Bush’s Remarks on Refugees Spark Outcry in Jordan

Abdul Jalil Mustafa, Arab News

AMMAN, 20 January 2008 — Jordan, home to about 1.9 million Palestinian refugees, was this week the scene for deep disappointment over US President George W Bush’s remarks supportive of Jewish Israel and his unequivocal denial of the Palestinian refugees’ right to return to their homes which they deserted upon Israel’s foundation in 1948.

Bush’s suggestion that the refugees be compensated for their properties instead of allowing them to return to their homes in Israel also drew sharp reactions from the refugees themselves and from members of the Amman-based Palestine National Council (PNC), an equivalent to a Palestinian Parliament-in-exile.

“Bush’s proposal is tantamount to a new Balfour Declaration,” PNC Deputy Speaker Tayseer Qubaa told Arab News on Friday. He referred to a 1917 document that was included in a letter sent by then British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to leader of the British Jewish Community, Walter Rothschild, expressing the backing of Britain, as a UN trustee power, for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

“The US president’s exclusion of the return of Palestinian refugees and his call for amending the armistice line to ensure annexation of Jewish settlements to Israel virtually derailed the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations before they started,” he said.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=105878&d=20&m=1&y=2008

Pay the man to leave the country and never return.
$100 million dollars. 33 cents from every citizen.
Lets see how happy he is with the suggestion

Bush: Money Trumps Peace
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utRKKOUHA4A

-

He hates us yet they fail to impeach him. What is wrong with Congress and our leadership?

but he is right on this one.

There will be no "right of return" for Arabs who left or were expelled in 1948. It is fantasy to continue talking about this as if it would actually happen. It won't, and there needs to be a reality check for those who think continuing to push this agenda will get to a two state solution any quicker. It actually stalls the process.

How sad.

How ironic.

How tragic.

Palestinians could have had a state a bunch of times already. If they want one by next year, they could, but it won't include having millions of them all moving into Israel. Not happening.

are out of the question?

You'll take what you're given and be grateful?

How sad.

How tragic.

How ironic.

but it is no different than the Jews who were forced to leave their homes and livelihood in Arab countries. They will never see those homes again (can't even visit the countries...very bad to be an Israeli apparently), and will not even get compensation.

The Palestinians have a chance for compensation, which is more than the jews ever got.

Why the one-sided appeal for "right of return"? Do you think Jews should be compensated or allowed to return (ha) to their former homes?

Sorry, but that comparison only works so far.

Both were horrific and wrong, but who did the expelling? Palestinians? Nope. Who's paying the price as they did for European and Russian actions? Palestinians? Yup.

The Europeans and Russians didn't kick out 850,000 Jews from Arab countries. The Arabs did.

Next?

when it is not ok to conflate all Jews with Israeli's?

However, this is not only a "Palestinian/Israeli" struggle but an Arab/Israeli, or Arab/Jewish one.

The entire Arab League (with the exception of the two countries that have fragile peace agreements, despite continuing to be virulently anti-semitic) is at war with Israel and Jews. Just listen to their media, their leaders, etc.

So, it's a little naive to pretend that it is only a Palestinian issue. This is an issue that affects every Arab or Muslim nation. They all hate Israel.

I'm afraid the Israel is universally hated line does not cover what's going on here.

Israeli Jews lost their homes and livelihood, and are not expecting either to return or to have compensation.

Palestinian Arabs lost their homes and livelihood and are expecting to both return and/or have compensation.

The fact is there was expulsion throughout the middle east in 1948. Do you think one group deserves special compensation over the other, and if so, why?

Jews were kicked out of homes in places a-f. They in turn went to place g. The people currently living in place g were kicked out and their homes taken so the refugees from placed a-f could take their place. For what? What did they do?

You are trying to place blame and find equivalence where there is none. You can't punish me for my neighbor's crime.

that the people in g also took part in kicking Jews out (post-1948 West Bank, anyone?)

Can we agree that all kicking outs, expulsions, bans on returning home etc are immoral whether Jew, Arab or any other ethnicity?

Can you elaborate?

Denied by a country whose foundational ideology was often tied to the phrase "next year in Jerusalem"

Strange that this would need to be explained in the 21st century on the DU I/P forum.

so should I take it you agree that Israel has a right to Jerusalem?

