Is religion the main reason for the Israel/Palestine conflict?

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

A sentient being might wonder what right the British had to take Arab land and give it to immigrants.

An informed being might be aware of the Mandates created in order to reduce the chaos of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

Jewish scholars have pretty much established that the Arabs were driven out.

1. It's profoundly slimy to point to the religion of someone as if it adds weight to the argument. Especially so since you're obviously citing someone's Jewishness because, by some strange alchemy, that places more weight on that person's testimony.

2. You are dramatically and materially distorting Morris' actual research, which stated that rather than the fiction that "the Arabs were driven out", the vast majority of refugees fled due to fighting in/around their villages and/or fear of the war coming to them. Perfectly understandable, and unsavory that you're trying to distort it, coupled with holding up Morris as a token Jew, to make your case.

This would, or should, have been obvious to you if you'd read the work yourself rather than linking to a blurb on a site called "Palestineremembered.com"

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

1. It's profoundly slimy to point to the religion of someone as if it adds weight to the argument. Especially so since you're obviously citing someone's Jewishness because, by some strange alchemy, that places more weight on that person's testimony.

It's profoundly smug to criticize my citation of a Jewish scholar in this context. Everyone knows that with a controversial subject like this, it's easy to find condemnation of the Israelis on anti-Semitic websites, so it is indeed germane to note that the source is not anti-Semitic.

I will ascribe the rest of your post to ignorance, both of Morris's position and my reason for accidentally citing a pro-Palestinian source when it came up first in a google search, which I covered in a followup post over an hour before you posted your bilge. Have a nice day.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

It's profoundly smug to criticize my citation of a Jewish scholar in this context.

Okay, so you don't know what the word "smug" means.
On another note, you could simply admit your error, acknowledge that finding a Token Jew to support your point doesn't actually add any weight, and does reveal that your argument is being cast in racial terms. Or you can dig your heels in and see how well that works. Before, of course, you cleave too firmly the old bullshit line about how it's got to be a reliable/objective/whatever position about Israel because a Jew wrote it (hopefully you grok the mistake in your argument that little slip reveals), the Kapos would like to have a word with you.

Of course, you're welcome to "ascribe the rest of my post to ignorance". It might even be a valid strategy, except for the fact that your claims are fictional, and trying to dodge a factual rebuttal with limp handwaving won't work for you. You'd know that, had you actually read the book. You were spitballing, and you got caught. Admit error and fix your position or pretend that despite Morris' own words, there's a book in an alternate universe somewhere which supports your claims.
Additionally, it should be clear to virtually anybody why you went with the 'first hit on Google', didn't bother to verify its claims, were using search terms that somehow brought you to www.palestineremembered.com as your first hit, and didn't bother to provide an actual quote and instead just used their blurb as if that was a cogent argument you had constructed.

Anybody who wants to check and see if your argument is fictional or if I'm "ignorant" can, for instance, go to page 589 onwards in the linked work (the one by Morris, not www.palestinerememered.com) and read Morris' actual conclusion, as distinct from your claims about it. Since you haven't read his book, can you please link to the original website which told you his argument was that the refugees were 'expelled'? Thanks.

[it is] also worth remembering that a large proportion of those who became refugees fled their towns and villages not under direct Israeli threat or duress. Tens of thousands - mostly from well-to-do and elite families- left the towns in the war's early months because of the withdrawal of the British administration, the war-filled chaos that followed and the prospect of Jewish rule. And, in the following months, hundreds of thousands fled not under Jewish orders or direct coercion though, to be sure, most sought to move out of harm's way as Zionist troops conquered town after town and district after district. And most probably believed that they would be returning home in a matter of months if not weeks, perhaps after the Arab armies had crushed Israel.
[...]
Daily, week in, week out, over December 1947, January, February and March 1948, there were clashes along the 'seams' between the two communities in the mixed towns, ambushes in the fields and on the roads, sniping, machine-gun fire, bomb attacks and occasional mortaring. Problems of movement and communication, unemployment and food distribution intensified, especially in the towns, as the hostilities drew out. There is probably no accounting for the mass exodus that followed without understanding the prevalence and depth of the general sense of collapse, of 'falling apart', and of a centre that 'cannot hold', that permeated Arab Palestine, especially the towns, by April 1948. In many places, it would take very little to nudge the masses to pack up and leave.

Come the Haganan (and the IZL-LHI) offensives and counteroffensives of April-June, the cumulative effect of the fears, deprivatinos abandonment and depredations of the previous months, in both towns and villages, overcame the natural, basic reluctance to abandon home and property and flee. As Palestinian military power was swiftly and dramatically crushed and the Haganah demonstrated almost unchallenged superiority in successive battles, Arab morale cracked, giving way to general, blnid panic or a 'psychosis of flight' as one IDF intelligence report put it. This was the second - and crucial - stage of the exodus.

And, of course, the kicker on page 591

If Jewish attack directly and indirectly triggered most of the exodus up to June 1948, a small but significant portion was due to direct expulsion orders and to psychological warfare ploys ('whispering propaganda') designed to intimidate people into flight.

Exactly as I said. The vast majority was due to fighting in/around villages and towns. Morris does not claim, as you mistakenly reported, that the refugees were "expelled". in point of fact, Morris' claim is that it was only a "small [...] portion" of the refugees who were deliberately expelled or driven out.

You brought a kazoo to a gun fight and argued a position from a base of ignorance, contending against Dopers who actually know the history. It happens. Fix your error, modify your position in accord with the evidence, and then go forth and sin no more.

[BrainGlutton]

Well, it should be obvious by this point that religion is not the main reason for the conflict, except to the extent that religious identities equate to ethnic identities.

[Alessan]

Trying to close those barn doors, BG?

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

Tell me Brazzy, since you're insisting that "the Palestinians" aren't real and are "invented" do you also think that "Lebanese", "Syrians" and "Iraqis" are also "invented"?

Isn't it pretty obvious they are? That's the point that Benedict Anderson makes in his book "Imagined Communities", that national identities are social constructs, creating some sort of distinct identity that's just assumed, even though there's nothing beyond that to support it.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

Isn't it pretty obvious they are? That's the point that Benedict Anderson makes in his book "Imagined Communities", that national identities are social constructs, creating some sort of distinct identity that's just assumed, even though there's nothing beyond that to support it.

As opposed to religious identities.

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Before, of course, you cleave too firmly the old bullshit line about how it's got to be a reliable/objective/whatever position about Israel because a Jew wrote it (hopefully you grok the mistake in your argument that little slip reveals), the Kapos would like to have a word with you.

It's really amazing how someone who writes such a smug and condescending post can't see what a stupid statement that is, when you have been raking me over the coals, repeatedly, for inadvertently using a Palestinian source. It defies belief that you can blast me for (in your imagination) claiming a Jewish source is unimpeachable, while in the next breath implying that anyone who would use a Palestinian source cannot be trusted.

And all I used it for was to give the title and author of a book. In spite of that, when I realized that it was a tendentious website, I immediately apologized, an hour before your first post to me.

I noted that Mr. Morris is Jewish so that his book would not be dismissed out of hand as mere anti-Semitic propaganda. When the subject is very controversial and prone to misinformation, argument against interest is at least an indicator of sincerity.

Additionally, it should be clear to virtually anybody why you went with the 'first hit on Google', didn't bother to verify its claims, were using search terms that somehow brought you to www.palestineremembered.com as your first hit, and didn't bother to provide an actual quote and instead just used their blurb as if that was a cogent argument you had constructed.

Since you asked, the sinister search string I used on Google, carefully designed to get a link that would corrupt anyone who read my post, was palestine refugees morris. I didn't recall the exact title of the book (I read it about 20 years ago), and didn't even have time to give it in my post. If you look at my first post on this subtopic, you will see that I edited the post at the last second to add a response to the expulsion issue, and barely got it in under the wire. That's why I grabbed the first url that came up, and apologized for it in my next post, 12 minutes later. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say I used their blurb, and will just chalk it up to your post's general lack of coherence.

