UN spends 4 times more on Palestinian refugees per person than a Syrian ..

And arabs are still lobbing rockets into Israel and packing little children with bombs to kill unsuspecting Israelis with

 

Prove it.

 

The "colonists" are looong dead of old age, we do not deny the destruction of the Arab society but it was a result of war they proclaimed and instead of trying to change the past they should focus on creating a future, the fact they dont by clinging to stupid principels as if their enemies owe them a living - proves to me they know they cannot hold a country, why should they when they get all these funds not just from the UN but from all Muslim countries - as long as they deny Israel.

Ben Gurion was a great man. perhaps the most important figure to our ppl since biblical times, he knew - like we do now - that the Arabs will not accept their defeat and not relent in their mission as long as they exist here, you accuse him of genocide but the fact is he said that because he knew Jews will never commit genocide and so the fued will remain.

The OP probebly did try to demonize the Palestinians with this but I would expect a guy that doesnt concern himself with insults on other posters such as "thieves" "scum" "colonists" etc' to have a bit thicker skin and discuss the topic which IMO is the sedation of the Palestinian ppl as everlasting poor victims instead of helping them creating an economy and from there a state, and you cannot create an economy when your only pipe to the outside world goes thru someone you treat as a mortal enemy. no amount of whinning will change that.

 

I am not interested in arguing that part at this point and it most certainly is debatable. However what is more interesting in connection is your trying to justify your destruction of 'Arab Society' (Palestinians) by blaming it on the victims - which I think consists of the above, absolving you of all blame in conjunction with the below

...so as I said the underlined bit is not what I want to discuss just now but that is most certainly debatable. The issue I want to point out is that the Irgun and the Hagonah had already been destroying Palestinian cities resulting in deaths, destructions and throwing the Palestinians into the sea both at Haifa and Jaffa as well as conventional ethnic cleansing after he wrote that letter but before the Arab Armies came in. The major places being Qastel, Tiberias, Haifa and Jaffa as well as intentions on Jerusalem. Now the quote you give above comes from a paper by Walid Khalidi which I managed to find on wayback machine - unfortunately you cannot copy and paste from there or I would a lot.

The point of what he is saying is in a letter General Safwat is writing trying to get the Arab armies to prepare for war. They were not preparing for such and were not keen at all to do so. You can read the full letter at the link. What he is doing is pointing out the vast superiority of the Jews - 50,000 men while the Arabs in Palestine with all the factions mixed together have only 7,500 many not trained. That the Jews have any weapon they could wish for including planes, sold to them by the Brits while all the Arab Palestinians have is WW1 British and French guns with hardly any ammunition and a tiny amount of machine guns - absolutely necessary for urban warfare so one of the articles in that report says. He is pleading for the Arab Armies to come in saying that is the only thing which will save the Palestinians. With respect to the underlined bit from your quote, we of course do not know the context in which he writes this but I suspect it may very well be that that is what the Arabs he is replying to have said. He clearly does not believe the Zionists are going to go by the UN Partition Plan, he says that he believes the only thing holding them back is fear of the response of the Brits.

Clearly had he written a few days later there would have been no way he would have said under any pretext what he said as then the above towns and cities had begun to be attacked and cleansed of Arab Palestinians in the main and the Brits rather than protecting the Palestinians gave the Zionists the all clear in Haifa and while taking Jaffa off the Irgun were happy to allow the Haganah joint patrol of it for a while. When the Zionists continued attacking Jaffa and the surrounding villages, the Brits again did nothing to protect the Palestinian Arabs except demand that a clear route was left open so that the Palestinian Arabs could escape.

after the massacre at Haifa

http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/military/Khalidi, Selected Docs on 1948 War.pdf

The Arab armies came in because of the killing and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians and the demands from their people and also because they fancied a piece for themselves. Of course Israel and TransJordan had already agreed that TransJordan would take the West Bank with the knowledge if not the collusion of the Brits.

 

No. You cannot steal what does not exist, a Palestinian state, and you cannot steal what has been abandoned, the territory of the British Mandate.