For those Palestinians who can provide deeds for properties in Israel. But this is all contingent on negotiating a final agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians.

that people who were driven out with terror, murder and rape are required to show proper paperwork to reclaim that which was criminally stolen from them, while all any person in the world whose mom was Jewish only has to show their face at Ben Gurion airport....

It's utterly shameless.

Willful ignorance.

I have images of the Vancome Lady from Mad TV "La la la la, la la la la..."

Some of my ancestors fled pogroms in Lithuania and Poland in the early 20th century; but I don't expect that I'd be automatically granted a home in one of these countries.

Many of you are probably living in places from which Native Americans were forcibly expelled - and worse. Are you willing to vacate your homes so that their descendants can live on exactly the same land as their ancestors?

I strongly support a Palestinian state, and compensation for descendants of refugees; but hereditary right of return to exactly the same spot is not realistic IMO. I would support right of return for the refugees themselves and their immediate families. It's the hereditary aspect that's more of a problem.

As for Jordan - are they going to give the Palestinians whom THEY expelled the right of return?

Then your relatives should have the right to return.

Native Americans as an example is a often used red herring.

The issue at hand is that Israelis used the right of return as a key plank in the Israeli platform.
To turn around and say to Palestinians to deal with it is hypocritical and undermines the moral basis the Israeli cause.

No other refugees in the world have the right of return, with all their descendants. It's suicide for Israel, and will never happen.

You can say, all refugees should be able to return to their respective countries, but I assure you, it will never happen (and hasn't). My relatives were forced out of two countries, and were welcome back in neither. So they made new lives in new countries. That's typically what refugees do. It might suck, and people might wish for something other than this, but it is the reality. Sometimes it is time to move on and make a life for oneself, that doesn't involve wallowing in self pity.

The Israelis will never willingly give up a Jewish Israel and right of return would destroy that national character. This is why the right of return, as the Palestinians demand, is not going to happen.

. . attacking and ethnically cleansing Jews from their lands, as they were ethnically cleansed by the Romans from Palestine almost 2000 years ago - is the same thing as Palestinian Arabs displaced from their homes as the result of a war that was started in their name - to ethnically cleanse the Jews again from Palestine in 1948. This was a war that Israel begged the Arabs not to start. And Israel also welcomed Arabs to share the land with the Jews within Israel. Until that war - no-one lost their land, was ethnically cleansed or even threatened with it.

Even during the war there is no solid evidence that any actual ethnic cleansing of Arabs took place. I've never seen one account of an Arab family describing being put on a truck or bus by Israeli government agents or military and dropped off in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria or Egypt against their will. Have you? Some Arabs were probably threatened by Jews and renegade militias acting on their own and fled - but there was no policy of the government of Israel to do that as far as I know.

Aside from that, Jews have never used the right of return (as a legal concept) as justification for establishing the Jewish state by taking land away from Arabs. The desire to immigrate to Palestine was a Zionist dream since the mid 1800's. Many did immigrate and they did it legally, not by claiming any right of return to force anyone to accept them. The UN established the Partition Plan because there were areas of Palestine in 1947 where Jews were a majority - and the Arabs who had majority status in other areas refused to accept the possibility of living with Jews in the same state.

Rewriting history can be so creative and fulfilling, can't it? You can claim whatever you want - even ethnic cleansing - when nothing like it ever occurred.

As far as you know? Allow me to cite a few reputable sources which indicate what the 1948 official Jewish policy was:

1.“..it was deliberate Jewish policy to encourage the Arabs to quit their homes, and they used psychological warfare extensively in urging them to do so.” Edgar O’Ballance, The Arab-Israeli War, 1948, p.64

2. “..We, Jews, forced the Arabs to leave their cities and villages ....Some of them were driven out by forces of arms; others were made to leave by deceit, lying and false promises.” Natan Chofsi, Jewish Newsletter, Feb 9, 1959

3.The Hagana Plan D, March 1948, was a military plan but also called for “…the expulsion over the borders of the local Arab population in the event of opposition to our attacks” Flapan, Birth of Israel. p.42

4.When asked by Allon what should be done with the towns’ approximately 70,000 Arabs, Ben Gurion said “..Expel them’ Morris, The Birth p.207

I've never seen one account of an Arab family describing being put on a truck or bus by Israeli government agents or military and dropped off in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria or Egypt against their will. Have you?