Since you haven't read his book, can you please link to the original website which told you his argument was that the refugees were 'expelled'?

I linked to and quoted an interview with Morris where he says not only were the refugees expelled, but that it was a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing, an hour before your first idiotic post to me. I even referenced that post in the post you just responded to, so I don't know how an observant fellow like you could have missed it. You will note that Morris uses the word "expulsion" several times, and not in reference to small groups, but to the Palestinian "population." For example, "A Jewish State would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population."

Poor Finnagain, if he had just read that post, he wouldn't have embarrassed himself by posting gross distortions of the Morris book. Like this:

Exactly as I said. The vast majority was due to fighting in/around villages and towns. Morris does not claim, as you mistakenly reported, that the refugees were "expelled". in point of fact, Morris' claim is that it was only a "small [...] portion" of the refugees who were deliberately expelled or driven out.

That is a clumsy, stupid distortion. Your own citation says the opposite of what you claim. In your ridiculous paraphrase, you first remove "significant" from the few words that are actually his, and then you put the words "deliberately expelled" and "driven out" into his mouth regarding the small portion, when he used neither phrase.

HIS words clearly show that "Jewish attack directly and indirectly triggered most of the exodus," which is exactly the definition of being driven out. It's not just the people whose houses you blow up that you are driving out, it's all the people ahead of them who don't want to wait for you to do the same to them. DIRECT (the word he actually used) attacks and psyops on a small number of people facilitate the DELIBERATE expulsion of a much larger number (which is why he did not use that word), as the wavefront expands.

That is exactly what Morris was saying in your earlier quote. But for reasons we can only guess, you left off the concluding sentence of that paragraph:

Benny Morris, in "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited":
"There is a clear, chronological, one-to-one correspondence between the Jewish offensives and the flight of the bulk of the population from each town and district attacked."

I believe that it violates the TOS to call someone a liar in GD, and I will respect that. Happily, your selective editing, and grossly distorting paraphrasing, speak for themselves. And it is manifestly clear that you have no clue what Morris is saying in his books.

I have made my point about the refugees, I am aware of your opinion of its worth, and I see no chance that we will ever agree, so I trust that this concludes our correspondence.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

national identities are social constructs,

For what it may be worth, I would agree with this to a large extent. As I said earlier, nations get invented all the time. The group known as "Palestinians" is not unique in this respect.

What's special about "Palestinians" is the motivation behind the invention, which is primarily to undermine Israel.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

you have been raking me over the coals, repeatedly, for inadvertently using a Palestinian source.

And yet again you can't simply admit that using a Token Jew to sell a point, let alone a point about Israel and not Judaism betrays failure inherent in your argument. Here, try to spot the fallacy you're using: "Mr. Blackguy is an obviously solid source on Africa, after all, he's black!"

You're also rather obviously not comprehending the very basic substance of your error, or my argument, and have imagined me saying something about how Palestinian sources aren't credible. Reather obviously, if you're inventing nonsense about how I've said that you shouldn't quote a "Palestinian source", your argument's claims about the semantic value of any text should be ignored; if an argument contains imagined events, it's none too reliable. No idea how that happened as it would have been impossible if you were reading for comprehension. In any case, to clear up your ignorance: the point was not that you used a Palestinian source, but that you used an unreliable, inaccurate, partisan source and did not provide an actual citation for the book (which could have been found with 5 seconds googling) and instead used a partisan, inaccurate website and you presented its blurb as if it was a contribution to the discussion. Even your claim of your search terms just shows that you constructed an amazingly lazy argument. The 5th hit is the book itself. The 1st is an inaccurate, partisan blurb. You picked the 1st. As for you not comprehending what a blurb is, please google "blurb", I suppose.

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

I linked to and quoted an interview with Morris where he says not only were the refugees expelled, but that it was a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing

Yet more fiction. You did no such thing and anybody reading the interview can see that you are inventing an exchange which never actually took place. First of all, he does not say it was a deliberate policy of ethnic cleaning. In fact, it was the interviewer who used that term and Morris who responded. As for Morris claiming that the entire population was expelled, that is also fictional. Morris' statements in an interview where he didn't have limitless time to compose his thoughts, of course you're grasping. I've already cited, and quoted,what Morris' actual research showed. You also do not comprehend that Morris' statement that the people had to be uprooted for Israel to be born does not mean that they were deliberately expelled any more than my 11th grade English teacher's statement that "The Titanic had to sink in order for the modern era to begin" was stating that we torpedoed the Titanic. It's a narrative in which he was supporting not letting the refugees back in, not arguing, against his own research, that they were expelled.

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

That is a clumsy, stupid distortion.

So not only are you wrong, but you have decided to double down and in the fact of Morris' own words, you refuse to agree that he said what he said. Kay.
Of course, "significant" does not, actually, contradict the fact that it was "small". The heart, for instance, is a "small" percentage of the human muscular structure, but it is "significant". That does not mean, however, that you could state that all muscle tissue is heart tissue, which is the exact fallacy you are committing when you claim that all refugees were expelled since, after all, a "small but significant" portion were expelled. Nor did I put any words into Morris' mouth. It's really a very shabby type of argument where you ignore everything that was cited and quoted (you still haven't read the book itself, have you?) and think that by ignoring it, it vanishes. I provided three paragraphs of solid quotations which show that they were not deliberately expelled, nor driven out, but left due to fighting in/around their villages. That's why you were left to try to claim that a small percentage, which was obviously not the 100% that you keep pretending, should somehow be given undue weight in terms of statistics since they were "significant".

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

HIS words clearly show that "Jewish attack directly and indirectly triggered most of the exodus," which is exactly the definition of being driven out.

No, it isn't.
Yet again, as I have pointed out, and as Moriss' argued, fighting in and around villages caused most of the refugees to flee. That is entirely consistent with the timetable of attacks carried out by the proton-Israelis. You do not understand what the term "driven out" means. It means to force someone to leave, to expel them. It is to force someone or something to leave. Fighting in/around villages is not expulsion, although as I cited, and you ignored, it did contribute to an atmosphere where getting the fuck out of Dodge made sense. Your claim that living in a war zone = being expelled would be laughable to most native English speakers.

Low housing prices in Detroit, for example, have not "expelled" much of the populace.

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

It's not just the people whose houses you blow up

Ah, so now it was a campaign of house demolitions? How very... retcon.
You've got Morris' actual book now, why don't you cite any such thing as a patten of organized house demolitions.

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

But for reasons we can only guess, you left off the concluding sentence of that paragraph

Yes, I nefariously neglected to type in even more facts which prove I am right and your argument is the worst kind of sloppy nonsense. As fighting neared/reached villages, villagers fled. Which is exactly what I said, exactly what your Gotchaya! quote shows, and exactly what the facts are. This is a good microcosm, of course. You haven't read the book but still decided to talk about its contents, couldn't be bothered to cite let alone quote from it, and then when provided quotations which show you're wrong, which I had to hand-type in, you complain that I did not include an extra sentence which reiterates his point in the other sentences and proves me right, again.

People fled a war zone. There wasn't a war zone in the towns/villages while Arab "irregulars" were attacking from them, because there was no fighting in the towns and villages. Once the proto-Israelis began attacking there, then the war zone moved to there, and people fled a war zone. Shocka.

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

And it is manifestly clear that you have no clue what Morris is saying in his books.

Considering that I've read the book while you read a blurb on www.palestineremembered.com, I've proven you wrong on literally all of your statements by juxtaposing Morris' own words against your claims about what he really meant to say, did not selectively edit anything at all, and did not inaccurately paraphrase anything, your claims ring a little bit hollow. Morris' own words show that it was no expulsion, but fighting in/around villages which caused Palestinians to flee.

