More History Before 1967

[P F Tinmore]

The Arab wanted what they could not have. If one looks at the Map, you'll see the Arab ...

Which Arabs?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Oddly enough, the Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) and Arab League (AL) coalition turned-out to be the "external interference" that opened the 1948 War,...

The Palestinians were being attacked. The neighboring countries came to their assistance. Why do you call that hostile?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Whether we talk about the Balfour Declaration (1917), The Agreement with HRH the Arab King of Hejaz (1919), The San Remo Agreement (1920), The Treaty of Sevres (1920), The Mandate for Palestine (1922), The Covenant of the League of Nations (1924), or the General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) on the Future government of Palestine (1947), there is no country of Palestine. The State of Palestine is not recognized until 2012 (and then only tentatively). On the other hand, each of the preceding documents show a very clear intention; to encourage immigration of the Jewish people and to establish a Jewish National Home.

The people we called today Palestinian, were subjects of the Ottoman Empire and not of the own sovereignty. Under the Treaty of Sevres, that sovereignty was relinquished to the Allied Powers; which placed it in Trust under the Mandate for the purposes agreed upon in the Balfour Declaration (1917), The Agreement with HRH the Arab King of Hejaz (1919), and The San Remo Agreement (1920).

The purpose of the land changed under new management.

The 1948-1949 War was based on the false premise that the Palestinian has some sovereign right over the control of the territory. [This should not to be confused with property rights (of the Arab) which were protected.] The Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) and Arab League (AL) coalition lost their bid for control of the newly declared State of Israel after they openly attacked in concert.

Like you, the HoAP and AL believed that they had some superior right over and above the conditions set by the International Community and the Allied Powers in the Balfour Declaration (1917), The Agreement with HRH the Arab King of Hejaz (1919), The San Remo Agreement (1920), The Treaty of Sevres (1920), The Mandate for Palestine (1922), The Covenant of the League of Nations (1924), or the General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) on the Future government of Palestine (1947). The HoAP and AL chose to invade.

Yes, the Israelis were on the defense and the HoAP/AL were the offensive aggressors challenging the decisions made under Treaty and Law.

It is plain and simple. The HoAP/AL, not getting what they wanted, like little children, went to war. And, decades later, after several schoolyard fights, unable to achieve their desired goals thought armed conflict, only now want to invoke some international law.

Go back to the original intent.


Most Respectfully,
R

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. 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.

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.

As 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.

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.

The bold sentence is false. Remember, it was the Arab countries that invaded Israel with the threat of annihilation (a highly documented fact). What the Jews realized was that they needed to gain more territory to defend themselves. This is referred to as military advancement

Remember, it was the Arab countries that invaded Israel ...

What Arab country (ies) crossed the border into Israel?

 

[P F Tinmore]

those Arab villages you speak of are now part of Israel

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

Indeed, Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians. Piece of cake.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Another lie. 300,000 Palestinians were cleansed from their land before any Arab army entered Palestine.

 

[toastman]

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

Another lie. 300,000 Palestinians were cleansed from their land before any Arab army entered Palestine.

Actually, this is a lie. Nice try making up your own numbers.

 

[toastman]

Oddly enough, the Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) and Arab League (AL) coalition turned-out to be the "external interference" that opened the 1948 War,...

The Palestinians were being attacked. The neighboring countries came to their assistance. Why do you call that hostile?

More Arab propaganda lies. The Arabs including the Palestinian Arabs were by far the aggressors. 5 Countries ganging up on tiny Israel with a tiny population but somehow you make Israel to be the aggressors.

 

[Auteur]

Whether we talk about the Balfour Declaration (1917), The Agreement with HRH the Arab King of Hejaz (1919), The San Remo Agreement (1920), The Treaty of Sevres (1920), The Mandate for Palestine (1922), The Covenant of the League of Nations (1924), or the General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) on the Future government of Palestine (1947), there is no country of Palestine. The State of Palestine is not recognized until 2012 (and then only tentatively). On the other hand, each of the preceding documents show a very clear intention; to encourage immigration of the Jewish people and to establish a Jewish National Home.