Because while the expulsions from Ramle were carried out by the IDF providing transport, the expulsions from Lydda were on foot...

The largest single expulsion of the war began in Lydda and Ramla July 14 when 60,000 inhabitants of the two cities were forcibly expelled on the orders of Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Rabin.

According to Flapan (1987, pp. 13-14) in Ben-Gurion's view Ramlah and Lydda constituted a special danger because their proximity might encourage cooperation between the Egyptian army, which had started its attack on Kibbutz Negbah, near Ramlah, and the Arab Legion, which had taken the Lydda police station. However the author considers that, Operation Dani, by which the two towns were seized, revealed that no such cooperation existed.

In the opinion of Flapan, "in Lydda, the exodus took place on foot. In Ramlah, the IDF provided buses and trucks. Originally, all males had been rounded up and enclosed in a compound, but after some shooting was heard, and construed by Ben-Gurion to be the beginning of an Arab Legion counteroffensive, he stopped the arrests and ordered the speedy eviction of all the Arabs, including women, children, and the elderly"<53>. In explanation, Flapan cites that Ben-Gurion said that "those who made war on us bear responsibility after their defeat."<54>

Rabin wrote in his memoirs:

What would they do with the 50,000 civilians in the two cities ... Not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution, and during the discussion at operation headquarters, he remained silent, as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could endanger the supply route advancing eastward. ... Allon repeated the question: What is to be done with the population? Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture that said: Drive them out! ... 'Driving out' is a term with a harsh ring ... Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook. The population of did not leave willingly. There was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the 10 to 15 miles to the point where they met up with the legion. (Soldier of Peace, p. 140-141)

Flapan maintains that events in Nazareth, although ending differently, point to the existence of a definite pattern of expulsion. On 16 July, three days after the Lydda and Ramlah evictions, the city of Nazareth surrendered to the IDF. The officer in command, a Canadian Jew named Ben Dunkelman, had signed the surrender agreement on behalf of the Israeli army along with Chaim Laskov (then a brigadier general, later IDF chief of staff). The agreement assured the civilians that they would not be harmed, but the next day, Laskov handed Dunkelman an order to evacuate the population<55>.

Additionally, widespread looting and several cases of rape<56> took place during the evacuation. In total, about 100,000 Palestinians became refugees in this stage according to Morris.<57>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Exodus

As most of your comments fail similarly. They talk of expulsions. But to where? In most of these cases they were military necessity and described as such. The expulsions were from the towns that were on supply and communication routes.

You have not shown that Israel was involved in ethnic cleansing here. You have shown that Israel was involved in a war - which I already knew.

to my post.

Par for the course.

Wrong.

The Law of Return gives any Jew the option for fast-tracked Israeli citizenship - but it does so by the authority of the state. Israel has never claimed that Jews have a right to arrive in Israel as a function of international law - which is what the Palestinians are arguing.

False analogy.

You are right, no one would expect present day Lithuanians and Poles to grant you residence, but how do you reconcile this with the 1917 Zionist claim of a right 'to return to their homeland in Palestine'?

At least you have ancestors you can identify, and would not be intending to carve out a new state. I have never heard any Zionist claim his umpteenth grandfather lived in Palestine.

of the Palestinians carving out a new state. Had Israel never existed, perhaps there would be a Palestine in its stead. Neither existed beforehand. Actually, none of the middle eastern states existed before WWI except maybe Iran, Syria and Egypt.

And there were plenty of Jews living in Palestine prior to 1917. For example, in Hebron, going back 3000 years. (But I think everyone knows that this city will eventually end up exclusively belonging to Palestine, with a Jewish population of 0.) The Jews have a unique claim to the land of Israel, yet the state of Israel was actually created to accommodate refugees in an anti-semitic world. Their claim is both a historical/cultural one and also one of necessity.

I know you have a hang-up about 'states' but what we are actually talking about is people, human beings.

In 1917, neither the 15% Palestinian Jewish population nor the 85% Arab population had any need to 'carve out a new state' anymore than than Bulgarians, Bosnians, Croats and other members of the ex-Ottoman empire. They existed and lived on the land where they were born.