 

Name a single Jew the Palestinians consider to be a Palestinian.

 

Correction there was an ethnic cleansing. Additional correction, there was an ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs.

 

Because they'd have a country, without blockades. Theyd therefore be able to trade with others, organise themselves coherently both economically and politically.

That is not their business. Its Israel that has succeeded in destroying the livelihood and opportunities of Palestinians.

All the more reason to recognise what 98% of the world wishes enforced - the Palestinians' right to self determination.

 

Blame and war crimes are two diffrent things, war crimes are specific to places and situation and happened in both sides, blame that this war ever erupted is at the hands of those declared it, yes I do blame the Arab side for starting the war and make it about ethnic cleansing, otherwise no reason to start a war.

Not to me...

I disagree with your words choice here but yes the civil war already started and that was before the Arab armies joined the party. it still means the Palestinian side started the fight.

You exaggerate with the Israeli force but it was stronger than the Palestinin one I do not deny it, the problem always was - since 181 was formally rejected - the official Arab armies, not the Palestinians who too saw themselves part of the Arab world and part of its force. they wouldnt have dared to reject 181 if it was just them and wouldnt have dared to attack Israeli towns if they didnt relay on Arab armies. perhaps they werent sure the Arab countries will come to their aid pr with the nesseacry force, so they went for it and called for the help.

You continusly give a shade of misery to the whole Arab national goal here and it doesnt appear in historic records, you read the same sources I do but always seek the invisble angle that they had to fight, got massacred, lied to themselves about their abilities - in other words that they have no responsibility for the war, I disagree, I see a focused aim to object the Israeli state and when 181 passed - a formal declaration of war, involving (the perhaps not thrilled) Arab armies - and all that done from a place of POWER not misery, a place of DOMINANACE not acceptance and a very real, logical and frankly understanable national goal/

No, all these were legit battles and Israelis had about the same casulties from real functional Palestinians weapons wielded by real Palestinian militants, just because they didnt have uniforms and came from villages instead of barracks doesnt make them civilians, you count only Palestinian casulties and defeats making a picture out of that and call it truth, that's about 50% of the truth and its tainted by propaganda.

They came because the Palestinians forced them into the war by starting it, I'm not arguying the Isr-Jor conspirecy again, it has no evidance only suspicion and the facts are they fought and killed each other.

 

BS, you cannot employ 5 Million ppl in agriculture like they used to have in 1920, they must relay on Israel demand to supply jobs to the millions - or pehaps the EU plans employ them in Hi tech ?

If you sell cookies and rockets in your shop - you wont be able to sell cookies no more.

Its not a question of recognition, they have that for decades.

 

1. When did Palestinians declare war?
2. A war does not permit ethnic cleansing and is not a zero-sum game. Or at least it shouldnt and shouldnt be, unless, you know, you're an amoral ape.

Israel has been restricting access to Plaestinian territories since the 90s.

1. Are you an Israeli? I'm not sure who the "we" is you refer to.
2. This is not 1947 - peace is now very achievable.

Actually I think they have been trying, its just that they are so many of them. In response to your first question, why not spend money on refugees in Palestine and spend just as much per capita on Syrians?

Absolutely illogical.

So youre saying the people alive in 1947 are the same ones populating Palestine today? Or are you saying the sins of the father should be visited upon the son, as it were?

There is a very easy way to resolve this crisis - the US should cease vetoing moves to that peaceful solution.

 

Who says they all have to work agriculture?

?

Actually, it is - legal recognition.

 

1. on Dec 1947 with a series of attacks, a letter by the Mufti of Jerusalem calling all Palestinians to raise arms against the Jews and the siege on Jerusalem Jewish part, only then did the Israelis orgenized their offensive.
2. The whole war was ethnic, Jews and Arabs shared towns at some places and battles were from one street to another, in other cases hostile villages were just a few Km from Jewish towns - how else can it end ? either they surrender (like "Israeli Arabs"), die - or run away. this was known by all sides, when the American warned the UN just before the Brtish mandate was over - they warned them of exactly that only they figured its the Jews who will get massacred, they knew it like everyone else did because the living space was so small and fought after, once war was declared there was no other choice.