On one hand, we have Morris' own words and research, showing the quite reasonable position that most people fled a war zone. On the other, we have your claim that people fleeing fighting in/around their villages should be considered "expelled", even though there were actual expulsions carried out in which people were actually forced to leave and those expulsions are a different category than those who fled due to fighting in and around their homes. Words have meaning in English, not reading for comprehension is no excuse for your sloppy arguments.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

Isn't it pretty obvious they are? That's the point that Benedict Anderson makes in his book "Imagined Communities", that national identities are social constructs, creating some sort of distinct identity that's just assumed, even though there's nothing beyond that to support it.

I agree, and IMO it isn't a particularly significant fact that "Palestinian" is an "invented" nationality. So are they all, including of course "Israeli" - quite self-conciously so, what with the revival of a liturgical language (Hebrew) to replace the languages most Jews actually spoke (a babel of European and ME languages plus Yiddish and Ladino). You can see the re-invetion process at work in deliberate personal name changes - "David Grün" becomes "David Ben-Gurion", that sort of thing - as Israelis self-conciously shook off being European.

I myself do not think that pointing out the artificiality of Palestinian nationalism is a particularly telling point. To my mind, the clash between the two is one of simultaneously developing ethno-nationalism. The Palestinian one developed in part because ethno-nationalism was developing everywhere in the ME and in part in direct reaction to the Israeli ethno-nationalism. The Israeli variety had the advantage of developing earlier and being much better organized - it is in leadership that the Palestinian weakness is most evident, always has been. The Israelis managed to reign in and tame their extremists, while on the Palestinian side the choice has largely been between the extremists and the corrupt (in many cases, both).

[Alessan]

Originally Posted by Malthus

I agree, and IMO it isn't a particularly significant fact that "Palestinian" is an "invented" nationality. So are they all, including of course "Israeli" - quite self-conciously so, what with the revival of a liturgical language (Hebrew) to replace the languages most Jews actually spoke (a babel of European and ME languages plus Yiddish and Ladino). You can see the re-invetion process at work in deliberate personal name changes - "David Grün" becomes "David Ben-Gurion", that sort of thing - as Israelis self-conciously shook off being European.

There's an old Zionist saying dating back to the 1920's, if not earlier - "We came to this country to build and be built."

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Malthus

I agree, and IMO it isn't a particularly significant fact that "Palestinian" is an "invented" nationality.

Perhaps it's not significant to you, but it's very significant to the hundreds of thousands of "Palestinians" who are subject to intense discrimination throughout the Arab world; who are kept stateless and living in "refugee" camps for generation after generation, primarily in order to exert pressure on Israel.

Perhaps you think Palestinian nationalism fundamentally the same as Jewish nationalism. If so, you might ask yourself why the Palestinian leadership has announced that a Palestinian state would not grant citizenship or residency to "Palestinians" living in Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. Or even to "Palestinians" living in "refugee" camps on the West Bank.

[FinnAgain]

Oh, and:

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

not only were the refugees expelled, but that it was a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing,

Yet again, if you'd actually read the book, you'd see that there was no such plan according to Morris. Why are you even still posting about a book which you haven't read? Hell, if you re-read that last quote I provided, you'd see that not only was there no such plan, but a minority of refugees were driven out due to deliberate policy, according to Morris.

So Morris says that a minority were driven out due to explicit plans for expulsion. You claim that all of them were driven out due to a "deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing", and pretend that it's Morris' research that supports your claim.

Yet more facts, if you like interviews instead of reading the book itself, at least you don't need to cite a newspaper which has had an editor go on record as saying that he believes Israel needs to be "raped".

In conducting research for Revisited you found a lot more evidence that the Arab leaders were partially responsible for promoting the evacuation. What is the significance of this? Should this information affect the Palestinian cause internationally?

It should translate in some way. Look, there is a connection between current policy on the Arab side—the demand for the right of return of the refugees to their homes and lands in Palestine—and the question of who is to blame for what happened in '48. There's sort of a formula here that essentially asserts that if the Israelis were by and large to blame for the displacement of the Palestinians, therefore they are guilty and must agree to a full-scale return of the refugees. On the other hand, if the Palestinians have more blame in the flight or the displacement of the Palestinians, their argument for a return of the refugees is diminished. So there is a political significance to the apportioning of blame

What's that? Morris found information that the Arab leaders were partially responsible for promoting the evacuation? (If you'd read the book itself, you'd also know that they were responsible for evacuating some villages before the Israelis even got there) Here you're claiming that his argument is that there was a deliberate policy that ethnically cleansed all the refugees. Odd... Well, let's see what else he says, eh?

You place a lot of importance in your revised book on talk of transfer prior to the war, not only among Israelis, but among the British and the Arabs as well. If there was no master plan to expel the Palestinians, why was this pre-war talk so important?

Well, this is a subject of controversy among Israelis today. Did Zionist leadership support the idea of transfer or expulsion of the Palestinian Arabs before the '48 war? Traditionally, Zionist historians rejected the idea. They say there was no consensus, there was no support for transfer of the Arabs before '48 and therefore what happened in '48 was completely haphazard, a function of what happened in the battlefields. And Arabs would say that this isn't true, that the Zionists went into the war with a master plan to expel all the Arabs. As proof of this they point to the discussions about transfer and a consensus during the 1930s and '40s. Now, in the first edition, I didn't give the subject sufficient space or sufficient importance. I noticed that Zionist leaders had occasionally discussed the subject in the 1930s and the 1940s against the backdrop of the persecution of Jews in Europe and against the backdrop of the Holocaust, when there was a driving urgency for the Jews to find a safe haven in Palestine. The Arabs didn't want the Jews to come here, so they populated the land. Therefore in some way they would have to be displaced if there was to be room for those Jews the Zionist movement wanted to save from Europe. We're talking about millions of people. So you can see that there were these discussions and there was support for the idea of transfer. But what emerges from the wider reading that I did during the last few years before producing this new version of the book is that the loose talk, the occasional discussions about the subject, never amounted to anything concrete.

Hrmm, let's see.
Tony: not only were the refugees expelled, but that it was a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing
Morris: what emerges from the wider reading that I did during the last few years before producing this new version of the book is that the loose talk, the occasional discussions about the subject, never amounted to anything concrete

And you claim Morris' research supports you.


And:

You have referred to Arab intellectuals' approach to the history of the Arab-Jewish conflict in the Middle East as hypocritical. Can you elaborate on this?

A lot of Arab critics have become hot and bothered about the so-called ethnic cleansing of Arabs in 1948. [...]

Ah yes, the so-called ethnic cleansing. Morris surely agrees with you, yep. The policy, which he says does not exist, for the 'so-called' ethnic cleansing. Yeah, solid source there, Tony. That, of course, ignores that Morris talks about tens of thousands of refugees who fled before the war and others who fled at the urging of Arab leaders. Of course, you're claiming that they were expelled, too.

Let's check some more, shall we?

According to your research,. what is the percentage of the different categories?
1 didn’t deal in percentages because many of the categories overlap. The problem is that many people left because of a multiplicity of reasons, not one reason. They thought they would soon be coming back. When it comes to certain populations - they were actually ordered on a certain date by the military commander on the spot to leave, and they left. But concerning other populations, it is much more difficult to define the reasons. If you take places like Lydda where, in the end, there was an expulsion order in which the population was told to leave the town, get on the road and start walking in the direction of Ramallah - even there they didn’t leave only because of the expulsion order. They had been fired at, or bombed from the air. There had been a battle in the town two days before. There had been a massacre on the following day, the 12th of July, 1948. In other words, peo¬ple were conditioned by various circumstances to agree to leave. Lydda is an extreme case of an actual expulsion order, but even there it was a com¬bination of circumstances.

