Zionism's Dead End: Separation and Transfer

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

Why would they have to?

How would Lords Balfour and Rothschild justify those numbers?

(COMMENT)

It was the published announcement and stated intention.

(Article 4) The Zionist Organisation, so long as its organisation and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

(ARTICLE 6) The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations (12 August 1922)

As was said, Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country (San Remo Convention).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

Rocco...it is very hard for me to believe "rabid anti-Semites" and the rich Jews who collaborated with them had the slightest concern with the "historical connexion of the Jewish people to Palestine." The Royal Navy was the dominant imperial tool of that age, and it had recently switched from coal to oil to power its fleets. A Jewish homeland in the heart of Arab oil was seen by those who recently won the War to End All Wars as a way to ensure their $ucce$$ in its impending $equel.

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country..."

Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations (12 August 1922)

When Rothschild and other British imperialists subsidized 56,000 Jews in 1917 Palestine with 90% of building concessions they were pouring the the Jewish state's foundation with Haifa's Cement:

"The Cement Incident took place in the port of Jaffa in Palestine on 16 October 1935.[1] While Arab dockers were unloading a consignment of 537 drums of White-Star cement from the Belgian cargo ship Leopold II, which were destined for a Jewish merchant called J. Katan in Tel Aviv, one drum accidentally broke open spilling out guns and ammunition.[1]

"Further investigation by British Mandate officials revealed a large cache of smuggled weapons, comprising 25 machine guns (Lewis Guns),[2] 800 rifles and 400,000 rounds of ammunition[3] contained in 359 of the 537 drums, but because the merchant was not identified and the final destination was not uncovered no arrests were made."

Cement Incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip, et al,

Like I said before, in each propaganda effort, there is truth. In this case, shortly before the end of WWI, the Agricultural program rekindled after the interruption of the War.

Israel's agricultural collectives began in earnest in 1917 when Jews numbered around 56,000 in Mandate Palestine compared to ten times as many Arabs. Zionists of that time who were committed to a Greater Israel reaching from the River to the sea saw two possible solutions to their Arab problem: Separation and transfer, and their genius was recognizing the two crimes were not mutually exclusive.

(COMMENT)

This is a case --- the history of the Jewish Agricultural Program was truncated to fit the agenda.

With his firman dated April 5th, 1870, the Sultan Abdul Aziz allocated the "Alliance Israelite Universelle" 2600 dunams of land east of Jaffa for the establishment of a school of agriculture and also granted permission for importing all kinds of tools and machinery free of taxes and customs. As Ben Gouriion, said: "I doubt that the Israeli dream would have been realized if the farm school of Mikveh Israel had not existed."

SOURCE: Ottoman Sultans and Their Jewish Subjects

The Sultan of the Ottoman Empire already knew that the Palestine Region was not efficient at the business of farming and food production. So, the Sultan enlisted the aid of the Jews, well before the emergence of Zionism, to make the region more productive.

The War, understandably, interrupted the various Agricultural Programs initiated by the Sultan, through Jewish innovations, and after the War, they they restarted. The "Alliance Israelite Universelle" (AIU) still exists to this day, on expanded land and property surrounding the originally Imperial Land Grant.

The many of the post-War Agricultural Programs were modeled elsewhere using the AIU as a pattern and template.

It was never a criminal conspiracy as is suggested. But a slight twist to the real historical facts does make a good story and great propaganda on people that might not know the rest of the story.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is considerable information in all the links in this document. It would behoove George to study them.

The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP, DPR study - Foreword, table of contents (30 June 1990)

Hoss, if we start with Part I, it appears "the indigenous people of Palestine, whose forefathers had inhabited the land for virtually the two preceding millennia" had good reason to fear the European invader.

"The decision on the Mandate did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine, despite the Covenant's requirements that 'the wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory'.

"This assumed special significance because, almost five years before receiving the mandate from the League of Nations, the British Government had given commitments to the Zionist Organization regarding the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, for which Zionist leaders had pressed a claim of 'historical connection' since their ancestors had lived in Palestine two thousand years earlier before dispersing in the 'Diaspora'.