Since the Intifada you mean, before it and in Gaza situation - till the 2000's they had freedoms that you seek today, Jews used to shop in Gaza and we used to have Palestinian workers here, instead of Romanian, Chinease etc' today.

1. Yes I am
2. Used to be in the 90's, now I can only imagine two seperate agreements with WB and Gaza, I dont see how we can trust Hamas to the point of having them right next to us.


Actually I think they have been trying, its just that they are so many of them. In response to your first question, why not spend money on refugees in Palestine and spend just as much per capita on Syrians?

Not to me.

Im saying they have the exact same right they has since then, they should esablish a state or rather an economy first and then a state but they need to take responsibilty for their part in what happened too.
I wil not shake hands with those calling us "colonists" or "crusadres" - to us it only means they will seek war at another time and I will not give a hand to that.

 

hahaha you think a call to arms by one person is a declaration of war on behalf of a whole community? LOL

Without displacement of people who didnt participate in the violence, which was most of those displaced.

LOL There was actually plenty of space for both communities.

Yes, so theyve been restricting their rights since the 1990s not 2006.

And so you speak for all Israelis? LOL

The rest of the world can see how they can be trusted. And I agree with them.

Care to answer?

That's the problem, and the reason you are on the wrong side of this issue.

So you are saying today's Palestinians should bare the burden of Palestinians long dead?

They are trying to but are being prevented by US.

You cant have an economy without the right to self-determination, which is being deprived by the US and Israel.

You dont have to - you just have to leave them alone.

Its unfortunate, and silly, that you think this way.

 

They have agriculture and one or two quarries who's product they can sell the EU, the rest requires developing and even that wont be enough, certianly not if they intend to bring 10 million "refugees" and families.

Its an algory, if the shop keeper complains his shop got closed then he shouldnt have sold rockets.

And they have the legal recognition, they dont have the ability to sustain it in practice nor do they want to own just he land they have now.

 

The progress of the war in not a secret you can read it all at WIKI and other places, yes, when the leader calls for war and his ppl reply to it- its an official war, by chanc eit also fit the threats they made prior to 181....

Reality proves otherwise, with all due respect to your outsider 21st century eyes of yours....

And been waging war on us for much longer than that.

When it comes to common Israeli knowledge, our parents fought those wars y'know...

They dont have an issue with the world just with us, are we supposed to allign our conclusions to fit yours ?

Sure, if possible why not, I assume there is a buttom to that well thou and now your turn, assuming they wont give extra funds - any reason to treat them better then others ?

No I think the problem is yours, you dont know or care enough to judge.

By establishing their own state ? ok...

No, they already had a UN vote on it and a formal Israeli declaration in favour of 2 states, its a question of land now.

They had that right since 1946 they simply rejected to share, and ofc they can have an economy just like the Jews had before declaring indipendance.

I suspect there is a lot hiddeen under "leaving them alone", Il call it "taking responsibilty for the wars they created"

I feel the same about you

 

No, Palestine has always had a large population of Arabs. The only ethnic cleansing has been of Jews from Gaza

 

There has been nothing to stop them from doing that but instead they focus on hatreds and terrorism.

Also untrue.

Wasted my time. You know nothing.

 

ok this is two parts. Part 1

Well if you had not been mass killing and forcing out Palestinian Arabs from both areas which were to be the Jewish State, Tiberias, Haifa and possibly Qastel in the to be 'Jewish' State and Jaffa in the to be Palestinian Arab State, there may not have been any war. I say may not because the other thing which motivated the Arabs, apart from needing to protect the Palestinians due to the demands of their own people, was that they were pretty sure that there was something up with TransJordan and Israel. There is evidence in Britain's archives that they thought that Jordan and Israel had come to a deal and they did not expect there to be any Palestinian State at all.

here is a link

US & British officials knew that the promised Palestinian state would not be (1947-4

There is also an archive which suggests that the reason that the Zionists were not just given a State but given an unjust one - that is giving one third of the population 55% of the land was first of all in the hope that it would stop Zionist terrorism not just in Palestine but throughout the world and second that it might make them hold back a bit before taking more land - which they knew was the Zionists intention.