We are talking about a whole range of reasons for departure.
[...]

What's that, a multiplicity of reasons? A whole range of reasons for departure?
Surely he agrees with you that there is only one reason, and it was a deliberate policy of ethnic-cleansing. I'm lying about what his research shows, of course. You're correct.

Is there a pattern?
[...]
In general, the Arabs fled as a result of direct Jewish attack or an attack in the neighborhood. It was the same in the countryside and towns. So one can probably safely say that, though there were other reasons, the major precip¬itant to the flight of the Arabs of Palestine throughout the war was Jewish attack or what was felt to be the threat of imminent attack by Jewish forces.

What's that? The vast majority fled due to fighting in/around their towns? Damn, I wish I'd said that so I could claim I was correct all along!
Ah well, I guess I'm lost unless there are even more comments that show your argument is awful. Oh wait, there are.

Many people today don’t understand when they go to the Galilee and see one village destroyed and next to it another village that exists and people are living their lives there. One sees Abu Ghosh here on the main road to Jerusalem and next to it Saris which doesn’t exist anymore. Was there some kind of principle by which one village survived or its people stayed?

There is the Arab charge that there was an overall Jewish policy of expul¬sion. This is what people like Sharif Kanaana continue to say, that there was an overall master plan for expulsion by the Zionists which was imple¬mented in 1948.
My feeling, based on the documentation, is that there was no blanket poli¬cy, no overall master plan for the expulsion of the Palestinians. This is not what was implemented in 1948. It is true that in Zionist thought over the decades, some believed the only real solution of how to cope with the Arab minority in a Jewish state is by a transfer, agreed if possible, compulsory if not possible.
Ben-Gurion let people understand, from February 1948 certainly, and maybe even earlier, that the Jewish state really needs as few Arabs as possible. But this was not translated at any point in 1948 into official policy which would have meant a session of the General Staff, or at least of the Cabinet, and a decision to expel the Arabs of Palestine. This was never dis¬cussed or resolved by any leading authoritative Jewish institution for the simple reason that it wouldn’t have been passed.
Most Israeli cabinet ministers in 1948 would not have put their names to an expulsion order, if only because Jewish history had been one of expulsion over hundreds of years. In their hearts, most may have wanted the Arabs of Palestine to leave. But they would not have translated it into official policy.

Tony: "not only were the refugees expelled, but that it was a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing"
Morris: "what emerges from the wider reading that I did during the last few years before producing this new version of the book is that the loose talk, the occasional discussions about the subject, never amounted to anything concrete"
"There is the Arab charge that there was an overall Jewish policy of expulsion. This is what people like Sharif Kanaana continue to say, that there was an overall master plan for expulsion by the Zionists which was implemented in 1948.
My feeling, based on the documentation, is that there was no blanket policy, no overall master plan for the expulsion of the Palestinians. This is not what was implemented in 1948."

Yeah... I'm distorting Morris' work.

Danny Rubinstein: The topic is the Palestinian refugees. Whatever were the reasons for that exodus, Israel didn’t let the refugees come back. We have spent many years arguing about who is to blame and in your book, you tried to find out what really happened in every place. Maybe it’s not relevant at all. Isn’t the real problem that Israel didn’t let them come back?
[...]
Many Palestinians left not because they were actually expelled but because of the fear of war, the fear of battle reaching their homes, and so on. But once they had left their villages and the country, and then tried to come back and were barred - that is the point where one can talk of a policy of expulsion.

Just as I said.
Care to retract and correct your argument, or going to double down again?

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by brazil84

Perhaps it's not significant to you, but it's very significant to the hundreds of thousands of "Palestinians" who are subject to intense discrimination throughout the Arab world; who are kept stateless and living in "refugee" camps for generation after generation, primarily in order to exert pressure on Israel.

Of course that is significant. Indeed, it is one of the factors accelerating the process of ethno-nationalism. Nothing makes people more concious of their "difference" than being discriminated against by those who are otherwise "the same".

What I meant was that the fact that it is "invented" isn't significant for undermining its legitimacy. What is significant isn't the process for how nationalism came to be, but the fact that people hold to it today.

For similar reasons, I find the aguments but out by the anti-Israeli types - which can be boiled down to that there was unfairness in the formation of the Israeli state - to be unpersuasive. The significant fact is that Israel exists *right now*. While it is interesting to argue about stuff like Turkish land-holding patterns under the Ottomans, and whether or not early Zionists legitimately bought the land they used (or in contrast ignored the usifructary rights of arab villagers), that stuff surely has no bearing on what ought to happen now, going forward, today. It isn't like modern-day Israelis are going to say "oh my, this learned discussion of landowning rights in the late 19th century has really opened my eyes - I'll pack my bags and go right back to my great-grandfather's shtetl in Poland now".

Similarly, even if it could be proved (which I doubt) that Palestinian nationalism was merely a cynical device sneakily imposed on Palestinians as a stealth weapon against Israel, that has only historic interest - as there is no doubt that, whatever the origins, Palestinians feel like a "nation" now, and so must be dealt with as one.

Perhaps you think Palestinian nationalism fundamentally the same as Jewish nationalism. If so, you might ask yourself why the Palestinian leadership has announced that a Palestinian state would not grant citizenship or residency to "Palestinians" living in Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. Or even to "Palestinians" living in "refugee" camps on the West Bank.

I don't think they are "fundamentally the same". There are obvious and fundamental differences - the main one being that Israeli nationalism has been successful.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Malthus

Similarly, even if it could be proved (which I doubt) that Palestinian nationalism was merely a cynical device sneakily imposed on Palestinians as a stealth weapon against Israel, that has only historic interest - as there is no doubt that, whatever the origins, Palestinians feel like a "nation" now, and so must be dealt with as one.

Yah, while it can be shown that certain political leaders cynically used nationalism as a weapon, like the Grand Mufti, or that certain rejectionist movements exploited nationalism for their own needs, like how the PLO was created before the '67 war and was dedicated to the obliteration of Israel as a state, that doesn't have much bearing on the overall question. Just like the Israelis, the Palestinians are a created national identity. That's a non-starter.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Malthus

What I meant was that the fact that it is "invented" isn't significant for undermining its legitimacy. What is significant isn't the process for how nationalism came to be, but the fact that people hold to it today.

I disagree, and I think an analogy would be helpful. Suppose a Jewish employee asks to take the day off for Yom Kippur. This is a legitimate request and in many circumstances employers are legally bound to honor such a request. By contrast, employers are not legally bound to honor a request to take the day off to go a strip club.

Now suppose you announce that you are founding the Church of Malthus which requires its adherents to take the day off from work to go to a strip club. Does that make your request any more legitimate? Probably not and if you made a legal issue out of it, you would probably get laughed out of court.

Of course, one could point out that both traditions are "invented," but does that make them equally legitimate? No, because what's different is the underlying reason for the invention.

"Palestinians" are exactly analogous to the Church of Malthus. There was no serious push for Palestinian self-determination until it was a convenient way to attack Israel.

Palestinians feel like a "nation" now, and so must be dealt with as one.

I disagree with this too since the cynical behavior has not stopped.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by brazil84

There was no serious push for Palestinian self-determination until it was a convenient way to attack Israel.

Not true. Arab nationalism was a chaotic ideology with multiple factions which began after WWI. The infighting and backbiting within Palestinian society prevented any unified plan from forming, but it existed and was seriously endorsed. The fact is, however, that the Zionists had set up social and political organizations which had held for decades and which already gave them a proto-state within the Mandate. And they were (mostly) unified. That allowed them to push for self-determination as a coherent, cohesive unit while the Arab populace was fragmented, divided and suffered more than a few purges.

It was Egyptian and Jordanian actions which crushed any Palestinian statehood, but the idea that Palestinian nationalism was an invention to destroy Israel is still false. Black September speaks to that fact and should remind many people, especially those who claim that Israel took the majority of the Mandate, that Transjordan held, and Jordan now holds, the supermajority of territory involved.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Not true.