"During the period of the Mandate, the Zionist Organization worked to secure the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The indigenous people of Palestine, whose forefathers had inhabited the land for virtually the two preceding millennia felt this design to be a violation of their natural and inalienable rights."

"They also viewed it as an infringement of assurances of independence given by the Allied Powers to Arab leaders in return for their support during the war. The result was mounting resistance to the Mandate by Palestinian Arabs, followed by resort to violence by the Jewish community as the Second World War drew to a close."

The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP, DPR study, part I: 1917-1947 (30 June 1978)

 

[Hossfly]

georgephillip, et al,

Like I said before, in each propaganda effort, there is truth. In this case, shortly before the end of WWI, the Agricultural program rekindled after the interruption of the War.


(COMMENT)

This is a case --- the history of the Jewish Agricultural Program was truncated to fit the agenda.



The Sultan of the Ottoman Empire already knew that the Palestine Region was not efficient at the business of farming and food production. So, the Sultan enlisted the aid of the Jews, well before the emergence of Zionism, to make the region more productive.

The War, understandably, interrupted the various Agricultural Programs initiated by the Sultan, through Jewish innovations, and after the War, they they restarted. The "Alliance Israelite Universelle" (AIU) still exists to this day, on expanded land and property surrounding the originally Imperial Land Grant.

The many of the post-War Agricultural Programs were modeled elsewhere using the AIU as a pattern and template.

It was never a criminal conspiracy as is suggested. But a slight twist to the real historical facts does make a good story and great propaganda on people that might not know the rest of the story.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is considerable information in all the links in this document. It would behoove George to study them.

The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP, DPR study - Foreword, table of contents (30 June 1990)

Hoss, if we start with Part I, it appears "the indigenous people of Palestine, whose forefathers had inhabited the land for virtually the two preceding millennia" had good reason to fear the European invader.

"The decision on the Mandate did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine, despite the Covenant's requirements that 'the wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory'.

"This assumed special significance because, almost five years before receiving the mandate from the League of Nations, the British Government had given commitments to the Zionist Organization regarding the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, for which Zionist leaders had pressed a claim of 'historical connection' since their ancestors had lived in Palestine two thousand years earlier before dispersing in the 'Diaspora'.

"During the period of the Mandate, the Zionist Organization worked to secure the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The indigenous people of Palestine, whose forefathers had inhabited the land for virtually the two preceding millennia felt this design to be a violation of their natural and inalienable rights."

"They also viewed it as an infringement of assurances of independence given by the Allied Powers to Arab leaders in return for their support during the war. The result was mounting resistance to the Mandate by Palestinian Arabs, followed by resort to violence by the Jewish community as the Second World War drew to a close."

The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP, DPR study, part I: 1917-1947 (30 June 1978)

The bottom line here, Georgie Boy, is that you can drag up all the sites you want, but I think most viewers are smart enough to realize that you really do not care about the Arabs but are using them in your fight against the Jews for some reason. I noticed that you were on another forum on the USMessageBoard but conveniently didn't go to other forums where you could discuss what is happening in other parts of the world. I would think that you would not like to hear this and would be condemning it in the Africa forum (imagine that -- a Jihad against the Blacks)...........

A Grim Anniversary in Sudan | FrontPage Magazine

 

[georgephillip]

"On a cold Wednesday afternoon, 10 March 1948, a group of eleven men, veteran Zionist leaders together with young military Jewish officers, put the final touches to a plan for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

"That same evening, military orders were dispatched to the units on the ground to prepare for the systematic expulsion of the Palestinians from vast areas of the country.'

"The orders came with a detailed description of the methods to be employed to forcibly evict the people: large-scale intimidation; laying siege to and bombarding villages and population centres; setting fire to homes, properties and goods; expulsion; demolition; and, finally, planting mines among the rubble to prevent any of the expelled inhabitants from returning."

excerpts from the book The Ethic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe

Put that on Front Page, Hossie.

