What is wrong with Israel ?

[Proton Soup]

Now you're just being silly. The Celts had Great Britain once so can they expect US military aid to kick the English out and retake their homeland?

i think it was Mark Twain that said there is not one bit of land on Earth that hasn't been stolen from one man by another. maybe we should just let them settle this. whoever is strong enough to hang onto the land owns it.

 

[mheslep]

your timing is a little off. Hamas won the election in 2006 but Fatah despite losing refused to relinquish power. It was only after their electoral defeat that the US rushed military aid to Fatah to help them cling to power by force of arms.

Alright, Hamas won the legislative council election 2006 and it appears Haniya formed a new government, but Abbas was still legally serving his term as President.

 

[mheslep]

You're exposing US hegemony, but aside from that issue, Israel is just another beneficiary?

It was more intended to point out the failure of other wealthy nations to provide adequately for their own defense, which is esp. notable in various NATO and UN operations.

How many beneficiaries have 5bn worth of arms delivered annually, like Israel gets?

$2.4B FY2008, and yeah that's still too much IMO.

 

[ThomasT]

i think it was Mark Twain that said there is not one bit of land on Earth that hasn't been stolen from one man by another.

That doesn't make it the right thing to do. The OP asks, what is wrong with Israel?. The answer is that it exists on stolen land, and its policies oppress the people whose land was stolen.

That is the status quo, and it's continuation is ensured by the US government via massive financial and military support for Israel, and by the US people via ignorance of and disinterest in the Israel-Palestine problem.

 

[kyleb]

i think it was Mark Twain that said there is not one bit of land on Earth that hasn't been stolen from one man by another.

Mark Twain also said Palestine was basically empty, while Ottoman census records show hundreds of thousands of of people living there in villages and towns all over it. Furthermore. of those hundreds of thousands of people, a many were chased out by Jewish militants and terrorist groups prior to Israelis declaration of statehood.

Also note that the people we now call "Arabs" today are descendants of the Semitic people who have lived in the region along side Jews since pre-Biblical times. Some of their ancestors were Jews whose descendants later converted to Christianity and/or Islam in more recent history. This is clear not only by historical record, but though DNA studies of Palestinians, such as the one reported here:

http://bric.postech.ac.kr/science/97now/00_10now/001030a.html

So your "Israelis had the land before them" argument is absurd.

maybe we should just let them settle this. whoever is strong enough to hang onto the land owns it.

Of course that of callous disregard for any sense of justice is what has been perpetuating though this conflict for decades, and which rightfully earns us the title of the Great Satan. Not that the vast majority of our population even understand we are perpetuating such might makes right mentality, but we let people such as yourself continue such conquest all the same. What drives you to support such malevolence?

Alright, Hamas won the legislative council election 2006 and it appears Haniya formed a new government, but Abbas was still legally serving his term as President.

There is no "but" here. Haniya became Prime Minster as head of the Hamas ticket, and Hamas offered to form a unity government with Fatah, as being new to governing Hamas needed all the help they could get. However, US pressure on Abbas and financial along tactical support convinced him to engage in a coup attempt against Hamas instead. Granted, we only backed Fatah enough to try and fail, while we could have easily backed them enough to win had that been our goal. On the contrary, the obvious goal was to further divide and conquer Palestinians, just as was the goal when Israel originally funded Hamas decades ago to undermine Fatah. Also note that Israel's support for Hamas was in large part under the direction of Benjamin Netanyahu, who is now again becoming Israel's Prime Minster.

So, mission accomplished! rah, rah! Death to Palestine! Eh?

Oh that's right, we don't talk about wiping Palestine off the map, we just do it while constantly scrambling for excuses to point the finger at everyone but ourselves.

 

[Proton Soup]

That doesn't make it the right thing to do. The OP asks, what is wrong with Israel?. The answer is that it exists on stolen land, and its policies oppress the people whose land was stolen.

That is the status quo, and it's continuation is ensured by the US government via massive financial and military support for Israel, and by the US people via ignorance of and disinterest in the Israel-Palestine problem.

australia exists on stolen land. the United States exists on stolen land. Canada exists on stolen land. much of china exists on stolen land. brazil exists on stolen land. etc. none of it is going to be given back.