Can I have a cite/link/quote for that please? TIA

[FinnAgain]

One

Under the impact of rapid, momentous, and unsettling changes during the period from the outset of World War I to some time early on in the British mandate for Palestine, at the outside in 1922 or 1923, the sense of political and national identification of most politically conscious, literate, and urban Palestinians underwent a sequence of major transformations. The end result was a strong and growing national identification with Palestine, as the Arab residents of the country increasingly came to 'imagine' themselves as part of a single community...In succeeding decades, this identification with Palestine was to be developed and refined significantly, as Palestinian nationalism grew and developed.

Two.

During most of the 1800s, the political identity of the people of Palestine was of several overlapping types: a commitment to local Arab leadership; awareness of the distant rule of the Ottoman Turks; and a growing but still diffuse sense of connection with the larger Arab community. For Muslim Palestinians, there was also a sense of belonging to the Islamic millet, but because the Ottoman Turks were also Muslims, this did not serve to differentiate the Palestinian Arabs as a national group. Initially, Palestinians were part of the general movement of Arab nationalism that engulfed the Levant. With the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the division of the Levant into areas of French and British control, Arab hopes of a Greater Syria encompassing the entire Levant region were quashed, and a separate Palestinian national identity, which was already present, began to flourish.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by brazil84

I disagree, and I think an analogy would be helpful. Suppose a Jewish employee asks to take the day off for Yom Kippur. This is a legitimate request and in many circumstances employers are legally bound to honor such a request. By contrast, employers are not legally bound to honor a request to take the day off to go a strip club.

Now suppose you announce that you are founding the Church of Malthus which requires its adherents to take the day off from work to go to a strip club. Does that make your request any more legitimate? Probably not and if you made a legal issue out of it, you would probably get laughed out of court.

Of course, one could point out that both traditions are "invented," but does that make them equally legitimate? No, because what's different is the underlying reason for the invention.

"Palestinians" are exactly analogous to the Church of Malthus. There was no serious push for Palestinian self-determination until it was a convenient way to attack Israel.



I disagree with this too since the cynical behavior has not stopped.

Do not agree.

Even assuming that Palestinian nationalism was originally founded with cynical purposes (and I do not think that the facts bear this out - used by some for cynical purposes yes, but it was an indigenous example of ethno-nationalism) - that is, even assuming you are right - it has no bearing on the question.

The better analogy would be if someone was able to prove beyond a doubt that Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon religion, was a con man. That simply does not prevent today's Mormons from being sincerely religious, any more than if Jesus was a con man (or never existed at all) de-legitimizes modern Christians.

The problem with your "church of Malthus" analogy is that the same person doing the conning wants to reap the "benefit" of legitimacy. That is not the case with Palestinians (again, even assuming your historical contention could be proved).

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

I believe that it violates the TOS to call someone a liar in GD, and I will respect that. Happily, your selective editing, and grossly distorting paraphrasing, speak for themselves.

And this sort of "I would call you a liar but the rules prevent me" is pretty much a violation of the rule.

Do not do it again.

[ /Moderating ]

[FinnAgain]

And, of course, just to highlight the veracity of my claims:

Tony (on Morris' research): "not only were the refugees expelled, but that it was a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing"

Morris (on Morris' research): "What emerges from the wider reading that I did during the last few years before producing this new version of the book is that the loose talk, the occasional discussions about the subject, never amounted to anything concrete"
"There is the Arab charge that there was an overall Jewish policy of expulsion. This is what people like Sharif Kanaana continue to say, that there was an overall master plan for expulsion by the Zionists which was implemented in 1948. My feeling, based on the documentation, is that there was no blanket policy, no overall master plan for the expulsion of the Palestinians. This is not what was implemented in 1948."

In fact, even in the interview that Tony cited, he is dramatically misreading Morris' words as he does not grok the context (nor the impact of the fact that Morris was responding on the spot to a somewhat hostile interviewer). What Morris actually means when he talks about expulsion is not driving Arabs out, but in refusing to allow them back in.

Morris: "once they had left their villages and the country, and then tried to come back and were barred - that is the point where one can talk of a policy of expulsion. "

[cmkeller]

Malthus:

Even assuming that Palestinian nationalism was originally founded with cynical purposes (and I do not think that the facts bear this out - used by some for cynical purposes yes, but it was an indigenous example of ethno-nationalism) - that is, even assuming you are right - it has no bearing on the question.

I have to respectfully disagree here. The difference is what land demands made by the group have merit. If they are a pre-existing identity which was based around the specific patch of land that is now Israel, then it is wrong for Israel to refuse to address their claim to the land. If they are a later invention, then their land claims are baseless, and Israel is absolutely correct to not offer them a right of return to, or a state which includes portions of, Israel.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by cmkeller

The difference is what land demands made by the group have merit. If they are a pre-existing identity which was based around the specific patch of land that is now Israel, then it is wrong for Israel to refuse to address their claim to the land.

Well... what if they had a previous identity based around the land, but they didn't actually own it. Remember, for centuries Jews have had an identity based around Israel/Jerusalem, too. It isn't the concept of belonging that matters quite as much as both ownership and 'facts on the ground'.

Originally Posted by cmkeller

If they are a later invention, then their land claims are baseless

Well... no. Let's say Johnny Palestinian owned a house which he held as personal property but didn't particularly support self determination, and Petey Palestinian was only a renter but did support a Palestinian state, and Suzy Palestinian didn't have any claim to land at all and was one of Bobby Palestinian's wives. How do we sort that out?

The organized movement for Palestinian-landholding-as-a-nation was tainted by the rejectionist ideology and nature of the early PLO which was set on reclaiming "Palestine" from the Israelis while the West Bank and Gaza (and Jordan) were still Arab possessions. Of course, in '70, a Palestinian faction also tried to take over Jordan.

Unfortunately, the discussion is not ended once we determine what faction(s) held what view(s) at what points, and frankly it's a bit irrelevant at this point. A negotiated compromise will have to be based on a just and lasting peace, and not so much on whether or not the Grand Mufti was a schmuck.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

A negotiated compromise will have to be based on a just and lasting peace, and not so much on whether or not the Grand Mufti was a schmuck.

You are mixing cause and effect here. A compromise is not "based on a just and lasting peace". The "just and lasting peace" may be based on compromise. Not in this area of the world, though. It will never happen. The Arabs refuse to consider Jews' supremacy on any piece of the land that they consider theirs. And Jews refuse to become dhimmis.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by cmkeller

Malthus:

I have to respectfully disagree here. The difference is what land demands made by the group have merit. If they are a pre-existing identity which was based around the specific patch of land that is now Israel, then it is wrong for Israel to refuse to address their claim to the land.

I don't agree with this premise. A "legitimate" pre-existing identity based on a specific patch of land, no matter how genuine, does not of necessity confer rights to it.

After all, Jews themselves had a "legitimate" pre-existing identity based on attachement to what is now Israel. If no-one ever started the Zionist project, that would not have sufficed to give them rights. "Next year in Jerusalem" is not enough.

The problem here is that of course more than one group can have legitimate pre-existing identification.

What confers rights, in my opinion, is provable ownership, subject to some notion of historical "latches" (a common-law term meaning that rights however legitimate fade over time). Israelis have rights to Israel because they are there. Palestinians who are not Israelis but whose ancestors used to own bits in Israel have rights, fading over time, to compensation for their loss.

This formula makes sense of the numerous historical dislocations which have occurred in pretty well every nation. We cannot at this juncture hand the US back to the Native Americans even if their dispossession was fully unjust; nor can we remove the Poles from what was once Prussia or return the Pakistanis to India.