 

[Hossfly]

"On a cold Wednesday afternoon, 10 March 1948, a group of eleven men, veteran Zionist leaders together with young military Jewish officers, put the final touches to a plan for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

"That same evening, military orders were dispatched to the units on the ground to prepare for the systematic expulsion of the Palestinians from vast areas of the country.'

"The orders came with a detailed description of the methods to be employed to forcibly evict the people: large-scale intimidation; laying siege to and bombarding villages and population centres; setting fire to homes, properties and goods; expulsion; demolition; and, finally, planting mines among the rubble to prevent any of the expelled inhabitants from returning."

excerpts from the book The Ethic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe

Put that on Front Page, Hossie.

You can put this on the Front Page, Georgie Boy? You can pull all the trash sites you want to in your quest to bash the Jews and Israel (I doubt many people here actually think that Georgie cares about the Arabs when he can't even discuss on another forum how many of them are being killed by each other) but to many viewers you are just of the Louie Farrakhan-mind set when it comes to the Jews.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvqvoJTOh5M]Benny Morris: 'Most Historians Disagree with Ilan Pappé' - YouTube[/ame]

 

[toastman]

George, the Palestinian Arabs are lucky to even be in the region altogether:

Moshe Dayan Lost An Opportunity to Rid Israel of Arabs

Read the article, even the Arabs were surprised that Moshe Dayan let them stay.
Had the Arabs won the war in 1967, I have no doubt every single Jew would have either been killed or expelled.
Again, Moshe Dayan let the Palestinian Arabs stay after Israels stunning defeat in 1967, in which the Palestinians Arabs participated in, with the intention of driving every Jew out.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

George, the Palestinian Arabs are lucky to even be in the region altogether:

Moshe Dayan Lost An Opportunity to Rid Israel of Arabs

Read the article, even the Arabs were surprised that Moshe Dayan let them stay.
Had the Arabs won the war in 1967, I have no doubt every single Jew would have either been killed or expelled.
Again, Moshe Dayan let the Palestinian Arabs stay after Israels stunning defeat in 1967, in which the Palestinians Arabs participated in, with the intention of driving every Jew out.

That was a massive mistake in hindsight.

 

[georgephillip]

"On a cold Wednesday afternoon, 10 March 1948, a group of eleven men, veteran Zionist leaders together with young military Jewish officers, put the final touches to a plan for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

"That same evening, military orders were dispatched to the units on the ground to prepare for the systematic expulsion of the Palestinians from vast areas of the country.'

"The orders came with a detailed description of the methods to be employed to forcibly evict the people: large-scale intimidation; laying siege to and bombarding villages and population centres; setting fire to homes, properties and goods; expulsion; demolition; and, finally, planting mines among the rubble to prevent any of the expelled inhabitants from returning."

excerpts from the book The Ethic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe

Put that on Front Page, Hossie.

You can put this on the Front Page, Georgie Boy? You can pull all the trash sites you want to in your quest to bash the Jews and Israel (I doubt many people here actually think that Georgie cares about the Arabs when he can't even discuss on another forum how many of them are being killed by each other) but to many viewers you are just of the Louie Farrakhan-mind set when it comes to the Jews.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvqvoJTOh5M]Benny Morris: 'Most Historians Disagree with Ilan Pappé' - YouTube[/ame]

I suppose the intent behind Plan Dalet would be a good starting point for anyone interested in understanding Zionist motives in Palestine:

"The intent of Plan Dalet is subject to much controversy, with historians on one side asserting that it was entirely defensive, while others assert that the plan aimed at an ethnic cleansing, which from the start was an integral part of a carefully planned strategy."

 

[Hossfly]

"On a cold Wednesday afternoon, 10 March 1948, a group of eleven men, veteran Zionist leaders together with young military Jewish officers, put the final touches to a plan for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

"That same evening, military orders were dispatched to the units on the ground to prepare for the systematic expulsion of the Palestinians from vast areas of the country.'

