More History Before 1967

[toastman]

those Arab villages you speak of are now part of Israel

It's not the Zionists fault that the Arabs stink at warfare

 

[Hyrcanus]

those Arab villages you speak of are now part of Israel

It's not the Zionists fault that the Arabs stink at warfare

no, the villages are gone.

wiped off the map.

 

[toastman]

The inhabitants of those villages can thank their Arab neighbors for perpetrating the violence

 

[Hyrcanus]

The inhabitants of those villages can thank their Arab neighbors for perpetrating the violence

Nobody forced the Jews to use the war as an excuse to ethnically cleanse Israel.

That was their racist decision.

 

[toastman]

Nobody forced the Arab states to attempt to invade Israel with the goal of extermination.

 

[Hyrcanus]

Nobody forced the Arab states to attempt to invade Israel with the goal of extermination.

The Arabs had a right to defend their people against an unfair partition of Palestine.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

The inhabitants of those villages can thank their Arab neighbors for perpetrating the violence

Nobody forced the Jews to use the war as an excuse to ethnically cleanse Israel.

That was their racist decision.

You do realize that there are Arabs living in Israel to this day, don't you?

 

[Hyrcanus]

Nobody forced the Arab states to attempt to invade Israel with the goal of extermination.

Nobody forced Israel to kick out 80% of their Arab population.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Nobody forced the Arab states to attempt to invade Israel with the goal of extermination.

The Arabs had a right to defend their people against an unfair partition of Palestine.

They did?

I thought you and your fellow pro-"Palestinians" were fans of international law and the upholding of the decisions of the UN.

The UN decided to partition the land. The Arabs rejected this decision and chose LAWLESSNESS.

But her's the problem with lawlessness - the outcome is uncertain. In this case, they didn't much like the outcome. Too bad.

You probably think that football teams, facing a 4th and 1 at the opposing team's 25 yard line should have the option to go for it and, if the defense stops them, change their mind and kick the field goal.

The world doesn't work that way.

 

[toastman]

The inhabitants of those villages can thank their Arab neighbors for perpetrating the violence

Nobody forced the Jews to use the war as an excuse to ethnically cleanse Israel.

That was their racist decision.

You do realize that there are Arabs living in Israel to this day, don't you?

I wonder if now is a good time to tell him that Arabs serve in the IDF, hold seats in the government and own businesses. The way he speaks is as if Israel is Arab free

 

[Hyrcanus]

I wonder if now is a good time to tell him that Arabs serve in the IDF, hold seats in the government and own businesses. The way he speaks is as if Israel is Arab free

big deal.

Jews also serve in the Iranian Parliament.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

I wonder if now is a good time to tell him that Arabs serve in the IDF, hold seats in the government and own businesses. The way he speaks is as if Israel is Arab free

big deal.

Jews also serve in the Iranian Parliament.

Not that its relevant, but since you brought it up, the Jewish population has dropped from over 100,000 in 1948, to approximately 80,000 before the Revolution, to less than 10,000 today.

 

[georgephillip]

All I take from this thread is that some people don't like history, so they've chosen to rewrite it to disparage Israel at every turn.

I feel about as much urge to disprove these claims as I do to prove that the Twilight series is fiction.

Disprove this, Twilight, in 1948 Mandate Palestine 650,000 Jews inflicted their nation-state on 1.2 million Arabs by force of arms while appropriating the homes, businesses, and bank accounts of over 700,000 indigenous Palestinians.

No problem:

1. The source of the above claim is you.
2. You have no credibility.

That was easy.

I'll make it easier.

True or False:

In 1948 650,000 Jews and 1.2 million Arabs and others lived between the River and the sea?

 

[RoccoR]

Auteur, et al,

I would by this, if I had heard, even once, of the Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) or the Arab League (AL) coalition raising their voice and calling for peace. What they call for is the surrender of Israel. Experience has shown us that when the HoAP and AL coalition ask for the impossible or unrealistic, they really are just making a show for the audience; with no real intention for peace.

Lack of sovereignty at a particular point in time is not evidence of no desire to have such. In 1948, this was a fact in large parts of the world, including most of Africa, large parts of Asia, the various Soviet "republics", and elsewhere. The essential point was that a community existed in Palestine, had for generations, and the inhabitants considered it home. The fact that they were out-gunned by the Ottomans, and later the British, and later still the Jews, does not mean they don't count.

(COMMENT)

Ah, but they did count. And again, their rights (civil and religious) were being protected. But they turned to bite the hand.

Just because you want a thing, doesn't mean you can have a thing. I want a Million Dollars. I've work all my life for it. But it doesn't mean I'm going to get it. Sometimes life isn't fair.

Under this logic, Americans should have never been awarded independence, because they were not a sovereign entity, merely British people acting out a political frustration.

(COMMENT)

We were not "awarded" independence like some carnival prize. Our founders exercised their right of self-determination and took independence.