 

[Proton Soup]

Of course that of callous disregard for any sense of justice is what has been perpetuating though this conflict for decades, and which rightfully earns us the title of the Great Satan. Not that the vast majority of our population even understand we are perpetuating such might makes right mentality, but we let people such as yourself continue such conquest all the same. What drives you to support such malevolence?

the Great Satan? so are you Muslim?

 

[turbo]

i think it was Mark Twain that said there is not one bit of land on Earth that hasn't been stolen from one man by another. maybe we should just let them settle this. whoever is strong enough to hang onto the land owns it.

Perhaps if the US hadn't been pumping billions of dollars every year into supporting Israel, that might be a fair solution.

 

[kyleb]

australia exists on stolen land. the United States exists on stolen land. Canada exists on stolen land. much of china exists on stolen land. brazil exists on stolen land. etc. none of it is going to be given back.

Only because we cleared out the vast majority of the existing population before acknowledging the civil rights of those few who remain. Is that what you hope to see Israel eventually achieve too?

the Great Satan?

It is a fitting term to describe diabolical nature of the might makes right mentality you cheer on, even in the strictly secular sense.

so are you Muslim?

I am an agnostic theist who was raised among Christians and Jews, and hence never found cause to adhere one religion over the other, but rather gained the understanding that differences among religions are only matters of perspective. Not that my faith has any bearing on the facts I have presented here. What about yours, are you compelled to dismiss me as an enemy out of some belief that Israel's conquest over Palestine will bring Divine Salvation? If so, I recommend looking deeper into the context of whatever passages you cite.

 

[Proton Soup]

It is a fitting term to describe diabolical nature of the might makes right mentality you cheer on, even in the strictly secular sense.

i wouldn't say I'm so much cheering them on as believing they should have their place. all i see from the muslims is that they want the jews dead, so it's very difficult for me to sympathize with them. the jews are occupying a small speck of land that is their traditional homeland, while their muslim brothers occupy the vast majority of land in the region. i don't see what's unfair about it, and i see the muslims as a thousand times more aggressive. but i wasn't raised with jews, so maybe you've developed some negative feelings towards them that I'm not privy to.

 

[kyleb]

You are cheering on Israel as it keeps millions of Palestinians expressed though overwhelming military force, and colonizing their homeland out from under them while killing off anyone who gets in their way. Those Palestinians being mostly Muslims, but many largely secular and some Christians as well, and again being largely descended from Jews and other Semitic people who inhabited the region since pre-Biblical times, and most of whom have no interest in killing anyone. Those Israelis being mostly simply ethnically Jewish, only some religiously so though most culturally, and Arabs who have taken the side of the conquers, and many Jews and Arabs who want no part in this madness but are being taken along for the ride, some of whom knowingly so and who have long been speaking out against this ongoing injustice the same as I do.

Yet, you first try to absurdly try to dismiss me as a Muslim, and now as Judophobic, while ignoring my questions and the facts I present, all to reduce this whole conflict down to "the Jews" and "the Muslims" and excuse the conquers while condemning their victims. Considering your compulsion to such stereotyping and apparent disinterest in bringing a just resolution to this conflict, I can't help but wonder if you are of the same bigoted ilk which chanted "Jews go back to Palestine" along with the Nazis of Europe.

 

[mheslep]

...There is no "but" here. Haniya became Prime Minster as head of the Hamas ticket, and Hamas offered to form a unity government with Fatah, as being new to governing Hamas needed all the help they could get. However, US pressure on Abbas and financial along tactical support convinced him to engage in a coup attempt against Hamas instead. Granted, we only backed Fatah enough to try and fail, while we could have easily backed them enough to win had that been our goal. On the contrary, the obvious goal was to further divide and conquer Palestinians, just as was the goal when Israel originally funded Hamas decades ago to undermine Fatah. Also note that Israel's support for Hamas was in large part under the direction of Benjamin Netanyahu, who is now again becoming Israel's Prime Minster.

My statement was correct.

 

[Proton Soup]

kyleb, you are the one who came out swinging with the emotional warfare, asking how i can support malevolence, etc. if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. or stay and rant, it's no skin off my nose.

 

[kyleb]

My statement was correct.

Loosely anyway. Are you attempting to insinuate that any of my response was incorrect, or just actively ignoring those facts?

kyleb, you are the one who came out swinging with the emotional warfare...

