[pugsville]

You made the claims that treaties were violated, therefore is up to you to support your claim.

If you cannot support your claim why should anyone take it seriously.

[Zamuel]

You made the claims that treaties were violated, therefore is up to you to support your claim.

I did ... If you don't have sufficient interest to read it ? I guess we know your level of interest and expertise.

We now return you to the normally scheduled whining about nasty old Israel kicking ass while the Arabs weren't looking.

The point being, if that ass hadn't been hanging out there where it should not have been, it wouldn't have gotten kicked.

Zam

[wat0n]

What exact clauses of any treaty were the Egyptians violating? Nationalization did not effect any of the treaties as the concession still rested with the same entity and compensation was to be paid. s a state of War existed it's pretty arguable the Egypt was within it's rights to restrict Israeli use of it's canal and territorial waters,

Well, one could try reading the Constantinople Convention of 1888 and explain how can Egypt justify blocking neutral flagged civilian ships sailing towards Israeli ports.

Whatever violations may have been committed by Egypt the secret plotting by Israel, France and Britain to unleash a surprise war of aggression is much much more serious action.

At least Israel did have another issue along with free passage of shipping: The fedayeen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_fedayeen#1948_to_1956

"Between 1948 and 1955, infiltration by Palestinians into Israel was opposed by Arab governments"
"After an Israeli raid on an Egyptian military outpost in Gaza in February 1955, during which 37 Egyptian soldiers were killed, the Egyptian government began to actively sponsor fedayeen raids into Israel."

"In 1953, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion taskedAriel Sharon, then security chief of the Northern Region, with setting up of a new commando unit, Unit 101, designed to respond to fedayeen infiltrations (see retribution operations).[19] After one month of training, "a patrol of the unit that infiltrated into the Gaza Strip as an exercise, encountered [Palestinians] in al-Bureij refugee camp, opened fire to rescue itself and left behind about 30 killed Arabs and dozens of wounded."
"United Nations reports indicate that between 1949 and 1956, Israel launched more than 17 raids on Egyptian territory and 31 attacks on Arab towns or military forces"
"In 1956, Israeli troops entered Khan Yunis in the Egyptian controlled Gaza Strip, conducting house-to-house searches for Palestinian fedayeen and weaponry.[34] During this operation, 275 Palestinians were killed, with an additional 111 killed in Israeli raids on the Rafah refugee camp.[34][35] Israel claimed these killings resulted from "refugee resistance", a claim denied by refugees;[35] there were no Israeli casualties"

Israel has often targeted civilians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Beit_Jala_Raid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibya_massacre
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafr_Qasim_massacre

And the fedayeen also launched raids against Israeli civilian targets, such as the Ma'ale Akrabim massacre. I don't see why would Israel just let them kill its citizens just because they lost a war the Arabs could have avoided, it doesn't make any sense to me.

[Political Interest]

Even some of the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis. Please draw your attention to the transfer agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionists based in Palestine.

It was a plan to transfer Jews from Europe to Palestine. Initially the Nazis supported this idea but later they moved towards seeking full genocide against the Jews and abandoned this idea.

[pugsville]

I did not make assertions about Constantinople Convention of 1888 somebody else did. If they want their claims to be taken seriously they should document them.

Israel was a hostile nation there was a cease fire not a peace treaty, both sides reserved belligerent rights, Egypt did not allow shipping to Israel. Much like the British blockade between the ceasefire and the peace treaty after ww1.

By the terms of the ceasefire agreement the Egyptians only had a limited number of troops in Gaza. They were trying to stop Palestinians raids until Israel started raids targeting Egyptians. Israeli was also making raids targeting civilians. And indeed tried to start a terrorist bombing campaign in Egypt targeting civilians. Israel was guilty of many violations of the cease fire agreements, militarizing demilitarized zones.

[wat0n]

Even some of the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis. Please draw your attention to the transfer agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionists based in Palestine.

It was a plan to transfer Jews from Europe to Palestine. Initially the Nazis supported this idea but later they moved towards seeking full genocide against the Jews and abandoned this idea.

