Israeli novelist AB Yehoshua is upset by the battle developing over Zionism world-wide, and he is trying to turn down the heat with a piece in Haaretz. I don't think he succeeds. First an excerpt, in which he portrays ethnic discrimination as all in a day's work for nation-states:
After the Jewish state, namely the State of Israel, was actually established, the only way in which the meaning of Zionism was expressed was through the principle of the Law of Return.... it is still open to any Jew who wants to become a citizen.
Such a law of return exists today in several other countries, including Hungary and Germany. Hopefully a similar law of return will also soon be instituted in the Palestinian state to be established alongside us. And just as that will not be a racist law in the Palestinian state, by the same token the law is not racist in Israel either. When the nations of the world decided in 1947 on the establishment of a Jewish state, they did not tear off part of Palestine for only the 600,000 Jews living there at the time, they did so with the assumption that this state had to provide refuge for any Jew who so desired.
This is pabulum. Yes, the world partitioned Palestine in 1947 so as to establish a Jewish state and an Arab one; and that decision-- which the entire Arab neighborhood rejected-- was also a legal one. I acknowledge that.
But because Jewish numbers in mandate Palestine were low, the world gerrymandered a state that was Jewish, by about 600,000 to 500,000 non Jews; and before and after that "state" became a state, the Jews expelled almost all those non-Jews and greatly increased their boundaries from the ones the U.N. had granted. So if you really want to talk about "tearing off part of Palestine," well Israel did that to the Palestinians; it leapfrogged the U.N. boundaries and tossed out a lot of Arabs.
The Israelis have never acknowledged the expulsion, apologize for it, or made reparations (even as their own state was built with the help of German reparations soon after the war).
And as for Yehoshua's wonderful returning, well, many of those Palestinians have sought to return to their homes, a right granted them under international law. The U.N. has stood by that right. Yehoshua seems to imagine them exercising that right some time in the future (as if 60 years is mere preamble) and not to their original lands; but it is dishonest not to acknowledge that the frustration of the exercise of this right has caused seething resentment for decades-- even as 1 million Russians, many of them non-Jews, showed up under Yehoshua's hunky-dory Law of Return. The failure to relate this skewed history is what makes me crazy about Zionism. Back to the video:
An Israeli, a Jew, a Palestinian or anyone else who defines himself as a-Zionist is a citizen who is opposed to the Law of Return. This opposition, like any other political viewpoint, is legitimate. An anti-Zionist, on the other hand, is someone who wants to overturn the State of Israel after the fact - and with the exception of extremist sects among the ultra-Orthodox or among radical Jewish circles in the Diaspora, not many Jews hold this view.
All of the important and fundamental debates taking place in Israel - annexation or non-annexation of the territories; the relationship between the country's Jewish majority and the Palestinian minority; the relationship between religion and the state; the nature and values of economic policy and the social welfare system; and even the interpretation of historical events - are the sort of debates and controversies that existed and still exist in many countries.
Here the taxonomical Yehoshua makes out that the debate that's going on in Israel is a war of foundational ideas like the one in many other countries. I don't think it's the same. Israel is a young country; and it is facing an existential crisis for a very simple reason: it is governing a population of 4-5 million Palestinians who have no rights and by and large do not accept their governance. Yehoshua calls these people a "minority." In fact they may outnumber the Jews (as JPost now reports).
The reason that some radicals want to revolutionize the state of Israel, and why even conservative-liberals like myself seek dramatic reform of Israel, is because of this unfairness, which has gone on for many decades. Henry Siegman and Noam Sheizaf have both explained these conditions to us recently.
Siegman: "Israel's... denial of all rights to millions of Palestinians for nearly half a century..."
Sheizaf: "Palestinians are real people, people older than the age of almost everyone in this room, almost, who have never been one day in their life free."
That's the issue, in a region inflamed by imperial occupation; and why this injustice has gained global attention.
Phil,
Why do you not also seek the same radical change in Arab countries? Let’s make a deal, Israel will adopt the one state solution one day after the countries surrounding it become liberal democracies. The two issues are tied and one has to be realistic.
Right, eee,
Except that the citizens of all those surrounding Arab countries want democracies and the U.S. and Israel are doing everything in their power to make sure that doesn’t happen. But I am sure you do know that. Hasbara 101.
Seham,
How exactly are Israel and the US stopping democracy from taking hold in Syria? The US and Israel have zero influence there. And did the US support Saddam in Iraq during 10 years of sanctions? In spite of all its efforts to topple him, democracy could not take hold there.
And do you really believe that Israel or the US can stop democracy from taking place in any country?Let’s take the case of Egypt. True, the US supports Mubarak. Let’s say the US stops supporting Mubarak. Would the result be democracy or a civil war like Iraq? The reason there is no democracy in Egypt is complex, but certainly the US support of Mubarak is a very small part of the answer.
There was never a pland to install demcoracy in Iraq, certainly not throughout the decade of sanctions. Even after invading Iraq, the plan was to install a puppet dictator like Chalabi.
“Would the result be democracy or a civil war like Iraq?”
Or maybe not. Certainly Mubarak and his factions would struggle to hold onto power, but that would be the case even if democracy were to emerge.
“The reason there is no democracy in Egypt is complex, but certainly the US support of Mubarak is a very small part of the answer.”
Rubbish. Mubarak has refused to allow free and fair elections, in spite fo teh overwhelming call for them from all factions.
You’re such a troll. The US doesn’t give a damn about democracy, not even in the US!
Dictatorships always flourish under threat or the appearance of threat. By constantly threatening Syria, USreal reinforces the Assad dictatorship with the reasonable excuse that a strong leader is needed to combat the threats.
attack a group and they circle the wagons
Shtuyot Be mitz Kharah.
eee keeps peddling the same smug nonsense that his parents taught him. Hey kiddo, go do something useful with your life.
Taking advantage of the fact that the moderator does not understand Hebrew is not nice (I apologize to the moderator if you do, but Avi is using foul language only “encrypted” in Hebrew).
If all you can muster Avi are personal attacks with no reasoning behind them, why bother posting at all?
Hollow righteous indignation.
You’re on an apologetic streak, first for Israel’s crimes and now for your support of those crimes.
It’s good to know that Zionists like you draw the line at foul language when it suits them and ethnic cleansing when it suits them.
Now f*** off.
“smug”
Must be this fascist’s middle name!
Yes FASCIST..eee. You’re on record making the most outrageous statements to the tune of might macht right..and justifying theft, annexation and ethnic cleansing..
how are the tied??? the surrounding countries have nothing to do with the ethnic cleansing of palestine and the conquerers refusal to allow expelled palestinians back to their property.
“Why do you not also seek the same radical change in Arab countries?”
Say what? And lose all those stalwart partners in the fight against Iran? And BTW, if those Arab countries changed, who would you point to to excuse or try to justify Israel’s actions?
Correction, Phil: the UN partitioned Palestine in 1947 so as to establish a Jewish state within Palestine. That’s what the documents say. The Zionists wouldn’t accept that.
Thank you MRW. Phil is always ready to have his cake and eat it too.
The U.N. did not partition Palestine.
Resolution 181 (29 November 1947) set up a Commission to do so. On May 14, 1948, Resolution 186 rescinded the plan:
“Relieves the Palestine Commission from the further exercise of responsibilities under resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947″
link to avalon.law.yale.edu
In any event, if the Partition plan had been implemented, it could not have been enforced unless both parties agreed. General Assembly resolutions do not have that power, they are recommendations only.
“In reference to Resolution 181, Quigley observes that “even if the Assembly had intended to impose partition, it is not clear that it had the legal authority to do so” (p.47). He notes that Hans Kelsen, Clyde Eagleton, Leland Goodrich, and Edward Hambro all agreed that UN General Assembly resolutions “have no obligatory character””
link to bsos.umd.edu
Brewer
“The U.N. did not partition Palestine”
Best get Israel to remove the enshrined UNGA Res 181 from it’s Declaration
Resolution 181 (29 November 1947) set up a Commission to do so. On May 14, 1948, Resolution 186 rescinded the plan:
Er no, it assigned the Palestine Commission a role in partition as the provisional Government of Palestine (pre-partition)
It relieved the Palestine Commission from the further exercise of responsibilities under resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, in order that the parties could declare INDEPENDENT Sovereignty should they wish. One cannot declare independence while under the control of another entity or body.
“In any event, if the Partition plan had been implemented, it could not have been enforced unless both parties agreed.”