I responded to your suggestion that "whoever is strong enough to hang onto the land owns it." If you don't care to defend such malevolence then so be it, but that doesn't give you any right to cast absurd accusations against me.

 

[Werg22]

australia exists on stolen land. the United States exists on stolen land. Canada exists on stolen land. much of china exists on stolen land. brazil exists on stolen land. etc. none of it is going to be given back.

Largely because there is no one to give those lands back to. The former inhabitants have for the most part been eradicated. This is not the case with the Palestinians as they are even larger in number now than they were prior to the establishment of Israel.

i wouldn't say I'm so much cheering them on as believing they should have their place. all i see from the muslims is that they want the jews dead, so it's very difficult for me to sympathize with them. the jews are occupying a small speck of land that is their traditional homeland, while their muslim brothers occupy the vast majority of land in the region. i don't see what's unfair about it, and i see the muslims as a thousand times more aggressive. but i wasn't raised with jews, so maybe you've developed some negative feelings towards them that I'm not privy to.

So you're advocating assignment of land as a function of religion? Because Palestinians are largely (but not entirely, mind you) Muslim they have no claim to some land because there is already ample of Muslim one? You seem to reduce this entire affair to a question of Muslim/Jewish tensions. The injustice doesn't lie there. The injustice is that the Palestinians, a people, have been robbed of land they used to live on. If the Palestinians relinquish the right to a land, they cease to exist as a people. The Israeli authority has made it clear that it has no interest in giving them adequate land (adequate, to exclude Camp David). It's this that the Palestinians are entitled to, and need to, keep fighting for (not necessarily violently).

Religious frictions are present. But they are far more a product of the conflict than a cause, and it is false to claim that Muslims are institutionally inclined to antisemitism; as a matter of fact many Jews fled to Muslim-ruled North Africa to escape prosecution in Spain, as many as 200 000, living along side Muslims, were found in present-day Morocco alone prior to 1948.

 

[ThomasT]

i wouldn't say I'm so much cheering them on as believing they should have their place. all i see from the muslims is that they want the jews dead, so it's very difficult for me to sympathize with them. the jews are occupying a small speck of land that is their traditional homeland, while their muslim brothers occupy the vast majority of land in the region. i don't see what's unfair about it, and i see the muslims as a thousand times more aggressive.

I think the Israelis should have a place of their own also. As well as the displaced Palestinians.

There is the argument that the majority of Palestinians weren't so much forced out of their homes by Zionists as that they left at the behest of the leaders of the surrounding Arab states in order to avoid the imminent conflict between Israel and the surrounding Arab states over the establishment of the Jewish state in the former British Mandate Palestine.

As I currently understand it, Mandate Palestine had been partitioned by the UN into at least two sovereign and autonomous states -- one, Israel, for the influx of Jewish refugess, and one, Palestine, for the indigenous Palestinian people.

The Arab leaders rejected the partitioning. I haven't learned why yet.

Accompanying this argument is the question of why the Palestinian refugees can't simply be absorbed and taken care of by the surrounding Arab states, much as Israel was a haven for Jewish refugees from all over the world.

There is the contention that this isn't done because the Arab leaders have used the Palestinian refugees as political pawns in their effort to end the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. I don't have any opinion about the truth of this yet either.

What is certain is that thousands of Palestinians were unable to resume their lives in the homes they left when they attempted to return and do that. It's sort of like if you went on vacation for some time and then came back to find your home had been taken in your absence. Israel's claim is that these people, the displaced Palestinians, have no legal right to their former homes.

To simply say that stuff happens and leave it at that isn't good enough if the principles that we Americans are supposed to stand for are to have any real meaning.

From what I've learned so far, the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel was viewed by the indigenous Arab people as an invasion. So that's one question that I have. Was it or wasn't it an invasion? It's not a matter of legality. The Nazi treatment of the Jews was legal under German law. It's a matter of right and wrong. Were the Arab states justified in opposing the partitioning of Mandate Palestine and the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel? Could there have been another haven established for Jewish refugees that didn't entail the creation of another massive group of refugees? If so, is that option still there? Or, could the Palestinian refugees be helped, on a massive scale, to tranfer and assimilate into other culture or be given a parcel of land on the scale of the Israeli state, say about 8000 sq. miles, somewhere in the world, where they can be free?

