[wat0n]

It's still 100% clear that Ben Gurion had a policy of encouraging the military forces to expel Palestinians for non-military reasons in order to adjust the demographics of the post war.

Ben Guroin conducted a policy of ethnic cleansing.


It's 100% inescapable conclusion from the very quotes you chose to post to support you case.

No, it is not. Repeating your claims don't make them true

But they do show you have a rather superficial view of how State policy is formed, as if nods and winks represented broad operational plans to determine the demographic composition of a society, as if nods and winks could fool the opposition within the government itself to the idea of wholesale expulsion of Palestinians on what would have been going on had it taken place.

There is an Israeli mythology of the 1948 war which is mostly wrong. They deny that there was much expulsion and the generally the Palestinians left or where told to by their leaders.(actually their Palestinians leadership mostly told them to stay) The reality is the Zionist forces were responsible for a large proportion of the refugees directly.

Indeed, there is a lot of mythology in that regard. Certainly Zionist forces did expel many Palestinians and it is also true that for the most part the Arabs did not tell the Palestinians to leave their homes.

Yet on the other hand, those very same Arabs, including Palestinian leaders, plead people to stay from outside the Mandate, and in many cases after they had fled themselves in the period until the end of March 1948. I think it's no wonder their pleas were unheard in many cases.

Also it was the Israelis who invaded Palestine not the other way around,

The Palestinians were the ones who went into the offensive first, by laying siege on Jerusalem and trying to isolate urban Jewish settlements by taking control of the roads separating them, all with the aim to prepare the field for the incoming Arab invasion. It's no wonder then that the Zionists launched an offensive whose main aim was to relieve the siege their population was being subjected to, especially in Jerusalem. That's also what Plan Dalet is about.

I think it's rather odd to overlook the above facts when claiming it was the Zionists who invaded first - the Palestinians had tried to do their best to make it easier for the incoming Arab armies to do as much, but were repelled and lost territory in the process.

The Israelis also had military superiority in both numbers and equipment.

Not at the beginning of the war, the Israelis didn't even have an air force. They did have a superior motivation and training (the latter because many had served in WWII). But even this could be arguable, after all, the Palestinians themselves had a decent amount of WWII vets though it seems they didn't fight in the war. I'm not sure why, but it's an interesting question: Why didn't the Palestinians who served in WWII take arms in the 1947-1949 war?

Also not all Arab armies actually invaded at all, and their aims were mixed, with a large proportion involved in land grab and at the Palestinians expense rather than pushing Israel into the Sea.

Which begs the question, wouldn't have the Palestinians been better off by simply accepting the bipartition and getting a smaller state?

The fact is, accepting the UN plan would have likely guaranteed the existence of their State.

And afterwards each of the Arab regimes made some diplomatic move seeking peace (but via back channels not openly) which the Israeli leadership refused and kept quiet about,

What are you talking about exactly? What kind of peace could that have been in which the Arabs didn't even recognize Israel's existence?

The Israeli mythology about 1948 has been very very successful. Even the Border war that followed, the Arab regimes tried mostly to stop Palestinian raids initially only changing when subject to brutal Israeli reprisals, and the Israeli offensive actions. The popularly accepted history is just wrong almost all the way down the line.

And yet the Arab regimes were largely ineffectual, which makes one wonder just how serious were they on that regard. That said, the Israelis often simply took the policing role on their hands and acted without consulting the UN, which would generally lead to attacks in Arab-controlled territories and in many cases with a high civilian death toll, one that was not so much better than the record of the fedayeen in the matter.

The Israelis go on about the most moral army in the world. They claim to be different and better.,
That said there is no shortage of bad behavior and while the Israelis were no angels neither was the other side. The History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict they are many of all sides with plenty of innocent blood on their hands.

Indeed, as one would expect in these conflicts. The IDF is not a particularly moral army for Western standards, though I'd say it is not particularly immoral either.

The Israeli mythology is used to make out that the Palestinians deserved what they got, that conflict is because the Palestinians are more violent , less civilized and behaved badly. There is an equally long record of Zionists terror, massacres and less civilized behavior.