If they are a later invention, then their land claims are baseless, and Israel is absolutely correct to not offer them a right of return to, or a state which includes portions of, Israel.

Again, as in the notion I describe above, I would not agree with that. If a particular Palestinian identified with pan-Arabism and not Palestinian nationalism, he'd be just as entitled to compensation.

Note I say "compensation" and not (say) moving the borders. Rights belong to individuals. Borders are matters of peace and war and political compromise.

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

What's that, a multiplicity of reasons? A whole range of reasons for departure?
Surely he agrees with you that there is only one reason, and it was a deliberate policy of ethnic-cleansing. I'm lying about what his research shows, of course. You're correct.

I have neither your apparently infinite time, nor your desperate need for approval, so I'll just let this stand as an example of how even when you cherry-pick your quotes, they say the opposite of what you claim.

My claim was that according to Morris, the Palestinians were driven out, rather than voluntarily leaving. Your unfortunate example shows that they indeed left for a multiplicity of reasons: being fired at, being bombed, being massacred, and avoiding a full-scale battle. Sounds voluntary to me!

The book I cited clearly shows that the Palestinians were driven out, and the interview I cited clearly shows that Morris called it ethnic cleansing. In your desperation, besides all the innuendo about my nefarious use of Jewish or Palestinian sources (and I'm still not clear on which you think is worse), you blame me for not anticipating every nuance he put on that in subsequent books and interviews. You earlier claimed that he never said there was an expulsion, and now you triumphantly claim vindication when in a later interview, he clearly says the Palestinians were driven out, but that the expulsion was, in his view, not technically complete until they were not allowed to return.

But they weren't allowed to return, were they, so how is that not an expulsion?

His bottom line, from your latest source, is this:

"In general, the Arabs fled as a result of direct Jewish attack or an attack in the neighborhood. It was the same in the countryside and towns. So one can probably safely say that, though there were other reasons, the major precipitant to the flight of the Arabs of Palestine throughout the war was Jewish attack or what was felt to be the threat of imminent attack by Jewish forces."

In other words, they were driven out. Knowing you, you'll move heaven and earth to find an example of a Palestinian who left voluntarily, and then make another 20 posts claiming vindication, but you're fooling only yourself.

You also seem incapable of grasping the difference between a formal policy and a deliberate policy. I never claimed that expulsion was written into the Israeli constitution, I just claimed that it was a deliberate policy. And Morris confirms that, in the same source:

"On the 6th or 7th of February 1948, Ben Gurion gives a speech in which he says that in western Jerusalem there were no Arabs left anywhere. And he adds this sentence - and this is the crucial point at which I think he understands what is happening - if we continue as we are - in other words, fighting - and we hold fast to our positions and fight properly, there will be vast demographic changes throughout the country. This is what happened in Jerusalem. It will happen elsewhere around the country. These are Ben-Gurion’s words.
At this point, he begins to think of exploiting the situation. If they are already moving by themselves without a Jewish policy of moving them, per¬haps with a little more deliberate nudging we can get even more to leave. So in terms of the leader of the Yishllv Oewish community), the vital change I think, if there is a change, occurs in February 1948. He understands that we have to exploit the situation to establish the Jewish state and to increase its ter¬ritory beyond what the United Nations had earmarked for Jewish statehood.
The change among other leaders was slower. Ben-Gurion acted as a lob¬byist and was also able to instruct and order the military establishment under his command about what he wanted. You can see the change occur¬ring among other Israeli leaders and officials from April onwards. Up to then, they were thinking in terms of the Arabs staying. Then they, too, adopted the idea of exploiting the military situation in order to evacuate the Arabs."

I don't know what else to call driving Arabs out, and then not letting them back, based on a strategy originating with Ben-Gurion, other than a deliberate policy of expulsion.

But nobody else is following this, and I know you will never admit you're wrong, so I'm done.

[Malthus]

TonySinclair, your problem (insofar as I understand the debate) is that you are attempting to make a moral point - that the Israelis were responsible for the Palestinians leaving, as a "a deliberate policy of expulsion".

However, the cites you & Finn keep posting do not show that.

What they show, is that the Palestinian civilians left, generally speaking, because they were afraid of the consequences of the battles raging around them [I assume the Israeli civilians did not leave for the same reason because they had nowhere to go].

This makes good factual sense - hell, if I was a Palestinian in that time & place, I'd have left too, for the same reason. Especially as the smart money was on the Israelis being defeated by the numerous Arab armies facing them, but after what looked to be a grim fight.

No doubt some Israeli leaders were delighted to see Arab civilians leaving, and said so. Others were not. What you are missing was just how chaotic and close-to-the-wire the '48 war was. Mostly what the Israeli leaders cared about was surviving.

The notion that the Israelis engaged in a deliberate policy of expulsion has been repeatedly canvassed by historians. The problem has always been that, because of the chaotic nature of the battle, the contradictory things said by the actors on all sides at the time and since, and the high degree of polemics surrounding the matter afterwards, people have subsequently been able to read whatever they wanted into the record. Morris attempted to settle the matter by looking into specific cases, and overall his conclusions were that the Arab civilians left as a consequence of the battles (including some attrocities committed by Israelis), but that there was not a deliberate policy of expulsion.

[FinnAgain]

I notice that even when provided with direct textual evidence that you have materially and egregiously misrepresented Morris' position, you neither admit error nor modify you position. Curious, that.

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

My claim was that according to Morris, the Palestinians were driven out

And as I've cited and quoted, Morris' own words put paid to your claims. This is repetitive.

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

Your unfortunate example shows that they indeed left for a multiplicity of reasons: being fired at, being bombed, being massacred, and avoiding a full-scale battle. Sounds voluntary to me!

Deliberate cherrypicking. Readers can check to see that is the example of one town, and readers can also realize that if a group of people flee from a war, that they are not actually being 'expelled' by anybody. This is repetitive as well, and you have yet to provide even the pretense of a cogent argument for how people leaving a war zone of their own free will are really being "expelled".

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

The book I cited clearly shows that the Palestinians were driven out, and the interview I cited clearly shows that Morris called it ethnic cleansing.

Fictional on both counts. You didn't cite the book, I did. You cited one blurb and one interview. I've cited and quotes Morris' own work which shows that the vast majority was not driven out, and I've already shown you that not only did Morris not call it "ethnic cleansing" (the interviewer did), he has actually disputed, in print, the claim that it was ethnic cleansing. If you are unable to remedy your errors even when directly contradicted by facts, your argument is, perforce, less than worthless. It is harmful.

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

all the innuendo about my nefarious use of Jewish or Palestinian sources (and I'm still not clear on which you think is worse)

I explained this to you as well. Hit Control-F and enter "Token Jew" as well as "you used an unreliable, inaccurate, partisan source ".

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

You earlier claimed that he never said there was an expulsion , and now you triumphantly claim vindication when in a later interview, he clearly says the Palestinians were driven out [...] he clearly says the Palestinians were driven out, but that the expulsion was, in his view, not technically complete until they were not allowed to return.

Fictional on multiple counts. And people can read the cites to see that you're wrong, so it's an odd tactic. Morris makes clear that he is not saying that they were driven out, but that they left to avoid a war zone. You are also wildly distorting what he means when he said that they were "expelled", which quite apart from "driven out" means "refused re-entry". As for it being "not technically complete until..." you just invented that. He states clearly that only once the refugees were denied reentry could we talk abut a policy of expulsion. Not that there was one but that it was completed by refusal of reentry. This is basic and yet again, your argument's foundation on fiction and error removes whatever positive gain you think it may provide.

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

"In general, the Arabs fled as a result of direct Jewish attack or an attack in the neighborhood. It was the same in the countryside and towns. So one can probably safely say that, though there were other reasons, the major precipitant to the flight of the Arabs of Palestine throughout the war was Jewish attack or what was felt to be the threat of imminent attack by Jewish forces."