The US sent a Declaration of Independence, and then fought a war of independence. There was even a second confrontation (War of 1812) when our Capitol was burned by the British.

The Balfour Declaration was simply a rather desperate attempt of the British, then at a crisis point in WW1, to enlist the support of anyone and everyone that might be of the slightest value to them. They made similar promises to the Arabs.

(COMMENT)

The Bedouin and King Hussein fought on the side of the Allied Powers, but not the Arab/Palestinian.

for who were being defensive, and who were being children, the truth is a little more mixed. Violence reached a high point in 1948, as Jewish settlers realized they were going to need more land to make a viable state. The UN plan would have made for almost indefensible borders, and so in the turmoil, an opportuntiy presented itself: chuck out as many Arabs as possible, and have some "facts on the ground" at independence. And they did, a fact no longer in dispute by even leading Israeli academics.

(COMMENT)

The conflict between the HoAP/AL might be thought of as having commenced with Izz ad-Din al-Qassam in the 1920's, and the Arab Black Hand. The name may sound familiar to you as today's Hamas Brigade of the same name (al-Qassam) and the rockets being fired into Israel also take the same name.

The HoAP/AL didn't wait for any definitive action on the part of the Jewish Immigrant. They immediately started with the option of war.

The Arab intervention was a reaction to the violence and murder going on, as much as it was to the idea of the establishment of the Jewish state. There is no surprise here; it would have been the same in any part of the world. The US and Nato did essentially the same thing in the Balkans a few years back. Neither side there were saints, but the human toll was just too much. What the Arab states wanted was order, and end to the conflict, and a fair settlement between Palestinian and Jew. Not that childish when you think about it.

(COMMENT)

Actually it is. It is an intentional alteration of history.

"On the 1st September, 1922, the Palestine Order in Council was issued, setting up a Government in Palestine under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act. Part 3 of the Order in Council directed the establishment of a Legislative Council to be composed of the High Commissioner as President, with 10 other official members, and 12 elected non-official members. The procedure for the selection of the non-official members was laid down in the Legislative Council Order in Council, 1922, and in February and March, 1923, an attempt was made to hold elections in accordance with that procedure.

"The attempt failed owing to the refusal of the Arab population as a whole to co-operate (a detailed report of these elections is contained in the papers relating to the elections for the Palestine Legislative Council, 1923, published as Command Paper 1889).

"The High Commissioner thereupon suspended the establishment of the proposed Legislative Council, and continued to act in consultation with an Advisory Council as before.

"Two further opportunities were given to representative Arab leaders in Palestine to co-operate with the Administration in the government of the country, first, by the reconstitution of a nominated Advisory Council, but with membership conforming to that proposed for the Legislative Council, and, secondly, by a proposal for the formation of an Arab Agency. It was intended that this Agency should have functions analogous to those entrusted to the Jewish Agency by Article 4 of the Palestine Mandate.

"Neither of these opportunities was accepted and, accordingly, in December, 1923, an Advisory Council was set up consisting only of official members. This position still continues; the only change being that the Advisory Council has been enlarged by the addition of more official members as the Administration developed.

- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations (31 December 1930)

It is important to note the mention of Arab Palestinian cooperation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

All I take from this thread is that some people don't like history, so they've chosen to rewrite it to disparage Israel at every turn.

I feel about as much urge to disprove these claims as I do to prove that the Twilight series is fiction.

Disprove this, Twilight, in 1948 Mandate Palestine 650,000 Jews inflicted their nation-state on 1.2 million Arabs by force of arms while appropriating the homes, businesses, and bank accounts of over 700,000 indigenous Palestinians.

Liar, I already disproved that several times. Stop living in the past Georgie boy.
It is 2013 and Israel is here , weather you like it or not.
The question is, when will you stop bitching about this ?

Do you agree with these numbers?

"Zionist settlement between 1880 and 1948 did not displace or dispossess Palestinians. Every indication is that there was net Arab immigration into Palestine in this period, and that the economic situation of Palestinian Arabs improved tremendously under the British Mandate relative to surrounding countries.

"By 1948, there were approximately 1.35 million Arabs and 650,000 Jews living between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, more Arabs than had ever lived in Palestine before, and more Jews than had lived there since Roman times.

MidEast Web - Population of Palestine

 

[toastman]

We've had this argument plenty of times George. Why you keep bringing it up is beyond me

 

[HistoryBefore67]

True or False:

In 1948 650,000 Jews and 1.2 million Arabs and others lived between the River and the sea?

Your implicit contention that this is the determinant factor is FALSE.

 

[georgephillip]

True or False:

In 1948 650,000 Jews and 1.2 million Arabs and others lived between the River and the sea?

Your implicit contention that this is the determinant factor is FALSE.