Resolution 181 was the capitulation to Zionist terrorism (1947)

In addition the Palestinians had no reason to accept Resolution 181. It was not legally binding and it was most definitely unfair but as I say above I do not think there ever was a genuine intention of giving the Palestinians a State.

as I said, I am happy to leave that for now.

No. It was the Palmach, your elite squad who attacked Qastel beginning Plan Dalet (was Qastel in the 'Jewish Section or was it supposed to be in the International section?) This was the beginning of Operation Nachshon - 'the specific goal being to occupy and cleanse Palestinian villages on both sides of the Jaffa Jerusalem Road' giving the Zionists access to Jerusalem. This alone indicates that the Zionists had no intention on going by the partition which would have left Jerusalem under UN Trusteeship. They even used two planes which the British had sold them to drop home made bombs.

The report says Tiberias was the first city attacked under Plan Dalet and the population was evacuated what we would call now 'ethnically cleansed'. The importance which the report puts on this is that the British did nothing to stop the Zionists doing this. This was an 'eye opener' to the Zionists and made them think they might have the thumbs up to continue. Again, the attack on Tiberias was started by the Haganah, Zionists.

The attack on Haifa had already been prepared. They were however wary about attacking the Arab section of Haifa. It had no defence but the Brits were evacuating their soldiers through several roads around it and in addition it was the port out of which her soldiers were leaving so they were afraid that the brits would step in and stop the attack. There was also an area of no man's land between the Jewish and Arab sectors which the British patrolled. However on 18th April the Brit in charge of Haifa, Major General Hugh G Stockwell summoned Harry Beilin, the Jewish liaison officer. This was only one day after Tiberias so obviously he knew that only the previous day the Zionists had attacked and cleansed Tiberias. Stockwell told Beilin that the Brits were going to stop patrolling the borders and no man's land – in other words giving the Zionists the all clear to attack Haifa.He also told them they would be out by 20th April He apparently then went over to a map and asked Beilin if he thought the Haganah could get the Arab quarters.

Haifa had no ALA garrison just about 450 citizen volunteers – the commander was the only trained officer in Haifa. All they had for weapons were old British and French Rifles, most of WW1 vintage, chronically short of ammunition. The entire garrison only had 15 sub machine guns an essential in urban war. For the Zionists, Haifa was the home and recruiting ground for the 2000 strong Second Brigade – one of the 7 brigades of KHISH, the field army of Haganah. They had all the best weapons including armoured cars, submachine guns, rifles, grenades and so on, all in plentiful supply with as much ammunition as they wanted.

They also had Davidkas and Barack bullets – the first heavy mortar and converted oil barrels into bombs that they could roll down the hills – the Jewish quarters were higher than the Arab ones.

According to the way back link After what Stockwell had told Beilin, the 2nd Brigade changed its plans from an intended 'hit and miss' at Arab targets to a full scale attack with expulsion of the Arabs as in Tiberias.

On the 21st of April Stockwell called in both Zionist and Arab commanders and gave them a bit of paper telling them that the British forces knew there was much fighting between them going on but that British forces had no intention of interfering apart from keeping its soldiers safe. He had given the Jews the absolute green light. He then told them which areas would be free of British soldiers hence fine for attack. This intended show of impartiality was deceit as the Hanagah forces knew the British had already left the previous evening. However for the first time the Arabs became aware of what was about to happen. They had been set up. On leaving the meeting, the Arab leader, Izz al-din, the only trained arab officer who was in no doubt what was afoot set off for Damascus leaving his deputy, a Palestinian sanitary engineer with no military experience, in charge.

