The NEWEST Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

[MartyNYC]

It is said:

• That five Arab armies attacked Israel in the 1948 war. Not true.
• That the 1948 war was the cause of the Palestinian refugees. Not true.
• That the Arabs lost the 1948 war. Not true.

The Nakba and the 1948 war were two separate events.

Arab scholar Fouad Ajami: “The UN vote in 1947 was viewed as Israel's basic title to statehood. The Palestinians and the Arab powers had rejected partition and chosen the path of war. Their choice was to prove calamitous.”

”Palestinian society had collapsed under the pressure of war. The elites had made their way to neighboring lands. Rural communities had been left atomized and leaderless. The cities had fought, and fallen, alone.”

“Palestine had become a great Arab shame. Few Arabs were willing to tell the story truthfully, to face its harsh verdict.”

The U.N. Can't Deliver a Palestinian State

 

[P F Tinmore]

US does not recognize any state of palestine.

The US made a trade agreement with Palestine in 1932.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Arab scholar Fouad Ajami: “The UN vote in 1947 was viewed as Israel's basic title to statehood. The Palestinians and the Arab powers had rejected partition and chosen the path of war. Their choice was to prove calamitous.”

”Palestinian society had collapsed under the pressure of war. The elites had made their way to neighboring lands. Rural communities had been left atomized and leaderless. The cities had fought, and fallen, alone.”

“Palestine had become a great Arab shame. Few Arabs were willing to tell the story truthfully, to face its harsh verdict.”

The U.N. Can't Deliver a Palestinian State

“The UN vote in 1947 was viewed as Israel's basic title to statehood.

Resolution 181 was a General Assembly resolution recommending that the Security Council partition Palestine. The Security Council did not. The UN abandoned the plan and the Security Council did not implement it.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Part 1


Zachary Foster has become a popular anti-Zionist tweeter in recent months, to the point of becoming essentially a troll more interested in scoring points than in facts. (Before he blocked the terrific Adin Haykin, they had a number of entertaining exchanges.)

Yet in the past, I have found his scholarly papers to be very interesting and illuminating, and they tell a story that does not at all support the current Palestinian lies about their history. Sadly, he seems now to be more addicted to "Likes" than to the truth.

A 2011 unpublished master's thesis by Foster also upends current Palestinian lies, especially from Rashid Khalidi.

The period 1914-1923 is what, the most influential of these writers, Rashid Khalidi, has called the “critical years,” in his widely-praised award-winning work on the subject, Palestinian Identity. He argues that as a result of the “rapid, momentous, and unsettling changes” from the outset of World War I in 1914 to roughly 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.” Importantly, Khalidi writes, this full-fledged national loyalty was felt by a “significant proportion of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine”and by 1922, “important elements of the country’s Arab population had already come to identify primarily with Palestine” (my emphasis). He adds that the “most common self-description of political groupings during the mandate was as Palestinian Arab.”....Although Khalidi might like to think that “no one” could possibly dispute the widespread existence of a Palestinian identity during this thirty year period, with careful attention to evidence rather than hyperbole and polemic, I believe we can gain a much more accurate understanding of precisely when, how and why a unique Palestinian identity became widespread.

Foster then demolishes Khalidi, showing that he primary identification of Palestinian Arabs before the 1936 revolt were with their cities, or with Syrians/Egyptians or Arabs in general.

Foster uses interesting analysis methods to come to this conclusion. For example, "not a single book was written on the history of Palestine out of sheer passion and love for Palestine until the 1930s. As we stated previously, this is in complete contrast to the city histories – all of which seem to have been written out of the authors devotion and love for the hometown." And then, "In 1936 and 1937, alone, eight books were published on the Palestine issue, more books than had been published in the preceding sixteen years combined. If the historical works are a guide to identity in Palestine, then, it seems that the major shift from city to Palestine did not obtain until the mid-late 1930s."