Twaddle. There is no article requiring the parties to co-sign, it would be against the very notion of INDEPENDENCE.
” General Assembly resolutions do not have that power, they are recommendations only.”
UNGA resolutions are not in themselves binding. However they often remind folk of and/or are based on, Law (all law is binding), the UN Charter (binding in it’s entirety) , UNSC resolutions (binding, thought not always enforced).
This……
“Resolution 181 (29 November 1947) set up a Commission to do so. On May 14, 1948, Resolution 186 rescinded the plan:
Er no, it assigned the Palestine Commission a role in partition as the provisional Government of Palestine (pre-partition)”
……is twaddle
Resolution 186 was sponsored by America. Truman’s statement of March 1949 makes the intent very clear:
“This country vigorously supported the plan for partition with economic union recommended by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine and by the General Assembly. We have explored every possibility consistent with the basic principles of the Charter for giving effect to that solution. Unfortunately, it has become clear that the partition plan cannot be carried out at this time by peaceful means. We could not undertake to impose this solution on the people of Palestine by the use of American troops, both on Charter grounds and as a matter of national policy. ”
link to avalon.law.yale.edu
Resolution 186 discharges the Palestine Commission and replaces it with a Truce Commission. There is not one word of support within the resolution for your assertion: “it assigned the Palestine Commission a role in partition”.
Here is the resolution:
link to avalon.law.yale.edu
Please cut and paste the clause that assigns the Palestine Commission such a role.
The comparison with Hungary and Germany fails to mention that law of return legislation in either country addresses specific problems created after WW I and II and subject to historical change. In Hungary it is the fact that many Hungarians were left outside of Hungary when the borders were redrawn by the victors of WW I. Would this not speak in favor of a Palestinian rather than a Jewish right of return? The German legislation specifically addressed the rights of ethnic Germans left behind in the SU and Eastern Europe (Spätaussiedler) after most ethnic Germans had been expelled around the end of WW II. The law was further restricted after the fall of the SU, i.e. limited to people born before 1993. Israel grants geographically unlimited ROR to Jews. It makes no difference when or where they were born, or whether they are subject to oppression or prejudicial treatment of account of their ethnicity/religion.
Exactly.
Did Germany allow Jews to return to Germany after the war ended and after the Nuremberg trials and after the Nazi regime came crumbling down?
So, Germany had the decency to allow people to return to their homeland, while Israel can’t muster that decency for the Palestinians.
true most of the countries have very strong laws about their right of return very focused unlike Israel where someone can convert and gain the right to steal someone’s house.
1. While sometimes A.B. Yehoshua is portrayed as some kind of emblem of the left in Israel, or of the peace movement, this is not really true. At least not since the 2nd Intifada, when he fell for the Barak lies of ‘there is no partner for peace.’ So when discussing his views, let’s not fall into the trap of thinking he represents left Zionist opinion. He is thoroughly mainstream, in the way that Blue Dog Democrats are mainstream.
2. I’m always nervous about anti-Zionists defining Zionism. If self-determination means anything, it means SELF determination. But the reverse must hold as well; anti-Zionists, among them Jews, should define themselves, not allowing Yehoshua to do it for them. For me, anti-Zionism is the belief that Zionist claims are some combination of fantastical, unwarranted, unethical, or superseded by historical events. Most anti-Zionists, like myself, aren’t necessarily trying to dismantle Israel. We’re trying to grapple thoughtfully with the next chapter of Israeli-Palestinian relations in Israel/Palestine. We’re trying to treat both sides of the conflict as subjects, worthy of due consideration no matter what awful decisions previous generations might have made.
3. Racism does appear to be the glue that holds a very diverse Israeli-Jewish society together. I wish more sincere Israelis were trying to figure out what it means to change that, to uproot both the practice of racism and the racist beliefs that underlie the practice.
For me, anti-Zionism is the belief that Zionist claims are some combination of fantastical, unwarranted, unethical, or superseded by historical events. Most anti-Zionists, like myself, aren’t necessarily trying to dismantle Israel. We’re trying to grapple thoughtfully with the next chapter of Israeli-Palestinian relations in Israel/Palestine. We’re trying to treat both sides of the conflict as subjects, worthy of due consideration no matter what awful decisions previous generations might have made.
you clinched it clencher.
Me, I’m just terrified of a future in which all Jews are like Witty, “eee”, yonira, Jonah and the rest.
We need a lot less of them and a whole lot more of Doc Pomus.
The partition was legal, Phil? No, the partition would have been legal if it had been accepted by the population of Palestine. It was not.
The partition proposal said to the Palestinians: hey, let’s give away half your land to these interlopers. They had every right to reject such a proposal and that made it null and void. Not legal.
Phil,
I agree with potsherd2.
The UN partition was brokered by allied powers, the Zionist lobby and Arab leaders on the payroll of Britain and the US.
I have just read an article by an Egyptian journalist who revealed that King Hussein, for example, was on the CIA’s payroll as early as the Carter administration.
The journalist further includes excerpts from the Washington Post of that period, thus corroborating his findings.
King Hussein was known by the code name “Mister No Beef”.
By the way, Hussein received a million dollars per month in exchange for his loyalty to his masters.
In a similar manner, that’s how Palestine was ‘sold’ to the Zionist lobby, thanks to a treasonous Arab leadership.
It is hardly “legal”.
Here’s an excerpt from “Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice” – by John Quigley.
link to farm6.static.flickr.com
As one can see, calling the partition plan of 1947 “legal” is quite a stretch.
The Arab Palestinians did not simply reject the partition plan, they rejected the very presence of Jews in Mandatory Palestine. Only thus can we explain the riots against Jews in 1920 (which hit the ancient Jewish community of Jerusalem) of 1929 (which hit the ancient Jewish community in Hebron) and between 1936 and 1939. The civil war waged by Palestinian Arabs, in particular under the command of the al-Husayni family, was nothing but the obvious and logical continuation of the desire to expel Jews from Palestine, a will that inevitably resulted in the first Arab-Israeli war – actually a destruction of war, as stated by various Arab and Palestinian leaders of the time. The abandonment of the Palestinian Arabs, both to escape from war and by expulsion, was the backlash of the anti-Jewish Arab policy, which had been pursued with fury by Palestinian leaders and neighboring Arab countries up to that point and which was actually enacted with extreme conseguence in 1949 by the Jordanian occupying power in East-Jerusalem and throughout the West Bank, as well as by the other Arab countries to their Jewish citizens.
On closer inspection, this vicious dynamic is still the modus operandi today. As long as the Arabs continue to want to expel Jews from their ancient homeland, they will meet resistance and reaction of the Jews, and this will affect negatively their life. They, as well as their blind supporters here and elsewhere, must finally understand that the state of Israel is there to stay where it is now, and that this recognition is the only way they can get real benefit from its existence.
“The Arab Palestinians did not simply reject the partition plan, they rejected the very presence of Jews in Mandatory Palestine. “‘
And the Zionists rejected any suggestion of borders, so they too rejected the very presence of a Palestinian state in Mandatory Palestine.
“Only thus can we explain the riots against Jews in 1920 (which hit the ancient Jewish community of Jerusalem) of 1929 (which hit the ancient Jewish community in Hebron) and between 1936 and 1939. ”
No, the riots, which oritignated in Jerusalem were a consequence of the declared goals fo the zionists enterprise to drive out the idigenous Palestinian population.
“The civil war waged by Palestinian Arabs, in particular under the command of the al-Husayni family, was nothing but the obvious and logical continuation of the desire to expel Jews from Palestine”
False. The war had nothgi to do with expelling jews, who had lived side by side with the Palestinians for centuries, but to resist the polcy of the Zionits to expell the Arabs, which they successfully did.
“The abandonment of the Palestinian Arabs, both to escape from war and by expulsion, was the backlash of the anti-Jewish Arab policy”
False. The ethnic cleansing of the Arabs was the realisation of a 50 year plan to establish a Jewish majority in Palestine.
“As long as the Arabs continue to want to expel Jews from their ancient homeland, they will meet resistance and reaction of the Jews, and this will affect negatively their life”
Arabs are not and have never expelled Jews from their ancient homeland, though the Zionist dream has certainly relied entirely on expelling arabs from their ancient homeland.
jonah’s posting more lies and fabrications. Imagine that.
Have you a reliable source for that propaganda garbage?
Jonah views as “vicious” the natural desire of a people to expel a group of invaders and interlopers. It is only unfortunately that they failed, because the interlopers had the backing of foreign imperialist powers.
