Israel, Palestine, and everything related

[Power Raid]

Zionism emerged as the Jewish national movement in the late 19th century with the ultimate aim of returning to their ancient homeland centered upon the city of Jerusalem and where the Jews could create a nation where Jews could be the majority, rather than the minority which they were in a variety of nations in the diaspora.

Due to a particular brand of romantic nationalism emerging in Europe at this time with peoples identifying themselves as a nation based on a shared history, culture, tradition and shared ancestors, Jews once again found themselves on the outer fringes, unable to relinquish their hereditary traits even if they relinquished their traditions. Traditionally the Jews had dealt with changes to their status in European countries, usually for the worse, by accepting their destiny with resignation. Gradually some Jews who had expected to participate as citizens in these merging nations came to the realization that they needed to recreate their own group or national identity, even though they were technically without a territory for that national identity. Zionism offered a solution to the problems that Jews faced in Europe. And as European peoples were defining themselves based on that shared history, culture, tradition and shared ancestors, Zionists believed that they should do the same. The movement defined the Jews as a nation and advocated a Jewish national State, preferably based on the land that saw the origins of their history, culture and traditions.

Zionism was also a reaction to modern anti-semitism’s definitions and applications of blood, race and genetics. Like other nationalities struggling to emerge for subjugation to other nationalities, likewise Zionism was a political reaction in which the Jews were also a nation struggling for their own nation-state. The only place that Jews felt they could be safe was in their ancestral homeland.

Many Jews’ enthusiastic participation in the nationalistic independence movements of many of the European peoples, such as the Serbs, Czechs, Croats, Romanians and Hungarians, was motivated by their expectation that they would achieve a level of equality in any new society that would be established. However after 1870, as these various peoples struggled for their national identity, the concept of ‘national identity’ changed from merely being a citizen of the nation to that of an organic bond between citizens which was typified by a shared history and culture. Radical nationalist parties emphasized that a nation should be homogenous, with no foreign elements residing within. Once again Jewish communities and individuals found themselves on the outside. In Germany, which had become united under the leadership of Prussia, nationalistic romanticists stated that the true German spirit had been created in the Teutonic forests – a Jewish individual could not be part of this identity.

As well as nationalism, a racist ideology had taken root. This suggested that human beings were divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called races, which due to certain set physical characteristics, personality traits, intellect and morality are deemed to be either inferior or superior to other races. These ideas were combined with the concept of Social Darwinism where humanity, like animals, were subject to a law of natural selection. By the late 19th century the adoption of these principles suggested that some people’s advances in scientific research as advances in social concepts, leading in turn to brand so-called “inferior races “ as having a scientific basis other than simply prejudice. This had the negative effect of hardening attitudes towards Jews, because if conversion to Christianity had previously allowed some acceptance of Jews into European society, Social Darwinism allowed anti-Semites to argue that the nature of Jews had already been determined by his race.

Theodore Herzl the founder of Zionism had been affected by anti-Semitic attitudes throughout his travel to various European countries. As an assimilated secular Jew, Herzl had limited contact with Jews less assimilated than he was and this lack of contact may have helped him in coming to the realisation that the majority of Jews were assimilated and even then could not truly be part of the nations that they lived in due to rampant anti-Semitism. This was personified by the Dreyfus Affair and the rise to power of anti-Semitic demagogue Karl Leuger in Vienna. In 1895 he wrote in his diary. “I recognised the emptiness and futility of trying to ‘combat Anti-Semitism”. Herzl felt the the only way Anti-Semitism could be dealt with was to avoid it and the only way to do that was by the establishment of a Jewish national state.”

He wrote: “We have sincerely tried everywhere to merge with the national communities in which we live, seeking only to preserve the faith of our fathers. It is not permitted us. In vain are we loyal patriots, sometimes superloyal; in vain do we make the same sacrifices of life and property as our fellow citizens; in vain do we strive to enhance the fame of our native lands in the arts and sciences, or her wealth by trade and commerce. In our native lands where we have lived for centuries we are still decried as aliens, often by men whose ancestors had not yet come at a time when Jewish sighs had long been heard in the country.”

Despite Herzl preferring Argentina as the place for a Jewish homeland, not surprisingly many Jews wanted at the very least part of Palestine as their homeland. The Zionists regard Palestine as the birthplace of their people - indeed archaeology now suggests they were originally Canaanites - who have been in the area from at least 3,000 BC. They regard the Jews' spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped in the region. Here the Jewish people, culture and religion first attained to statehood, created their cultural values and gave to, at the very least, two religions, the Old Testament and had a heavy influence on a third - Islam.

Theodore Herzl approached Great Britain about possible Jewish settlement in that country's East African colonies, notably Uganda. That would also have resulted in the displacement of peoples. There was a far more sizeable Jewish population in Palestine than there was in East Africa, as well as some continuous Jewish settlement over two millennia. That's why the Zionist Congress eventually rejected Uganda in 1903, hoping for a return to their original homeland.



That is very debatable. The 12th Zionist congress in 1921 passed a proposal for an "Arab-Jewish Entente", which wanted to "forge a true understanding with the Arab nation." However the Arabs and Jews could not agree on the levels of Jewish immigration. The Jews argued that it was needed as a means of escaping European persecution. The Arabs could not compromise on immigration because to do so would effectively end their majority in Palestine.



The UN partition plan for Palestine Resolution 181(II) on 29th November 1947 recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The Partition Plan, provided for the termination of the existing British Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem.

