Is that what it was down to? From what I can see, it was down to a foreign superpower committing to creating a Jewish homeland in the middle of a region that was 95% arab, and then ultimately disarming these locals, exiling their leaders, and leaving them without any means of defending themselves from being “transferred” by these recent immigrants from Europe.
Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
To dispel the nonsense that Palestinians fled because they were told to do so by the Arab forces:
This is a really good statement:
Statement on Israel/Palestine
by Scholars of Jewish Studies and Israel Studies
https://israelpalestinejs.weebly.com/
Statement on Israel/Palestine
by Scholars of Jewish Studies and Israel Studies
https://israelpalestinejs.weebly.com/
Who should we listen to? Benny Morris 1988 or Benny Morris 2004 after his high profile “conversion”? Personally, when I read that section you posted, it is barely comprehensible. Probably because he is trying to twist his own research to fit his new political leanings without actually disavowing it.Here are the first few pages from the conclusion of Morris’ Revisited:
I don’t know, it was you who referenced Morris in the first place. Which one were you referring to?
Then you're seeing wrong. Israel was recreated out of a backwater of the Ottoman Empire because Europeans and Arabs couldn't stop themselves slaughtering their 'local' Jews. Perhaps you should delve deeper into Abbas's anxiety re Jewish revenge per my earlier video.
This was PRE-Israel...
https://www.camera.org/article/anti-jewish-violence-in-pre-state-palestine-1929-massacres/
@Super Hans here is Morris in a 1991 publication with what I'd assume is a summarized version of the original work. The differences with Revisited are really not that substantial - http://ismi.emory.edu/home/documents/Readings/Morris, Benny Origins.pdf
Here is his explanation of the additions made in Revisited:
Here is his explanation of the additions made in Revisited:
"[W]hat the new documents reveal is that there were both far more expulsions and atrocities by Israeli troops than tabulated in this book’s first edition and, at the same time, far more orders and advice to various communities by Arab officials and officers to quit their villages or to at least send away their women, old folk and children, substantially fuelling the exodus. I have added a great many passages based on this material to this edition.
The other major innovation here is the addition of a new chapter on Zionist thinking about ‘Transfer’ – i.e., the organised, compensated, mutually agreed shift, or one-sided expulsion, of Arab communities out of Palestine – a subject accorded only four pages in the 1988 edition. Over the intervening years, I have concluded that pre-1948 ‘Transfer’ thinking had a greater effect on what happened in 1948 than I had allowed for and, hence, deserved deeper treatment and more space. An additional reason for this deeper treatment was criticism of my original handling of the subject by both Arab and Israeli scholars: Arab historians like Nur Masalha argued that the pre-1948 Zionist ‘Transfer’ thinking was a pillar of Zionist ideology and was tantamount to a master plan – which was then systematically implemented in 1948. Masalha was eager to prove that Zionism was a robber ideology and Israel, an innately expansionist robber state. From the Israeli side, Shabtai Teveth, David Ben-Gurion’s biographer, and Anita Shapira, an historian of Zionism, argued that the Zionist leadership – including Ben-Gurion – had never supported the idea of transfer and had never taken the idea seriously, and that, therefore, there was no connection between the occasional propagation of the idea in the 1930s and 1940s and what happened to the Palestinians in 1947–1949. Both were driven by a desire to clear Israel of the charge of premeditation in what befell Palestine’s Arabs. As readers of the new chapter will see, the evidence for pre-1948 Zionist support for ‘Transfer’ really is unambiguous; but the connection between that support and what actually happened during the war is far more tenuous than Arab propagandists will allow."
The other major innovation here is the addition of a new chapter on Zionist thinking about ‘Transfer’ – i.e., the organised, compensated, mutually agreed shift, or one-sided expulsion, of Arab communities out of Palestine – a subject accorded only four pages in the 1988 edition. Over the intervening years, I have concluded that pre-1948 ‘Transfer’ thinking had a greater effect on what happened in 1948 than I had allowed for and, hence, deserved deeper treatment and more space. An additional reason for this deeper treatment was criticism of my original handling of the subject by both Arab and Israeli scholars: Arab historians like Nur Masalha argued that the pre-1948 Zionist ‘Transfer’ thinking was a pillar of Zionist ideology and was tantamount to a master plan – which was then systematically implemented in 1948. Masalha was eager to prove that Zionism was a robber ideology and Israel, an innately expansionist robber state. From the Israeli side, Shabtai Teveth, David Ben-Gurion’s biographer, and Anita Shapira, an historian of Zionism, argued that the Zionist leadership – including Ben-Gurion – had never supported the idea of transfer and had never taken the idea seriously, and that, therefore, there was no connection between the occasional propagation of the idea in the 1930s and 1940s and what happened to the Palestinians in 1947–1949. Both were driven by a desire to clear Israel of the charge of premeditation in what befell Palestine’s Arabs. As readers of the new chapter will see, the evidence for pre-1948 Zionist support for ‘Transfer’ really is unambiguous; but the connection between that support and what actually happened during the war is far more tenuous than Arab propagandists will allow."