Even while the zionist commander was speaking with Stockwell, the second brigade was taking up its positions in areas abandoned by the British soldiers creating a trap whereby the Arabs could neither get out nor could reinforcements for them get in. The weapons used by the Haganah from 10.30 on April 21st as well as a psychological bombardment of broadcasts by the Haganah in Arabic demanding the evacuation of women and children. According to the Palestine Post – precursor to the Jerusalem Post these broadcasts had started as early as the 19th April. - that is the day after the Stockwell/Beilin meeting.


Attitude of the Jewish Mayor of Haifa. Shabatai Levy. He made an announcement on the 22nd April in response to the Arabs call to be evacuated with protection due to the massive amounts of civilian causalities asking the arabs to reconsider their request. However this did not represent Haganah policy. Levy was not the Jew in charge, that was 'Motki' Maklef operations officer of the Carmeli or second Brigade. When General Stockwell asked him what his views were, he said, “This is their business and they have to decide” in other words, they could be offered protection by the British or stay and face more killing. The orders to the attacking units were “kill any Arab you encounter...set on fire all flammable objects....force open doors with explosives. The full force of the second brigade was set loose on a civilian population of 75,000 stuck in an area of 1.5 square kilometres. When the 2nd brigade heard the arab authorities were calling on arab civilians to shelter in the old market place, three inch mortars, according to their official history, were ordered to shell the market place. When the shelling began the crowd went into panic and pushed their way to the port an onto boats to flee. A contemporary arab described it as such “Men stepped on their friends and women on their children. The boats in the port were soon filled with living cargo. The overcrowding in them was horrible. Many turned over and sank with all their passengers'

https://web.archive.org/web/20110831055456/http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/military/Khalidi, Selected Docs on 1948 War.pdf

They were offered a truce but it was non negotiable with a firm time limit and a warning that not to accept it and still be there would result immediately in another 3-400 dead or wounded. Not feeling safe, having no defence they opted to go. Most who could had already got out anyway. I am sure the Mayor was a decent man but he was not the man in charge. Beven was apparently furious about how Stockwell had acted but it only took a little buttering for him to forgive Montgomery (Stockwell's boss)

As for Jaffa. The Haganah believed the Brits would protect the Arabs due to this being in the Arab section so they intended on first attacking several villages which surrounded it - apparently believing that would be fine with the Brits. However the Irgun thought differently. They believed that the Brits would act just as they had in the other places and leave them to get on with it and they also had stolen a massive amount of mortar from a British train. Begin wanted the attack to begin on the 24th April to coincide with Passover but could not manage it till the 25th. The Irgun fired the mortar non stop day and night indiscriminately at business and residential areas for three days and nights. He also took 600 men over land to attack Manshiyya. The people of Manshiyya however put up a fierce defence and so he changed target for Jaffa proper but here too the people held him off (they obviously had a few weapons unlike the poor souls in Haifa). He was going to give up here too but was encouraged to go again after Manshiyya. Again they put up a good defence but Begin eventually got through on the 28th. The report says the Irgun then began 'mopping up' the area, does that mean killing everyone because it then goes on to say that everything which could be carried off was looted and everything which could not was destroyed. It was at this point that the Brits having told the Haganah, started firing at the Irgun and then put up a joint defence with the Haganah during which the Haganah did as she had originally planned and destroyed the six or so surrounding villages and went after Jaffa with the Brits doing nothing more than demanding a safe route for the Arabs to escape to the sea. The Jaffa Garrison though still put up a good fight with about 500 men but to no avail. Most people had already left in panic and that in itself reduced the morale of the Garrison's fighters. It still though was not over. They had one card more to play. Following an SOS an ALA led by Palestinian Michel Issa arrived. He had preciously been part of the people trying to resist Operation Yevussi aimed at capturing Northern positions round Jerusalem to try and get those parts of the city still in Arab hands. According to that report it was his forces, it was his battalion, the Ajnadin battalion which stopped the Zionists from being successful with that....but he was too late for Jaffa and on the advice of the British and the agreement of the Zionists made it an open city whatever that was with an agreement not to fight till 15th May.