The Partition Plan of 1947 gave about 43% of the British Mandate of Palestine to the Arabs. The Jewish State was to receive 56% of the British Mandate of Palestine. 32% of the population of Palestine in 1947 were Jews, but the bulk (at least half) of the proposed Jewish State's territory would consist of the Negev Desert. Have you been to the Negev Desert? I have. One of the most inhospitable places I've been to.

The Plan was accepted by the vast majority of the Jewish public and by the Jewish Agency. For the most part the Arab leaders and government rejected the plan of Partition and any form of territorial division.

So the Israelis declared their own state on 14th May 1948. The Palestinians did not. They, with their Arab allies attacked the newly declared state of Israel on May 15th 1948.

After conquering the West Bank including East Jerusalem at the end of the 1948 war, King Abdullah of Jordan tried to suppress any trace of a Palestinian Arab national identity.

On 1 December 1948, a conference in Jericho called for the annexation of what was left of Palestine into Jordan. The Conference was attended by numerous delegations including the mayors of Hebron, Bethlehem, Ramallah, the Arab Legion Military Governor General, military governors of all the districts, and other notables.

They resolved that Palestinian Arabs wanted unity between Jordan and Arab Palestine and requested that Arab Palestine be annexed immediately to Jordan. They also recognized King Abdullah as their King and requested that he proclaim himself King of the new territory.

Abdullah annexed the conquered Palestinian territory and granted the Palestinian Arab residents in Jordan Jordanian citizenship. In February 1949, the Jordanian Nationality Law was amended to grant every Palestinian Jordanian citizenship. Half of Jordan's population today is Palestinian.

Jordan formally annexed the West Bank on April 24, 1950, giving all residents automatic Jordanian citizenship. West Bank residents had already received the right to claim Jordanian citizenship in December 1949. The West Bank remained part of Jordan until 1967.

great post

my grandfather (Hungarian/ Slovak from the Austro-Hungarian Empire) was told as a child to be careful of jews and gypsies................they eat kids. So when any child went missing, it must have been those damn gypsies or jews. these types of mischievous stories, that were told and supported the need of a pure blood state and allowed minority blood to be demonised and blamed for every wrong that couldn't be explained.

In their defence, this was a simple time where people weren't educated, believed in black magic and feared the unknown like the forest.

Surely today though, we are beyond supporting a separate state based along the lines of blood or religion, black magic or eating kids. Sadly though until people around the world stop and address the issues and facts of today, we will continue to confuse the issue with the creation of Israel and every other piece of noise.

History can be a massive burden to society.

 

[pugsville]

That is very debatable. The 12th Zionist congress in 1921 passed a proposal for an "Arab-Jewish Entente", which wanted to "forge a true understanding with the Arab nation." However the Arabs and Jews could not agree on the levels of Jewish immigration. The Jews argued that it was needed as a means of escaping European persecution. The Arabs could not compromise on immigration because to do so would effectively end their majority in Palestine.

No it is not. The Leadership of the Zionists movement clearly favoured and advocated 'transfer', they believed that the removal of the vast majority of the Arab Population was an essential requiremntof the formation of a Jewish state.

The Intentions and principles of the Zionist movement were totally at odds with the rights of the Palestinian population.

Early Zionists opposed both the employment, selling land to the Arab population, allowing democratic representation of the population as a whole or even the Arabs electing their own representatives. hey insisted that Jews neb paid more than Arabs for the same work, and that Jews be employed on a favourable basis, and that all concessions granted by the Mandate authority be granted to Jewish interests. The Zionist when they arrived in Palestine successfully advocated a whole range of highly discriminating policies. The Leadership was in the main clear advocates of 'transfer' the removing the bulk of the Palestinian population.

Public pronouncements , resolution and speeches must be treated as propaganda.

Which population in the world would have accepted and co-opreated with the mass immigration of Migrants with the declared aim of formatting their of ethnic state? The Arabic population of Palestine opposed the Jewish immigration as it was hostile and opposed to their interests.

 

[pugsville]

The UN partition plan for Palestine Resolution 181(II) on 29th November 1947 recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The Partition Plan, provided for the termination of the existing British Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem.

The Partition Plan of 1947 gave about 43% of the British Mandate of Palestine to the Arabs. The Jewish State was to receive 56% of the British Mandate of Palestine. 32% of the population of Palestine in 1947 were Jews, but the bulk (at least half) of the proposed Jewish State's territory would consist of the Negev Desert. Have you been to the Negev Desert? I have. One of the most inhospitable places I've been to.

The Plan was accepted by the vast majority of the Jewish public and by the Jewish Agency. For the most part the Arab leaders and government rejected the plan of Partition and any form of territorial division.

The Partition plan was heavily favoured to one side. Outside of Tele aviv almost everywhere was a clear Arab majority.
The Patin plan only passed due to bribery and thereat,

 

[pugsville]

So the Israelis declared their own state on 14th May 1948. The Palestinians did not. They, with their Arab allies attacked the newly declared state of Israel on May 15th 1948.

Israeli forces were already involved in systematic expulsion of the Arab population and the conquest of the proposed Arab state. Any acceptance of the partition by the Israeli leadership was political propaganda and a smokescreen. They would take as much as possible and expel as much as they thought they could get away with. The War over Palestine had been underway before this.

The Palestinians had be stopped from organising their own political representation, (and the Zionists had lobbied the Mandate authority to stop them doing so) The Arab leadership was petty hopelessly divided, an effective response was unlikely.

After conquering the West Bank including East Jerusalem at the end of the 1948 war, King Abdullah of Jordan tried to suppress any trace of a Palestinian Arab national identity.

Yes the Jordanian intervention was designed to annex as much of the Palestinian state as possible. The Surrounding Arab states were in the main opposed to any independent Palestinian state and crushing that was just as much a priority as crushing the State of Israel., Jordanian forces never invaded the state of Israel, they had strict orders not to. Essentially Israeli and Jordanian forces were involved in a competition as to who could annex as much of the proposed Arab state as possible.