Indeed, though it is true that the Palestinian leadership rejected each and every kind of compromise. They even rejected the White Paper of 1939

The root cause of the conflict was Zionism. No people anywhere in the world would have behaved well when facing the installation of a foreign state intent on dispossession of the local population and suppressing their rights. To achieve the aims of Zionism the oppression and dispossession of the local population was absolutely required, and they were never going to take it well. It was always going to end in blood. The aims and goals of Zionism are very understandable and a fairly logical reaction to antisemitism, rejected by existing Nation states the appeal of forming their own is very understandable. But away from the abstract the only way to achieve Zionist goals was to break the golden rule (treat others as you wish to be treated yourself). A Zionist state could only be achieved by denying other people the very thing that Zionism was promising it's won people and expecting others to submit to something which you would not accept yourself.

Bullshit. The bipartition was a completely viable solution, which is why it is the preferred solution up to this day.

It was also, given the circumstances (the fact that the Arab neighbors wanted to grab as much territory as possible), the most viable solution for Palestinians to realize their self-determination - one that was not denied by the Zionists but by their leadership's low quality and which lead to a war they lost ultimately because the Palestinian population itself didn't have a national identify as strong as it has today.

Yes, the Zionists wanted to realize their self-determination in the form of a democratic state on the whole of Eretz Israel if possible yet most realized that this was completely unfeasible and that the land needed to be divided to accomplish it. For them, a small state was better than no state - a reasoning the Palestinian leadership didn't share, unfortunately.

[Zamuel]

There is an Israeli mythology of the 1948 war which is mostly wrong.

There is a mythology of this war ... Very little of it is Israeli ... I will grant that Netanyahu's "Big Bad Mufti" claim is mythical.

Once the Jewish state was declared, meticulous records were kept and the facts are readily available. Calling these facts "mythology" is just the disingenuous lie that precedes Arab "justification" Propaganda.

They deny that there was much expulsion

No. Authorized expulsions were documented when ordered, and the "Militia Agendas" in place before the IDF was formed have been acknowledged. Israel's position is that these steps were taken to strengthen their defenses. Documented Military assessments of the war by independent sources agree.

and the generally the Palestinians left or where told to by their leaders.

No, Palestinians were told to leave not by THEIR leaders, but by the Invading Arab States who annexed almost as many Palestinian homes as Israel did.

(actually their Palestinians leadership mostly told them to stay)

Yes, the PALESTINIAN leadership wanted them to stay and directed most of those who did in terrorist activities. Which wound up causing (not so innocent) casualties and necessitated expulsions.

The reality is the Zionist forces were responsible for a large proportion of the refugees directly.

Maybe as much as 30%, the rest left without any Physical Coercion and given the situation, were probably smart to do so.

Also it was the Israelis who invaded Palestine not the other way around, The Israelis also had military superiority in both numbers and equipment. Also not all Arab armies actually invaded at all.

Pure propaganda BS.

The Israeli mythology about 1948 has been very very successful.

Documented facts usually are ... Why do you suppose there aren't any to support this Arab Propaganda ?

The popularly accepted history is just wrong almost all the way down the line.

And Rudolph has that Red Nose because Santa's a dedicated Commie ... and yes Virginia, if you throw them off a tall enough hill, pigs do fly (briefly). Nuff said.



Zam

[pugsville]

The partition was hardly fair. The Israelis got all the good land, all the developed ports, and 99% of the Jewish population got self determination but only 66% of the Palestinian population. The UN vote only passed by bribery and threats.

In 1948 there was no good solution. Zionists immigration would always have lead to civil war. The Idea that any population would accept massive immigration by foreigners who want to set up their own state and rule over the native population is laughable. Arguing that the Palestinians should just accept they were beaten and accept being governed by people who wanted to expel is just unrealistic. Palestinians reacted as any-other population would have,

[Heinie]

There is a mythology of this war ... Very little of it is Israeli ...

No one believes this. Not even you.

[wat0n]

The partition was hardly fair. The Israelis got all the good land, all the developed ports, and 99% of the Jewish population got self determination but only 66% of the Palestinian population. The UN vote only passed by bribery and threats.

Yeah, it'd have been fairer if 0% of the Jews got self-determination. Right?

Not that the statistic matters much, anyway, as the other 34% of the Arab population would have had the freedom to move to the Arab state if they wished - just as the Jews who lived in land allocated to it had the option to move to the Jewish one if they wanted to.