This is also fascinating (I put footnote text in parentheses):

The other major work on Palestine in the pre-1936 period is al-Barghouthi and Totah’s Tarikh Filastin, but, as previously mentioned, this was written at the behest of the British authorities to be used in the Mandatory education system. To be sure, this does not make the book irrelevant for the study of Palestinian identity. It does, however, suggest that it was not necessarily a natural idea for an Arab intellectual to pen a book on “the History of Palestine” in 1923.(Indeed, Totah wrote his Ph.D dissertation on the history of Arab education. Palestine is a totally irrelevant analytical category in his dissertation, as discussed above.) And, indeed, this point is reinforced throughout the text, such as in their etymological discussion of this place we now call Palestine. Four names are offered which have historically been used to describe the region, Filastin being merely one of them.(The other three are ‘ard kana’an, ‘ard al-mi‘ad, and al-‘ard al-muqqadisa.)

Those translate to the Land of Canaan, the Promised Land and the Holy Land. Foster doesn't mention that Khalil Totah was a Christian Quaker; while he was born in Ramallah his view of Palestine was through the lens of the Bible rather than as an Arab. It is curious that Foster doesn't spend more time talking about how religion was a more important marker of identity than being a citizen of "Palestine" as well.

As far as identifying as Palestinian, Foster notes,

While Filastin emerged as a geographical, social and political space by the 1920s, it seems that “al-‘Arab” (the Arabs) or “al-Muslimin” and “al-Masihiyyin” (the Christians) were still preferred over “al-filastiniyyin” (the Palestinians) throughout the Mandate period to describe the region’s inhabitants. Very rarely is the word Palestinian used to describe the people of the region, who instead preferred to describe themselves, their culture, their land and their people as Arab.

One reason that Foster doesn't mention is that Jews at the time enthusiastically identified as Palestinian, and Palestinian Arabs - especially the literate ones who were espousing nationalism - didn't want to be identified with the Jews.

Interesting analysis of the evolution of Palestinian identity by an anti-Zionist

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

Part 2

Foster, quite reasonably, uses "loyalty" as a metric to see whether nationalism was more important to Palestinians than their hometowns or Arabness (he also seems to ignore clans, which were much more important in how Palestinian Arabs self-identified.) I'm still not convinced that most Palestinian Arabs identified as being loyal to Arab Palestine even into the 1940s. Here's why.

Foster is only looking at written texts of the time for evidence of loyalty. While literacy soared in Palestine between 1900-1948, a significant number of Palestinians, especially in rural areas and villages, were still illiterate in 1948, and there is no evidence that they identified with "Palestine." Moreover, Arab actions during the 1948 war speak louder than the printed word that Foster relies on. While many defended their own towns, practically none defended anyone else's town - they fled along with their own community members. There was no loyalty to, or sacrificing for, an Arab Palestine. The loyalty Foster sees is the written loyalty of intellectuals, a theoretical loyalty that they were trying to instill in their readers, not a reflection of actual loyalty that would make one fight for and die for one's country.

Indeed, it was the Arab intellectuals who fled the fastest in 1947-48. While the Jewish Palestine Post took heroic measures to ensure that it would put out a paper every day even during the worst fighting and when its own building was bombed, the Arab newspapers in Jaffa and elsewhere simply stopped publishing when the war reached them.

Last issue of "Falastin", blaming the British for Arabs fleeing Jaffa

So while Foster proves that loyalty to Arab Palestine was close to nonexistent before 1936, he doesn't go far enough because of his reliance on written materials as evidence of "loyalty" without keeping in mind that the loyalty espoused was more theoretical and prescriptive than real. It ignores the larger context that includes the people whose mindset hadn't changed for centuries. These were Arabs who easily moved from one part to another of the Arab world for economic reasons or because of wars, who did not accept the Western division of the region with arbitrary borders as relevant to their lives, and who thought that they could migrate to other Arab areas in 1948 as many of their ancestors migrated to Palestine - never dreaming that their fellow Arabs would refuse to accept them and treat them as brothers upon their arrival.

Their identity as Palestinians was forged largely because of their mistreatment by the rest of the Arab world and its refusal to integrate them in their own societies in the 1950s, not from the Arab intellectuals of the 1910s or 1930s who created a new nationalism as a response to Zionism. The shame of their being so badly mistreated by their own people is what fuels the desire to create theories after the fact of a pre-1948 Palestinian identity, an identity that was extraordinarily weak.

Interesting analysis of the evolution of Palestinian identity by an anti-Zionist

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[P F Tinmore]

Foster is only looking at written texts of the time for evidence of loyalty. While literacy soared in Palestine between 1900-1948, a significant number of Palestinians, especially in rural areas and villages, were still illiterate in 1948, and there is no evidence that they identified with "Palestine."