 

[Procrastinator35]

There are certainly elements of right wing ultra-extremism in the Likud party and they are certainly more right wing than they used to be, but to brand the entire likud Party as "ultra-extremist" is not accurate. The Party remains divided between moderates and hard-liners.

Likud has been the party that carried out the first peace agreements with Arab states. For instance, in 1979, Likud Prime Minister Menachim Begin siged the Camp David Accords with Egypt, which returned the Sinai Peninsula. Yitzhak Shamir was the first Israeli Prime Minister to meet Palestinian leaders at the Madrid Conference in 1991. On 14 June 2009, Likud Prime Minister Netanyahu gave a speech at Bar-Ilan University in which he endorsed a "Demilitarized Palestinian State", though said that Jerusalem must remain the unified capital of Israel. He also said on 19 March 2015, "I don't want a one-state solution. I want a peaceful, sustainable two-state solution. I have not changed my policy."

Unfortunately, the ever-decreasing margins of Palestinian residency suggests actions speak louder than empty rhetoric.

 

[strauchnyy]

Zionism emerged as the Jewish national movement in the late 19th century with the ultimate aim of returning to their ancient homeland centered upon the city of Jerusalem and where the Jews could create a nation where Jews could be the majority, rather than the minority which they were in a variety of nations in the diaspora.

Due to a particular brand of romantic nationalism emerging in Europe at this time with peoples identifying themselves as a nation based on a shared history, culture, tradition and shared ancestors, Jews once again found themselves on the outer fringes, unable to relinquish their hereditary traits even if they relinquished their traditions. Traditionally the Jews had dealt with changes to their status in European countries, usually for the worse, by accepting their destiny with resignation. Gradually some Jews who had expected to participate as citizens in these merging nations came to the realization that they needed to recreate their own group or national identity, even though they were technically without a territory for that national identity. Zionism offered a solution to the problems that Jews faced in Europe. And as European peoples were defining themselves based on that shared history, culture, tradition and shared ancestors, Zionists believed that they should do the same. The movement defined the Jews as a nation and advocated a Jewish national State, preferably based on the land that saw the origins of their history, culture and traditions.

Zionism was also a reaction to modern anti-semitism’s definitions and applications of blood, race and genetics. Like other nationalities struggling to emerge for subjugation to other nationalities, likewise Zionism was a political reaction in which the Jews were also a nation struggling for their own nation-state. The only place that Jews felt they could be safe was in their ancestral homeland.

Many Jews’ enthusiastic participation in the nationalistic independence movements of many of the European peoples, such as the Serbs, Czechs, Croats, Romanians and Hungarians, was motivated by their expectation that they would achieve a level of equality in any new society that would be established. However after 1870, as these various peoples struggled for their national identity, the concept of ‘national identity’ changed from merely being a citizen of the nation to that of an organic bond between citizens which was typified by a shared history and culture. Radical nationalist parties emphasized that a nation should be homogenous, with no foreign elements residing within. Once again Jewish communities and individuals found themselves on the outside. In Germany, which had become united under the leadership of Prussia, nationalistic romanticists stated that the true German spirit had been created in the Teutonic forests – a Jewish individual could not be part of this identity.

As well as nationalism, a racist ideology had taken root. This suggested that human beings were divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called races, which due to certain set physical characteristics, personality traits, intellect and morality are deemed to be either inferior or superior to other races. These ideas were combined with the concept of Social Darwinism where humanity, like animals, were subject to a law of natural selection. By the late 19th century the adoption of these principles suggested that some people’s advances in scientific research as advances in social concepts, leading in turn to brand so-called “inferior races “ as having a scientific basis other than simply prejudice. This had the negative effect of hardening attitudes towards Jews, because if conversion to Christianity had previously allowed some acceptance of Jews into European society, Social Darwinism allowed anti-Semites to argue that the nature of Jews had already been determined by his race.

Theodore Herzl the founder of Zionism had been affected by anti-Semitic attitudes throughout his travel to various European countries. As an assimilated secular Jew, Herzl had limited contact with Jews less assimilated than he was and this lack of contact may have helped him in coming to the realisation that the majority of Jews were assimilated and even then could not truly be part of the nations that they lived in due to rampant anti-Semitism. This was personified by the Dreyfus Affair and the rise to power of anti-Semitic demagogue Karl Leuger in Vienna. In 1895 he wrote in his diary. “I recognised the emptiness and futility of trying to ‘combat Anti-Semitism”. Herzl felt the the only way Anti-Semitism could be dealt with was to avoid it and the only way to do that was by the establishment of a Jewish national state.”

He wrote: “We have sincerely tried everywhere to merge with the national communities in which we live, seeking only to preserve the faith of our fathers. It is not permitted us. In vain are we loyal patriots, sometimes superloyal; in vain do we make the same sacrifices of life and property as our fellow citizens; in vain do we strive to enhance the fame of our native lands in the arts and sciences, or her wealth by trade and commerce. In our native lands where we have lived for centuries we are still decried as aliens, often by men whose ancestors had not yet come at a time when Jewish sighs had long been heard in the country.”

Despite Herzl preferring Argentina as the place for a Jewish homeland, not surprisingly many Jews wanted at the very least part of Palestine as their homeland. The Zionists regard Palestine as the birthplace of their people - indeed archaeology now suggests they were originally Canaanites - who have been in the area from at least 3,000 BC. They regard the Jews' spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped in the region. Here the Jewish people, culture and religion first attained to statehood, created their cultural values and gave to, at the very least, two religions, the Old Testament and had a heavy influence on a third - Islam.