 

[Proton Soup]

I think the Israelis should have a place of their own also. As well as the displaced Palestinians.

There is the argument that the majority of Palestinians weren't so much forced out of their homes by Zionists as that they left at the behest of the leaders of the surrounding Arab states in order to avoid the imminent conflict between Israel and the surrounding Arab states over the establishment of the Jewish state in the former British Mandate Palestine.

As I currently understand it, Mandate Palestine had been partitioned by the UN into at least two sovereign and autonomous states -- one, Israel, for the influx of Jewish refugess, and one, Palestine, for the indigenous Palestinian people.

The Arab leaders rejected the partitioning. I haven't learned why yet.

i think it is because land conquered in the name of islam is considered forever in the name of islam and cannot be ceded. and because they are jews.

Accompanying this argument is the question of why the Palestinian refugees can't simply be absorbed and taken care of by the surrounding Arab states, much as Israel was a haven for Jewish refugees from all over the world.

There is the contention that this isn't done because the Arab leaders have used the Palestinian refugees as political pawns in their effort to end the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. I don't have any opinion about the truth of this yet either.

in my opinion, they are pawns.

What is certain is that thousands of Palestinians were unable to resume their lives in the homes they left when they attempted to return and do that. It's sort of like if you went on vacation for some time and then came back to find your home had been taken in your absence. Israel's claim is that these people, the displaced Palestinians, have no legal right to their former homes.

To simply say that stuff happens and leave it at that isn't good enough if the principles that we Americans are supposed to stand for are to have any real meaning.

From what I've learned so far, the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel was viewed by the indigenous Arab people as an invasion. So that's one question that I have. Was it or wasn't it an invasion? It's not a matter of legality. The Nazi treatment of the Jews was legal under German law. It's a matter of right and wrong. Were the Arab states justified in opposing the partitioning of Mandate Palestine and the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel? Could there have been another haven established for Jewish refugees that didn't entail the creation of another massive group of refugees? If so, is that option still there? Or, could the Palestinian refugees be helped, on a massive scale, to tranfer and assimilate into other culture or be given a parcel of land on the scale of the Israeli state, say about 8000 sq. miles, somewhere in the world, where they can be free?

i am somewhat interested in the story of what happened when jews started migrating to israel/palestine. if they were settling in unoccupied areas and were attacked for being jews, then it's hard to defend the arab position.

i'm not sure where you would put the palestinians. maybe a piece egypt or other surrounding states. they've been hiding behind the palestinians to fight a proxy war with israel for years, so it seems fitting that they should cede territory for the cause.

 

[Werg22]

i think it is because land conquered in the name of islam is considered forever in the name of islam and cannot be ceded. and because they are jews.

Funny, I don't see too many Muslims claiming southern Iberia.

i am somewhat interested in the story of what happened when jews started migrating to israel/palestine. if they were settling in unoccupied areas and were attacked for being jews, then it's hard to defend the arab position.

i'm not sure where you would put the palestinians. maybe a piece egypt or other surrounding states. they've been hiding behind the palestinians to fight a proxy war with israel for years, so it seems fitting that they should cede territory for the cause.

Ceding territory would be tantamount to admitting the defeat of the Palestinian cause. The cause wouldn't be served, it would be destroyed.

 

[Proton Soup]

lol, you didn't have to do that astronuc. i already read the email.

 

[Astronuc]

The history of ME particularly Israel/Palestine is long and complex - and contentious.

At the moment two peoples would like control of the same land, and the conflict has bred animosity among members of each population toward the members of the other.

What to do when some people adopt violence as a means of addressing a conflict.

 

[kyleb]

There is the argument that the majority of Palestinians weren't so much forced out of their homes by Zionists...

Then there is the well documented history of Zionist militias planing and execution of Plan Dalet, in which the ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from around two hundred localities across both sides of the UN partition Plan in the months prior to declaring statehood. Among others, the Israeli historian IIlan Pappe does a thorough job of compiling records of this within https://www.amazon.com/dp/1851684670/?tag=pfamazon01-20.

As I currently understand it, Mandate Palestine had been partitioned by the UN into at least two sovereign and autonomous states -- one, Israel, for the influx of Jewish refugess, and one, Palestine, for the indigenous Palestinian people.