The fact is that Jews lived in relative harmony in Palestine under the Ottomans for centuries because they were making no attempt to take over the land. Only when the Zionists arrived with their scheme to take over the country for their own state did the Palestinians recognize their danger and begin to oppose the constant influx of the rapacious foreign element.
“they rejected the very presence of Jews in Mandatory Palestine. ”
B.S. Here’s a little history:
As soon as the Zionist commission arrived in Palestine (then under British military rule) in 1918 they demanded Hebrew language have equal status with Arabic in official proclamations, that the British appoint Jews as government officials and a Jew as mayor of Jerusalem and ensure that half the municipal council in Jerusalem be Jewish, that Jewish government employees be payed more than Arabs, and that they be allowed to fly the Zionist flag, this while Arabs were denied permission to fly Arab flags. The British granted much of this, including that Jews be payed more than Arabs, and continued to foster Zionism. The riots were distinctly anti-Zionist, not anti-Jewish. (much of this history taken verbatim from “Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict” by Charles D. Smith)
Funny how Zionists proclaim the presence of Jews in Palestine continuous for the last 2000 years, and also proclaim that Palestinian Arabs rejected the presence of Jews in Palestine. If the second is the case, why all these riots only after the Zionists announced their intention to take over Palestine, expel the native inhabitants and/or deny them all political rights?
if some is in your house and being openly hostile to you wouldn’t you try and remove them??
Phil, you said, “the world gerrymandered a state that was Jewish, by about 600,000 to 500,000 non Jews.” You must have been including Jerusalem as part of the Jewish state, but Jerusalem was to be a separate, internationally administered entity. UNSCOP’S figures for the Jewish state were 498,000 Jews and 407,000 “Arabs and Others” (link to mideastweb.org
But note this statement by UNSCOP (same source): “In addition there will be in the Jewish State about 90,000 Bedouins, cultivators and stock owners who seek grazing further afield in dry seasons.” If you add the Bedouin to the “Arabs and Others” column, Jews outnumber “Arabs and Others” by only 1,000 in the area designated for the Jewish state.
According to UNSCOP (same source), the Arab state would have 10,000 Jews and 725,000 Arabs. Combining UNSCOP’s figures for the two states, I calculate that 35 percent of the total population of “Arabs and Others” would be living under Jewish hegemony. If the Beduouin are counted, the figure rises to 40 percent.
Is it any wonder the Arabs rejected partition?
“liberal-conservative” like myself. How are you conservative?
During the 1947 and 1948 wars, the wars were mutual ethnic cleansing. To ignore that, is really to ignore reality.
Out of a one-way ethnic cleansing, you can say, “Israel was demon, and owes Palestinians a fundamental apology”.
Out of two-way ethnic cleansing, you can only say, “Some Israelis did some things that were unnecessary in the context”. And, you would then have to actually study the detail and the context, to determine that.
As the reality was of two-way ethnic cleansing (on the ground, the Arab effort to ethnically cleanse the land of Jews was often even more intended and pronounced), a more complex and balanced approach is the ONLY truth that is actually truth.
It still leaves the condition of current Palestinians to be addressed, but it refrains from gratuitous and exagerated blame.
“During the 1947 and 1948 wars, the wars were mutual ethnic cleansing. To ignore that, is really to ignore reality.”
The ethnic cleansing bny the Zionists had been part of the plan for over half a century, whereas the actinios of the Arabs was in response to that well publicised agenda.
“on the ground, the Arab effort to ethnically cleanse the land of Jews was often even more intended and pronounced”‘
Absolute rubbish. The Israeli effort to ethnically cleanse the land of Palestinians was intended from more than half a century ealier and far more pronounced. What’s more, it was excecuted perfectly.
“It still leaves the condition of current Palestinians to be addressed, but it refrains from gratuitous and exagerated blame.”
But you reject all blame altogether.
Sure, Witty, anything you say.
It’s unfortunate that you don’t know basic history.
There were no wars in 1947.
Soon after the partition was ratified in November 1947, Zionist militias started ethnically cleansing entire villages. The Palestinians of mandate Palestine rioted in response, but they had no army and were hardly armed.
It wasn’t until May 1948, that Iraqi-Jordanian and some Egyptian forces launched a war, and even then they were outnumbered 8 to 1 by Zionist militias.
To claim otherwise, is to revise history to fit your agenda.
what about the arab violence directed at jews after the partition vote 63 years ago tomorrow avi?
It’s a myth.
Simha Flapan wrote in “The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities”
I’m trying to summarize the chapter at the moment, will update in several minutes.
Avi, don’t bother, how is summarizing a chapter by Flapan any different than summarizing a chapter from Dershowitz?
Page 57 of Professor Flapan’s book:
The image of the mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, leading hordes of Palestinians into battle against a small Jewish community intent on defending the principles of the UN Partition Resolution has all the elements of simplistic Manchaeanism: the forces of darkness and good. Indeed, this image proved capable of mobilizing a great deal of international support and sympathy, and it has conditioned the outlook of successive generations of Israelis. Thus, the situation following the November 29 resolution has come to be described as “the onslaught of the local Arabs.”(footnote 3) Or, in the words of Moshe Dayan: “Palestinian Arabs, aided by government-based irregulars from neighboring lands, started their attacks immediately in the hope of nullifying the partition resolution. For the next five and a half months, the country was ravaged by violence.”(4)
It is certainly true that the Arabs of Palestine were opposed to the UN Partition Resolution. They saw is as imposing “unilateral and intolerable sacrifices” on them by giving the Jews, who constituted 35 percent of the population, 55 percent of the country’s territory. Furthermore, it cut off the proposed Palestinian Arab state from the Red Sea and from Syria and provided it with only one approach to the Mediterranean, through the enclave of Jaffa.
Page 72
The evidence is so overwhelming that the question arises how the myth of a Palestinian jihad against the Jews could survive for so long. One reason, in addition to the efficiency of Israel’s propaganda campaigns, is probably the Arabs’ reluctance, after their defeat in 1948, to admit that they were ready then to accept, under certain conditions, the fact of partition.
Page 74
[...] sufficient evidence has filtered out [of Jewish Agency, IDF archives, Histadrut and kibutz movement archives] to verify that the majority of Palestinian Arabs did not want an escalation of violence into total war. This is confirmed by the official History of the Haganah, which was edited by authoritative Haganah leaders, including Shaul Avigur and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi (Ben-Gurion’s close associate who was to become Israel’s second president). The movement to sign nonaggression pacts with Jewish neighbors spread all over the country, embracing most of the Arab villages in the Sharon area, in the vicinity of Jerusalem, including Dir Yassin and Silwan, in the upper Galilee, and in the Negev. Similar initiatives were taken in Haifa and Tiberias. (33)
[...]
In a cable on December 2, 1947, Eliyahu Sasson informed Sharett that all of the terrorist activities up to then had been carried out by the mufti’s hirelings – AGAINST the wishes of the majority of Palestinian Arabs – in order to prove at the forthcoming meeting with Arab League that a military confrontation with Zionism was inevitable and that therefore the Arab states were bound to provide the Palestinians with moral, political, and military support. (34)
The opinions of Ben Gurion and Danon quoted at the beginning of this chapter were shared by others, including Yaakov Shimoni, of the Jewish agency’s Arab Department, and the UN military expert Col. Roscher Lund (35). Yisrael Galili, the head of the Haganah, similarly indicated that apart from a few hundred supporters of the mufti, the majority of Arabs in Palestine did not want war.
[...]
According to descriptions in the History of the Haganah, the Palestinian Arabs who had arms were concerned with defending their villages or neighborhoods than with going out to attack Jewish forces. The initial fortification and arming of the Arab villages occurred largely because of their fear of attacks by the Jews. Indeed, weaker villages or those near strong Jewish settlements preferred to rely on nonaggression pacts with their Jewish neighborhoods, promising not to initiate actions or to permit hostile outside elements to interfere. (37)
Page 75
[...] on January 25, 1948, [a meeting took place] between Ben -Gurion and his political and military assistants. [...] Ultimately, his [Ben-Gurion's] main concern seems to have been how such pacts would affect the Yishuv’s ability to defeat the Arabs in the military confrontation, which he thought, was the only way to resolve the conflict (38).
“what about the arab violence directed at jews after the partition vote 63 years ago tomorrow avi?”
Oh, please!
very persuasive answer
i agree
Great Avi, and I’m glad you quoted the section of Flapan’s book dealing with the non-aggression pacts many arab villages had with their neighbours.