So this is clearly major destruction of Arab Areas inside what was to become the 'Jewish' State resulting in the Arabs having to leave. Dier Yassin also happened in this period. It also included a massive attack and emptying out of the people on a city which was to have gone into the Palestinian State. Without these actions I do not believe you would have seen the arab armies come in. At the same time we need to look at the Brits not even just allowing it but in the case of Haifa encouraging it. They knew Transjordan was coming in. I think it was Begin who said, reported by Avi Shlaim that they couldn't take it all and I know it was Meir who said, for the time being. The other arab armies came in first because they had guessed that Transjodan was up to no good, second because their people demanded it and third to see if they could get a slice of the cake. Second and third may be in the wrong order.

 

Part 2

Those are the number Khalidi gave. I am guessing it will be around the number they had when the Arab armies first came in. If you have time read the link.

About half if not more of the 7,500 Arab fighters were not Palestinian.

I81 was not fair as I said at the beginning. They had every right to reject it. That absolutely was their right. Israel did not have a legal right to any state due to 181. Let's put in something nicer which I discovered just a few days ago. Did you know that initially the Jews were well received and there was no antisemitism. Because of this Sir John Hope Simpson in 1930 was asked to do a report to find out what had gone wrong.

That is how it could have worked. The problem came because the Zionists wanted an ethnic nationalist state. They did not help the Arabs so anyone who says that Arabs moved to Palestine because of the Zionists are totally wrong. That is where your forefathers made the big mistake. Had you acted as they did under Rothchild's PICA it would be a massively different situation. Unfortunately the Zionists under the JNF were the exact opposite.

Well you dared to reject what you did not want.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ans-to-zionists.300181/page-5#post-1062578230

So is that you acknowledging that the Zionists had far more fire power. In any case it was their leaders not them.

Give me some links about these attacks.

I am not sure I do read the same sources as you. For instance you said you did not have time to read Avi Shlaim the last time we discussed the war....and did you know that the Benny Morris article where he said that the Jews did over 12 massacres but the Arabs only 3 and two of them revenge is no longer available. The rest of what you have written above I do not recognise. I see it as a people being replaced by colonisers because that is what happened. This is against my value system. It is not that Jews could not have gone and made a home there. It is sadly the way they did it....and the way they acted well up to WW2 went against the values of most Western Jews. Can you not see that if you had done it differently, if you had followed the PICA way it could have been positive - different but positive.

Your position obviously will be different as it is your home and you want to be proud of it.....but maybe if Israeli's took a proper look at what happened, if they tried to put themselves in the shoes of the Palestinians they might be able to at last come to a just resolution.

That wasn't what I was reporting was said. It was that the believe was that what was possibly holding the Zionists back at that time was fear of the British reaction and as we have seen when the Brits showed they were up for it, the Zionists got on with their attacks and 'evacuation' of the arabs, what we would now all ethnic cleansing.

but it didn't happen like that even if it was that time they were howling blue murder. Jordan, yes that was definitely on, but not the rest. I don't really understand what you are talking about with your power and misery and dominance.

Haifa was a route on defenceless people. As I said earlier and taken from the report I gave the link to earlier

A well equipped and trained army attacking untrained civilians and shelling them down when they try to take refuge in the market place has to be a war crime...but pretty much the whole thing was and the Brits also bare responsibility for that one. None of them was a legit battle. The only place where they had any ability to put up any kind of defence against the most monstrous attack was Jaffa which was to have been in the Arab State.- o and Jerusalem. It seems there they were successful but there again it was defending the arab section not attacking the Jewish.

and I have shown you here that that is not what happened. It was you not the Palestinians who were attacking them and throwing them out of their homes both in what was to be the Jewish State an what was to be the Arab State and that Gilos is reality. Do you ever take responsibility for what Israel does?[/quote]

 

Haifa was always the city that had the best of relations between Jews and Arabs.
And it was in 1948 too.

"Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the -Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit.. . . It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as Renegades."