Do you really think they had no right to demand self determination?

One gets the impression that "Palestinian" necessarily means Muslim or Christian or agnostic or atheist or something, but not Jewish.

In the first place, there were Jews in Palestine for 2000 years.

In the second place, Zionists who wanted to immigrate to Palestine in the early 1900s did so legally. Are you against legal immigration? Why would you have a problem with foreigners legally immigrating anywhere, or do you have racist beliefs that the middle east belongs only to Arabs? (as is it, there are 22 Arab nations in the mideast alone, and none of them allow Jews to immigrate there).

So, were you against Jews in the middle east too? There is no other way to construe your post.

I have never suggested otherwise. How does that make my 'understanding of history a bit skewed?



If by 'legally' you mean 'authorized' by the Balfour, you are correct. My contention is that both Balfour and the 1917 Zionists were immoral in not considering the wishes of all the inhabitants of Palestine - both the 15% Jewish population and the 85% Arab population.



That is a slur not worthy of you. I have never suggested that the middle east or anywhere else belongs only to one ethnicity.

If you are not opposed to legal immigration, and you do not suggest the the middle east belongs to only one ethnicity, what problem would you have with Jews immigrating to Palestine legally?

And why was this a moral issue? Are you opposed to people immigrating to other countries? Are the "inhabitants" of France or the US or Canada consulted about who will be allowed to immigrate?

This is why I am scratching my head, because it sounds like you were simply opposed to Jews immigrating, and I am trying to understand why.

Being 'legal' does not make an action moral. It is legal in many US states to execute convicted murderers. Many people consider this immoral.



The represententatives of the inhabitants of all democratic states have a vote on such issues. Did Balfour consult the leaders or anyone purporting to represent the 'inhabitants' of 1917 Palestine?

Croatians or Russians or Martians immigrating to your country? Last I checked, no one had asked me.

And if you opposed, wouldn't people consider you racist? I would, and that's what I would think about people opposing Jewish immigration, just because it was Jews.

on edit: And you still haven't explained why immigration is "immoral". You may not have liked all those Jews immigrating, but what was immoral about it, unless you consider all immigration to be immoral.

And your representative was presumably asked at some time or other to approve a law which allowed such immigration to your country. That's the way representative democracies work.

The inhabitants of 1917 Palestine were not so fortunate, but that doesn't mean their wishes should have been ignored.

if the Arabs had said, "forget it, we don't want any Jews here", that would have been OK with you?

We already know Arabs didn't want any Jews there. Actions since the 1880's were quite clear in that regard. In that case, you are fine with the idea of the middle east being totally free of Jews, since they weren't welcome anyway?

Not the Arabs, the Jews or any other ethnicity, just the residents of 1917 Palestine.

Are you saying it was moral to deny the residents of 1917 Palestine the right to self-determination?

Again, square one.

If the Arabs had said (as they did), we don't want any Jews (even though the whole middle east was already wholly Arab), you would have considered that a moral action?

If the British said, we don't want any more Muslims, would you consider that to be a moral action? No, you would likely consider it racist, as do I.

Maybe it is just me who doesn't understand your doublespeak.

You seem to be confusing inhabitants with ethnicity.

Every state gives preference to its 'inhabitants', but most democratic states do not distinguish between Jewish inhabitants/citizens and Arabs or anyone else.



Israeli law only gives the Right of Return to Jews. They seem to be satisfied that this law is not racial discrimination but I believe many people call it a racist law.

Nice try at changing the subject! We weren't talking about "democratic states" or Israel.

We were talking about why you thought it was moral for Arabs to deny legal immigration to Jews.

This conversation is going in circles, and I have things to do.

No change of subject at all.

If you care nothing for morality that's OK by me, but I do suggest you get yourself sorted out on the difference between 'legal' and 'moral' actions.

I would argue that you are applying a modern ethical benchmark to a different time and place entirely, then criticizing it for falling short of that standard. The world after WWI was reshaped by the powers who won. Systems were set up to facilitate the process and to assure the inhabitants of the parts of the world being remapped of a modicum of concern for their interests. Operating within this system, the Zionists made every effort to meet the highest diplomatic and ethical standard available to them. They could not have reasonably been asked to go beyond what protocol of the day dictated.