Phil – if you haven’t Flapan, you must. It’s short (~275 pages) and literally divided into chapters presenting each of Israel’s founding myths and what Flapan discovered otherwisei. The seven myths are:
1. Zionists accepted the UN Partition Plan and planned for peace.
2. Arabs rejected the Partition and launched war.
3. Palestinians fled voluntarily, intending reconquest.
4. All the arab states united to expel the jews from Palestine.
5. The arab invasion made war inevitable.
6. Defenseless Israel faced destruction by the arab goliath.
7. Israel has always sought peace, bug no arab leader has responded.
It’s now out of print, but The Birth of Israel is widely and cheaply (<$5) available via Amazon's used book listings:
link to amazon.com
“how is summarizing a chapter by Flapan any different than summarizing a chapter from Dershowitz?”
Yonira
Flapan was a historian and an Israeli and a politician..He must have known, read and discovered things that a lawyer from New York (or whatever the hell Dershowitz comes from) could not..Flapan is the author of “The Birth of Israel: Myths And Realities”. His book has been widely hailed as crucial in the demythologizing the Israeli narrative about the foundation of the state of Israel. What did Dershowitz do? Wrote a lawyer’s book trying to innocent his client state of any wrong doing with a lawyers argument an little history, documents or facts to back it up….Do not compare..
Simha Flapan’s book is one of the very best about the events of 1947-49. I does a good job of connecting the Israeli narrative with the Palestinian one, showing how they differ and why.
It’s a shame he wrote so many years before the ‘New’ historians; he is their father.
I assume that you are joking about Avi’s “persuasive” answer.
Avi’s response didn’t address the points that the effort for ethnic cleansing was in fact mutual, if not initiated and emphasized by the Palestinian “side”.
The majority of Zionist actions were defensive as well, protecting the besieged Jewish residents of Jerusalem for example. And, responding to hundreds of incidents of “petty” ethnic cleansing (snipering civilians, bombings, cutting off roads).
The picture Avi presented is a Rohrshach test.
And, the response is a straw dog one. For example, the seven assertions that Sumud summarizes as Flappan’s thesis, do NOT address the reality of organized terror on Jewish civilians by Arab cadre.
Morris is quoted as disproving the seven romantic Exodus’ee theses, but his assertions are in summary, “it was not the Santa Claus version of the story, but something less admirable”, to which dissenters interpret “if Santa Claus isn’t real, then religion/spirituality must also be bunk.” That’s not a rational conclusion, but a self-talking one.
Its not that the hundreds of incidents didn’t happen. They did.
You can question the extent and the relative importance, pretending some objectivity.
I don’t see it coming out good guys and bad guys, but good/bad guys and good/bad guys.
5. The arab invasion made war inevitable.
LOL, this must be a real gem of a book. What does one do if they are invaded but don’t make war? I guess you could let your ‘friends’ make war for you, lose, let those ‘friends’ occupy you, watch them lose again, then let their conquerors occupy you, and all the while, whine about it.
Dershowitz has been exposed as a documented and well researched liar and falsifier..Flapan’s research is yet to be countered significantly..
what about it. all living creatures react with violence when their lives, territory, and/or shelter are threatened. was it ok probably not is it reasonable and understandable hell yeah. you have a group of people that are openly hostile to you getting a support from bodies that by all rights should be defending you. your going to lash the hell out violently and viciously.
“Avi’s response didn’t address the points that the effort for ethnic cleansing was in fact mutual, if not initiated and emphasized by the Palestinian “side”.”
That’s a blatant lie Witty. Zionists had beguin the ethnic cleasing at least 12 months earlier.
“The majority of Zionist actions were defensive as well, protecting the besieged Jewish residents of Jerusalem for example.”
False again. Zionist actions began with the reoval of 200,000 Palestinian before the Arabs fired a shot.
You should try reading Morris before quoting him Witty.
Other than “because I said so” how would you substantiate this claim Richard? I suggest you cannot.
Flapan writes in The Birth of Israel, on page 198/199 [my emphasis]:
A little more than three weeks after the Israelis had declared their independence and the arab states had launched their invasion in order to “throttle the newborn state at birth”, the Israeli army went over to defensive action and remained in that position to the end.
The Jewish casualty figures offer graphic ilustration of the shift. According to data assembled by Yochai Sela of Tel Aviv University, the number of Jewish deaths in the war was 5,708, including 4,558 soldiers. Among civilians, most casualties resulted from bombing and artillery fire, the majority in Jerusalem. Among the military, 1,345 were killed during the civil war, November 30,1947, to May 15, 1948; the remaining 3,213 were lost between May 15,1948 and March 10, 1949. More Israeli soldiers died while attacking than while defending against attacks by Palestinians and Arab armies. The number of Israelis killed within the borders of the state designated by the UN was 1,581, the number killed in the areas outside these borders was 2,759*. In a final breakdown, 984 Israelis were killed defending Jewish settlements, 1,212 died while attacking Arab settlements.
A part of the mythology of the War of Independence asserts that most of the Jewish casualties were suffered in the defense of the Yishuv. The figures however tell a different story. They show that more than 50% of Jewish casualties were suffered in offensive actions and only 21% in defensive actions. Furthermore, 60% of all Jewish casualties occurred in actions outside the borders of the Jewish state.
Fairly conclusive, yes?
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. That isn’t my summary, it’s Flapans. The seven myths i listed are verbatim quotes of Flapan’s chapter titles:
MYTH ONE: Zionists accepted the UN Partition Plan and planned for peace.
MYTH TWO: Arabs rejected the partition and launched war
etc.
You seem to have developed a fondness for dog metaphors Richard. First we’re programmed dogs and now my quotation of Flapan is a “straw dog” response, whatever that is. In that spirit, you are barking up the wrong tree in characterising zionist aggression in 1947/48/49 as defensive.
Yonira, why don’t you invest $5 in a secondhand copy and read for yourself why Flapan wrote that. I provided a link above. Then, rather than just scoffing you can make an informed comment.
The introduction of The Birth of Israel includes a very interesting account by Flapan of the book’s genesis. After Israel’s brutal invasion of Lebanon in 1982 Menachem Begin faced considerable criticism and the peace movement in Israel was born as events in Lebanon unfolded. Begin countered there was a historical continuity between his actions in Lebanon and events Ben-Gurion undertook in 1947/48/49. This was greeted with much incredulity, but upon examination of:
1. Ben-Gurion’s War Diaries, released in 1982
2. newly de-classified materials from Israel’s state archives
3. previously unpublished material Flapan acquired from arab sources
..it appeared most everything Begin had claimed was based on fact.
At root we have Menachem Begin’s brutality in 1982 to thank for spurring on the New Historians, of which Flapan was the first.
“I don’t see it coming out good guys and bad guys, but good/bad guys and good/bad guys. ”
Of course you don’t.
But the Zionists were the foreign invaders who proclaimed that they were there to take over the land. Bad guys.
The Arabs were defending themselves against those invaders. Good guys.
Where is your reply to the many other, more persuasive answers, Phil?
i think there was also arab violence against jews in the yishuv. it doesnt justify ethnic cleansing. but to pretend it didn’t happen, or that palestinians didn’t often violently resist zionism, is not helpful. because one side has won again and again and again doesnt mean that there has not been a cycle of violence.
and as to my legality point, i would note that it was legal in the us that blacks were 3/5 of a white person. as segregation was legal. the point here is that when things are legal, they are supported by the power structure/establishment, as partition was; and for the world to climb down from that position, as i think it should, can be a violent revolutionary process. cf american civil war. i dont want that. i seek other forms of political transformation.
There was, of course. But as is so often the case, the hasbara turns reality completely on it’s head, and reverses the roles of aggressor/victim. The mufti’s forces, which were active between UN181 and May 1948, never numbered more than 3,000, just a tiny percentage of the Palestinian population at the time.
” i seek other forms of political transformation.”
Because only Zionists have the right to use violence or political minipulation? Hey, buddy, once you eat the cake, it’s gone.
Or maybe you are, as I have long thought, making sure you subvert your efforts with impossible preconditions. Then failure is a win, isn’t it?
Or maybe you are, as I have long thought, making sure you subvert your efforts with impossible preconditions.
seeking other forms of political transformation is not a ‘precondition’. it is common sense. it may not be instinctual to everyone but it does make sense.
omg, what ARE you talking about? what is any of that based on? this isn’t truth, it’s “truthy,” as Stephen Colbert would say.