Rather, it carved Palestine out around the Jewish minority there to create a slight Jewish majority for the state of Israel, which was then largely ethnically cleansed by Jewish militants, as noted above.

The Arab leaders rejected the partitioning. I haven't learned why yet.

Diplomatically, you can find a respectable recount of the arguments for and against http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9f...7c45a3dd0d46b09802564740045cc0a!OpenDocument" sums it up well. As for why Arab nations sent their armies in directly following Israel's decleration of statehood, again see the ethnic cleansing above.

Accompanying this argument is the question of why the Palestinian refugees can't simply be absorbed and taken care of by the surrounding Arab states, much as Israel was a haven for Jewish refugees from all over the world.

For the same reason you couldn't convince your neighbors to accept giving up their homeland to colonists, even if those colonists desired the land to the point of exploiting overwhelming military force to drive you all out.

There is the contention that this isn't done because the Arab leaders have used the Palestinian refugees as political pawns in their effort to end the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. I don't have any opinion about the truth of this yet either.

What is certain is that thousands of Palestinians were unable to resume their lives in the homes they left when they attempted to return and do that. It's sort of like if you went on vacation for some time and then came back to find your home had been taken in your absence. Israel's claim is that these people, the displaced Palestinians, have no legal right to their former homes.

Exceedingly cynical arguments, based in an absurdly distorted perception of reality.

To simply say that stuff happens and leave it at that isn't good enough if the principles that we Americans are supposed to stand for are to have any real meaning.

Shamefully true, and fitting to what we have long been doing far more so than I gather you could imagine.

From what I've learned so far, the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel was viewed by the indigenous Arab people as an invasion. So that's one question that I have. Was it or wasn't it an invasion? It's not a matter of legality. The Nazi treatment of the Jews was legal under German law. It's a matter of right and wrong. Were the Arab states justified in opposing the partitioning of Mandate Palestine and the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel? Could there have been another haven established for Jewish refugees that didn't entail the creation of another massive group of refugees? If so, is that option still there?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2451908450811690589" is a exelent documentry which answers those questions in detail.

Or, could the Palestinian refugees be helped, on a massive scale, to tranfer and assimilate into other culture or be given a parcel of land on the scale of the Israeli state, say about 8000 sq. miles, somewhere in the world, where they can be free?

I don't see how the problems of ethnic cleansing can be solved though more ethnic cleansing, and certainly have no interest in trying.

Palestinians, refugees and otherwise, and Israelis as well, would be helped though a just two-state solution on the basis of international law, as outlined in the http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/a0...3d3c4b4b95d2ff285257551005a67f0!OpenDocument", as they as has been done for decades, with only US veto power over the Security Council holding back enforceable resolutions to end this conflict.

What to do when some people adopt violence as a means of addressing a conflict.

The same thing we did to bring the end of apartheid in South Africa; boycott, divestment, and sanctions. The violence only comments as long as people can achieve their goals though it, which is only as long as we allow them to.

 

[ThomasT]

Then there is the well documented history of Zionist militias planing and execution of Plan Dalet, in which the ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from around two hundred localities across both sides of the UN partition Plan in the months prior to declaring statehood. Among others, the Israeli historian IIlan Pappe does a thorough job of compiling records of this within https://www.amazon.com/dp/1851684670/?tag=pfamazon01-20.

Thanks for (all of) the links. It seems I've got lots more reading to do. So far, from reading review threads at Amazon, and following some Google queries, the evidence seems to support Pappe's premise regarding a planned and systematic expulsion of Palestinians -- and seems to contradict the official Israeli pronouncements regarding the cause of the Palestinian exodus.

 

[Astronuc]

Thanks for (all of) the links. It seems I've got lots more reading to do. So far, from reading review threads at Amazon, and following some Google queries, the evidence seems to support Pappe's premise regarding a planned and systematic expulsion of Palestinians -- and seems to contradict the official Israeli pronouncements regarding the cause of the Palestinian exodus.

Another compelling account of the Middle East since World War I, including Israel and Palestine, is https://www.amazon.com/dp/1400075173/?tag=pfamazon01-20 (Paperback) by Robert Fisk.