Yes... I quoted and cited that. And no, that does not mean that they were driven out. As much as you try to weave the actual facts into your narrative, "left a war zone" does not mean "driven out". Yet again, exactly as I said and Morris' research confirms: the vast majority of Palestinians left due to war raging in/around their homes, which is perfectly understandable. There was no policy of expulsion, despite your claim. Morris says so explicitly.

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

You also seem incapable of grasping the difference between a formal policy and a deliberate policy.

There is no such difference and there was no such policy. Formal, informal, or double-secret-probation. Likewise, you are materially misrepresenting Ben Gurion's words. He stated that if there was fighting, that there would be demographic changes. That does not state that the policy is to expel residents or cause demographic changes, but that he realized that as a result of the policy of self-defense, there would be demographic changes. Again, this is very, very basic logic. If I tell you "If you keep eating ice cream, you'll get fat." obviously I am telling you what the consequence is, not announcing that your plan all along is to pork up rather than enjoying ice cream. The fallacy you're using, by the way, is called Affirming the Consequent.

You are, likewise, materially distorting Morris' actual argument. Saying that some of the proto-Israeli leadership decided that "with a little more deliberate nudging we can get even more to leave" is a policy of expulsion is an absurdity. A teacher who, for example, makes his tests very hard so as to get lazy students to drop his class is not, in fact, "expelling" his students from his class.

The facts show you are wrong. You can admit it and move on, if you'd like. Your fictional narrative does a grave disservice to the causes of peace and factual accuracy. That the proto-Israelis did indeed expel the residents of numerous villages in accordance with Plan D is fact. You have been shown that 10's of thousands left on the own accord before war even started, and yet you still haven't modified your claim that they, too, were "expelled".
Retract your errors, fix them, move on.
It's simple.

[FixMyIgnorance]

Can someone cut through the crap and just summarize things, here? Who's mostly to blame?

[FinnAgain]

The Dutch.

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by Malthus

TonySinclair, your problem (insofar as I understand the debate) is that you are attempting to make a moral point - that the Israelis were responsible for the Palestinians leaving, as a "a deliberate policy of expulsion".

No, I'm not so concerned about the morality, in the context of a brutal war. I actually think expulsion was not as bad as what the Jews could have done, given their military superiority. My original purpose was just to correct a misstatement.

Someone posted the history of the Mid-East conflict in a few lines, which seemed to think that the Balfour Declaration was justification for founding modern Israel, and I posted a brief rebuttal. After I posted it, I was rereading his post, and I decided to respond to another one of his points, namely: "In 1948 the United Nations created Israel and Palestine. Immediately the Arab nations attacked. The Palestinian Arabs were told to temporarily get out with promises of spoils of war once it was all over."

I had read Benny Morris's book some 20 years ago, so I edited my post to add that a Jewish historian had refuted the idea that the Palestinian exodus was largely voluntary. At first I could remember neither the title or author, but then "Morris" popped into my head, and I thought it would be good to give a link to the actual book. But by this time, my post was over four minutes old, so I knew I only had seconds, and grabbed the first link that came up in my google search for the book and added it to the post. If the mods can trace post edits, they can verify at least the posting sequence.

OK so far. People could read the book or not, as they chose. But after I posted, and too late to edit, I noticed that the link was to a tendentious website, and apologized for it, and also posted an excerpt of an interview with Morris, to show that he was actually very hard line with regard to Palestinians, but still had the intellectual integrity to acknowledge that they were driven out.

Finnagain took it upon himself to decide that inadvertent use of a Palestinian link showed that I was, in his words, "slimy," and that this was further confirmed by the fact that I mentioned Morris was Jewish, which in his mind was a very racist thing to do.

It escalated from there. I don't know what his problem is, and I don't care. I think I (and, inadvertently, he) have provided abundant evidence to show that, even if a policy of expulsion was not the cornerstone of the original master plan of Herzl in 1895, it had certainly become a strategy of Ben-Gurion's by early 1948.

People are, of course, entitled to disagree. They are not entitled to call me a slimy racist.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

No, my original purpose was just to correct a misstatement. Someone posted the history of the Mid-East conflict in a few lines, which seemed to think that the Balfour Declaration was justification for founding modern Israel, and I posted a brief rebuttal.

Including, ironically enough, a tacit claim that gentiles would somehow have their civil and religious rights violated by living in a Jewish state but not a word on whether or not Jews would have those same rights violated by living in a Muslim state.

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

a Jewish historian

"But I got a black man to talk about Africa. Why is the argument not stronger?"

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

Finnagain took it upon himself to decide that inadvertent use of a Palestinian link showed that I was, in his words, "slimy,"

Again, it does not support your case when you are getting basic facts wrong about what's happened in this thread, let alone what happened half a world away more than half a century ago. I pointed out that your tactic was (and still is) slimy. I did not call 'you' slimy. I also pointed out that your argument is awful. That does not mean I called you an awful person. Oh, and pointing out that you've gotten yet another material fact absurdly wrong, I did not call your argument slimy because you cited an awful website, I said "It's profoundly slimy to point to the religion of someone as if it adds weight to the argument. Especially so since you're obviously citing someone's Jewishness because, by some strange alchemy, that places more weight on that person's testimony."

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

and that this was further confirmed by the fact that I mentioned Morris was Jewish, which in his mind was a very racist thing to do.

Again, if your argument contains imagined persecution and fictional allegations of racism, your argument should not be taken seriously when it purports to analyze actual examples of racism and actual persecution. I have not called you a racist. I did point out that by arguing that a Jewish historian somehow was important (and using the label "Jewish" rather than "Israeli") you were evincing that you were conceiving of the issue in racial terms. Conceiving of an issue in racial terms does not make one a racist by necessity.

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

even if a policy of expulsion was not the cornerstone of the original master plan of Herzl in 1895, it had certainly become a strategy of Ben-Gurion's by early 1948.

And yet again:
Morris (on Morris' research): "What emerges from the wider reading that I did during the last few years before producing this new version of the book is that the loose talk, the occasional discussions about the subject, never amounted to anything concrete"
"There is the Arab charge that there was an overall Jewish policy of expulsion. This is what people like Sharif Kanaana continue to say, that there was an overall master plan for expulsion by the Zionists which was implemented in 1948. My feeling, based on the documentation, is that there was no blanket policy, no overall master plan for the expulsion of the Palestinians. This is not what was implemented in 1948."

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Malthus

The problem with your "church of Malthus" analogy is that the same person doing the conning wants to reap the "benefit" of legitimacy. That is not the case with Palestinians

That's absolutely the case with the "Palestinians." Why else would they want a "Palestinian State" on the West Bank but announce in advance that "Palestinians" living in "refugee camps" on the West Bank will not get citizenship?

What possible legitimate reason is there for such a decision?

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

One


Two.

Thank you for your response, which raises a couple questions for me:

First, are you saying that Rashid Khalidi is sufficiently authoritative that his conclusions should be accepted without scrutiny of the original sources?

Second, if there was a serious push for "Palestinian" self-determination in the 20s and 30s, do you agree that there would have been congresses, organizations, newspaper reports, and other indicia just like there were Zionist congresses, Zionist organizations, and coverage of these events?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

The Dutch.

It's always the Dutch.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by FixMyIgnorance

Can someone cut through the crap and just summarize things, here? Who's mostly to blame?

Waal, first, 'twas the Hatfields; and first, 'twas the McCoys; or perhaps it were the other way about.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by brazil84

First, are you saying that Rashid Khalidi is sufficiently authoritative that his conclusions should be accepted without scrutiny of the original sources?

No.

Originally Posted by brazil84

Second, if there was a serious push for "Palestinian" self-determination in the 20s and 30s, do you agree that there would have been congresses, organizations, newspaper reports, and other indicia just like there were Zionist congresses, Zionist organizations, and coverage of these events?