1 “ethnic cleansing was in fact mutual, if not initiated and emphasized by the Palestinian “side”.
no, that’s total BS. There was no nation-wide Palestinian army that could go from one Jewish community to another and cleanse them all, even if they wanted to. And most of them didn’t: Ben-Gurion, (yes, Ben-Gurion, not exactly a staunch advocate of Palestinian rights) estimated in March 1948 “it is now clear, without the slightest doubt, that were we to face the Palestinians alone, everything would be all right. They, the decisive majority of them, do not want to fight us, and all of them together are unable to stand up to us” (Flapan, 1987:73).
2. “The majority of Zionist actions were defensive as well.” Excuse me? several hundred villages? eleven out of twelve cities? the city of Majdal in 1950, after there was already a cease-fire? bedouin tribes in the Negev throughout the 1950s? The massacres of Deir Yassin, Lydda, Dawayima – ALL of those were defensive? where are you getting that information from?
3. “Its not that the hundreds of incidents didn’t happen. They did.” so notice how much space you devote to the expulsion of 80% of the Palestinian population (oh, yeah, there were some “incidents”) vs. the space you devote to the seige of Jewish Jerusalem. How come?
4. “to hundreds of incidents of “petty” ethnic cleansing (snipering civilians, bombings, cutting off roads).
you can’t just define ethnic cleansing however you want. But if you want to focus on these sorts of attacks that fall short of taking over entire areas militarily, there was complete symmetry between both sides: there was a siege of Palestinian Jerusalem and there was sniping at Jaffa, just like there was a siege of Jewish Jerusalem and sniping at Tel Aviv. The difference lies in a much greater campaign of conquering the Palestinian areas, for which there was absolutely no equivalent. Yes, there was a seige of Jerusalem but no nation-wide coordinated campaign by a Palestinian army.
5. “I don’t see it coming out good guys and bad guys, but good/bad guys and good/bad guys. ”
and yet you keep emphasizing “cleansing was in fact mutual, if not initiated and emphasized by the Palestinian “side,” The majority of Zionist actions were defensive as well” – doesn’t this sound like the Palestinians initiated and the Zionists defended themselves? how is this any different from good guys/bad guys?
Speaking of truth that is actually truth (whatever that means), you wouldn’t know reality if it ran over you like a bulldozer demolishing Palestinian homes.
As for the gratuitous exaggeration and blame, you are merely channeling Alan Dershowitz with your outright lies.
Even Benny Morris’ writings show you for the liar that you are. There is no getting around it. When you post such outright lies, one is obliged to call you accordingly, whether you like it or not.
link to en.wikipedia.org
“liar that you are”.
The 47-48 civil war was after the UN vote for a mandate, but six months before the declaration of independance.
It also followed historically, the 36-39 Arab revolt, the British white papers limiting Jewish immigration to then Palestine (in addition to prohibiting more than token immigration to Great Britain – not in the white paper perse, but British and also in American law and policy), the holocaust, and again the restriction of Jewish immigration to then Palestine.
Avi,
You can call me a liar to your heart’s content (hopefully Phil will ask for some accountability on that though), but if you are to object to statements, you’d have to actually describe what you think is a lie. The name-calling is not enough to persuade.
“Morale of the fighters
The Arab combatants’ initial victories reinforced morale amongst them.[56] The Arab Higher Committee was confident and decided to prevent the set-up of the UN-backed partition plan. In an announcement made to the Secretary-General on 6 February, they declared:[57]
“ The Palestinian Arabs consider any attempt by Jewish people or by whatever power or group of power to establish a Jewish state in an Arab territory to be an act of aggression that will be resisted by force [...]
The prestige of the United Nations would be better served by abandoning this plan and by not imposing such an injustice [...]
The Palestinian Arabs make a grave declaration before the UN, before God and before history that they will never submit to any power that comes to Palestine to impose a partition.
***The only way to establish a partition is to get rid of them all: men, women, and children.”***
Its been questioned whether the Palestinian Arabs ever used the term “drive them to the sea”. This is not that language, but the same sentiment. “Get rid of them all: men, women and children”.
^ United Nations Special Commission (16 April 1948), § II.6
I’m not going to dignify some Wikipedia entry as scholarly work.
That’s pathetic. If that’s the quality of research that Phil wants on this website, then so be it.
That goes for jonah’s lies, and eee’s self righteous bull.
I’m typing up the summary to the chapter about the myths surrounding the partition plan.
Bogus, as usual.
If Phil is going to ask me for accountability, but let you get off scot-free, then both you and Phil are hypocrites.
But, Phil is mostly interested in shielding you from harsh criticism because you’re family to him. And that’s where it ends.
“ The Palestinian Arabs consider any attempt by Jewish people or by whatever power or group of power to establish a Jewish state in an Arab territory to be an act of aggression that will be resisted by force [...]”
Even Ben Gurion accepted this fact.
1936, Ben-Gurion stated in a meeting with his Mapai party:
” …. the [Palestinian Arabs] fear is not of losing land, but of losing the homeland of the Arab people, which others want to turn into the homeland of the Jewish people. The [Palestinian] Arab is fighting a war that cannot be ignored. He goes out on strike, he is killed, he makes great sacrifices.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 18)
A few months before the peace conference convened at Versailles in 1919, Ben-Gurion saw the future Jewish and Palestinian Arabs relations as follows:
“Everybody sees the problem in the relations between the Jews and the [Palestinian] Arabs. But not everybody sees that there’s no solution to it. There is no solution! . . . The conflict between the interests of the Jews and the interests of the [Palestinian] Arabs in Palestine cannot be resolved by sophisms. I don’t know any Arabs who would agree to Palestine being ours—even if we learn Arabic . . .and I have no need to learn Arabic. On the other hand, I don’t see why ‘Mustafa’ should learn Hebrew. . . . There’s a national question here. We want the country to be ours. The Arabs want the country to be theirs.” (One Palestine Complete, p. 116)
1929 disturbance, Ben Gurion spoke of the emerging Palestinian nationalism and the main goal of Zionism (where Palestine’s population becomes a “Jewish majority”) to the secretariat of the major Zionist groupings. He said:
“The debate as to whether or not an Arab national movement exists is a pointless verbal exercise; the main thing for us is that the movement attracts the masses. We do not regard it as a resurgence movement and its moral worth is dubious. But politically speaking it is a national movement . . . . The Arab must not and cannot be a Zionist. He could never wish the Jews to become a majority. This is the true antagonism between us and the Arabs. We both want to be the majority.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 18)
Since the Jews in Palestine (Yishuv) could not become a majority as of 1948 (click here for Palestine’s demographic map as of 1946), Zionists resorted to compulsory population transfer (Ethnic Cleansing) to solve what they referred to by the “Arab demographic problem”. To hide their basic goals and intentions, they have concocted the myth that Palestinians left their homes, farms, and businesses on the orders of their leaders, click here to read our response to this argument.
1936, Moshe Sharett spoke of how Palestinians really felt about the continued influx of Jewish immigrants:
“Fear is the main factor in [Palestinian] Arab politics. . . . There is no Arab who is not harmed by Jews’ entry into Palestine.” (Righteous Victims, p. 136)
I think you are misreading this sentence.
“The Palestinian Arabs make a grave declaration before the UN, before God and before history that they will never submit to any power that comes to Palestine to impose a partition.
***The only way to establish a partition is to get rid of them all: men, women, and children.
The subject of the statement is *Palestinian Arabs*. They (or rather Husseini, speaking in their name – although no one elected him to that position) are declaring their opposition to partition, and saying they are willing to sacrifice *themselves* in order to prevent it. This is like saying “over my dead body.”
Are you sure Tom?
You don’t think it is a story of Arabs feeling threatened and responding harshly to defend what they believe is important, as well?
“If only the Jews weren’t around”….
Zionism is difficult, as is and would be ANY new movement. Again, I experienced being part of the counter-culture and “took over” a corner of three small towns near Eugene, Oregon and was shot at by snipers. We eventually did “take over”, and not.
I’ve never been in a situation that I felt so strongly about that I would fight physically for. (The only one recently was in confronting an army recruiter attempting to speak to my sons. I called him the equivalent of a pedophile.)
I’ve also never been in a refugee or otherwise brutally suppressed position.
I’m a diaspora Jew that doesn’t fight. I move.
That is the great change among Jews following the 19th and 20th century pogroms and the holocaust, the shift to “NEVER AGAIN”.
