The Expulsion of the Palestinians in 1948

[DonMartin88]

@FinnAgain

DonMartin88: Have you seen post 60 or did you skip it?
Are you going to retract your patently spurious claims, or is this simply a thread of anti-Israel rhetoric divorced from fact?

And, ethnic cleansing??? That is wayyyy over the line, it’s simply not true, and I challenge you to find a cite that supports you.

according the israeli historican to Benny Morris (interview)

By Ari Shavit Haaretz, Magazine Section, 9 January 2004

"The revised book is a double-edged sword. It is based on many documents that were not available to me when I wrote the original book, most of them from the Israel Defense Forces Archives. What the new material shows is that there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought. To my surprise, there were also many cases of rape. In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was the precursor of the IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves.
Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?

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

Ben-Gurion was a “transferist”?

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

So when the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify them?

“I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don’t think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn’t have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being.”

You do not condemn them morally?

“No.”

They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

“There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide - the annihilation of your people - I prefer ethnic cleansing.”

And that was the situation in 1948?

“That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. 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. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.”

the whole interview is here
http://home.comcast.net/~jat.action/BennyMorris.htm

Morris bok is described as a double-edged sword

Israel did perpetrated ethnic cleansing and it’s no doubt about it

[FinnAgain]

DonMartin88 I for one would like to see you start adressing specific points and not just responding with huge blocks of quoted text.

I’m was also curious about Benny Morris so I did some digging. some info here

Evidently the gentleman has a habit of taking insane positions and using revisionist history in order to justify them. But far be it from me to poison the well, I’ll address the individual claims. (and I’d appreciate it you’d finally do the same!)

What the new material shows is that there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought. To my surprise, there were also many cases of rape. In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was the precursor of the IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves.

Proof for this? Where are these records? What are the names of the men involved? Who issued these orders? Where were these massacres?

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

Oh, I see, no explicit order, but there’s an ‘atmosphere’.
From an historian, that kind of logic is known as bullshit
And, the entire leadership ‘understands’ the idea? Morris is now a mind reader? Provide proof for any of these claims.

Q: Ben-Gurion was a “transferist”?

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

Wow… if Benny Morris says it, I will believe it without any critical thought what-so-ever, yessir. :smack:
Again, he can prove that Ben Gurion ‘understood’ it, without providing any proof?

And, I will note, Ben Gurion supported this policy? Or is all he can do is to suggest that he ‘understood’ it, without providing any proof?

And, I will note, in your own cite “with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst.”
Wouldn’t that imply that, oh, there was a large and hostile population, that had/was going to declare war on you? Wouldn’t that have made it a situation of military necessity?
You will notice that even your cite can’t go as far as to claim that the native Arab population wasn’t hostile.

Q:So when the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify them?

A: “I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don’t think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn’t have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being.”

So, due to Arab agression the roads were cut off in '48, and the Jews of the time fought to survive, in the process capturing a handfull of towns and expelling some residents.
Your own cite says they wouldn’t have won the war if they didn’t do that.
Explain why they should have left hostile and/or enemy forces in their midst?

Moreoever, you are using the term Ethnic Cleansing for shock value, when all you can say is “expelled”, and even then, they didn’t expell all the Palestinians, your own cite only mentions 70,000, and there were a hell of a lot more Arabs in “palestine” than 70,000.

So even though you are manhandling the definition to make relocation sound like genocide, they still didn’t do it. There was no systematic expulsion in greater Palestine, all Morris can point to is Operation Dani in which, during wartime, many possibly, potentially, and dangerously hostile citizens of the enemy were expelled.

And, I’m just curious, do you blame Arab countries for ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Jews?
Do you mark a difference between systematically murdering a population and systematically moving an enemy population to somewhere else?

Again, is this just anti Israel rhetoric?

[DonMartin88]

@FinnAgain

DonMartin88 I for one would like to see you start adressing specific points and not just responding with huge blocks of quoted text.

I’m was also curious about Benny Morris so I did some digging. some info here

Evidently the gentleman has a habit of taking insane positions and using revisionist history in order to justify them. But far be it from me to poison the well, I’ll address the individual claims. (and I’d appreciate it you’d finally do the same!)

?

so you attack my source when I challeng you. this is just apathetic attempt to dig up dirt about my sources when it speaks against your opinion

[Telemark]

@DonMartin88

so you attack my source when I challeng you. this is just apathetic attempt to dig up dirt about my sources when it speaks against your opinion

If your response has no verifiable facts or details, the source becomes the only thing to discuss. Post facts and we can discuss those.

[Alessan]

@E-Sabbath

So this Persky guy’s hebrew name was Mordechai? Seriously? Did he wear a fur coat? (At least I seem to recall the story involving him wearing a fur coat.) Truthfully, we always assumed Mordechai was a completely false name.
It’d be a heck of a thing if we could find out the Israel side of the story. I always thought that Mordechai was part of the reason my father married a nice jewish girl.

Sorry - missed this before.

Simon Persky, of course, changed his name to Shimon Peres, and went on to have a very, very long career in Israeli politics, including 2 partial terms as prime minister. Now, chances are that he wasn’t your “Mordechai” - after all, there had to be dozens of similar operatives running around the globe at the time. But wouldn’t it be funny if he was?

[margin]

@DonMartin88

so you attack my source when I challeng you. this is just apathetic attempt to dig up dirt about my sources when it speaks against your opinion

Uh, dude? Pick a source who doesn’t have dirt to dig up. Your guy is biased and he doesn’t have reliable information either. Where’s he getting it from? David Irving?

Some people don’t form their opinions first and then look only for sources that support their opinion. Some people read everything, by all sides, and then make up their minds.