Indeed, how many knew that Palestine was a state? Who would have told them? They are still not being told.

 

[rylah]

It didn't name any of the new states.

Do you have a point?

Indeed, Turkey didn't cede them any territory, because these new states didn't yet exist.

So using your logic, no Arab state in the region has a legitimate land title?

 

[rylah]

Palestinian rights according to the UN.

• The right to self determination without external interference.
• The right to independence and sovereignty.
• The right to territorial integrity.

------------------
Israel illegally violates all of these rights. That is why the Palestinians call for Israel to follow international law.

I follow documentation and international law. You follow Israeli bullshit.

All you do is blow smoke, and self-contradict.

The fact is that Palestine was created as a state.

Q. By whom?

 

[P F Tinmore]

All you do is blow smoke, and self-contradict.



Q. By whom?

Why do you post here when you know so little?

 

[rylah]

Indeed, how many knew that Palestine was a state? Who would have told them? They are still not being told.

That's exactly the lack of national identity and sense of belonging referred discussed.

Normally states are created for and by nations who want to govern themselves.
Here a bunch of rival clans refuse any responsibillity, by claiming the identity
of a state they "still don't know surely exists"...

So who's their doctor?

 

[rylah]

Why do you post here when you know so little?

But why not answer or refute what I'm asking?

I'm merely pointing to self contradictions in your post.

 

[P F Tinmore]

But why not answer or refute what I'm asking?

I'm merely pointing to self contradictions in your post.

The Allied Powers won WWI. They decided not to annex the territory but create new states. They defined the International borders. When they wrote the Treaty of Lausanne they had the territory ceded to their respective new states.

None of those people had anything to say about it. They were just given their own state.

 

[Hollie]

US does not recognize any state of palestine.

Tinmore can invent “states” by simply closing his eyes, clicking the heels of his ruby red slippers together three times and repeating the phrase, "There's no place like home." “because I say so”.

 

[rylah]

The Allied Powers won WWI. They decided not to annex the territory but create new states. They defined the International borders. When they wrote the Treaty of Lausanne they had the territory ceded to their respective new states.

So you should be able to quote that, there's a reason you can't.

Treaty of Lausanne specifically mentions several new states,
however none of those you say in the region.

None of those people had anything to say about it. They were just given their own state.

Which wasn't external intereferance?

Another self-contradiction.

 

[Hollie]

So you should be able to quote that, there's a reason you can't.

Treaty of Lausanne specifically mentions several new states,
however none of those you say in the region.



Which wasn't external intereferance?

Another self-contradiction.

Tinmore will now open his Microsoft Word document of cut and paste responses and cut and paste his “Treaty of Lausanne” slogan.

It’s scripted and formula. Tinmore cuts and pastes it into every thread.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Indeed, Turkey didn't cede them any territory, because these new states didn't yet exist.

So using your logic, no Arab state in the region has a legitimate land title?

Israel is the one that does not have a legitimate land title.

 

[Sixties Fan]

So @AmnestyUK loves boycotts. But only boycotts of Jews. ​

Amnesty UK tweeted:

The [UK Anti-Boycott] bill gives special status to Israel, making it the only country in the world which cannot be excluded from its provisions, and treats Israel and territories it occupies in the same way, contrary to the UK’s long-established policy and international law.

The bill is intended to stifle principled opposition to Israel’s illegal settlements and the Israeli authorities' racist system of apartheid against Palestinians.

Boycotts, divestment & sanctions are forms of peaceful protest that have been used to press for human rights change.

Think:
The Anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa
The Montgomery Bus Boycott
The BP oil spill

In the 1890s, merchants in Butte, Montana boycotted Chinese and other Asian businesses, tried to stop customers from entering them, and threatened anyone who hired Chinese people.


No doubt they felt that they were upholding human rights - of non-Asian people. Even this flyer talks about "morals."

What, exactly, is the difference?

More the to point, Jews have been boycotted many, many times in our history. I once gave a brief list of Arab boycotts:

1891: Arabs request the Ottoman Empire not sell land to Jews.

February 1909: "In Hebron, where out of a total population of 18,000 about 2000 are Jews, the Arabs decide to boycott Jewish merchants."