The main reason for that, though, was that Zionists regarded it as the most viable way to get the Jews out of Germany. While they, like most people, didn't think the Nazis would do what they did, the Zionists did realize that tough times were approaching for German Jewry.

I did not make assertions about Constantinople Convention of 1888 somebody else did. If they want their claims to be taken seriously they should document them.

See article 1 of the Constantinople Convention of 1888.

Israel was a hostile nation there was a cease fire not a peace treaty, both sides reserved belligerent rights, Egypt did not allow shipping to Israel. Much like the British blockade between the ceasefire and the peace treaty after ww1.

Largely against the Convention.

By the terms of the ceasefire agreement the Egyptians only had a limited number of troops in Gaza. They were trying to stop Palestinians raids until Israel started raids targeting Egyptians. Israeli was also making raids targeting civilians. And indeed tried to start a terrorist bombing campaign in Egypt targeting civilians. Israel was guilty of many violations of the cease fire agreements, militarizing demilitarized zones.

Not that any of this solves the issue of Egypt's unwillingness or inability to stop the fedayeen. Best case you can provide is that Israel could have acted differently, though they believed the Egyptians were in cahoots with the fedayeen.

[Zamuel]

Well, one could try reading the Constantinople Convention of 1888 and explain how can Egypt justify blocking neutral flagged civilian ships sailing towards Israeli ports.

A consideration in the security council discussion leading to Resolution 95 in 1951 I believe. Which, after referring to promises and statements by both sides that they would work for peace, chastised Egypt for preventing ships bound for Israeli ports from travelling through the Suez Canal.

Whatever violations may have been committed by Egypt the secret plotting by Israel, France and Britain to unleash a surprise war of aggression is much much more serious action.

It was a serious action ... Nasser was perceived as "Hitler on the Nile" he was seizing territory, nationalizing an international asset, and denying passage to world trade. Not to mention sponsoring a second holocaust against the Jews. Prime Minister Guy Mollet of France later told Nasser's biographer Jean Lacouture. ''It was too risky to allow this adventurer, this miniature Hitler, to develop.'' This was a lesson they learned at Dunkirk.

Zam

[pugsville]

Wow thanks for the 1888 treaty. Totally unrealistic and unworkable as a treaty, Would the British allowed a German warship through during ww2? or a transport packed with explosives which could blow up and block the canal? Not a reasonable treaty.

Zionist-Nazi interactions designed to enable some Jews to escape occupied Europe really cannot be seen as collaborating, Yes the Nazis would manipulate the exchange to get something, but it was a desperate humanitarian enterprise.

The Israels were ignored UN resolutions about Refugees returning to their homes. Compared a a very few ships I don't see how Egyptians were the only ones obstructing peace.

Yes the Israelis thought the Egyptians were in encouraging the fedayeen when they were not.

Nasser was not Hitler. The fact that some saw him as such shows just how delusional they were. Eden was not well and making pretty bad decisions. Nor was Nasser sponsoring a second holocaust. Nasser was not seizing territory (Israel , France and Britain were plotting to do that). Nasser was nationalizing a Egyptian asset (with compensation). Nor was he stopping world trade, only trade through Egypt by a hostile power.

[skinster]

[youtube]S3D8lLWrsbo[/youtube]

[wat0n]

Wow thanks for the 1888 treaty. Totally unrealistic and unworkable as a treaty, Would the British allowed a German warship through during ww2? or a transport packed with explosives which could blow up and block the canal? Not a reasonable treaty.

There were regulations on the entrance of warships in the following articles. But actually the Brits would have been obliged to allow civilian German shipping in fact (they didn't, though interestingly it seems the Canal was open during WWI).

Zionist-Nazi interactions designed to enable some Jews to escape occupied Europe really cannot be seen as collaborating, Yes the Nazis would manipulate the exchange to get something, but it was a desperate humanitarian enterprise.

Indeed. Some people forget that Nazism was regarded a valid political position before WWII.