This is first of all a book about war -- in particular, the wars that have scarred the Middle East, from Afghanistan to Algeria, throughout the author's long career as a correspondent for the London Times and then the Independent. It switches back and forth across the 20th century in a way that seems driven more by stream of consciousness than by any linear design, and, as befits its topic, it is a book of almost unremitting violence. The author presents himself both as unflinching witness and implacable judge of the events he recounts, for he believes that he is telling a story of unrelenting perfidy and betrayal -- in part a story of Middle Easterners being betrayed by themselves and their leaders, but mostly one of the Middle East being betrayed by the power, greed and arrogance of the West.

Fisk has thrown himself into the fiery pit time after time, often at grave personal risk -- Afghanistan at the beginning of the long struggle against the Soviets, the bloodbath of the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, the civil war in Algeria after 1991, the second Palestinian intifada since the fall of 2000. When he is not personally in the midst of conflict and destruction, he evokes them, as in his lengthy discussion of the Armenian deportations and massacres of World War I or (in a different register) his treatment of the shah of Iran's prisons and torture chambers.
. . . .
If this is a book about war, it is equally a book about the hypocrisy and indifference of those in power. Fisk is an angry man and more than a little self-righteous. No national leader comes off with a scrap of credit here; he regards the lot of them with contempt, if not loathing. Among the men in charge -- whether Arab, Iranian, Turkish, Israeli, British or American -- there are no heroes and precious few honorable people doing their inadequate best in difficult situations. Jimmy Carter is lucky to escape with condescension, King Hussein of Jordan with a bit better than that. Fisk is not fond of the media either (though he grants some exceptions); CNN and the New York Times are particular targets of his scorn for what he sees as their abject failure to challenge the lies, distortions and cover-ups of U.S. policymakers. Only among ordinary people, entangled in a web of forces beyond their control, does Fisk find a human mixture of courage, cowardice, charity and cruelty!

 

[kyleb]

Thanks for (all of) the links. It seems I've got lots more reading to do. So far, from reading review threads at Amazon, and following some Google queries, the evidence seems to support Pappe's premise regarding a planned and systematic expulsion of Palestinians -- and seems to contradict the official Israeli pronouncements regarding the cause of the Palestinian exodus.

Pappe recounts the details of the planing and execution of the operations from Israeli records, as have a few other historians. The only dispute is that official Israeli policy is to focus on the stated defensive nature of the campaign to excuse the ethnic cleansing it effected. Then of course there is the "they left at the behest of the leaders of the surrounding Arab states" claim, but that is just one of many distortions in the timeline in the backpack of lies used to perpetuate this conquest.

And yeah, you've got years of reading just to get a reasonable grasp of the history, particularly in the context of that of the region as Astronuc brings up. I say this as someone who has put a good portion of a decade into doing just that, and I continue to learn more nearly every day. From an intellectual level it is a fascinating subject, but not for the emotionally weak by any stretch. However, I argue the details of the history are trivial for anything but discrediting those who choose to selectively recount it to perpetuate such conflicts, and most such people will simply jump from one argument to anther as they fall anyway, which becomes a massive waste of time. For the rest of us, effort is far better spent on understanding the current realities, so we can finally start working to achieve a just two-state solution under international law. And on that note, I recommend this Dutch documentary on the Israel lobby in the US, the beginning is subtitled but the vast majority is in English:

 

[humanino]

And on that note, I recommend this Dutch documentary on the Israel lobby in the US, the beginning is subtitled but the vast majority is in English:

I think it has already been posted here on PF. I would strongly recommend watching it.

 

[tiny-tim]

reading lists

The Arab leaders rejected the partitioning. I haven't learned why yet.
…
From what I've learned so far, the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel was viewed by the indigenous Arab people as an invasion. So that's one question that I have. Was it or wasn't it an invasion? It's not a matter of legality. The Nazi treatment of the Jews was legal under German law. It's a matter of right and wrong. …

Thanks for (all of) the links. It seems I've got lots more reading to do. So far, from reading review threads at Amazon, and following some Google queries, the evidence seems to support Pappe's premise regarding a planned and systematic expulsion of Palestinians -- and seems to contradict the official Israeli pronouncements regarding the cause of the Palestinian exodus.

ThomasT , if you follow the reading recommendations … Pappe and Fisk … you'll get a thoroughly one-sided view.

