba denial.

Far, far too many Israeli children grow up not understanding why the Palestinians hate and resent their country, and believing that they have no good reason to do so, because Nakba denial is so widespread in Israel (even this thread is polluted by it).

[oberliner]

27. If only you controlled the curriculum for Israeli school children

Then they would all know the Facts That You Know to Be True instead of the lies they are apparently being taught by others.

Serious question: Have you ever made any attempt to fact-check Ilan Pappe? Have you sought out any of the primary source documents he has cited to check their accuracy and context? Have you read anything critical about his scholarship and/or biases from a source that you find reliable?

Edit to add: Oops, mixed you up with another poster - you can ignore my question and snarky remarks!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. For what it's worth, the position you present as parody is I think basically accurate.

"There are two narratives", sure, but I think that the narrative that the foundation of Israel was achieved by throwing huge numbers of Palestinians out of their homes by force, killing many of them and thus causing even huger numbers to flee, is true (no capital letter needed, incidentally), and the narrative that the departure of the Palestinians was the fault of the Arab governments is not; if I controlled the curriculum of Israel I would ensure that all schoolchildren were taught that the foundation of the country they live in was a crime against humanity (I'd do the same if I controlled the curriculum in many other countries, too, incidentally; the only difference would be that in most nations it would be a matter of teaching them that their distant ancestors did a very bad thing rather than that their grandparents and parents did and are continuing to do so).

[oberliner]

54. I am coming to understand this from your other posts

I would encourage you to research the topic more fully using additional sources, especially primary sources, where available.

[Chulanowa]

93. Are you aware of the dismal state of history education in America?

Seriously, if you ever have the chance, crack open a high school American history book. You won't find history, you'll find a mythic narrative that revolves entirely around how awesome the white christian guys in this nation are, and how nice they are for sharing it.

World history texts play the same way. First there was nothing, and then there was EUROPE! And god saw Europe was good, and gave it rightful dominion over the earth!

Political reality is erased where convenient for the jingo myth and theological glad-handing.

Do you honestly believe Israeli history texts are much more chaste with regards to the facts?

[Eg-ptiangirl]

38. Lol What denial They are happy They did it

They planned for it. They wish all Palestinians were expelled from Eretz Israel.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. What do you mean, "they"?

There are *some* Israelis who would like to see all the Palestinian ethnically cleansed, but that number, while worryingly large and mainstream, is still very much a minority. Whereas the number of Israelis who attempt to deny their nation's responsibility for the Nakba is a vast majority.

[Eg-ptiangirl]

51. I would love it to be the reality

But sadly it is not.
Their elected PM is repeatedly referring to Torah when discussing Settlements. Haven't you read Joshua book? I wish I knew it was that scary before reading it right before sleep.