The Israels were ignored UN resolutions about Refugees returning to their homes. Compared a a very few ships I don't see how Egyptians were the only ones obstructing peace.

Actually Israel accepted UNGA res 194, under the interpretation that it would have a degree of control on the flow of refugees who would move to Israel, including their numbers and subject to the condition set up there. It also offered to compensate refugees who didn't want to move to Israel or who would not be allowed there. The Arab states opposed it because it accepted Israel's existence.

Yes the Israelis thought the Egyptians were in encouraging the fedayeen when they were not.

Indeed, it's the benefit of hindsight I guess. But then, if it's about hindsight the Palestinian refusal to accept the bipartition was a much, much bigger one.

Israel would also mess up later on that front in 1987 when it refused a chance to give the West Bank to Jordan in exchange of a peace deal.

[Rich]

I tell you I love it. I fucking love it. Netanyahu I salute you. Is Netanyahu trolling? Of course he is. What's so funny is that this is much more an attack on Germans, than it is on Muslim Arabs. The prophet Mohammed genocided Jews for far, far less than the modern day Zionists have done. No this is an attack on modern day Germans, on their fundamental identity, take away the German guilt, take away their crown as the greatest evil doers in the history of the world and the modern Germans are nothing. Its no wonder that Mutti has responded with such vehemence to this attack on her and her children.

[pugsville]

Israel was never going to accept the refuges. It had after all driven them out as an act of deliberate policy.

The Zionist leadership would have never accepted the partition as a lasting settlement. They were committed to expansion and transfer the removal of the Palestinian population by whatever means necessary.

The partition was a bad deal for the Palestinians, rotten to the core, passed by bribery and threats through the UN. The British mandate had been bullied by Zionist terror into caving in to Zionist demands, The Balfour declaration was morally wrong and racist.

[wat0n]

Israel was never going to accept the refuges. It had after all driven them out as an act of deliberate policy.

If so, how do you explain that high ranking officials like Elias Sasson were caught by surprise by the Arab exodus? You've never provided a decent answer to that.

If it had all been planned, he'd have expected it. Right?

The Zionist leadership would have never accepted the partition as a lasting settlement. They were committed to expansion and transfer the removal of the Palestinian population by whatever means necessary.

Yes, you already stated as much. But it's not really true, there was no policy of wholesale expulsion of Arabs in the 1947-1949 war, Zionist officials were caught by surprise by the Arab exodus and it's also unlikely Israel would have been in a position to undo the bipartition had it been implemented.

The partition was a bad deal for the Palestinians, rotten to the core, passed by bribery and threats through the UN. The British mandate had been bullied by Zionist terror into caving in to Zionist demands, The Balfour declaration was morally wrong and racist.

The partition was the most logical way for them to get a state, taking into account that their Arab neighbors wouldn't have granted one had they captured territory - and in fact, they didn't in the case of Jordan and to a lesser extent Egypt. Jordan in particular even negotiated with the Zionists to keep territory while Syria had claims to all the region (along with Jordan and Lebanon) to achieve a Greater Syria broadly in line with the pre-WWI Ottoman boundaries.

Care to explain how would have the Palestinians gotten statehood had Israel lost the war?

[skinster]

...there was no policy of wholesale expulsion of Arabs in the 1947-1949 war, Zionist officials were caught by surprise by the Arab exodus

[Heinie]

... there was no policy of wholesale expulsion of Arabs in the 1947-1949 war, Zionist officials were caught by surprise by the Arab exodus ...

I do believe I have not read anything as preposterous as this.

[pugsville]

The IDF carried out large scale expulsions. Lod and Ramle for example. The Zionist leadership was committed to both expansion and transfer the removal of most of the native population. They also were committed to concealing it. The only way to achieve their aims was to expels large amounts of the Palestinian population. Telling anyone they were doing it would be disastrous for international public relations disastrous. They had a strong motive, it was the only way to achieve their goals, out they definitely had the means, and they had no moral qualms about it.

The Early Israeli Government conducted many successful international disinformation campaigns. They have sold the world several BIG LIES over the years.