"The orders came with a detailed description of the methods to be employed to forcibly evict the people: large-scale intimidation; laying siege to and bombarding villages and population centres; setting fire to homes, properties and goods; expulsion; demolition; and, finally, planting mines among the rubble to prevent any of the expelled inhabitants from returning."

excerpts from the book The Ethic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe

Put that on Front Page, Hossie.

You can put this on the Front Page, Georgie Boy? You can pull all the trash sites you want to in your quest to bash the Jews and Israel (I doubt many people here actually think that Georgie cares about the Arabs when he can't even discuss on another forum how many of them are being killed by each other) but to many viewers you are just of the Louie Farrakhan-mind set when it comes to the Jews.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvqvoJTOh5M]Benny Morris: 'Most Historians Disagree with Ilan Pappé' - YouTube[/ame]

I suppose the intent behind Plan Dalet would be a good starting point for anyone interested in understanding Zionist motives in Palestine:

"The intent of Plan Dalet is subject to much controversy, with historians on one side asserting that it was entirely defensive, while others assert that the plan aimed at an ethnic cleansing, which from the start was an integral part of a carefully planned strategy."

Couldn't sleep, Georgie Boy, that you had to get up before the rooster crowed to continue your dissing of Israel. Meanwhile, why don't you tell us what the ex Egyptians are saying in your town since that is the big news at the moment, or are you only interested in what goes on in Israel because you hate the Jews. Like I said, you can bring up all the sites you want to (including Wikipedia where people can put in what suits their purpose), but I think many of the viewers have your number by now.

From L.A. to Cairo, Egyptians celebrate a new era - LA Daily News

 

[jehan]

That was a massive mistake in hindsight.

Even if like Ben Gurion you believe there is nothing immoral in "compulsory transfer," the forcible deportation of a population is defined as a crime against humanity under ICC statutes. I wouldn't want to be caught advocating that, if not for moral reasons, for purely practical ones. It doesn't help the pro-Israel position.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

That was a massive mistake in hindsight.

Even if like Ben Gurion you believe there is nothing immoral in "compulsory transfer," the forcible deportation of a population is defined as a crime against humanity under ICC statutes. I wouldn't want to be caught advocating that, if not for moral reasons, for purely practical ones. It doesn't help the pro-Israel position.

And tell me where did Ben Gurion state "there is nothing immoral in 'compulsory transfer.'




.

 

[jehan]

That was a massive mistake in hindsight.

Even if like Ben Gurion you believe there is nothing immoral in "compulsory transfer," the forcible deportation of a population is defined as a crime against humanity under ICC statutes. I wouldn't want to be caught advocating that, if not for moral reasons, for purely practical ones. It doesn't help the pro-Israel position.

And tell me where did Ben Gurion state "there is nothing immoral in 'compulsory transfer.'




.

"I support compulsory transfer. I don't see in it anything immoral." Ben-Gurion quoted in Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. Cambridge University Press, 2004, p 50.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Even if like Ben Gurion you believe there is nothing immoral in "compulsory transfer," the forcible deportation of a population is defined as a crime against humanity under ICC statutes. I wouldn't want to be caught advocating that, if not for moral reasons, for purely practical ones. It doesn't help the pro-Israel position.

And tell me where did Ben Gurion state "there is nothing immoral in 'compulsory transfer.'




.

"I support compulsory transfer. I don't see in it anything immoral." Ben-Gurion quoted in Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. Cambridge University Press, 2004, p 50.

When Hari does touch on pre-1948 history, he mangles it. In a Nov. 13, 2006 piece entitled “Ethnic cleansing returns to Israel's agenda,” Hari provides an incomplete and partially invented quotation by Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to claim that Israel has long had a policy of ethnic cleansing:

I support compulsory transfer. I do not see in it anything immoral ... The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.