It is predicated by being part of a “we” though. The Palestinian Arabs that fought Zionism were part of a “we”. The Zionists that asserted “NEVER AGAIN” were part of a “we”.
Both are still.
It was a birth, a shift from a people without land to a people with land.
BOTH narratives are true in fact, the narrative of Arab harrassment and the narrative of Zionist harrassment.
“The only way to establish a partition is to get rid of them all: men, women, and children.”
If, by isolating the above sentence, you mean to imply that the subject is Jews, you are incorrect.
The “them” referred to by the Arab Higher Committee in the above statement is the Palestinians. The sense of it is “if you want partition you will only have it when you get rid of us”
Here is the full sentence without the break:
“The Palestinian Arabs make a grave declaration before the UN, before God and before history that they will never submit to any power that comes to Palestine to impose a partition. The only way to establish a partition is to get rid of them all: men, women, and children.”
***The only way to establish a partition is to get rid of them all: men, women, and children.”***
And how do you understand this statement Witty? Who are “them all” ? The Jews? Is it not evident that he was talking about the Palestinians and that the only way to apply the partition is to get rid of them all?
“The Zionists that asserted “NEVER AGAIN” were part of a “we”.”
But that didn’t make them right, or justified. And it still doesn’t.
“It was a birth, a shift from a people without land to a people with land.”
Jews had plenty of lands. British Jews had Britain. American Jews had America. Australian Jews had Australia. Iraqi Jews had Iraq. Etc.
There was no justification for driving other people out of their land.
>> There was no justification for driving other people out of their land.
According to “humanists”, that’s known as “self-(self-)determination”. Hand-in-hand with “justice”, it involves theft, colonisation, oppression and murder. The criminal keeps what he has taken, the victim foregoes all that he has lost, and for both parties to look to the future.
>> Zionism is difficult, as is and would be ANY new movement. Again, I experienced being part of the counter-culture and “took over” a corner of three small towns near Eugene, Oregon and was shot at by snipers. …
This old chestnut again? As I recall, you lived on a commune on legally-acquired land. Comparing your “new movement” to a supremacist movement that, for over 60 years, has been engaging in immoral and illegal activities is quite a stretch. You are a funny guy, but you really need to work on the relevance of your anecdotes.
>> I’m a diaspora Jew that doesn’t fight.
You’re an American citizen. I guess reality isn’t nearly as tragic as the perpetual victimhood of your imagination.
“But, Phil is mostly interested in shielding you from harsh criticism because you’re family to him.”
Sorry, Avi, wrong conclusion. If Phil was the least bit interested in sheilding that pathetic old man, (geez, look who’s talking!) he wouldn’t let him post here. The fact that he does shows me he doesn’t give a crap about Witty.
Believe me, Avi, nothing, nothing you could ever write could be worse for Witty than what he says about himself in every post.
“necer again” is a response to the Holocaust, and Holocaust comparisons were a part of what legitimated the cleansing in 1948, so I wouldn’t recycle them. No one is suggesting either the Jews or the Palestinians should have been removed, or justifying any attacks on either community. But in order to move forward and to alleviate people’s ongoing suffering, particularly that of the refugees, history needs to be faced squarely and openly, just as Americans need to come to terms and educate themselves about their treatment of Native Americans. Fighting for survival is one thing, expelling most of the Palestinian population is another.
Avi, can you ever have a debate with someone w/ out mocking them or throwing ad-hominem attacks at them either before hand or following your ‘proof.’
how old are you? you act like such a narcissistic child.
Avi, can you ever have a debate with someone w/ out mocking them or throwing ad-hominem attacks at them either before hand or following your ‘proof.’
pot calling kettle black.
Annie, you are a joke, when it doubt make up a conspiracy, but in the same breathe link to hate sites like Veteranstoday, counterpunch, and rense.com.
needless to say, i never linked to any of those sites. ;)
Hate sites like Counterpunch, or Veterans Today? Jesus, who said this? Yonira? If so, I guess s/he means it’s a site s/he hates.
there was no attempt to ethnically cleanse palestine of the jews. the palestinians didn’t mind jews they minded zionism. because of zionism they had to push against all jews. had their been some support against the effort of the zionist to disposses them their wouldn’t have been anything done to the palestinian jewry
while ethnic cleansing is not the same as genocide, the denialists of both have a lot in common. Ahmadinejad isn’t “really” denying the Holocaust, he just repeatedly suggests that we need to conduct historical research on it to determine what really happened – as if there aren’t whole libraries of books already written on the subject. The suggestion that we need “to actually study the detail and the context, to determine that” similarly disresepects the decades of scholarship around this issue, including IDF commands explicitly mentioning expulsions, testimonies of commanders like Yigal Alon and Yitzhak Rabin, and of course the voices of the refugees themselves. To assume we all need to start from scratch, as if none of this was ever published, is truly Ahmadinejad-esque.
“on the ground, the Arab effort to ethnically cleanse the land of Jews was often even more intended and pronounced”
this is a very vague statement. You can say specific Arab armies, like the Egyptians, attacked Jewish communities and attempted to cleanse them, but to blame “the Arabs” in general, including the Palestinians who got expelled, many of whom tried hard to stay out of the fighting, is pretty ignorant, and there is absolutely no basis for saying “it was more intended”. You don’t seem to have read much of the literature on the subject.
Its as specific as saying “the Zionists”. Both are half truths, if that.
The import is that the effort to ethnically cleanse was more tactical than intentional and conspiratorial (as asserted), and was mutual.
The siege of Jerusalem was an attempt to actually starve the Jewish residents. I don’t know if the same standard applies to Gaza.
That is NOT an advocacy for starving Gazans, but a recognition that the environment was a cruel conflict at least, if not primarily profound victimization of Jews by resident and foreign Arabs.
“The siege of Jerusalem was an attempt to actually starve the Jewish residents. I don’t know if the same standard applies to Gaza.”
Even though documents from the Israeli government state that very goal.
“That is NOT an advocacy for starving Gazans, but a recognition that the environment was a cruel conflict at least, if not primarily profound victimization of Jews by resident and foreign Arabs.”
You did advicate for starving Gazans and clearly, you are not the least bit concerned with the profound victimization of Arabs by Jewish immigrants.
link to foreignpolicy.com
Why I’m Building Palestine
Soon, the only obstacle in our way will be the occupation itself.
BY SALAM FAYYAD
“Soon, the only obstacle in our way will be the occupation itself.”
It always has been.
“which the entire Arab neighborhood rejected..I acknowledge that”
And WHY would they have had to accept such an unfair decision, your honour?
“Its as specific as saying “the Zionists”. Both are half truths, if that.
The import is that the effort to ethnically cleanse was more tactical than intentional and conspiratorial (as asserted), and was mutual.”
I wouldn’t say “the Zionists,” but I would say several senior army commanders, with the full support of Ben-Gurion, the PM and Defense Minister, carried out a pretty organized, coordinated policy of expulsion. There was nothing comparably close to that on the Palestinian side in terms of coordinated leadership, and no similar uniformity within the Arab armies – for instance, Jordan collaorated with Israel across many fronts, with the exception of Jerusalem.
The main victims of ethnic cleansing, Palestinian villagers and towndwellers, were expelled en masse, whether or not they had taken part in any kind of violent action. There is no basis for saying the majority of them engaged in “victimization of Jews.” The residents of Deir Yassin, for example, prevented Arab armed forces from entering their village and actively prevented attacks on their Jewish neighbors – and we all know how they ended up. Many Palestinian communities throughout the country signed non-aggression pacts with their Jewish neighbors, and got expelled anyway. Please don’t distort the historical record with vague accusations against entire ethnic groups.
Tom, excellent summary
I would add, most of the “violent action” taken by villagers was defensive in nature – the Israeli army was coming to take over thier land and they took up what few ancient guns they had and fired back. The accounts of the massacre at Tantura are instructive.
Even the so-called invasion by the Arab armies can’t really be called that, only Egypt entered the territory designated under the partition plan for the Jewish state in a big way, and that in the underpopulated Negev which had virtually no Jews to begin with. Syrian and Lebanese army enroachment into the “Jewish” territory was at most a minor incursion, the Jordanian army didn’t enter it at all. Most of the fighting was outside the area designated for the Jewish state, as were most of the massacres of civilians which were, as noted the vast majority by the Zionist forces. If anything, the 1948 war was one of invasion by the Jewish state.