Theodore Herzl approached Great Britain about possible Jewish settlement in that country's East African colonies, notably Uganda. That would also have resulted in the displacement of peoples. There was a far more sizeable Jewish population in Palestine than there was in East Africa, as well as some continuous Jewish settlement over two millennia. That's why the Zionist Congress eventually rejected Uganda in 1903, hoping for a return to their original homeland.



That is very debatable. The 12th Zionist congress in 1921 passed a proposal for an "Arab-Jewish Entente", which wanted to "forge a true understanding with the Arab nation." However the Arabs and Jews could not agree on the levels of Jewish immigration. The Jews argued that it was needed as a means of escaping European persecution. The Arabs could not compromise on immigration because to do so would effectively end their majority in Palestine.



The UN partition plan for Palestine Resolution 181(II) on 29th November 1947 recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The Partition Plan, provided for the termination of the existing British Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem.

The Partition Plan of 1947 gave about 43% of the British Mandate of Palestine to the Arabs. The Jewish State was to receive 56% of the British Mandate of Palestine. 32% of the population of Palestine in 1947 were Jews, but the bulk (at least half) of the proposed Jewish State's territory would consist of the Negev Desert. Have you been to the Negev Desert? I have. One of the most inhospitable places I've been to.

The Plan was accepted by the vast majority of the Jewish public and by the Jewish Agency. For the most part the Arab leaders and government rejected the plan of Partition and any form of territorial division.

So the Israelis declared their own state on 14th May 1948. The Palestinians did not. They, with their Arab allies attacked the newly declared state of Israel on May 15th 1948.

After conquering the West Bank including East Jerusalem at the end of the 1948 war, King Abdullah of Jordan tried to suppress any trace of a Palestinian Arab national identity.

On 1 December 1948, a conference in Jericho called for the annexation of what was left of Palestine into Jordan. The Conference was attended by numerous delegations including the mayors of Hebron, Bethlehem, Ramallah, the Arab Legion Military Governor General, military governors of all the districts, and other notables.

They resolved that Palestinian Arabs wanted unity between Jordan and Arab Palestine and requested that Arab Palestine be annexed immediately to Jordan. They also recognized King Abdullah as their King and requested that he proclaim himself King of the new territory.

Abdullah annexed the conquered Palestinian territory and granted the Palestinian Arab residents in Jordan Jordanian citizenship. In February 1949, the Jordanian Nationality Law was amended to grant every Palestinian Jordanian citizenship. Half of Jordan's population today is Palestinian.

Jordan formally annexed the West Bank on April 24, 1950, giving all residents automatic Jordanian citizenship. West Bank residents had already received the right to claim Jordanian citizenship in December 1949. The West Bank remained part of Jordan until 1967.

Terrific post.

It's always refreshing when someone with an actual knowledge of history sets the record straight. Especially for those who don't have a full knowledge.

Also funny to see those anti-israel posters get shot down for their fiction.

 

[strauchnyy]

No it is not. The Leadership of the Zionists movement clearly favoured and advocated 'transfer', they believed that the removal of the vast majority of the Arab Population was an essential requiremntof the formation of a Jewish state.

It is certainly debatable.

The Israeli leadership accepted half of the british mandate, arabs did not. Israel accepted to live side by side with arabs, arabs did not. Even now, two thirds of Israelis support a 2 state solution, whereas majority of Palestinians support the obliteration of Israel. Why would Israel accept roughly half, if they want a full transfer? Why would majority of the public want to carve out their land if you allege that they want a full transfer?

Unfortunately, you are posting sheer historical fiction to suit your anti-Israel bias.

 

[pugsville]

It is certainly debatable.

The Israeli leadership accepted half of the british mandate, arabs did not. Israel accepted to live side by side with arabs, arabs did not. Even now, two thirds of Israelis support a 2 state solution, whereas majority of Palestinians support the obliteration of Israel. Why would Israel accept roughly half, if they want a full transfer? Why would majority of the public want to carve out their land if you allege that they want a full transfer?

Unfortunately, you are posting sheer historical fiction to suit your anti-Israel bias.

No it's clearly documented historical fact. The Success of Zionist/Israeli propaganda to control the debate and the popular history of the conflict has been astounding sucessful.

Because you take what you can get now and get the rest later. Before any Arab state intervention the Zionists forces had embarked on a conquest of the as much of Palestine as they could get.

'Weizmann and Ben Gurion pressed for solution based on partition, Said Weizmann " The Jews would be foolish not to accept it ,even if were the size of a tablecloth". Both saw partition as a stepping stone to further expansion and the eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine. . No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the land of Israel" Ben Gurion was quoted as saying. He wrote to his son Amos " Jewish State in part [of Palestine] is not an end but a beginning, .. Our Possession is important not only for itself ...though this we increase our power , and every increase in power facilities getting hold of the country in it's entirety. Establishing a small state .. will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country"

-- benny Morris "Righteous Victims" page 138.

 

[Procrastinator35]

No it's clearly documented historical fact. The Success of Zionist/Israeli propaganda to control the debate and the popular history of the conflict has been astounding successful.

Never a truer word spoken....History is recorded by the victor....Having a monopoly on the world's press & propaganda merely aids & abets this cultural genocide.

 

[Roylion]

No it is not. The Leadership of the Zionists movement clearly favoured and advocated 'transfer', they believed that the removal of the vast majority of the Arab Population was an essential requiremntof the formation of a Jewish state. .

The Intentions and principles of the Zionist movement were totally at odds with the rights of the Palestinian population.