I never implied the ratio of Jew to Arab in 1948 Palestine was the determinant factor; that was your interpretation. Demographics is one contributing factor of a fundamental principle of international law stating nations are free to choose their sovereignty and political status without external compulsion or imperialistic interference, and that peremptory norm obviously didn't hold in Palestine since 650,000 Jews with the interference of the UN imposed their nation-state by force of arms on twice as many non-Jews.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Remember, had the not been an Arab Uprising,...

Why was there an Arab uprising.

BTW, which Arabs are you talking about?

 

[Auteur]

Auteur, et al,

I would by this, if I had heard, even once, of the Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) or the Arab League (AL) coalition raising their voice and calling for peace. What they call for is the surrender of Israel. Experience has shown us that when the HoAP and AL coalition ask for the impossible or unrealistic, they really are just making a show for the audience; with no real intention for peace.

The PA and the Arab League have both called for peace, and have adopted the peace plan proposed by Saudi Arabia a few years ago, one that reflects mainstream world opinion, and is very even handed to both sides. I have quoted both here in this section of the forum. There is nothing impossible or unrealistic here, although it is often portrayed as such in US media, which these days is unembarrassed on the question of bias.

Lack of sovereignty at a particular point in time is not evidence of no desire to have such. In 1948, this was a fact in large parts of the world, including most of Africa, large parts of Asia, the various Soviet "republics", and elsewhere. The essential point was that a community existed in Palestine, had for generations, and the inhabitants considered it home. The fact that they were out-gunned by the Ottomans, and later the British, and later still the Jews, does not mean they don't count.

(COMMENT)

Ah, but they did count. And again, their rights (civil and religious) were being protected. But they turned to bite the hand.

Just because you want a thing, doesn't mean you can have a thing. I want a Million Dollars. I've work all my life for it. But it doesn't mean I'm going to get it. Sometimes life isn't fair.

Their rights are not being protected. Palestinians in the occupied territories are a subject people, and even those in Israel proper face some discrimination.

It's true that we can't always have what we want, but your implicit suggestion here is that might makes right, and those with the most guns are the most right. This is a regressive way to look at the world, one that can only perpetuated conflict and hate. And this is exactly what we are seeing in the Middle East. Israel won- but there is no peace.

Under this logic, Americans should have never been awarded independence, because they were not a sovereign entity, merely British people acting out a political frustration.

(COMMENT)

We were not "awarded" independence like some carnival prize. Our founders exercised their right of self-determination and took independence.

The US sent a Declaration of Independence, and then fought a war of independence. There was even a second confrontation (War of 1812) when our Capitol was burned by the British.

OK. So those formerly thought of as British can now rebel against the established authority, and create a new paradigm, one in which they are no longer British, but Americans.

And Palestinians cannot follow this same chain of logic because....?

(COMMENT)

The Bedouin and King Hussein fought on the side of the Allied Powers, but not the Arab/Palestinian.


(COMMENT)

The conflict between the HoAP/AL might be thought of as having commenced with Izz ad-Din al-Qassam in the 1920's, and the Arab Black Hand. The name may sound familiar to you as today's Hamas Brigade of the same name (al-Qassam) and the rockets being fired into Israel also take the same name.

The HoAP/AL didn't wait for any definitive action on the part of the Jewish Immigrant. They immediately started with the option of war.

Your suggestion here is that intolerant Arabs simply decided they were going to kill Jews; they were extremists with no compromise.

I invite you to step back a moment, and consider the same situation occurring in your own state. Refugees pour into Ohio from Central America and Columbia. Things are pretty rough there, and they are looking for a safe haven. At first you would probably welcome them. When the numbers increased substantially, questions might be asked. When claims to the land, based on dubious historical claims, such as Spanish control of the Midwest a couple of centuries ago, things would probably go beyond questions. If numbers increased yet more, there would be friction, even violence. Ohio is your home, and although you'd like to help out others, there are limits.

So too with Palestine. It is pointless to ask who was the first to raise a fist, our start carrying a gun (which happened before the '20s). This sort of thing is virtually a given anywhere where an already populated country is chosen as a target for an outside group, and unwanted and large scale immigration takes place, despite the wishes of the long standing inhabitants. Violence tends to go in cycles, starting off small, and increasing in the absence of intervention.

One can say that Arabs did in fact "wait", as Jews lived in Palestine, and other Arab areas, in peace, and had for some time. It was only the aggressive transfer of population into Palestine that led to friction, and eventually war.

The Arab intervention was a reaction to the violence and murder going on, as much as it was to the idea of the establishment of the Jewish state. There is no surprise here; it would have been the same in any part of the world. The US and Nato did essentially the same thing in the Balkans a few years back. Neither side there were saints, but the human toll was just too much. What the Arab states wanted was order, and end to the conflict, and a fair settlement between Palestinian and Jew. Not that childish when you think about it.

(COMMENT)

Actually it is. It is an intentional alteration of history.


R

I suppose it is, to the extent that it is an alteration of what most in the US see, due to intense lobbying and malleable politicians, but that doesn't mean it isn't accurate.