The first part of the alleged quote is taken out of context. Efraim Karsh, in his critique of a book by Israeli historian Benny Morris, quoted from the record of the Jewish Agency Executive meeting on June 12, 1937 (“Falsifying the Record: Benny Morris, David Ben-Gurion and the ‘Transfer’ Idea,” Israel Affairs, V4, No. 2, Winter 1997, p52-53). It reads as follows:

I saw in the Peel Plan [proposed by England] two positive things: the ideas of state and compulsory transfer. I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see in it anything immoral, but compulsory transfer can only be effected by England and not by the Jews... Not only is it inconceivable for us to carry it out, but it is also inconceivable for us to propose it.

Morris, who is mentioned in Hari’s column, denounces Hari’s writing as a misrepresentation of what he wrote. In a letter published in the Independent on Nov. 21, 2006, Morris writes that Hari “misrepresents my views, while peddling numerous historical errors.” Morris then points out that the second half of the alleged quote — that “The Arabs will have to go ... such as a war” — “is an invention, pure and simple, either by Hari or by whomever he is quoting (Ilan Pappe?)”

CAMERA: A Promising Career at the Independent


,

 

[jehan]

And tell me where did Ben Gurion state "there is nothing immoral in 'compulsory transfer.'




.

"I support compulsory transfer. I don't see in it anything immoral." Ben-Gurion quoted in Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. Cambridge University Press, 2004, p 50.

When Hari does touch on pre-1948 history, he mangles it. In a Nov. 13, 2006 piece entitled “Ethnic cleansing returns to Israel's agenda,” Hari provides an incomplete and partially invented quotation by Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to claim that Israel has long had a policy of ethnic cleansing:

I support compulsory transfer. I do not see in it anything immoral ... The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.

The first part of the alleged quote is taken out of context. Efraim Karsh, in his critique of a book by Israeli historian Benny Morris, quoted from the record of the Jewish Agency Executive meeting on June 12, 1937 (“Falsifying the Record: Benny Morris, David Ben-Gurion and the ‘Transfer’ Idea,” Israel Affairs, V4, No. 2, Winter 1997, p52-53). It reads as follows:

I saw in the Peel Plan [proposed by England] two positive things: the ideas of state and compulsory transfer. I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see in it anything immoral, but compulsory transfer can only be effected by England and not by the Jews... Not only is it inconceivable for us to carry it out, but it is also inconceivable for us to propose it.

Morris, who is mentioned in Hari’s column, denounces Hari’s writing as a misrepresentation of what he wrote. In a letter published in the Independent on Nov. 21, 2006, Morris writes that Hari “misrepresents my views, while peddling numerous historical errors.” Morris then points out that the second half of the alleged quote — that “The Arabs will have to go ... such as a war” — “is an invention, pure and simple, either by Hari or by whomever he is quoting (Ilan Pappe?)”

I said Ben-Gurion saw nothing immoral in compulsory transfer. You asked where he said this. I provided a reference. You responded by citing Efraim Karsh, who doesn't deny Ben-Gurion's words, in fact he cites them and merely continues the quote, with his thoughts about who should propose and carry out the transfer - technicalities which do not alter or efface what came before them, the part where he categorically states "I support compulsory transfer. I don't see in it anything immoral".

This is an assertion that cannot be taken out of context; as Morris says he "laid his cards baldly on the table." Despite that, you cite the same Benny Morris in your copy paste rebuttal, referencing an invented part of the quote, which I never mentioned, and an article by Johann Hari, which I never alluded to. I don't know what to make of all this, beyond that the copy paste method of argumentation is amusing, at best.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

"I support compulsory transfer. I don't see in it anything immoral." Ben-Gurion quoted in Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. Cambridge University Press, 2004, p 50.

When Hari does touch on pre-1948 history, he mangles it. In a Nov. 13, 2006 piece entitled “Ethnic cleansing returns to Israel's agenda,” Hari provides an incomplete and partially invented quotation by Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to claim that Israel has long had a policy of ethnic cleansing:

I support compulsory transfer. I do not see in it anything immoral ... The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.