Early Zionists opposed both the employment, selling land to the Arab population, allowing democratic representation of the population as a whole or even the Arabs electing their own representatives. hey insisted that Jews neb paid more than Arabs for the same work, and that Jews be employed on a favourable basis, and that all concessions granted by the Mandate authority be granted to Jewish interests. The Zionist when they arrived in Palestine successfully advocated a whole range of highly discriminating policies. The Leadership was in the main clear advocates of 'transfer' the removing the bulk of the Palestinian population.

Yet Benny Morris, one of the 'New Historians' in Arab-Israeli historiography (whom you quoted elsewhere) said: "....'transfer' never became the official policy of the [Zionist] movement, Mapai [Ben-Gurion's party], or the State of Israel."

Morris also added that in relation to the war of 1948-49.

"I also believe that the emergent Jewish state, in 1947-1948, having been assaulted by the Palestinian Arab militias and, subsequently, by the armies of the Arab states, had no choice, as a matter of self-defense and survival, but to attack the villages and towns that served as the bases of their militias. And before and during these attacks, most of the inhabitants fled; some were expelled; others were ordered or advised by their own leaders to flee. Subsequently, Israel decided not to allow the refugees to return, rightly viewing those who had just attacked the Jewish community as a potential fifth column and enemies."

Which population in the world would have accepted and co-opreated with the mass immigration of Migrants with the declared aim of formatting their of ethnic state? The Arabic population of Palestine opposed the Jewish immigration as it was hostile and opposed to their interests.

Ben Gurion himself said "Under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs [Arabic farmer or agricultural laborer] or worked by them. Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement, should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price."

Written statement (1920), as quoted in "Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs From Peace to War" by Shabtai Teveth (1985),

and

"We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption — proven throughout all our activity in the Land — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs."

Letter by David Ben Gurion to his son Amos (5 October 1937), as quoted in Ben Gurion: The Burning Ground by Shabtai Teveth (1987)

and from leading Zionist Chaim Weizemann, President of Israel (1949-1952)

"Palestine must be built up without violating the legitimate interests of the Arabs.. Palestine is not Rhodesia... 600,0000 Arabs live there, who before the sense of justice of the world have exactly the same rights to their homes as we have to our National Home."
[Chaim Weizmann, addressing the Fourteenth Zionist Congress in Vienna, 1925, quoted in Mark Tessler, A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1994 p. 181]

and

"There must not be one law for the Jew and another for the Arabs....In saying this, I do not assume that there are tendencies toward inequalirty or discrimination. It is merely a timely warning which is particularly necessary because we shall have a very large Arab minority. I am certain that the world will judge the Jewish State by what it will do with the Arabs, just as the Jewish people at large will be judged by what we do or fail to do in this state where we have been given such a wonderful opportunity after thousands of years of wandering and suffering." (Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error, Page 566 - written in December 1947)

 

[Roylion]

Ben Gurion was quoted as saying. He wrote to his son Amos " Jewish State in part [of Palestine] is not an end but a beginning, .. Our Possession is important not only for itself ...though this we increase our power , and every increase in power facilities getting hold of the country in it's entirety. Establishing a small state .. will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country"

-- benny Morris "Righteous Victims" page 138.

Efraim Karsh an Israeli–British historian founding director and emeritus professor of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at Kings College London, professor of Political Studies at Bar-Ilan University and principal research fellow (and former director) of the Middle East Forum claims that the quote made by Benny Morris is misquoted and is actually as follows:

"We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption — proven throughout all our activity in the Land — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs."

 

[pugsville]

Efraim Karsh an Israeli–British historian founding director and emeritus professor of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at Kings College London, professor of Political Studies at Bar-Ilan University and principal research fellow (and former director) of the Middle East Forum claims that the quote made by Benny Morris is misquoted and is actually as follows:

"We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption — proven throughout all our activity in the Land — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs."

Efraim Karsh is a propagandist without any respect for the truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efraim_Karsh

"New Historians leader Benny Morris called Karsh's Fabricating Israeli History "a mélange of distortions, half-truths, and plain lies that vividly demonstrates his profound ignorance of both the source material... and the history of the Zionist-Arab conflict," titling his article "Undeserving of a Reply".[18] Morris adds that Karsh belabors minor points while ignoring the main pieces of evidence.[19]

Political scientist Ian Lustick commented that Karsh's writing in Fabricating Israeli History was malevolent, and his analysis erratic and sloppy.[20][21]

Yezid Sayigh, professor of Middle East studies, wrote that Karsh "is simply not what he makes himself out to be, a trained historian (nor political/social scientist)."[11] Karsh accused Sayigh of a "misleading misrepresentation of my scholarly background" and retorted that Sayigh's remarks were "not a scholarly debate on facts and theses but a character assassination couched in high pseudo-academic rhetoric".

 

[Procrastinator35]

https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.co...ons-combat-tested-against-the-people-of-gaza/

http://www.alternet.org/media/sadis...enthal-chris-hedges-discuss-2014-assault-gaza

http://www.alternet.org/media/sadis...enthal-chris-hedges-discuss-2014-assault-gaza

https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/chris-hedges-palestine-is-a-slow-motion-genocide/

 

[Roylion]

Efraim Karsh is a propagandist without any respect for the truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efraim_Karsh

That's a matter of opinion. The same may be levelled, and has been levelled, at other Israeli historians of the "New Historian" variety.

"New Historians leader Benny Morris called Karsh's Fabricating Israeli History "a mélange of distortions, half-truths, and plain lies that vividly demonstrates his profound ignorance of both the source material... and the history of the Zionist-Arab conflict," titling his article "Undeserving of a Reply".[18] Morris adds that Karsh belabors minor points while ignoring the main pieces of evidence.[19].