The Israeli government was out to get as much territory as possible. It was too good an opportunity to get rid of the Palestinians and it absolutely had to be done, they didn't what a Palestinians majority in the new state of Israel.

Elias Sasson why would you believe a word ANY Israeli official has to say on the subject. He may have been surprised about how easy it was.

Israel was overwhelmingly superior in arms to the Palestinians. The Israels would declare that they are occupying Palestinian areas to restore order and protect Jewish lives. Then they would never leave.

The Palestinian leadership was barely functioning and total controlled by foreign elements or Haj al-Hussenis hard liners. The British prevented the Palestinians from organizing representative leadership (and because of the Zionist lobbying) BUt in any case presented with a total unfair partition plan they rejected it. Israel then invaded the proposed Palestinian state with the aim of conquest and expansion.

The Palestinians were most probably not going to get a state no matter what happened. Everyone was against them. They were poor , divided and unarmed.

[wat0n]

:lol:

I do believe I have not read anything as preposterous as this.

The IDF carried out large scale expulsions. Lod and Ramle for example. The Zionist leadership was committed to both expansion and transfer the removal of most of the native population. They also were committed to concealing it. The only way to achieve their aims was to expels large amounts of the Palestinian population. Telling anyone they were doing it would be disastrous for international public relations disastrous. They had a strong motive, it was the only way to achieve their goals, out they definitely had the means, and they had no moral qualms about it.

The Early Israeli Government conducted many successful international disinformation campaigns. They have sold the world several BIG LIES over the years.

The Israeli government was out to get as much territory as possible. It was too good an opportunity to get rid of the Palestinians and it absolutely had to be done, they didn't what a Palestinians majority in the new state of Israel.

Elias Sasson why would you believe a word ANY Israeli official has to say on the subject. He may have been surprised about how easy it was.

Israel was overwhelmingly superior in arms to the Palestinians. The Israels would declare that they are occupying Palestinian areas to restore order and protect Jewish lives. Then they would never leave.

The Palestinian leadership was barely functioning and total controlled by foreign elements or Haj al-Hussenis hard liners. The British prevented the Palestinians from organizing representative leadership (and because of the Zionist lobbying) BUt in any case presented with a total unfair partition plan they rejected it. Israel then invaded the proposed Palestinian state with the aim of conquest and expansion.

The Palestinians were most probably not going to get a state no matter what happened. Everyone was against them. They were poor , divided and unarmed.

Oh my god, you will all have to eat your words and lulz

Some Jewish officials, flustered by the unexpected exodus from Haifa, at the time believed that it was part of a comprehensive Arab or Anglo-Arab plot, which also accounted for the mass flight from other parts of Palestine in late April.234 On 23 April Sasson cabled Shertok, who was in New York:

Mass flight of Arabs now witnessed here there Palestine, as Tiberias, Haifa, elsewhere, is apparently not consequence of mere fear and weakness. Flight is organised by followers of Husseinites and outcarried cooperation foreign ‘fighters’ with object: (1) Vilifying Jews and describing them as expellants who are out outdrive Arabs from territory Jew[ish] State. (2) Compelling Arab States intervene by sending regular armies. (3) Create in Arab world and world opinion in general impression that such invasion undertaken for rescue persecuted Pal[estinians].

Sasson also asserted that the flight of the Arab commanders at the start of each battle was part of the plot to ‘spread chaos, panic’ among the Arabs, leading to flight.235

However, if Sasson meant that the exodus was orchestrated or ordered from outside Palestine, the weight of the evidence suggests that this is incorrect. As we have seen, the local notables had tried and failed to obtain instructions from Damascus. Damascus preferred silence. Nor is there any persuasive evidence that orders came from Husseini or the AHC. Haifa’s Arabs were simply left to decide on their own236 and it is probable that the local Husseini-supporting, Muslim notables – perhaps doing what they thought the AHC\Husseini would have wanted them to do – intimidated and ordered their fellow Christian notables gathered at the town hall after 19:00, 22 April, to reject a truce or anything smacking of surrender and acquiescence in Jewish rule, and to opt for evacuation. No doubt, the shadow of 1936–1939 and the memories of Husseini terrorism against Opposition\Christian figures loomed large in their minds.