As for arable land and the ports, the Jews were wise enough to buy as much of the best land as they could, while the Arabs were free to build new ports in the territory alloted to them (like in Jaffa and Gaza). I find it hard to believe they would have faced many hurdles to that effect.

In 1948 there was no good solution. Zionists immigration would always have lead to civil war. The Idea that any population would accept massive immigration by foreigners who want to set up their own state and rule over the native population is laughable. Arguing that the Palestinians should just accept they were beaten and accept being governed by people who wanted to expel is just unrealistic. Palestinians reacted as any-other population would have,

Considering they would have gotten a state, it is hard to argue they'd have been forced to live under Jewish rule under the bipartition. Not that it'd have been as terrible for them as you make it sound anyway, seeing that they seem to be better off than the Arabs in many of the neighboring countries.

But surely they would have been better off as Syrian or Jordanian citizens had Israel lost the war, after all they showed so much willingness to accommodate their national aspirations...

[pugsville]

But Partition plan was putting ALL of the pain from the partition upon the Palestinians, Virtually no Jews would be asked to live under Palestinian Rule (10,000) while very large of Palestinians would be asked to leave under Jewish Rule (407,000) how is that even remotely fair?

As the Zionist setters had vastly more fund for buying land it's hardly like the dice were not loaded at land sales. It was hardly superior wisdom.

Would you accept a flood of foreign immigrants arriving in you country with the intent to set up their own state? Is the Israeli Arabs asked tomorrow that they wanted ethnic self determination and asked to succeed would Israel allow them? Israel rejects the return of Palestinian refugees on demographics. The Palestinians are repeatedly asked to accept things which other people would not.

[Rich]

The whole argument is irrelevant. It doesn't matter why the Palestinians left. If I choose to go abroad on holiday, I'm free to return home when ever I want, I don't need to ask Zionists for permission.

All this nonsense flows from the absurd demonisation of Theholocaust and its lesser siblings of genocide and crimes against humanity. As if really matters whether something falls into the category of genocide, even imagining you could ever get an objective and widely agreed definition of what did and did not constitute genocide.

So lets run with this holocaust nonsense. Lets say for arguments sake I agreed that genocide is evil and can not be condoned under any circumstance. And also lets say I have got a serious grievance with the United States. Quite easy as America, its allies and its clients waste plenty of "innocent" people in the world. They injure and maim plenty of innocent people including women, children, babies and the American right's beloved unborn childs. They destroy many homes and many livelihoods. So am I allowed to kill say ten million Americans in retaliation? Am I allowed to kill ten million Americans to force America to change its policies? I mean that's less than than 3% of America's population, no one could call that genocide right? No one could complain about that as a tactic. I mean they might disagree with my cause, but no one could claim that was an immoral or illegitimate form of warfare right?

Let's remember that ten million is small fry compared to the number of people America, Britain and France are willing to exterminate in a nuclear war. But I guess that's a threat. The Liberal West has not never gone into eight figure extermination in a single campaign a single conflict., so I will moderate my demands even further, I just want to exterminate a hundred thousand Americans. Now that might constitute a crime against humanity, but crimes against humanity are fine, because the allied bombing campaigns in World War II caused far more than a hundred thousand deaths, the sanctions against Iraq caused far more than a hundred thousand deaths. The blockade in World War I caused more than a hundred thousand non combatant deaths. Is that Ok?

Let me go even further, lets say I just want to kill 3000 Americans in a conflict? I mean that's far less than you killed in single attacks in World War II is that Ok? Or would you still be whining like bitches over such a paltry number of casualties?

Let's take it down even further say I just want to kill fifty people in an attack on Western transport infrastructure, in a conflict where tens if not hundreds of thousands have already died in an effort to force you to the peace table. Is that Ok? No, so why don't you Liberals just fuck off with your Theholocausts, and your genocides, your crimes against humanity and your killing his own peoples?

Note the use of the word "childs" wasn't a grammatical mistake, because we know that while American Conservative bigots care oh so deeply about unborn childs, they don't give a fuck about born children let alone unborn children.