My advice to you is always to be suspicious of people recommending particular books.

You can read for yourself the whole wikipedia article on Ilan Pappe, but your suspicions may be aroused by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Pappe#Critical_assessment" quoted as saying …

"Readers are told of events that never happened … political decisions that were never made … for relying on secondary sources and admitting his own bias in his introduction …"

As a study or research policy, I suggest you start by looking at wikipedia articles (which have the advantage that, because of the way they are composed, they give you both sides), and follow up references (to both sides) from those articles, rather than exclusively books and documentaries that are the most extreme to be found.

There are loads of relevant wikipedia articles, but to get you started …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#The_20th_century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians#Struggle_for_self-determination
and of course the one kyleb referred to …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet#Operations_of_Plan_Dalet

 

[tiny-tim]

Plan Dalet

Then there is the well documented history of Zionist militias planing and execution of Plan Dalet, in which the ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from around two hundred localities across both sides of the UN partition Plan in the months prior to declaring statehood. Among others, the Israeli historian IIlan Pappe does a thorough job of compiling records of this within https://www.amazon.com/dp/1851684670/?tag=pfamazon01-20.

This is a thoroughly misleading and biased account of Plan Dalet …

According to most historians, Plan Dalet was "primarily defensive in nature" … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet …

Plan Dalet, or Plan D, (Hebrew: תוכנית ד' Tokhnit dalet; dalet is the fourth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, as "D" is in the Latin), was a plan that the Haganah in Palestine worked out during autumn 1947 to spring 1948. The purpose of the plan was, according to its Jewish planners, a contingency plan for defending a Jewish state from invasion.

According to Yoav Gelber and most other historians , Plan D was primarily defensive in nature.

According to other sources it was a plan with the purpose of conquering as much of Palestine as possible and to expel as many Palestinians as possible (see 'Plan Dalet: Master Plan for the Conquest of Palestine', by Walid Khalidi, for example).

From section 3b4 of the plan (which has been public knowledge for a long time) …

In the absence of resistance, garrison troops will enter the village and take up positions in it or in locations which enable complete tactical control. The officer in command of the unit will confiscate all weapons, wireless devices, and motor vehicles in the village. In addition, he will detain all politically suspect individuals.

The remainder of 3b4 authorises expulsion from and destruction of the village if there is resistance from it.

It also authorises, for a separate category of villages which are "population centers which are difficult to control continuously", expulsion from and destruction of the village even without resistance.

All this is a standard international military procedure.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet#Palestinian_narrative" we see the military and defensive effectiveness of expulsions near the Egyptian front line …

According to the French historian Henry Laurens, the importance of the military dimension of plan Dalet becomes clear by comparing the operations of the Jordanian and the Egyptian armies. The ethnical homogeneity of the coastal area, obtained by the expulsions of the Palestinians eased the halt of the Egyptian advance, while Jewish Jerusalem, located in an Arab population area, was encircled by Jordanian forces.

 

[kyleb]

As I noted above:

The only dispute is that official Israeli policy is to focus on the stated defensive nature of the campaign to excuse the ethnic cleansing it effected.

And furthermore:

However, I argue the details of the history are trivial for anything but discrediting those who choose to selectively recount it to perpetuate such conflicts, and most such people will simply jump from one argument to anther as they fall anyway, which becomes a massive waste of time.

Which reminds me, you never did answer my question as to if I am to accept your claim that General Assembly Resolutions don't confer legal rights; what, if anything, do you believe gives Israel any legal right to exist at all, as I inquired https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2045253&postcount=51". Granted, considering your demonstrated contempt for Palestinians rights, I don't really expect an answer.

 

[mjsd]

This is a thoroughly misleading and biased account of Plan Dalet …

According to most historians, Plan Dalet was "primarily defensive in nature" … see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet …

Just a quick point: Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source. And using it as the main source of a rebuttal against other's "biased" account of an event is not very convincing to say the least. However, since from day one the information about this conflict appears very murky and difficult to verify one way or the other, I may give you the benefit of the doubt.

Either way, We (westerners) should count ourselves fortunate, and perhaps realize that if we treat others with a bit more respect (even if we have to sacrifice a little bit here and there), then others may not trample on us as heavily should we become the inferior group in the future (by accident or otherwise).