That said, they did in fact make an agreement with a representative of the Arabs, Emir Faisal. The Faisal-Weizmann agreement did not pan out well in the end, (obviously,) but it was a binding agreement for Jewish-Arab cooperation in the formation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal-Weizmann_Agreement

Now what MsMghee and Vega are having trouble with is the idea that the people who happened to be living in Palestine at that exact moment had the right to deny Jews from returning to their homeland. At the time Palestine was not a state, there were no states in the whole area, and the reigning Arab ideology was Pan-Arabism; the dream was of forming a single Arab state. Which is to say, there wasn't a "state" of people who identified as Palestinians in any kind of a national sense to consult. This area was tribal. There were Jews, Druze, Arabs, Bedouins, etc. The idea that someone should have held a caucus of all these groups based on the fact that they lived in an arbitrarily defined area that had yet to be divvied up into independent states is to demand that the past conform to present day ideas of nation-states and national identity, not to mention democracy. You have to look at this in the context of the time period. And within that time period, that's not how it worked, and who are those people anyway to decide whether Jews get to immigrate to the area? It's not "their" area, they don't own it. Maybe some of it, sure, but then they don't have to sell it to the Jews if they don't want to. But since it is as much the Jews' homeland as it is their own, what right do they have denying them entry altogether? (Remember, Arabs and Druze were free to come and go.)

Israeli law only gives the Right of Return to Jews. They seem to be satisfied that this law is not racial discrimination but I believe many people call it a racist law.

Perhaps, but they would be stupid people. First of all, Judaism is not a race. Not even a little bit. Second of all, you're flat out wrong. Right of Return is not just for Jews. Lastly, plenty of nations have special laws that allow easier emigration for members of the ethnicity that defines the state, such as Japan, Germany and Greece. If Greece offers a fast track to citizenship for people of Greek heritage, is that really something worth condemning?

I agree that is a weakness in my argument but it does not destroy it. In effect you seem to be saying that you are prepared to accept the 1917 Zionist action would be considered immoral if it took place today - am I correct?


Not true - Faisal was agreeing to a 'homeland', not a state and he stipulated a major condition:


As you know, the British and French subsequent action rendered the agreement void.



As I said to you earlier:

I know you have a hang-up about 'states' but what we are actually talking about is people, human beings.

In 1917, neither the 15% Palestinian Jewish population nor the 85% Arab population had any need to 'carve out a new state' anymore than than Bulgarians, Bosnians, Croats and other members of the ex-Ottoman empire. They existed and lived on the land where they were born.

Do you really think the residents of Palestine had less right to demand self-determination than these other groups?

What were they determining, aside from wanting no Jews?

There wasn't a state to keep the Jews out of, as there is now, all across the middle east. There was land, much of it unowned.

Why does a Jew settling interfere with self-determination, unless you agree with the goal of keeping the Jews out? (which you have intimated so many times, I think it's time I believe that that is your belief).

When you say "return", are these people that previously lived there and were coming home? Because that's the impression you give. In fact, many of these people had no affiliation with or history with the area at all. How many can claim a direct traceable ancestor from that land?

It's obvious Israel has done a great job with linguistics. They've phrased things such that any casual observer would have a very different impression of what the facts are.

Any casual observer would fortunately have a better grasp of basic history than you give him credit for and would likely know that the Jews of the Diaspora did not, in fact, live in Palestine recently. It is accepted to mean that Israel seen by the Jews as the historic and cultural homeland of the Jewish people, who have remained a cohesive nation despite living spread out in other states for a thousand years or two.

How many can claim a direct traceable ancestor from that land?

Very nearly all of us. DNA evidence has traced Ashkenazi Jewish lineage directly back to Palestine. So, in fact, these people do have an affiliation with the area, in the form of both an undeniable historical link as shown by archaeological evidence, written history, (such as the Bible) and a remaining native population as well as a cultural tie that was strong enough to endure a millennium of exile, remaining essentially unchanged among Jewish groups isolated from each other, the whole world over.

You may argue that the Jews no longer had any claim to return to Israel, for whatever reason, but to insist that Israel is not the historical homeland of the Jewish people is just ignorant. Less ignorant but far more retarded is the accusation that Israel purposely used the term "return" to obfuscate the facts of the matter, despite the fact that there have been periods of aliyah throughout history whereby Jews sought to RETURN to the homeland centuries before Zionism existed as a political movement.