Efrain Karsh in turn said Benny Morris' work had "deep-rooted and pervasive distortions" and that had engaged in "five types of distortion: he [Morris] misrepresents documents, resorts to partial quotes, withholds evidence, makes false assertions, and rewrites original documents”. Karsh also stated many of the New Historians had "truncated, twisted and distorted primary documents."

Morris himself claimed as a 'New Historian' that 'there was no Zionist 'plan' or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of' ethnic cleansing' and "the demonisation of Israel is largely based on lies—much as the demonisation of the Jews during the past 2,000 years has been based on lies. And there is a connection between the two." [Benny Morris. The Irish Times, 21 February 2008]

Political scientist Ian Lustick commented that Karsh's writing in Fabricating Israeli History was malevolent, and his analysis erratic and sloppy.[20][21]

Yezid Sayigh, professor of Middle East studies, wrote that Karsh "is simply not what he makes himself out to be, a trained historian (nor political/social scientist)."[11] Karsh accused Sayigh of a "misleading misrepresentation of my scholarly background" and retorted that Sayigh's remarks were "not a scholarly debate on facts and theses but a character assassination couched in high pseudo-academic rhetoric".

Not much different to the criticisms levelled against the New Historians, who it seems are even split amongst themselves. The New Historians have come under fire both from other Israeli historians who accuse them of fabricating Zionist misdeeds, and from Arab or pro-Arab writers who accuse them of whitewashing the truth about Zionist misbehaviour.

"One of the more serious charges raised against the "new historians" concerned their sparse use of Arab sources. [Benny] Morris claims that he is able to extrapolate the Arab positions from the Israeli documentation. [They] make only meager use of original Arab sources, and most such references cited are in English translation... To write the history of relations between Israel and the Arab world almost exclusively on the basis of Israeli documentation results in obvious distortions." Anita Shapira, The Past is not a Foreign Country, New Republic (November 1999)

Benny Morris even heavily criticises another New Historian Ilan Pappe who has argued that the 1948-1949 Palestinian expulsions constituted the ethic cleansing of Palestine and who blames the creation of Israel for the lack of peace in the Middle East, arguing that Zionism is more dangerous than Islamic militancy. Morris described some of Pappe's writing as "complete fabrication". Morris also had to say of Pappe. "At best, Ilan Pappe must be one of the world’s sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest. In truth, he probably merits a place somewhere between the two."

 

[pugsville]

The History of Israeli-paletsine conflict is heavily political. There is a lot of just garbage written. I have my own issues with benny Morris. But his sins are usually by omission, he works from written Israeli records, but is pretty conservative (in his evaluation of sources) I'd trust benny Morris on a quote a long way. Reading history you have to sniff out the bais at work with Authors.

But whatever way you dice it the root cause of the conflict is Zionism. The Idea that mass migration of people with the aim of forming their own ethnic nationalist state in any region, is not going to well received and will lead to pretty violent conflict. The Idea is the Arabs just reacted better to the invasion is just hogwash, no people any where in the world would have reacted well, or accepted immigrants into on forming there own state.

the very premise of Zionism it's reason for existing is that ethnic minorities will be discriminated against, rtes only way for Jews to have fully realised right was to have their own state. But any Zionists state in Palestine wa so force another people to accept the very thing that that Zionists themselves refused to accept. It fails the treat outer as you wished to be treated yourself test.

 

[Roylion]

The History of Israeli-paletsine conflict is heavily political. There is a lot of just garbage written. I have my own issues with benny Morris. But his sins are usually by omission, he works from written Israeli records, but is pretty conservative (in his evaluation of sources) I'd trust benny Morris on a quote a long way. Reading history you have to sniff out the bais at work with Authors.

i'm very aware of all of that.

But whatever way you dice it the root cause of the conflict is Zionism. The Idea that mass migration of people with the aim of forming their own ethnic nationalist state in any region, is not going to well received and will lead to pretty violent conflict.

I've already explained the origns of Zionism.

Zionism emerged because:

• many Jews wanted to create a nation where Jews could be the majority, rather than the minority which they were in a variety of nations in the diaspora.
• Jews came to the realization that they needed to recreate their own group or national identity and it offered a solution to the problems that Jews faced in Europe.
• the only place that Jews felt they could be safe was in their ancestral homeland. Chaim Wiezmann once retorted to a member of the House of Lords who asked him “Why do you Jews insist on Palestine when there are so many undeveloped countries you could settle in more conveniently?” Weizmann replied: “That is like my asking you why you drove twenty miles to visit your mother last Sunday when there are so many old ladies living on your street.

The Idea is the Arabs just reacted better to the invasion is just hogwash, no people any where in the world would have reacted well, or accepted immigrants into on forming there own state.

Of course not. Early on though it appears there was some hope that Arabs and Jews could live side by side in relative peace.

the very premise of Zionism it's reason for existing is that ethnic minorities will be discriminated against, rtes only way for Jews to have fully realised right was to have their own state.

Nationalism has been one of the more important forces shaping international politics in the late nineteeth century and twentieth century. Not in just the Arab-Israeli conflict either.

As Ephraim Nimni suggested, the model of the ethnic nation state as the only available avenue for national emancipation was widely seen as the most preferred or indeed only sure way for a people to be protected against colonisation, persecution and/or racism and also to facilitate the shared cultural and social life, which may not have been possible under the ethnic group's previous status as an ethnic minority.

Certainly the Jews saw it that way in 1948. We still see that today. Ethnic nationalism is also present in many states' immigration policies. Countries such as Armenia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungry, Ireland, Italy, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Turkey provide automatic or rapid citizenship to members of diasporas of their own dominant ethnic group, if desired.