The people we called today Palestinian, were subjects of the Ottoman Empire and not of the own sovereignty. Under the Treaty of Sevres, that sovereignty was relinquished to the Allied Powers; which placed it in Trust under the Mandate for the purposes agreed upon in the Balfour Declaration (1917), The Agreement with HRH the Arab King of Hejaz (1919), and The San Remo Agreement (1920).

The purpose of the land changed under new management.

The 1948-1949 War was based on the false premise that the Palestinian has some sovereign right over the control of the territory. [This should not to be confused with property rights (of the Arab) which were protected.] The Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) and Arab League (AL) coalition lost their bid for control of the newly declared State of Israel after they openly attacked in concert.

Like you, the HoAP and AL believed that they had some superior right over and above the conditions set by the International Community and the Allied Powers in the Balfour Declaration (1917), The Agreement with HRH the Arab King of Hejaz (1919), The San Remo Agreement (1920), The Treaty of Sevres (1920), The Mandate for Palestine (1922), The Covenant of the League of Nations (1924), or the General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) on the Future government of Palestine (1947). The HoAP and AL chose to invade.

Yes, the Israelis were on the defense and the HoAP/AL were the offensive aggressors challenging the decisions made under Treaty and Law.

It is plain and simple. The HoAP/AL, not getting what they wanted, like little children, went to war. And, decades later, after several schoolyard fights, unable to achieve their desired goals thought armed conflict, only now want to invoke some international law.

Go back to the original intent.


Most Respectfully,
R

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. 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.

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.

As 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.

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.

The bold sentence is false. Remember, it was the Arab countries that invaded Israel with the threat of annihilation (a highly documented fact). What the Jews realized was that they needed to gain more territory to defend themselves. This is referred to as military advancement

The need to remove a large proportion of the Palestinian population was a problem long considered, for which an inevitable result was concluded. This has been documented by Israeli as well as Arab historians.

After 40 years or so of increasing violence, culminating in the ethnic cleansing of '48, it's safe to say everyone was at risk. The reason behind this though is the targeting of Palestine as a future Jewish state, despite the wishes of those in the region, and not some innate blood lust on the part of Arabs.

David Ben-Gurion is quoted below:


"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176)

According to Sefer Toldot Ha-Haganah, the official history of the Haganah, it clearly stated how Palestinian villages and population should be dealt with. It stated:

"[Palestinian Arab] villages inside the Jewish state that resist 'should be destroyed .... and their inhabitants expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state.' Meanwhile, 'Palestinian residents of the urban quarters which dominate access to or egress from towns should be expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state in the event of their resistance.' " (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 178)

 

[Hyrcanus]

David Ben-Gurion is quoted below:


"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176)

According to Sefer Toldot Ha-Haganah, the official history of the Haganah, it clearly stated how Palestinian villages and population should be dealt with. It stated:

"[Palestinian Arab] villages inside the Jewish state that resist 'should be destroyed .... and their inhabitants expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state.' Meanwhile, 'Palestinian residents of the urban quarters which dominate access to or egress from towns should be expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state in the event of their resistance.' " (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 178)

ethnic cleansing.

 

[toastman]

those Arab villages you speak of are now part of Israel

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

Indeed, Israel's military attacking Palestinian civilians. Piece of cake.

Of course, the Palestinians were just angels !

Haifa Oil Refinery massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kfar Etzion massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hadassah medical convoy massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1929 Hebron massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[toastman]

David Ben-Gurion is quoted below:


"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176)

According to Sefer Toldot Ha-Haganah, the official history of the Haganah, it clearly stated how Palestinian villages and population should be dealt with. It stated:

"[Palestinian Arab] villages inside the Jewish state that resist 'should be destroyed .... and their inhabitants expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state.' Meanwhile, 'Palestinian residents of the urban quarters which dominate access to or egress from towns should be expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state in the event of their resistance.' " (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 178)

“If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea… Even if we are beaten now in Palestine, we will never submit. We will never accept the Jewish state... But for politics, the Egyptian army alone, or volunteers of the Muslim Brotherhood, could have destroyed the Jews.”