 

[tiny-tim]

Just a quick point: Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source.

wikipedia is more reliable than any individual here, or than Pappe

especially since wikipedia articles have contributions from both sides​

 

[Astronuc]

ThomasT , if you follow the reading recommendations … Pappe and Fisk … you'll get a thoroughly one-sided view.

My advice to you is always to be suspicious of people recommending particular books.

I wouldn't put Fisk in the same category as Pappé, who is criticized along with other so-called 'New Historians' as anti-Zionist.

See also - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Historians

It is important when reading any historical book to know the perspectives and prejudices/biases of the author. While Fisk's book, The Great War for Civilisation, is dense, it does apparently contain factual errors as highlighted in Efraim Karsh's criticism of the book in the article http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2006/31-3/biblio31-3.htm .

. . . .
First there is the problem of simple accuracy. It is difficult to turn a page of The Great War for Civilisation without encountering some basic error. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not, as Fisk has it, in Jerusalem. The Caliph Ali, the Prophet Mohammed’s cousin and son-in-law, was murdered in the year 661, not in the 8th century. Emir Abdallah became king of Transjordan in 1946, not 1921. The Iraqi monarchy was overthrown in 1958, not 1962; Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, was appointed by the British authorities, not elected; Ayatollah Khomeini transferred his exile from Turkey to the holy Shiite city of Najaf not during Saddam Hussein’s rule but fourteen years before Saddam seized power. Security Council resolution 242 was passed in November 1967, not 1968; Anwar Sadat of Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, not 1977, and was assassinated in October 1981, not 1979. Yitzhak Rabin was Minister of Defence, not prime minister, during the first Palestinian intifada, and al-Qaeda was established not in 1998 but a decade earlier. And so on and so forth.

. . . .

Another criticism of Fisk's book - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/19/books/review/19bron.html

One should also be familiar with Fisk and Karsh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fisk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efraim_Karsh

It would be worthwhile to also read Karsh's Islamic Imperialism: A History (Yale University Press, 2006) and Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1922 (Harvard University Press, 1999; with *Inari Karsh).

The problem in the ME and in history in general is one of sorting through the one-sided views of the authors, when one does not know the authors or the context from direct observation or participation.

The human experience is multi-faceted, and not simply two-sided.

I find myself thoroughly distressed at the propensity toward violence and hatred by so many in the world.

 

[sirchasm]

Is Israel guilty of using US armaments in breach of US domestic laws?

Some lawyers apparently think the US should embargo arms shipments and sanction states who do ship arms (that would include itself)...
Legal arguments can be so entertaining, don't you think?

 

[Alfi]

Legal arguments can be so entertaining, don't you think?

They sure can;
right up until I remember that children and other innocents are dying while the lawyers drag any and every detail out, all the while making money.If this whole conflict one that can be solved through law?
If that's all it is, and both sides can see fit to stop killing and make their case.
Call the World court together and get it solved.

 

[kyleb]

The International Court of Justice already ruled against Israel's conquest of the West Bank in their ruling against the separation barrier back in 2004, but has no means to enforce that ruling. To enforce internal law requires UN Security Counsel resolutions, and US veto power is exploited to prevent those from imposing the sanctions which would cut Israel off from the ability to continue their conquest over what little of Palestine is left.

 

[Alfi]

The International Court of Justice already ruled against Israel's conquest of the West Bank in their ruling against the separation barrier back in 2004, but has no means to enforce that ruling. To enforce internal law requires UN Security Counsel resolutions, and US veto power is exploited to prevent those from imposing the sanctions which would cut Israel off from the ability to continue their conquest over what little of Palestine is left.

but has no means to enforce that ruling.

This seems to be a center of the greater problem. The United Nations needs to change. It's not effective as it is.
A better UN may have stopped the invasion of Iraq. Or issued the orders to have SadManInsane removed from power. Possibly with less loss of life and money or war profiteering. Who knows, it didn't happen. The Sanctions and inspections and the whole game was preempted unilaterally by one country.
A better UN should be able to go into any country and arrest any suspect for open trial.

veto power is exploited to prevent those from imposing the sanctions

This seems to be one of the major flaws in the system.
I'll give a look into the history and the who wants or who holds the power. Should be interesting.