[Heinie]

...
Would you accept a flood of foreign immigrants arriving in you country with the intent to set up their own state? Is the Israeli Arabs asked tomorrow that they wanted ethnic self determination and asked to succeed would Israel allow them? Israel rejects the return of Palestinian refugees on demographics. The Palestinians are repeatedly asked to accept things which other people would not.

You make perfect sense, pugsville.

[KlassWar]

All this nonsense flows from the absurd demonisation of Theholocaust and its lesser siblings of genocide and crimes against humanity. As if really matters whether something falls into the category of genocide, even imagining you could ever get an objective and widely agreed definition of what did and did not constitute genocide.

The definitions are quite clear. You become->

A partisan when you take arms against an occupation government.
An insurgent when you take arms against your own government.
A rebel when you do so and hold territory.
A terrorist when you attempt to attack a foreign country except at war or engage in war crimes as a rebel or insurgent.
A war criminal when you commit atrocities against civilians and prisoners of war, deliberately displace population groups or deliberately target civilians without a military excuse (killing civilians while attacking military targets is perfectly kosher).
A génocidaire when you attempt to decimate or exterminate an ethnic or religious group through mass murder, forced sterilization and child-robbing. The mere displacement of populations is a regular war crime.

Governments and media simply like to misuse the terms to suit their various agendas.

[wat0n]

But Partition plan was putting ALL of the pain from the partition upon the Palestinians, Virtually no Jews would be asked to live under Palestinian Rule (10,000) while very large of Palestinians would be asked to leave under Jewish Rule (407,000) how is that even remotely fair?

Well, the Jewish population was, for the most part, concentrated in specific regions. As such, I don't see why is it surprising that most Jews would end up in the territory alloted to the Jewish state.

I also think that if anything it essentially provided a wholly Arab state to the Palestinians and a demographically mixed state to the Jews, which is a clear advantage from a Palestinian POV - especially those who didn't end up in the territory determined for the Jewish State. It's simple, rather than living in a State in which there would have been a major Jewish minority, most Palestinians would have gotten a wholly Palestinian state - one which could have also had significant influence on the Jewish one owing precisely to its demographics.

As the Zionist setters had vastly more fund for buying land it's hardly like the dice were not loaded at land sales. It was hardly superior wisdom.

I'm not sure about what you mean here. I mean, who owned those lands that were sold to the Jews?

Would you accept a flood of foreign immigrants arriving in you country with the intent to set up their own state? Is the Israeli Arabs asked tomorrow that they wanted ethnic self determination and asked to succeed would Israel allow them? Israel rejects the return of Palestinian refugees on demographics. The Palestinians are repeatedly asked to accept things which other people would not.

I'd try to see if a solution could be found that left everyone satisfied, actually, especially once a critical mass of them had already arrived. Dividing the land was such a solution, one that was much better than war IMHO.

Of course, ideally the Jews would have gotten an uninhabited Terra Nullius where they could set up a viable state, but no such region was available back then (not even the Patagonia, let alone Uganda which wasn't uninhabited), and thus the Jews' problem remained.

[Zamuel]

There is a mythology of this war ... Very little of it is Israeli ...

No one believes this. Not even you.

I try NOT to believe things ... I don't believe in belief ... it's frequently delusional. I know things or I don't know things. When I'm mistaken, I learn.

I know there are reliable records for Israeli actions ... I know there are very few such records for Arab actions. I know that people are trying to rearrange facts and distort documented events to justify Arab aggression both then and now. I know there is a strong movement in Israel for transparency, truth, and understanding. I see no evidence of such a public desire amongst Arabs. I know that Israel has been defending itself on a daily basis ever since it began. I know that Israel does not NEED any mythology.

The assertion of an Israeli mythology is a self gratifying illusion developed to support Arab justification and further an anti-Semitic agenda. It falls miserably short as it's schizophrenic nature is readily apparent.

Zam

[Heinie]

... I know that people are trying to rearrange facts and distort documented events to justify Arab aggression both then and now. I know there is a strong movement in Israel for transparency, truth, and understanding. ...

Your attribution of others' motives is your belief. I see it differently.

[Zamuel]

I see it differently.