“I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre or the Crusader wars.”


“In demanding the return of the Palestinian refugees the Arabs mean their return as masters, not slaves, or to put it more clearly – the intention is the extermination of Israel.”

Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict

 

[Hyrcanus]

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

All lies.

The Palestinian population grown rate between 1918 and 1948 was exactly thr same as it was for Israeli Arabs between 1949 and 2013.

Close to 3%.

 

[georgephillip]

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

Why was there an Arab uprising.

BTW, which Arabs are you talking about?

Chomsky expresses similar thoughts in this recent interview:

"MZ: Do you think the Middle East is going through a rewrite of Sykes-Picot agreement?

"NC: I think the Sykes-Picot agreement is falling apart which is an interesting phenomenon. That is a century. But, the Sykes-Picot agreement was just an imperial imposition that has no legitimacy; there is no reason for any of these borders – except the interests of the imperial powers...

"I think as far as Sykes-Picot is concerned, it is beginning to erode. Whatever happens in Syria – it’s hard to imagine – but if anything survives, parts of Syria will be separated. The Kurdish areas are almost autonomous now and they are beginning to link up with the almost-autonomous parts of Northern Iraq Kurdish areas, and may spill over to some extent to southeastern Turkey. What will happen in the rest of the country is hard to say.

MZ: Do you think the new borders will be made by the local population? Or new imperialisms?

NC: I wish that were true, but that is not how the world works. Maybe someday, but not yet, not today."

Noam Chomsky Interview: Sykes-Picot Is Failing | Al Akhbar English

 

[toastman]

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. 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.

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.

As 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.

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.

The bold sentence is false. Remember, it was the Arab countries that invaded Israel with the threat of annihilation (a highly documented fact). What the Jews realized was that they needed to gain more territory to defend themselves. This is referred to as military advancement

The need to remove a large proportion of the Palestinian population was a problem long considered, for which an inevitable result was concluded. This has been documented by Israeli as well as Arab historians.

After 40 years or so of increasing violence, culminating in the ethnic cleansing of '48, it's safe to say everyone was at risk. The reason behind this though is the targeting of Palestine as a future Jewish state, despite the wishes of those in the region, and not some innate blood lust on the part of Arabs.

David Ben-Gurion is quoted below:


"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176)

According to Sefer Toldot Ha-Haganah, the official history of the Haganah, it clearly stated how Palestinian villages and population should be dealt with. It stated:

"[Palestinian Arab] villages inside the Jewish state that resist 'should be destroyed .... and their inhabitants expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state.' Meanwhile, 'Palestinian residents of the urban quarters which dominate access to or egress from towns should be expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state in the event of their resistance.' " (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 178)

Again, had it not been for the hostility and aggression of the war-mongering Arabs, Jewish military advances would not have happened. What you are basically saying is that if the Arabs had acted with courtesy when Israel declared independence instead of threatening annihilation , then Israel would have attacked the Palestinian Arabs for no reason but to take their land. That is just plain ridiculous

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Another lie. 300,000 Palestinians were cleansed from their land before any Arab army entered Palestine.

Actually, this is a lie. Nice try making up your own numbers.

According to Morris's estimates, 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinians left Israel during this stage.[10]:262 Keesing's Contemporary Archives in London place the total number of refugees before Israel's independence at 300,000.[64]

1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[toastman]

Ok, it says they left. But you so conveniently used the word 'cleaned' instead.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ok, it says they left. But you so conveniently used the word 'cleaned' instead.

Well it could have been summer vacation time at the Riviera.

 

[toastman]

Ok, it says they left. But you so conveniently used the word 'cleaned' instead.

Well it could have been summer vacation time at the Riviera.

Or maybe there could have been a war going on

 

[Hyrcanus]

Or maybe there could have been a war going on

what about the tens of thousands of Arabs that were kicked out of Israel after the war ended????????????

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ok, it says they left. But you so conveniently used the word 'cleaned' instead.

Well it could have been summer vacation time at the Riviera.

Or maybe there could have been a war going on

Could be. Israel did start a war about that time.