- The London weekly Economist, October 2, 1948


"It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem."

- Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949


"The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by order of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city...By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa."

- Time, May 3, 1948, p. 25


[The Arabs of Haifa] fled in spite of the fact that the Jewish authorities guaranteed their safety and rights as citizens of Israel."

- Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, according to Rev. Karl Baehr, Executive Secretary of the American Christian Palestine Committee, New York Herald Tribune, June 30, 1949​

This is your link.
http://thomassuarez.com/
Literally a little violin player.
Drag em up.

1. Half of what became Israel was the sparse wasteland throw-in Negev Desert: owned by no Arab.
Otherwise 1/3 got 27.5%.

2. Resolution 181 had more to do with fulfilling Britain/The League of Nations promise to the Jews, while still giving the Arabs a state/another state. Even though it wasn't all of Palestine that they were promised (and Faisal had agreed to), and necessitated a second Arab state carved from the original Mandate.
And I might add, both peoples' knew the Jews were getting a state since at least 1917.

Good idea. It was so wrong-headed.

Call me crazy, I think Benny Morris trumps 'Thomas Suarez' and his violin.

Israel and the Palestinians
Thu, Feb 21, 2008
Benny Morris
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/israel-and-the-palestinians-1.896017

Madam, - Israel-haters are fond of citing - and more often, mis-citing - my work in support of their arguments. Let me offer some corrections.

The Palestinian Arabs were not responsible "in some bizarre way" (David Norris, Jan 31st) for what befell them in 1948. Their responsibility was very direct and simple.

In defiance of the will of the international community, as embodied in the UN General Assembly Resolution of November 29th, 1947 (No. 181), they launched hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence of the Jewish state and perhaps destroying that community. But they lost; and one of the results was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes.

It is true, as Erskine Childers pointed out long ago, that there were no Arab radio broadcasts urging the Arabs to flee en masse; indeed, there were broadcasts by several Arab radio stations urging them to stay put. But, on the local level, in dozens of localities around Palestine, Arab leaders advised or ordered the evacuation of women and children or whole communities, as occurred in Haifa in late April, 1948. And Haifa's Jewish mayor, Shabtai Levy, did, on April 22nd, plead with them to stay, to no avail.

Most of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders). But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops.

The displacement of the 700,000 Arabs who became "refugees" - and I put the term in inverted commas, as two-thirds of them were displaced from one part of Palestine to another and not from their country (which is the usual definition of a refugee) - was not a "racist crime" (David Landy, Jan 24th) but the result of a national conflict and a war, with religious overtones, from the Muslim perspective, launched by the Arabs themselves.

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.

It is true that Plan D gave the regional commanders carte blanche to occupy and garrison or expel and destroy the Arab villages along and behind the front lines and the anticipated Arab armies' invasion routes. And it is also true that mid-way in the 1948 war the Israeli leaders decided to bar the return of the "refugees" (those "refugees" who had just assaulted the Jewish community), viewing them as a potential fifth column and threat to the Jewish state's existence. I for one cannot fault their fears or logic.

The demonisation of Israel is largely based on lies - much as the demonisation of the Jews during the past 2,000 years has been based on lies. And there is a connection between the two.

I would recommend that the likes of Norris and Landy read some history books and become acquainted with the facts, not recycle shopworn Arab propaganda. They might then learn, for example, that the "Palestine War" of 1948 (the "War of Independence," as Israelis call it) began in November 1947, not in May 1948. By May 14th close to 2,000 Israelis had died - of the 5,800 dead suffered by Israel in the whole war (ie almost 1 per cent of the Jewish population of Palestine/Israel, which was about 650,000). - Yours, etc,

Prof BENNY MORRIS, Li-On, Israel.
+
​

 

Had to cut short your reply due word count....

Taxanomy26 gave you a good answer but ill give you mine as well, the issue in both your posts is who started the real orgenized war, you claim it was OP Nachshon that started plan D, you acknowledge that its objective was to open a path to Jerusalem and claim it was to eliminate all Arab villages in its path. my reply is to both your posts :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_Jerusalem

"Starting in February 1948, Arab militia under Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni blockaded the road from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, preventing the supply of the Jewish population. This blockade was broken in mid-April by Operation Nachshon and Operation Maccabee."