But any Zionists state in Palestine wa so force another people to accept the very thing that that Zionists themselves refused to accept. It fails the treat outer as you wished to be treated yourself test.

The Zionists were prepared for a two state solution in 1948. Official documents released in April 2013 by the State Archive of Israel show that days before the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, officials were still debating about what the new country would be called in Arabic: Palestine (Filastin), Zion (Sayoun) or Israel (Eesra’il). Two assumptions were made: "That an Arab state was about to be established alongside the Jewish one in keeping with the UN’s partition resolution the year before, and that the Jewish state would include a large Arab minority whose feelings needed to be taken into account". In the end, the officials rejected the name Palestine because they thought that would be the name of the new Arab state and could cause confusion so they opted for the most straightforward option: Israel.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/leaders-grappled-over-arabic-name-for-fledgling-state/

From the Israeli Declaration of Independence

"THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

"WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions."

Whether that has actually been achieved is of course a matter for debate.

 

[pugsville]

i'm very aware of all of that.

From the Israeli Declaration of Independence

"THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

"WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions."

Whether that has actually been achieved is of course a matter for debate.

As the state of Israel was already engaged in wholesale expulsion of the Arab population and would rule to deprive many of those who remained of everything they possessed as present absentees ,and introduce many restrictions own the Arab population the declaration was an early example of Newspeak.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Save the empty rhetoric Roylion....An image paints a 1,000 words to dispel your rabid apologetics:

That's 2005....Forward to 2017 & it's halved again.

 

[pugsville]

The Zionists were very keen right from the start to lobby and seek to found their state through the sponsor of various powers. The Zionists were keenly aware of and pretty skilled propagandists. That the Zionists did not trumpet that they desired the removal the Arab population is hardly surprising.

 

[Roylion]

Save the empty rhetoric Roylion....An image paints a 1,000 words to dispel your rabid apologetics:

I actually support a two state solution. Moreover I've been to Israel and the West Bank (twice) and talked to many Israelis and Palestinian Arabs personally about the issues. Both sides.

And what are the source of these maps? Are they accurate? For example, Map 3 shows "Palestine" which was actually part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (occupied by Jordan in 1948, annexed in 1950) until 1967. Gaza was occupied by Egypt between 1959-1967 and before then was ruled by the All Palestine Government (1948-1959) which had its' HQ in Cairo from 1948 onwards. All references in Egypt and Syria of an independent Gaza (Palestine) were abolished and Egyptian administration was officially imposed.

Is the fourth a political map (e.g. territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority) or is it a demographic map? What does the first map indicate? Private land controlled by Arabs and Jews in the mandate?

 

[Procrastinator35]

I actually support a two state solution. Moreover I've been to Israel and the West Bank (twice) and talked to many Israelis and Palestinian Arabs personally about the issues. Both sides.




And what are the source of these maps? Are they accurate? For example, Map 3 shows "Palestine" which was actually part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (occupied by Jordan in 1948, annexed in 1950) up until 1967. Is the fourth a political map (e.g territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority) or a demographic map?) What's the first map? Private land controlled by Arabs and Jews?

Suggest you watch the Chomsky/Hedges vid.

The Zionists won't be happy until the entire state is Israeli....which is now inevitable.

 

[Roylion]

Suggest you watch the Chomsky/Hedges vid.

I've watched it. And? Is there any point in particular you'd like to emphasise for further discussion?

TheZionists won't be happy until the entire state is Israeli....which is now inevitable.

Not all Israelis are 'Zionists'. Not all Palestinans are extremists or Hamas supporters.

When I was last in Israel, I spent the majority of my time in Jerusalem (both West and East), although I also visited the West Bank, the Golan Heights, the Dead Sea area, Tel Aviv and Galilee. During my time there I spoke to a great many people (Israelis and Palestinians) including archaeologists, journalists, Holocaust survivors, soldiers amongst others. One of the workers at the hotel I stayed at, was a Palestinian (whom I got on well with) and he invited me twice for a meal at his home, with his family members and friends. They were very welcoming and it was of course fascinating to hear their perspectives on Arab-Israeli issues. I even met a Palestinian Arab whose family lived in Melbourne and who was visiting because he also had a business in one of the marketplaces in Jerusalem.

Many Israelis I spoke to support a two state solution. What was surprising is quite a few Palestinian Arabs I spoke to (please note - not all) do not support an Palestinian state and if one was established in the West Bank they would not move there. They preferred living in a democratic country and definitely did not agree with Hamas' ideal of establishing an Islamic state as part of Palestine. For many Palestinians (once again - not all) there is a considerable amount of scepticism and suspicion about Hamas.

Arab Palestinians are not as downtrodden in Israel as some make out. Yeah, sure there are some poor Arab residents of Israel and they tend to live in enclaves in areas such as East Jerusalem. There are also at times abuses of rights and without doubt there is some economic inequality between Arabs and Jews. Some Palestinians obviously resent Jewish settlements in the West Bank. It's not a black and white issue as some imply. There are many and varying shades of grey.

However from my own observations, I tend to agree with Ishmael Khaldi's (a Muslim Bedouin) statement that:

"Like America, Israeli society is far from perfect, but let us deal honestly. By any yardstick you choose – educational opportunity, economic development, women and gay's rights, freedom of speech and assembly, legislative representation – Israel's minorities fare far better than any other country in the Middle East." He also said that he lived in one of the most culturally diversified societies and that Israel was the only true democracy in the Middle East.

Chomsky last visited Israel and the West Bank in 1997. Twenty years ago. He made his first ever visit to Gaza in 2012.