Yeah, we get that ... It's such a clear view if you don't let the facts get in the way ... but it still winds up with the Arabs getting their asses kicked, no matter how much whinning is done. AND - they've cried wolf once to often, no one listens to them any more. Soon Europe will learn their lesson and THEY will start expelling Arab refugees, that will probably be the end of any sympathy for a long time to come.

Zam

[Heinie]

Yeah, we get that ... It's such a clear view if you don't let the facts get in the way ... but it still winds up with the Arabs getting their asses kicked, no matter how much whinning is done. AND - they've cried wolf once to often, no one listens to them any more. ...

I fully agree with you; no one does listen to the Palestinians. The Israelis have cornered the market in getting favorable press by the media owners in the United States and Europe and the politicians there. They can get away with murder.

[Decky]

If you read the prophet Icke you would understand why. Shapeshifting comes into it.

[ThereBeDragons]

I also think that if anything it essentially provided a wholly Arab state to the Palestinians and a demographically mixed state to the Jews, which is a clear advantage from a Palestinian POV - especially those who didn't end up in the territory determined for the Jewish State. It's simple, rather than living in a State in which there would have been a major Jewish minority, most Palestinians would have gotten a wholly Palestinian state - one which could have also had significant influence on the Jewish one owing precisely to its demographics.

There's no way you can believe that if there was a plan B on the table offering the Palestinians a huge mixed state (where they could restrict Jewish immigration, which they were notably not able to do under the mandate) and the Jews a tiny homogeneous state that anybody in the world would say that this plan was better for the Jews and worse for Palestinians. Might as well say that Ukraine would be better off if Russia up and seized all of its territory except the northern half of what's west of the Dneiper.

The state controls its own policy, including demographic policy;

[wat0n]

There's no way you can believe that if there was a plan B on the table offering the Palestinians a huge mixed state (where they could restrict Jewish immigration, which they were notably not able to do under the mandate) and the Jews a tiny homogeneous state that anybody in the world would say that this plan was better for the Jews and worse for Palestinians.

Why? Often homogeneity beats size in the list of "good things for a State to have".

Just ask the Syrians and Lebanese why - a big, dysfunctional state is often worse than a smaller, yet efficient state.

Might as well say that Ukraine would be better off if Russia up and seized all of its territory except the northern half of what's west of the Dneiper.

The state controls its own policy, including demographic policy;

At this rate, I'm leaning towards the belief that both sides would be better off if Ukraine was divided.

[ThereBeDragons]

Why? Often homogeneity beats size in the list of "good things for a State to have".

Just ask the Syrians and Lebanese why - a big, dysfunctional state is often worse than a smaller, yet efficient state.

I do somewhat agree with this idea (territory, what's it good for) , but keep in mind that this is only really true in a "post-war" world where tactical and strategic considerations are irrelevant - which certainly wasn't the case in 1947.

At this rate, I'm leaning towards the belief that both sides would be better off if Ukraine was divided.

Sure, but now consider that the analog to this plan means you wouldn't be dividing it down the middle like a normal person would - you'd be ripping out fucking massive chunks of ethnic-Ukrainian-dominated Western Ukraine and arbitrarily declaring it Russian.

[wat0n]

I do somewhat agree with this idea (territory, what's it good for) , but keep in mind that this is only really true in a "post-war" world where tactical and strategic considerations are irrelevant - which certainly wasn't the case in 1947.

I'd say that the division of land to achieve more sustainable states is itself a worthy strategic goal.

Back in 1947, I think, it was the best option available for the Palestinians - get an internationally recognized homogeneous state, leave the Jews with a hard to manage heterogeneous state and use the opportunity to exert influence on it (such as aiding the Arabs there if they want to stir shit up). It beats living under non-Palestinian Arab domination had Israel lost.

And of course, as far as the current situation goes, Israel would be better off if a stable, peaceful Palestinian State is formed.

Sure, but now consider that the analog to this plan means you wouldn't be dividing it down the middle like a normal person would - you'd be ripping out fucking massive chunks of ethnic-Ukrainian-dominated Western Ukraine and arbitrarily declaring it Russian.

True, much to the Russian-Ukranians' detriment.

[Zamuel]

The Idea that any population would accept massive immigration by foreigners who want to set up their own state and rule over the native population is laughable.

Hmmm ... been following the news from Germany and Sweden lately ?
LOL !
Zam