The first part of the alleged quote is taken out of context. Efraim Karsh, in his critique of a book by Israeli historian Benny Morris, quoted from the record of the Jewish Agency Executive meeting on June 12, 1937 (“Falsifying the Record: Benny Morris, David Ben-Gurion and the ‘Transfer’ Idea,” Israel Affairs, V4, No. 2, Winter 1997, p52-53). It reads as follows:

I saw in the Peel Plan [proposed by England] two positive things: the ideas of state and compulsory transfer. I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see in it anything immoral, but compulsory transfer can only be effected by England and not by the Jews... Not only is it inconceivable for us to carry it out, but it is also inconceivable for us to propose it.

Morris, who is mentioned in Hari’s column, denounces Hari’s writing as a misrepresentation of what he wrote. In a letter published in the Independent on Nov. 21, 2006, Morris writes that Hari “misrepresents my views, while peddling numerous historical errors.” Morris then points out that the second half of the alleged quote — that “The Arabs will have to go ... such as a war” — “is an invention, pure and simple, either by Hari or by whomever he is quoting (Ilan Pappe?)”

I said Ben-Gurion saw nothing immoral in compulsory transfer. You asked where he said this. I provided a reference. You responded by citing Efraim Karsh, who doesn't deny Ben-Gurion's words, in fact he cites them and merely continues the quote, with his thoughts about who should propose and carry out the transfer - technicalities which do not alter or efface what came before them, the part where he categorically states "I support compulsory transfer. I don't see in it anything immoral".

This is an assertion that cannot be taken out of context; as Morris says he "laid his cards baldly on the table." Despite that, you cite the same Benny Morris in your copy paste rebuttal, referencing an invented part of the quote, which I never mentioned, and an article by Johann Hari, which I never alluded to. I don't know what to make of all this, beyond that the copy paste method of argumentation is amusing, at best.

Do you have trouble comprehending English? Perhaps you need to read my reply slower and a few times.

 

[jehan]

I said Ben-Gurion saw nothing immoral in compulsory transfer. You asked where he said this. I provided a reference. You responded by citing Efraim Karsh, who doesn't deny Ben-Gurion's words, in fact he cites them and merely continues the quote, with his thoughts about who should propose and carry out the transfer - technicalities which do not alter or efface what came before them, the part where he categorically states "I support compulsory transfer. I don't see in it anything immoral".

This is an assertion that cannot be taken out of context; as Morris says he "laid his cards baldly on the table." Despite that, you cite the same Benny Morris in your copy paste rebuttal, referencing an invented part of the quote, which I never mentioned, and an article by Johann Hari, which I never alluded to. I don't know what to make of all this, beyond that the copy paste method of argumentation is amusing, at best.

Do you have trouble comprehending English? Perhaps you need to read my reply slower and a few times.

It wasn't your reply though was it? It was a tangentially related copy paste job that didn't refute my assertion, which I repeat, was that Ben Gurion said "I support compulsory transfer. I don't see in it anything immoral." You too it would seem see nothing immoral in what today would be called ethnic cleansing, since you advocated that it was a "mistake" not to do it after 1967. I would argue this damages the pro-Israel argument. But please, feel free to sabotage your own position.

 

[toastman]

I said Ben-Gurion saw nothing immoral in compulsory transfer. You asked where he said this. I provided a reference. You responded by citing Efraim Karsh, who doesn't deny Ben-Gurion's words, in fact he cites them and merely continues the quote, with his thoughts about who should propose and carry out the transfer - technicalities which do not alter or efface what came before them, the part where he categorically states "I support compulsory transfer. I don't see in it anything immoral".

This is an assertion that cannot be taken out of context; as Morris says he "laid his cards baldly on the table." Despite that, you cite the same Benny Morris in your copy paste rebuttal, referencing an invented part of the quote, which I never mentioned, and an article by Johann Hari, which I never alluded to. I don't know what to make of all this, beyond that the copy paste method of argumentation is amusing, at best.