"Following the outbreak of disturbances at the end of 1947 the road between Tel Aviv and Jewish Jerusalem became increasingly difficult for Jewish vehicles. Ambushes by Palestinian Arab irregulars became more frequent and more sophisticated. The intention of the besieging forces was to isolate the 100,000 Jewish residents of the city from the rest of the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine and, in the case of the Jordanian forces, to conquer East Jerusalem (including the Old City).[2][3] Aside from the large Jewish population, Jerusalem held special importance to the Yishuv for "religious and nationalist" reasons.[4] In particular, the Arab forces tried to cut off the road to Jerusalem from the coastal plain, where the majority of the Jewish population resided. The Arabs blocked access to Jerusalem "at Latrun and Bab al-Wad," a narrow valley surrounded by Arab villages on hills on both sides"

"By the end of March it was clear that food supplies for civilians in Jewish Jerusalem would run out.[8] On 1 April The Times estimated that the Jewish population of Jerusalem required a minimum of 50 truckloads per week. On 3 April, The Scotsman reported that a spokesman at a meeting of Arab military leaders in Damascus had announced that Jerusalem would be "strangled" by a blockade."

"When convoys bearing foodstuffs could not reach the city, the residents of Jerusalem went out to the fields to pick mallow leaves, which are rich in iron and vitamins. The Jerusalem radio station, Kol Hamagen, broadcast instructions for cooking mallow. When the broadcasts were picked up in Jordan, they sparked victory celebrations. Radio Amman announced that the fact that the Jews were eating leaves, which was food for donkeys and cattle, was a sign that they were dying of starvation and would soon surrender"/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nachshon

"Operation Nachshon (Hebrew: מבצע נחשון‎‎, Mivtza Nahshon) was a Jewish military operation during the 1948 war. Lasting from 5–20 April 1948, its objective was to break the Siege of Jerusalem by opening the Tel-Aviv – Jerusalem road blockaded by Palestinian Arabs and to supply food and weapons to the isolated Jewish community of Jerusalem".



So since February preceeds April - they attacked first and it was mandatory to clear out hostiles on that and throuout the country to avoid more Israeli deaths but it wasnt the ethnic cleansing that you made of it :


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghosh

"In 1947-1948, the road to Jerusalem was blocked, as passage through the hills surrounding Jerusalem was crucial for getting supplies to the Jewish parts of the besieged city. Of the 36 Arab Muslim villages in these hills, Abu Ghosh was the only Muslim one that remained neutral, and in many cases helped to keep the road open for Jewish convoys. "From here it is possible to open and close the gates to Jerusalem," said former President Yitzhak Navon. Many in Abu Ghosh helped Israel with supplies.[16]

During Operation Nachshon the Haganah reconsidered an attack on Abu Ghosh due to opposition of the Stern Gang, whose local commanders were on good terms with the mukhtar (village chief).[17]

Harel Brigade training with Arabs of Abu Ghosh. 1948

Photograph from Palmach Archive. Caption: "Abu Ghosh - a Jewish-Arab friendship" 1948

During the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the Har'el Brigade headquarters were located in Abu-Ghosh.[18][19] Many of the villagers left Abu Ghosh during the heavy fighting in 1948, but most returned home in the following months.

The Israeli government, subsequently on peaceful terms with the village, invested in improving the infrastructure of the village"

 

[/QUOTE]

I belive I refuted your claim with my post above, cite exact dates to prove otherwise please.

 

Because there illegal Jewish settlements and even if not, it could happen over night that a new will raise there?
Also, these "camps" are in meantime cities and the 3rd generation lives there, often event he 4th generation!

 

God known how but somehow I answered this is a different thread. Link to first part. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...el-in-istanbul.511005/page-35#post-1067947043

second part below.