Sad how Richard Witty & ilk grasp at straws to obfuscate Zionist history. Facts cannot penetrating through.
In a sentence this perfectly summarises the civil war in Palestine of 47/48 and the Arab-Israeli war of 48/49. The bulk of zionist/Israeli casualties occurred during offensive actions in the areas allocated by the UN to the Palestinian state.
The international community did a grave disservice to the Palestinians first by partitioning their homeland in 1947 (an action well beyond the UN charter) and then by allowing Israel to join the UN without forcing them to withdraw from all territories occupied by Israel beyond the lines of the partition plan.
On a related note – Israel’s expansionary “borders” – the first section of the wikileaks cable dump contains some interesting statements by Tzipi Livni in January 2007 (section 6): sceptical of the peace process, Livni proposed to John Kerry an interim agreement with the apartheid wall as Israel’s border. No real surprises there, but recall Israel’s solemn promises that the wall was about security and not pre-determining any outcome on final status issues..
Palestinian resistance had been decimated by the British (assisted by the Yishuv forces) after the 1936 General strike:
” 19,792 casualties for the Arabs, with 5,032 dead: 3,832 killed by the British and 1,200 dead because of ‘terrorism’, and 14,760 wounded.[1] Over ten percent of the adult male Palestinian Arab population between 20 and 60 was killed, wounded, imprisoned or exiled.[12] Estimates of the number of Palestinian Jews killed range from 91[13] to ‘several hundred’.[14]……
…….The revolt mortally weakened the Palestinian Arabs in advance of their ultimate confrontation with the Jewish settlement in the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and was thus counterproductive.[151] During the uprising, British authorities attempted to confiscate all weapons from the Arab population. This, and the destruction of the main Arab political leadership in the revolt, greatly hindered their military efforts in the 1948 Palestine war,[152] where imbalances between the Jewish and Arab economic performance, social cohesion, political organisation and military capability became apparent.”
link to en.wikipedia.org
(I prefer primary sources but Wikipedia is the most concise on this occasion. The above is quite accurate)
Avi,
I expect you to cry fowl over the use of wikipedia! Please prove you aren’t a hypocrite!
If you are referring to Plan Dalet, it was a comprehensive military defense plan, one component of which was the identification of vulnerability of Jerusalem Jews to Arab siege, and the implication that it would take some removal to secure.
Tactical.
There was nothing defensive about Plan Dalet, though it was certainly tractical.
Plan Dalet was offensive in every sense, and agressive.
the debate over Plan Dalet is a bit pointless, in my view. There is no doubt that after April 1948, when the British were packing up, Zionist forces started taking over Palestinian areas. There are two possibilities: either they wanted the population in those areas to stay (as usually happens in wars – the British didn’t expel the Palestinian population in WWI), or they wanted them to leave. When the occupation of most villages and urban neighborhoods was accomplished through massive prolonged bombardment of civilians’ homes, the answer is pretty straightforward.
If you want, I can refer you to actual documents in the archives where they recognize that the bombardment is causing the population to flee, or to Uri Avneri, Nativa Ben Yehuda, Yigal Alon and others who admit they wanted the population to flee, or numerous examples of actual commands in Benny Morris. It gets pretty obvious when you stop looking for apologetic excuses.
Yes, there were exceptions, not all of the villages in the Galilee were destroyed, and the Jewish Mayor of Haifa sincerely wanted people to stay, but the general trend was expulsion. Morris mentions an IDF investigation conducted after the war about why so many Arabs remained in the Galilee – it seemed odd to *them*.
>> Please don’t distort the historical record with vague accusations against entire ethnic groups.
When one applies “enough Zionism” to an argument, the result – more often than not – can be amusing, confusing or troubling. (E.g.: Green yarn on the green line; ethnic cleansing is “currently not necessary”.)
A war was fought. That is truth.
The revision of the impotence of the Arab forces is a revision. It was and was not true.
“It was and was not true.”
There was only one Orwell Witty. Try another vocation.
“There was only one Orwell Witty. Try another vocation. “
Bulls-eye!
well except for the fact it was true. the syrian army was using world war 1 equipment as were the other arab forces in part. for most of the heavy equipment thare was a major shortage of ammo on the arab side. they had to cobble together equipment to fight the zionists who had been stockpiling weapons for at least a year or so before hand
:they had to cobble together equipment to fight the zionists who had been stockpiling weapons for at least a year or so before hand”"
Make that decade before hand.
“View on Zionism
In the preface of ‘Zionism and the Palestinians’ (1979) Flapan writes:
To dispel misunderstanding, I want to make it clear that my belief in the moral justification and historical necessity of Zionism remains unaffected by my critical reappraisal of the Zionist leadership. The history of Zionism demonstrates the extent to which the urge to create a new society, embodying the universal values of democracy and social justice, was inherent in the Zionist movement and responsible for its progress in adverse conditions. Israel’s problem today lies in the disintegration of these values, due largely to the intoxication with military success and the belief that military superiority is a substitute for peace. Unless the liberal and progressive values of Zionism are restored and Palestinian rights to self-determination within a framework of peaceful coexistence are recognised, Israel’s search for peace is doomed to failure. I firmly believe that these trends will ultimately become the deciding force in Israel.[2]”
Very similar views to Morris.
Similar over Morris’ life, though more defensive recently.
who cares about their views? they aren’t rabbis, they’re historians. What matters is the documents they uncovered.
“Very similar views to Morris.”
False. Morris holds the view that have sufferred from disintegration of the values Flapan was articulating.
So if those are the words of a committed Zionist, my God, how much worse would it be when viewed completely objectively?
You just stabbed your argument right in the back!
I found this comment interesting. It is not a dig on my part, more a comment on forests and trees, incidents and biased interpretations.
“The difference between a journalist and an historian is that the historian knows the difference. George Bernard Shaw once complained that journalists are seemingly unable to discriminate between a bicycle accident and the collapse of civilization.”
Bill Moyers: “Welcome to the Plutocracy!”
phill you say the descision to partitian palestine and deny the palestinians their right to self determination was a legal one?? how?? how can body choice to deny a people their right to self determination when that body has the sworn duty to make sure a states are only formed due to self determination be a legal one???? Your entitled to that opinion but you’d be hard pressed to show it true. it feels like your falling back onto one of the hall marks of tyrants and implying that might makes right. that they had the power to deny the palestinian their makes it ok makes it legal is what it feels like your saying
I keep on telling you: having your cake and eating it, too, is the key to Phil’s attitude towards I-P issues. He just can’t conceive of it turning out any other way.
I have read and been actively involved in several blogs about the Israel-Palestine issue. I’ve usually come away disappointed by the lack of understanding and the shallowness of the discussion. What impresses me about this one, which I have only found within the last few weeks, are the knowledge and understanding of the history that has formed the current situation, and the willingness of most participants to learn and change their views in the light of new knowledge. Of course the usual bunch of Zionist trolls assigned to the blog – all blogs of this kind have them – will obfuscate, misdirect, argue legal niceties when it suits them rather than morality, and never change their attitudes despite the facts. But, in answering that challenge, this blog is providing me and I hope others with new insights and a better understanding. Thanks both to the trolls and those who answer them!
As to Witty’s statement “The import is that the effort to ethnically cleanse was more tactical than intentional and conspiratorial (as asserted), and was mutual.” I posted statements yesterday by ben Gurion and Herzl that make their intent very clear. Here are a few more:
Vladimir Jabotinsky, The Iron Wall, 1923: “A voluntary reconciliation with the Arabs is out of the question either now or in the future. If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison for the land, or find some rich man or benefactor who will provide a garrison on your behalf. Or else, give up your colonization, for without an armed force which will render physically impossible any attempt to destroy or prevent this colonization, colonization is impossible, not difficult, not dangerous, but IMPOSSIBLE!… Zionism is a colonization adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important… to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot – or else I am through with playing at colonizing.”
Joseph Weitz, from “A Solution to the Refugee Problem”: “Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries – all of them. Not one village, not one tribe should be left.”
“When they come to us with two plans – the rescue of the masses of Jews in Europe or the redemption of the land – I vote, without a second thought, for the redemption of the land. The more said about the slaughter of our people, the greater the minimization of our efforts to strengthen and promote the Hebraisation of the land. If there would be a possibility today of buying packages of food with the money of the Karen Hayesod to send it through Lisbon, would we do such a thing? No. And once again no!” (Yitzhak Greenbaum, 1943)
“There were some fellows who refused to take part in the expulsion action [of the Palestinian population from the towns of Lydda and Ramla in July 1948] … Prolonged propaganda activities were required after the action, to remove the bitterness of these [soldiers] and explain why we were obliged to undertake such a harsh and cruel action.” (Yitzhak Rabin, 1979)
“Why are there so many Arabs? Why didn’t you expel them?”