Do you have trouble comprehending English? Perhaps you need to read my reply slower and a few times.

It wasn't your reply though was it? It was a tangentially related copy paste job that didn't refute my assertion, which I repeat, was that Ben Gurion said "I support compulsory transfer. I don't see in it anything immoral." You too it would seem see nothing immoral in what today would be called ethnic cleansing, since you advocated that it was a "mistake" not to do it after 1967. I would argue this damages the pro-Israel argument. But please, feel free to sabotage your own position.

Do you agree that in 1967, during the 6 day war, the Palestinians fought against Israel ?

 

[Hossfly]

That was a massive mistake in hindsight.

Even if like Ben Gurion you believe there is nothing immoral in "compulsory transfer," the forcible deportation of a population is defined as a crime against humanity under ICC statutes. I wouldn't want to be caught advocating that, if not for moral reasons, for purely practical ones. It doesn't help the pro-Israel position.

I doubt if Jehan feels for the millions and millions of Hindus who had to leave land which their ancestors actually lived on for thousands and thousands of years when Pakistan was carved out of India.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

I said Ben-Gurion saw nothing immoral in compulsory transfer. You asked where he said this. I provided a reference. You responded by citing Efraim Karsh, who doesn't deny Ben-Gurion's words, in fact he cites them and merely continues the quote, with his thoughts about who should propose and carry out the transfer - technicalities which do not alter or efface what came before them, the part where he categorically states "I support compulsory transfer. I don't see in it anything immoral".

This is an assertion that cannot be taken out of context; as Morris says he "laid his cards baldly on the table." Despite that, you cite the same Benny Morris in your copy paste rebuttal, referencing an invented part of the quote, which I never mentioned, and an article by Johann Hari, which I never alluded to. I don't know what to make of all this, beyond that the copy paste method of argumentation is amusing, at best.

Do you have trouble comprehending English? Perhaps you need to read my reply slower and a few times.

It wasn't your reply though was it? It was a tangentially related copy paste job that didn't refute my assertion, which I repeat, was that Ben Gurion said "I support compulsory transfer. I don't see in it anything immoral." You too it would seem see nothing immoral in what today would be called ethnic cleansing, since you advocated that it was a "mistake" not to do it after 1967. I would argue this damages the pro-Israel argument. But please, feel free to sabotage your own position.

Your Ben Gurion quote which I put in red above is not the full full quote.

Seriously, if you fail to understand this post below then it will be obvious (as if it isn't already) that you simply are twisting history.

________________

When Hari does touch on pre-1948 history, he mangles it. In a Nov. 13, 2006 piece entitled “Ethnic cleansing returns to Israel's agenda,” Hari provides an incomplete and partially invented quotation by Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to claim that Israel has long had a policy of ethnic cleansing:

I support compulsory transfer. I do not see in it anything immoral ... The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.

The first part of the alleged quote is taken out of context. Efraim Karsh, in his critique of a book by Israeli historian Benny Morris, quoted from the record of the Jewish Agency Executive meeting on June 12, 1937 (“Falsifying the Record: Benny Morris, David Ben-Gurion and the ‘Transfer’ Idea,” Israel Affairs, V4, No. 2, Winter 1997, p52-53). It reads as follows:

I saw in the Peel Plan [proposed by England] two positive things: the ideas of state and compulsory transfer. I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see in it anything immoral, but compulsory transfer can only be effected by England and not by the Jews... Not only is it inconceivable for us to carry it out, but it is also inconceivable for us to propose it.

Morris, who is mentioned in Hari’s column, denounces Hari’s writing as a misrepresentation of what he wrote. In a letter published in the Independent on Nov. 21, 2006, Morris writes that Hari “misrepresents my views, while peddling numerous historical errors.” Morris then points out that the second half of the alleged quote — that “The Arabs will have to go ... such as a war” — “is an invention, pure and simple, either by Hari or by whomever he is quoting (Ilan Pappe?)”

CAMERA: A Promising Career at the Independent