Sasson was the Head of the Arab Division of the Political Department of the Jewish Agency, he was akin to a Minister of Arab Affairs back then - that is, he was the guy who was in charge of dealing with the Arab notables in the Mandate. And yet, not only he wasn't thrilled about what was going on but in this private cable to Shertok (who was akin to a Foreign Minister) he was actually surprised about the scale of the Arab exodus so far (in late April 1948) and (wrongly) believed that it was part of an Anglo-Arab ploy to make the Zionists look bad, rather than Arab civilians fleeing out of fear.

Had the Arab exodus been a result of a policy crafted before the 1947-1949 war began or during its early stages, I would say Sasson would have been one of the first ones to know, maybe even one of those who would have crafted it even - and he actually got a chance to do as much when those Zionists who actually wanted to see more expulsions because they saw what was going on and thought it could have its benefits set up the so-called transfer committees, which Sasson joined, and which ended up in nothing as well.

[pugsville]

The telegram to New York really. Who could possibly be listening.Just the people the Israelis possibly want to mislead. Really I struggle to laugh. As meaningless as a press release from Israel ministry of disinformation.

[skinster]

I do believe I have not read anything as preposterous as this.

Welcome to waton's posts. They're filled with Israeli-apologism, AKA hasbara.

[Zamuel]

... there was no policy of wholesale expulsion of Arabs in the 1947-1949 war, Zionist officials were caught by surprise by the Arab exodus ...

I do believe I have not read anything as preposterous as this.

Technically it's correct ... The IDF was formed immediately following Israel's declaration of independence. It was created by conscripting irregular militias into a cohesive military structure. Prior to the IDF's formation, militia's operated independent of any government control and did in fact have expulsion agendas based on creating defensible positions and territories. But there was no official expulsion policy propagated to the IDF.

Bordering Arab governments began encouraging Palestinians to leave long before the war began. Approx. 1/3 of those eventually classified as "Refugees" were already gone when the Arab States attacked. The Israelis figured that most of those who were going to leave had done so ... So they were kind of surprised that so many more Palestinians fled AFTER Israel occupied their territory. Many of those secondary refugees left due to the continued insistence of Arab leaders that they were going to kill all the Jews, and that they could shortly return to their homes. Undoubtedly some were displaced by IDF units following their old (unsanctioned) agendas of expelling risks to Israeli security. Neither is there any doubt that the government knew of this at the highest levels and ignored it in favor of expediency. Eventually there were also sanctioned expulsions, deemed necessary to insure internal security. It's estimated that a total of 700,000 Palestinians were displaced.

Ironically, following the war, almost the same number of Jews (many being native citizens) were expelled by the belligerent Arab countries and migrated to Israel.

One of the MOST preposterous things I'm reading here is this continual harping on "Palestinians" as if they were combatants ... Very few were. Israel was invaded by the combined forces Egypt, Jordan and Syria, together with expeditionary forces from Iraq. Those invaders took control of the Arab areas and immediately attacked Israeli forces and Jewish settlements. They were not successful.

When the war ended Israel retained the area that the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 had recommended as the Jewish state and about 60% of the proposed Arab state. Transjordan annexed what was left of the former British mandate, and the Egyptians assumed control of the Gaza Strip. So the Arab States gained almost as much territory as Israel did.

When the Jericho conference was held (Dec. 1948) around 2,000 Palestinian delegates called for unification of Palestine & Transjordan as a step toward "full Arab unity." This would have provided the Palestinians with a state and with annexed land to settle on. The Arab states declined and left the refugees who had trusted them hanging. Of course blaming Israel for everything.

Yeah, the Palestinians got screwed ... I'd grant that the Israelis were responsible for some of that. It was an inescapable necessity given the hostility that surrounded them. But I'd say the Arabs and the Palestinians themselves have to assume the bulk of the responsibility for aggravating the problem into open warfare rather than soothing it with hospitality (as the Quran requires).

Zam