January 1915: The American Jewish Yearbook reports "At Hebron, Jewish storekeepers are boycotted
by Mohammedan women."

April 2, 1920, AJC: "Rosh Pinah: Thirty Arabs attack Arab workmen in fields belonging to Jewish inhabitants in endeavor to bring about boycott by Arabs against Jews."

June 4, 1921: "Haifa: Arabs issue proclamation urging the populace to boycott the Jews and drive them out of their villages."

1922: Arab Congress calls on Arabs to boycott Jewish businesses in Palestine.

1924: MUSLIM-CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION voted to authorize the Executive Committee to promulgate an economic boycott against the Jews. The economic boycott, however, was later abandoned.

1929: Arab Congress vows to compel Arabs to boycott Jewish merchandise. Syria prohibits import of merchandise produced by Jewish businesses in Palestine.

1931: World Islamic Congress passes resolution requesting Muslim countries to boycott trade with Jewish businesses in Palestine. Arab Labor Federation pickets Jewish businesses in Palestine.

1945: Arab League Council adopts Resolution 70, recommending that all Arab states establish national boycott offices.



There was also a major boycott in Poland of Jewish businesses (accompanied by pogroms) in the 1910s.

And of course the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses (accompanied by pogroms) in the 1930s.

But the boycotts of Jews didn't end there. In the 1950s, Saudi Arabia refused to do business with any company owned by Jews or with Jews in important positions. In 1960, it weas revealed that tourist companies would not allow Jews to visit Gulf countries because they adhered to the Arab boycott, and Aramco refused to hire Jews in its New York office. In 1975, the Arab world still refused to work with Jewish bankers.

This was all at the time of the "Zionism is Racism" UN resolution, proving that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are the same thing.

The BDS boycott is a direct continuation of the Arab League boycotts of Jews. Don't take my word for it: this document on the BDS Movement website gives a history of BDS, and it prominently features the Arab boycott of Jews (pretending that they were only boycotting "Zionists:") It praises the explicitly antisemitic Arab League boycott successes and mourns when it weakened in the 1980s and 90s. It even looks at the Arab League boycott of Jewish businesses to learn lessons for BDS today. The document, written in 2007, is saddened that at that point in time, only Syria and Lebanon were still adhering to the Arab League boycott - you know, those two human rights powerhouses.

There is another reason that BDS is provably antisemitic. They do not boycott Israeli Arab businesses - only the businesses owned by Israeli Jews.

This antisemitism is what Amnesty-UK is supporting. And it has exactly as much to do with "human rights" as the Arab League boycott - or the Butte boycott of Chinese people - did.

So @AmnestyUK loves boycotts. But only boycotts of Jews.

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[rylah]

Israel is the one that does not have a legitimate land title.

In fact Israel's land title goes beyond its territorial control.

For example, the Ottoman Kushan (ownership title) covering
the entire region of Hauran, was inherited to the entire Jewish nation,
specifially the state of Israel. What land was ever inhertied to any of the Arab states?

Hauran - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Lastamender]

Answer those questions.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Jenin resident confirms that Palestinian Arabs were told to leave in 1948 by their leaders​

In the middle of a Haaretz article on humanitarian issues in Jenin, we see:

Another resident of the camp, who prefers to remain unnamed, refused to leave his home with his family of eight. "We will not leave our home even if it falls on our heads," he said. "Our forefathers left in 1948 and were told to come back after a week, and that week has been 75 years. We will not make the same mistake; our generation is ready to sacrifice for its homeland."

The idea that Arab leaders had instructed the residents to flee so they would be free to enter and quickly defeat the Jews has gone out of fashion in recent decades, as many historians cannot find too much primary source material for it. And even among those who accept hat it happened, there is much controversy about how many Arabs may have left at the urging of their leaders.

But here is a Palestinian "refugee" who is not ashamed to say that his own ancestors indeed fled because they were instructed to.

Given that most Palestinians are conditioned to push the narrative of being forcibly evicted even when it is provably false, and the current mindset that it would have been shameful to have voluntarily left their homes, it is significant that a Palestinian admits (without allowing his name to be used) that this was in fact what happened to his family in 1948.

Jenin resident confirms that Palestinian Arabs were told to leave in 1948 by their leaders

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com