By the way, many people would see your statement that diaspora Jews have no affiliation or history with the land of Israel to be anti-semitic. Since I know you though, I understand the statement is truly not anti-semitic in nature but rather just astoundingly retarded. But you should be aware of what you are saying anyway, in case you sometime find yourself in the company of people who know you less well than I do. They may take offense. :)

But by that argument, your side wouldn't fare so well, so I can see why that wouldn't fly with you.

Am I entitled to have a claim on some plot of land in Ireland that some family currently lives on? Because I don't even have to go back 1000 years to trace my Irish roots. In fact, I don't even have to go back 200 years. So, shall I tell those current residents pack their bags because I'm "returning" home to a place I've never been? How do you think they'll take the news?

And no one did that. The Jewish immigrants purchased land, they did not demand land that was owned by others.

The nakba came about as a result of the war, it was NOT justified by the right of Jews to Return to Israel.

But you know that, don't you. Why are you being purposely dishonest and misleading here? Is there some reason you're trying to shoehorn this piece of nasty propaganda into our discussion... like, do you really believe it? (Now THAT would really take the cake. That someone could be participating in this forum for as long as you have and still buy into such junk about the basic elements of the conflict.)

But here again you are confusing the issue. Let's suppose they all bought the land prior to 1948.
Buying land does not give anyone the right to set up a break-away state on confer sovereignty on a particular group.

Your argument hangs on the fact that Palestine was not a Sovereign State and the Brits could therefore give it away if they wanted to. As I asked you, would that be acceptable today?

What the Palestinians wanted was self-determination. What the Zionists wanted was to prevent them from achieving that until there was a Jewish majority in at least part of Palestine.


Have Jewish ethics changed so much over the last 100 years?

now you agree that land was purchased, but now you say that the Jews couldn't set up a "break-away state"? LOL! What was "Palestine"? There was no state there, and in fact no state in Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.etc.etc.

The "breakaway" state you describe somehow intimates that there as already a state in place and that those pesky Jews were trying to take it over. There WAS no state.

And even had there been, again, for the hundredth time, why are you so opposed to Jews living in the midst of Arabs? Why do you think that Jews couldn;t immigrate there? Ethically speaking, as a Jew, I am all for immigration, and would not be opposed to it today, or in 1917. Were it not for immigration, most of my relatives would be dead. Who could be opposed to immigration on ethical grounds? That is one bizarre argument.

Buying land does not give anyone the right to set up a break-away state on confer sovereignty on a particular group.

They didn't set up a breakaway state though. They were just living in Palestine, it wasn't until near constant anti-Jewish violence broke out that the UN and the British on separate occasions recommended partition as a solution.

Your argument hangs on the fact that Palestine was not a Sovereign State and the Brits could therefore give it away if they wanted to.

Not really. They could if they wanted to though, as they did for the rest of the middle east, divvying it up as they and the french saw fit. But in this case all I am saying is the the Zionists did not steal land when they arrived, they purchased it. Breakaleg is trying to mix up the separate events of initial Jewish immigration and purchasing of land for development and the subsequent nakba which had nothing to do with the british, Balfour, zionism or anything aside from the fact that the Palestinians started a war against the Jews (who during their declaration of independence welcomed the Arabs to stay and build the nation beside the Jews as equals.)

What the Palestinians wanted was self-determination.

Bullshit. What they wanted was Arab rule over the whole of the middle east.

What the Zionists wanted was to prevent them from achieving that until there was a Jewish majority in at least part of Palestine.

OK, where did you learn this?

Have Jewish ethics changed so much over the last 100 years?

Nope, same Tanach as always. But you are implying that the Jews did something unethical. Namely that they had no business emigrating to Palestine to begin with, correct? Or is there more?

was chosen to make a point and it does. But let's not lose sight of the fact that those people immigrating to Israel, not "returning" to it.

As to your other point. First of all, the charge you assigned to me, I never said. Purchasing land is one thing. Is that how they got all of the land? Have you net seen the reports that confirm they had to cleanse the land of Arabs if they were going to have a viable state? Surely this is not news to you.