(David Ben-Gurion, July 1948)
“There is … a difficulty from which the Zionist dares not avert his eyes,
though he rarely likes to face it. Palestine proper has already its
inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having 52 souls to every square mile, and not 25 percent of them Jews; so we must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the tribes in possession as our forefathers did, or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan.” (Israel Zangwill, 1904)
Similar points to have been made by new historians for a very long time, and they still conclude (with only a couple exceptions) that the Zionist military effort was a mix of defense with offense, observing that no viable Jewish community was possible without a state, and that a state was not possible without some population resettlement.
It is a truth that the West Bank was 99% ethnically cleansed. I think there were still a few hundred Jews in east Jerusalem, while the land within the Israeli green line was “ethnically cleansed” only in strategic areas.
On Deir Yassin, there are ironies. One great irony is that orthodox Jewish neighbors of Deir Yassin confronted the Irgun while and immediately after the massacre to demand that they stop. (Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, I don’t remember the page).
Another irony is the demonization of the film Exodus, but one of its themes was that absent outside agitators (pan-Arab and Zionist revisionist) the peoples’ could and did live in peace to large extent.
What’s an outside agitator? That is a subjective question depending on who “we” is. Qassam, who organized the 1929 riots on Hebron was from Syria, and also ironically a Sufi. (I chanted the Shma with Sufis in the 70′s). The Arab League invading armies in 1948 were from Egypt and Syria, and Jordan occupied the majority of what many hoped would be Palestine, all in the name of pan-Arab movement (not the Palestinian national movement)
Jabotinsky was an emigre, Begin an emigre, Ben Gurion an emigre.
Maybe if nothing had changed in the world, the brotherhood of Abrahamic religions and socialist workers’ leagues could have emerged, establishing the joint worship of the ONE at the holy mount, and the liberation of all working and poor, breaking down all class distinctions between sheikh and fellahin, and priest and congregant, and capitalist and worker.
History is not like that. History is dynamic, a comprised of odd mixes, that even if “evil”, even if multiple “evils”, still need to be reconciled in the real world.
The present is what we have to work with, what is our task to improve. The real present, not the fantasy.
>> … the Zionist military effort was a mix of defense with offense, observing that no viable Jewish community was possible without a state, and that a state was not possible without some population resettlement.
A “mix of defense with offense” – what a charming, victimhood-laden term for what was/is nothing less than pre-meditated theft, colonisation and ethnic cleansing. “I want land and, in order to have it, I must expel an indigenous population.”
Your blasé attitude toward – and your Pavlovian objections to holding any party accountable for – the illegality and immorality of this “mix of defense with offense” simply highlights and reinforces the fact that you are a fraudulent Zio-supremacist “humanist”.
DON’T FEED THE TROLL!!!
Witty, are you finally admitting that Zionism is the problem? Or only the revisionist Jabotinskyites? Or are you having what I like to call a “junior” moment? Seems to me that Zionism and especially the Ashkenazi Jews are the crux of the trouble. Hebron in the 30′s was made ugly by the Ashkenazis, the “oriental” Jews had long been there is relative harmony. Wow Witty, I am amazed.
I consider the effort for “greater Israel” to be a very big problem.
I don’t regard Zionism perse as problem at all. I regard it as a great liberation for the eastern hemisphere Jewish people, who were suppressed extremely widely for millenia and finally developed the motivation to stand up.
I regard Zionism as a moral work in process. Once born, our task is now to mature, to be a good neighbor.
There were NO JEWS in Hebron in the 30′s. They were forcefully expelled in 1929. There are some tensions between Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic, but there is more unity than tension.
To know truth and speak truth, it is necessary to be able to carry conflicting realities. The oversimplification is misrepresentative, and evil in its misrepresentation, its intention to misrepresent.
>> I regard Zionism as a moral work in process.
Moral works are not founded on religious mythology; do not achieve their objectives by means of theft, dispossesion and ethnic cleansing; and are not justified by “humanist” reasoning of “we want, so we take” and “we took, now get over it”.
The fact that you consider Zionism to be a “moral work” only shows, yet again, just how immoral you really are. And the mask slips off just a little more…
“observing that no viable Jewish community was possible without a state, and that a state was not possible without some population resettlement.”
BINGO – so behind all the fluff about “there was a war,” “we need to be balanced,” “tactical not strategic,” “less intentional” etc etc you are now admitting that there was a transfer, and that you actually SUPPORT that idea. The truth comes out.
And by the way, some Zionists at the time, including many leaders of Mapam, the second largest party, criticized the transfer because they had some moral backbone and didn’t automatically apologize for warcrimes.
straightline,
I never saw that Vladimir Jabotinsky, The Iron Wall, 1923 quote before, or if I did, and I probably did, it didn’t register. Interesting to read all this blood-thirty shit or warmongering alongside the UN documents of the same that painted these characters as little birdies in trees who wanted to do no one any harm.
“Such a law of return exists today in several other countries, including Hungary and Germany.”
I should add that this is quite simply not true. Germany has a very specific law concerning those who were expelled from Eastern European countries after WW2 for being “ethnic Germans” citizenship. A side effect of the law was that after 1990, Soviet citizens of German ancestry were eligible for German citizenship as well.
The law is most definitely not a blanket offer of citizenship for everybody of German ancestry. German-Americans, German-Brazilians etc. are not eligible. (Well, no more than Americans or Brazilians of any other background.) The law dealt with the concrete, present problem of refugees being expelled and stripped of their citizenship in Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.
Its application to the many “Spaetaussiedler” of the 90s was an unintentional side effect.
“the Law of Return…. it is still open to any Jew who wants to become a citizen.
Such a law of return exists today in several other countries, including Hungary and Germany.”
Er, no. For those countries you have to prove you are a descendant of people who were born in and citizens of the countries.
“Hopefully a similar law of return will also soon be instituted in the Palestinian state to be established alongside us.”
Quite a different idea from the Right of Return that the Palestinians claim. That is the right to return to their old homes, or at least to a place very near those old homes. It is not a right to “return” to a state called Palestine.
“And just as that will not be a racist law in the Palestinian state, by the same token the law is not racist in Israel either.”
The Israeli law is not a law that permits descendants of people who were born in the country to return. On the contrary, lots of people who were born there, and their descendants, are forbidden to return.
“When the nations of the world decided in 1947 on the establishment of a Jewish state, …, they did so with the assumption that this state had to provide refuge for any Jew who so desired.”
Any evidence that they has such an assumption? And any reason to believe that they were morally entitled to establish such a state?
“An anti-Zionist, on the other hand, is someone who wants to overturn the State of Israel after the fact – and with the exception of extremist sects among the ultra-Orthodox or among radical Jewish circles in the Diaspora, not many Jews hold this view.”
And, of course, the non-Jews who hold the view don’t count.
Such a law of return exists today in several other countries, including Hungary and Germany.
This is not true. Germany’s Law of Return covers only certain particular cases of people who were forcibly transferred, while Israel’s Law of Return covers all Jews, even those who converted to the religion and had no previous link to the land. Also, in the German case the Law of Return does not confer more rights to ethnic Germans than to other citizens, while Israel’s law gives Israeli Jews certain rights that Israeli Arabs don’t enjoy.
For instance, if an Israeli citizen is absent from the country for seven years, the Ministry of the Interior may revoke their nationality. If they’re Jewish, however, they can become Israeli citizens again through the Law of Return. If they’re Arab, on the other hand, they lose their citizenship forever. Thus, Israeli Jews have the right to pursue careers abroad and then return to Israel, while Israeli Arabs do not enjoy that right. For a complete discussion, see here.
Well, I tried to return to Israel, and I was very honest with the authourities, I told them “I’m not really sure if I’m Jewish. My family history is very disrupted and I’m not really sure”. He told me:
“Look, fella, the Law of Return is very simple; what do you have to offer Israel? If we need it, you’re in!”
There’s your “law of return”. (Okay, in my case, outlaw of return) To keep pretending that Jewishness or Judaism can even compete with the exigencies of a colonial project is foolish.
On the other hand, is there anything about a law of returning in-laws to Israel? After that Thanksgiving we just had, I’d be happy to pay their passage.