Certainly Gisha (an Israeli human rights organisation who advocate on behalf of Palestinans, particularly in the area of freedom of movement for Gaza residents) had issues with Chomsky's reporting of his visit to Gaza.

 

[pugsville]

Likud Prime Minister Netanyahu gave a speech at Bar-Ilan University in which he endorsed a "Demilitarized Palestinian State", though said that Jerusalem must remain the unified capital of Israel. He also said on 19 March 2015, "I don't want a one-state solution. I want a peaceful, sustainable two-state solution. I have not changed my policy."

I question you basic understanding of what is going on. Netanyahu has pursed policies that are designed tor destroy any prospect of a two state solution. Sp Netanyahu says empty words of support once in a while., His policies of continued settlement and the legalisation of those settlements where settlers (with the declared aim talking everything and destroying the two state solution )

You choose those words, why do you really think Natnyahu supports the two state solution? His actions over along period clearly show he does not.

Why should anyone take anything you say on this subject as objective?

 

[Roylion]

I question you basic understanding of what is going on.

And why do you supposedly understand what is going on?

Netanyahu has pursed policies that are designed tor destroy any prospect of a two state solution. Sp Netanyahu says empty words of support once in a while., His policies of continued settlement and the legalisation of those settlements where settlers (with the declared aim talking everything and destroying the two state solution )

In February this year, Netanyahu reasserted his position that a two-state solution can only happen under two conditions: The new Palestinian state must recognize Israel's legitimacy, and Israel must maintain security control of the West Bank. Netanyahu argued that his positions on Palestinian statehood have not changed since his 2009 speech at Bar-Ilan university, in which he recognized, in principle, a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognized the Jewish state. He also said that Israel does not intend to annex the West Bank and offer Israeli citizenship to the millions of Palestinians living there.

“I said it before, and I will repeat it here again: I don’t want to annex close to 2.5 millions Palestinians to Israel. I do not want them to be our subjects,” [Benjamin Netanyahu February 15th 2017]

Netanyahu had engaged in peace talks with the Palestinai Authority over a two state solution. In early 2010, Benjamin Netanyahu, imposed a ten-month moratorium on settlement construction in the West Bank as a gesture for the Palestinian Authority, after previously publicly declaring his support for a future Palestinian state, however he also insisted that the Palestinians would need to make reciprocal gestures of their own.

You choose those words, why do you really think Natnyahu supports the two state solution? His actions over along period clearly show he does not.

See above.

Why should anyone take anything you say on this subject as objective?

And how are you objective? Your posts are obviously pro-Palestinian. Without a doubt I'm responding to those pro-Palestinian posts with an alternative perspective.

I've said I support a two state solution. I've said I've talked to people from both sides. Ive personally visited both Israel and the West Bank and been to Jewish and Palestinian settlements there. Palestinians have legitimate grievances, but Israel has also legitimate concerns about Palestinians / Arab peace demands with security of the Israeli state a main concern. The failure to reach a permanent peace solution can be laid at the feet of both sides.

Jewish settlement in the West Bank makes it less likely that a two state solution to the issue can be peacefully achieved. However Israeli Minister Moshe Ya'alon said in April 2010 that "just as Arabs live in Israel, so, too, should Jews be able to live in Palestine." … "If we are talking about co-existence and peace, why the [Palestinian] insistence that the territory they receive be ethnically cleansed of Jews?"

However there are a number of issues that also prohibit a two state solution including:

a. What borders? The 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as Palestine's capital is the view of Hamas. Israel claims that the 1967 borders are indefensible. On July 12, 2009, Mahmoud Abbas told Egyptian media that he would demand territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In other words there would need to be a territorial corridor through existing Israeli territory linking the West Bank and Gaza, no doubt taking in East Jerusalem..
b. Jerusalem. Particularly the Old City of Jerusalem. Can the Palestinian Authority recognise Jewish control of the Temple Mount (located in East Jerusalem) or a united Jerusalem as the capital of Israel? On July 12, 2009, Mahmoud Abbas told Egyptian media that would not cede any part of the West Bank to Israel.
c. Security. A secure Israel. Any Palestinian state will need to be demilitarised according to Netanyahu. What is the definition of ‘demilitarised’? Israel argues there has to be an Israeli presence to reduce the West Bank becoming like the Gaza Strip in terms of smuggling arms and launching rocket attacks on southern Israel, etc. Israel is a small country with the distance between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem is about 65 km and the distance from north to south is about 420 km.
d. What happens to the Jordan River? Water is crucial to Israel and a Palestinian state in the West Bank (along with the Kingdom of Jordan) will control much of the Jordan River.
e. Palestinian refugees. The descendants of the 1948 Palestinian exiles. Many Israelis cannot accept Palestinian refugees because Israel might be less 'Jewish'. Many Israelis see the security of the Jewish people bound up in an overwhelmingly 'Jewish' homeland (that was why Israel was established in the first place) and the right of return to the descendants of Palestinians is vehemently opposed. On July 12, 2009, Mahmoud Abbas told Egyptian media that he he would never waive the Palestinian right to return.
f. Definition of Israel. Israel wants to be recognised by its neighbours that Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people. Many Arab-Palestinians political groups do not recognise that Israel (and its' Israeli citizens) have a historical right to be in the Middle East.

 

[pugsville]

In February this year, Netanyahu reasserted his position that a two-state solution can only happen under two conditions:

And we should just take him at his word? Really ?

And how are you objective? You posts are obviously pro-Palestinian. Without a doubt I'm responding to those pro-Palestinian posts with an alternative perspective.

You entitled too an opinion but not alternative facts,