Have you net seen the reports that confirm they had to cleanse the land of Arabs if they were going to have a viable state? Surely this is not news to you.

Well I think that would be just awful, and I oppose it entirely. If the state of Israel ever gets around to doing this I will be the first to denounce it. But Israel seems perfectly viable to me right now, to be honest.

can I recommend that you read The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities by (now deceased) Simha Flapan. This book was seminal in reconfiguring my own thinking on the conflict.

I'm sure others here have recommendations as well.

Seriously, if you are not familiar with scholarship that has come to light since documents from the 40's were declassified, you owe it to yourself to become familiar with the scholarship.

I thought you might find it interesting to see one of the historical revisionist's (one of the most cited and respected ones incidentally) recent thoughts on the conflict.

---

Benny Morris, for decades you have been researching the dark side of Zionism. You are an expert on the atrocities of 1948. In the end, do you in effect justify all this? Are you an advocate of the transfer of 1948?

"There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands."

We are talking about the killing of thousands of people, the destruction of an entire society.

"A society that aims to kill you forces you to destroy it. When the choice is between destroying or being destroyed, it's better to destroy."

There is something chilling about the quiet way in which you say that.

"If you expected me to burst into tears, I'm sorry to disappoint you. I will not do that"

So when the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify them?

"I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don't think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn't have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being."

You do not condemn them morally?

"No."

They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

"There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide�the annihilation of your people�I prefer ethnic cleansing."

And that was the situation in 1948?

"That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on."



http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000159.htm

. . of Palestine in 1917. So yes.

You have lost me. Are you saying the British consulted the Representatives of the inhabitants of Palestine or what?

The King-Crane Commission report in 1920 made it clear that the majority of the inhabitants of Palestine were against further Jewish immigration.

Balfour cared as little for the opinions of the local Palestinians as did Saddam Hussein for the local Iraqis. Neither of them pretended their actions were moral.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And you think that moral? If you had lived in 1917 Palestine, would you have been quite happy to have your wishes ignored?





I can't believe you think the Palestinians started WW1. As far as I am aware, they took no part in it but they have certainly been made to suffer for someone else losing the war.

By the way, the Brits attacked Turkey not the other way round!

. . and the Ottomans were neutral bystanders.

This part is even more amazing. You just don't see what's wrong with your view that Jewish immigration to Palestine after WWI constituted Palestinian Arab "suffering". That says a lot about your worldview.

I'm sure Chavez and Chomsky would agree with you.

Is that what is meant by being 'snarky'?


Now how about an answer to my question which asked what you would have thought if you had been a 1917 Palestinian resident and the victorious Brits had ignored your wishes and destroyed your hopes of self-determination?

I think you meant to ask what do I think an Arab Palestinian would have thought.

I think he would have thought something along the lines of what southern racists thought back in the day when MLK was campaigning for voting rights for blacks.

If you really want to know what I would have thought - it would probably been along the lines of - good, maybe this place can become a modern progressive state some day where human rights become widespread and it doesn't have to be a misogynistic racist backwater stuck with a midieveil economic system forever.

Now, you can explain to me why you equate Jews moving into the neighborhood - as equivalent to destroying someones hopes of self-determination.

I wonder why you find it so hard to imagine yourself as a 1917 Palestinian Arab? We are all human beings you know.



I understood that the 1917 Zionists had made it quite clear that they were going to rule Palestine and treat the Arabs as a minority. Like you, some of them thought the Arab inhabitants would welcome the chance to "..... become a modern progressive state some day where human rights become widespread and it doesn't have to be a misogynistic racist backwater stuck with a midieveil economic system forever." Obviously they were mistaken and the Arabs started to revolt.

Some of the Zionists, like Zabotiski's group knew exactly what they depriving the Palestine Arabs of and expected them to offer futile resistance. I don't think you would have accepted it either.


Now a question for you: Do you really believe that the "...Jews were only moving into the neighborhood?"

in every Arab state (where they were allowed) prior to 1948, I wonder how you can post the above with a straight face.

Yeah - sounds about right.

My great-great-grandparents were killed in a pogrom in Poland perpetrated by Ukrainian cavalrymen serving in the Russian Tsar's army. None of those three countries are going to give me one penny, and I don't expect them to.