No. Infighting, especially by the Grand Mufti's cronies, made the affair into one long, drawn out Night of Long Knives. There were numerous clans/groups with their own ideas on how self determination should play out and unlike the Zionists, they never were a unified force. If I'm lazy I may be able to look up some citations a bit late.r

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

No.

In that case, I would say that you have not sustained your claim.

No. Infighting, especially by the Grand Mufti's cronies, made the affair into one long, drawn out Night of Long Knives. There were numerous clans/groups with their own ideas on how self determination should play out and unlike the Zionists, they never were a unified force.

If there weren't congresses, rallies, organizations, etc., then it's extremely hard to believe that there was a serious push for Palestinian self-determination at that time.

Let me ask you a slightly different question: In the 1920s and 1930s, what was the most prominent group or organization which pushed for "Palestinian" self-determination?

[FinnAgain]

Yeah, I don't think I'm going to play this game. I'd forgotten how unsavory your series of fetch-quests-because-you'd-rather-not-track-down-the-info-yourself are.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Yeah, I don't think I'm going to play this game.

I didn't think you would -- as far as I can tell there isn't evidence to sustain your claim.

I'd forgotten how unsavory your series of fetch-quests-because-you'd-rather-not-track-down-the-info-yourself are.

:shrug: It's not my responsibility to go looking for evidence to support your claims.

You are claiming that there was a serious push for "Palestinian" self-determination before it became convenient to do so in order to undermine Israel. However, you have not pointed to a single newspaper article from the 1920s or 30s to support your claim. You have not been able to identify a single organization the purpose of which was to push for "Palestinian" self-determination. You have not pointed to a single congress. Heck, you have not even pointed to a rally or demonstration.

In short, you seem to have substituted your own wishes for reality.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by brazil84

as far as I can tell there isn't evidence to sustain your claim.

Not that you've looked. Or intend to. Or plan on following up on all the facts I've already presented to you. Of course.
I have little enough patience for partisan hacks on the anti-Israel side. I'm certainly not going to waste my time with someone whose argument is wilfully ignorant and who routinely puts the word Palestinian in scare quotes. Being anti-Palestinian doesn't make your tactics any more palatable.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Not that you've looked.

Of course I have. But there is a limit on what I can do to prove a negative.

Anyway, if your claim is even remotely true it should not be too hard for you to point to an organization. Or at least a demonstration or rally or two.

Or plan on following up on all the facts I've already presented to you.

What facts have you presented besides your own unsupported assertions and those of some author whom you yourself won't even vouch for?

I'm certainly not going to waste my time with someone whose argument is wilfully ignorant and who routinely puts the word Palestinian in scare quotes.

Lol, if anyone's argument is "wilfully ignorant" it's yours. You haven't offered a shred of evidence to support your claims -- unless one counts conclusory assertions. If you offered some actual evidence I would consider it.

Being anti-Palestinian

I'm not sure what you mean by "anti-Palestinian." Is it "anti-Palestinian" to point out that the group known as "Palestinians" are a recent invention for purposes of undermining Israel? If so, then I guess I am "anti-Palestinian."

Again my question:

In the 1920s and 1930s, what was the most prominent group or organization which pushed for "Palestinian" self-determination?

And if you refuse to answer, does that make my argument "wilfully ignorant"?

[FixMyIgnorance]

Is the land Palestine's or Israel's? Both?

My understanding is that the Jewish influx was fairly recent, thus pissing off the previous inhabitants who feel like the US is siding with those who would drive them out of their lands.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by FixMyIgnorance

Is the land Palestine's or Israel's? Both?

What "the land"?
As there was never a sovereign state of Palestine, and it was subsumed in an administrative district during the Ottoman Empire, there was no state to claim the land as its possession. During the Ottoman Empire, private land ownership was the exception, not the norm. Most people who lived in the Levant were renters who gained use of the land only by continued cultivation of the land. Is that, then, "Palestinian land"? Why or why not? Groups like Hamas claim all land ever conquered by Islamic forces as a Waqf, is that "Arab land"? Why or why not? As the majority of land in the Levant was state-owned land, and Israel is now the sovereign state with jurisdiction over the land within its borders, does that make it "Israeli land"? Why or why not?

[newcomer]

Originally Posted by brazil84

Is it "anti-Palestinian" to point out that the group known as "Palestinians" are a recent invention for purposes of undermining Israel? If so, then I guess I am "anti-Palestinian."

I think this kind of mindset is exactly what enables and makes hatred flourish.

Aside from the fact that whole “Palestinians are invented” meme is part and parcel of effort to dehumanize Palestinians and make their deaths and suffering less human, therefore less significant, you really don’t care who they really are. I mean, it could have been anyone.

You feel that there is a well-defined and well-funded movement where propaganda, media and political process intertwine with overtones of racism, ethnic discrimination and name calling which you can belong to instantly as soon as you start to use and promulgate its major “talking points”. You really don’t think what the impact of those talking points is – you just keep repeating and inventing new ways to “argue” them.

The guy is telling you to tone it down for the sake of validity of some of his points but you refuse. With indignation, I might add.

Otherwise, it’s fantastic to read this exchange.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by newcomer

I think this kind of mindset is exactly what enables and makes hatred flourish.

No, it's the Arab determination to destroy Jewish Israel which is responsible.

Aside from the fact that whole “Palestinians are invented” meme is part and parcel of effort to dehumanize Palestinians and make their deaths and suffering less human,

What is your support for this claim?

And why do you think it is that the "Palestinian" leadership has announced that a "Palestinian" state would not offer citizenship to "Palestinians" living in "refugee camps" on the West Bank?

And if you really care about the suffering of the "Palestinians," why aren't you criticizing Lebanon for its intense discrimination against "Palestinians"?

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by FixMyIgnorance

Is the land Palestine's or Israel's? Both?

You need to explain what you mean by "Palestine," "the land", and also what you mean by your apostrophe s.

In my opinion, the areas commonly referred to as "Israel," the "West Bank", "Gaza", "Golan Heights," and "Jordan" have been occupied and resided in by so many different groups over the years that it's not reasonable to say that the area is "Group X's"

My understanding is that the Jewish influx was fairly recent

Jews have been residing in the area for thousands of years. There was a big influx of Jews throughout the 20th century. No doubt it upset many of the Arabs living there at the time, just like the influx of Hispanics in the US over the last 30 years has upset a lot of non-Hispanics.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by FixMyIgnorance

Is the land Palestine's or Israel's? Both?

My understanding is that the Jewish influx was fairly recent, thus pissing off the previous inhabitants who feel like the US is siding with those who would drive them out of their lands.

If by "fairly recent" you mean "within the last century".

The land was originally the Turk's, until WW1 and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, which was then taken under control by a British "mandate".

Hence my comments above about the uselessness of this whole line of inquiry. It inevitably ends up with learned (but heated) disussions of land-use legalities under multiple systems of law, in some cases of jurisdictions which no longer exist - such as the Ottoman - British mandatory policies, the renuciation of rights by the Jordanians over significant portions of it, etc. ad nauseum.

It's a complex subject with many nuances, and in a sense it doesn't really matter - what matters is that the Israelis currently occupy the land, most of them by now were born there, and have no-where to go; while on the other side the Palestinains feel they have a legitimate claim to the same land. On the one hand the "settlers" are trying to expand the reach of Israeli ownership by nook-and-corner encroachment, and the Israeli state by occupying strategic bits should a new war occur; on the other, the Palestinians are hoping for some reversal of fortune that enables them to chuck the Israelis out (but fortune has, if anything, made their situation ever more hopeless as time goes on).

The moral calculus is complicated by the fact that about half the Israeli population is composed of Jews from the Middle East - they were forced out of their countries by local hostility, largely as a result of Israeli success - and these folks (or their desendants) really have no hope of moving back.