There is literally a video of a solider telling the story of how they expelled Palestinians from villages and how they fled from on rushing forces.
Can't anyone agree that it was a mix of various reasons? Yes, some people left because they were told to by Arab military officials, but a lot were also expelled by forces or fled fearing their safety during the war. The issue is that Zionists don't even agree that those people who were expelled or fled should be given the right to return, while believing all Jewish people have that right eventhough they've never lived there or had any recent history there.
I genuinely don't get your little segway into Hebron here.
The rest of the points notwithstanding, and I generally come here to read, but this bolded part is Olympic level mental gymnastics.
Indian freedom struggle was based on non violence and civil disobedience. And Gandhi was more or less the ideologue behind it. He was so wedded to the idea that when a famous incident of violence happened at Chauri Chaura, he basically withdrew from the movement, went on a fast for penance and forced the people to adopt the way of non violent struggle.
It is in no way comparable to what Hamas is doing - nor is the inherent cynicism of their actions and spite that they hold applicable in Gandhi’s case. He firmly advocated for good relations with Great Britain once India was independent despite the history of atrocities of British rule. And all the folks going up against the baton charges of police were volunteers who knew what they were doing.
I could say more, but I will stop here.
Last edited:
Part of the problem using labels is that people do not share the same definition (what you are calling an error)
Okay.... isn't that the majority opinion in this thread? What's so funny about it?
Yes, it would be a strategically bad move.
Probably one of the main differences in the way I see it, is that it's not really a big deal what happened there.
Because it happened to so many other populations.
People than go on and emphasize the specifics of the Palestine case. However, they do not consider at all.... it's how nation building happens. It's a bloody and painful process (more so for those who lost the power in the state/region). And every ethnicity that didn't get their state has a very specific and compelling story to tell. So, from my point of view there is no original sin created by the Jews here. They just did what was common practice in that era: weaponize yourself and try to gain as much power as possible.
Because most people supporting Israel at least pretend to believe they're the good guys, you've just spent ages saying how you support Israel and then described how they're an apartheid state. Do you support apartheid?
Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA built their nations that way, and they treated the natives disgustingly, still do for the most part. Most countries aren't founded by importing millions of Europeans, in fact any time that has happened, it's ended in genocide and/or ethnic cleansing and is a stain on those countries histories. Just because others have done it doesn't make it okay. You have some seriously strange views.
I can differentiate between my own opinion and the facts.
Unlike many people I am aware that my position is definitely wrong in some parts. Unlike many people I know that I can know only a subjective part of the truth - and there is no way for anyone to attain the complete truth.
I find it really strange to come up with the issue of apartheid. Why do you ask me that? Am I an expert in apartheid? Do we share the same concept of the word "apartheid"? From my point of view, I do not support apartheid - I do not see an apartheid regime in Israel.
What I also find interesting, that on one side many people are very keen to use labels like "genocide", "ethnic cleansing", "nazis", "apartheid" (so pretty much they are happy to generalize as much as possible) and on the other hand the same people will dwell into odd details that seem to make Palestine a very special case. It isn't....
I am not saying that it's okay - I am saying the world is as it is. It has been that way for many centuries. What happened with Palestine is what has happened to many other ethnicities in the past. They lost and got the short end of the stick.
Now, the result is definitely bad, really bad for the Palestinians. But, this current situation did not happen just like that. The current situation also did not happen because of what Israel had done 60 or 70 or 80 years ago. The current situation is the result of many things, events, discussion and processes that have happened since. So it's a complex web of different narratives and stories. Naturally, people will disagree about that. And they should.
But at least I am open to other ideas and I am considering them.
Somewhat related to what this video doesn't address - isn't it true that most Ashkenazi Jews are not related to the ancient Israelites who lived on the land back in ancient times, but rather Europeans who converted to Judaism much later ? Given that Israel is about 45% Ashkenazi (the US is ~90% Ashkenazi) it would seem to undercut the idea of present day land claims based on ancient ancestry.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Fascinating stuff, though not conclusive. Either way, Ashkenazi Jews wouldn't even be a thing hadn't there been a dispersal in the first place and to measure one's devoutness (or even self identity via conversion etc.) by genetics alone is clearly a very slippery slope.
Besides, I have a very Roman nose - does it make me less Jewish if one of me horny ancestors had a fling with Pontius Pilate?
1,500 Palestinian homes face demolition in Jerusalem's Silwan
The Al-Bustan neighbourhood in Silwan, which is south of the Old City, has 119 families in 88 buildings that are under threat of demolishment to make way for an Israeli archaeological park
The Israeli-run Jerusalem Municipality on Monday issued demolition orders to dozens of Palestinian families of Al-Bustan suburb in occupied East Jerusalem's Silwan neighbourhood.
The demolition notice stated: "We wanted to inform you that we will carry out the demolition according to the court's decision. To minimise damages, you must leave the home without people and items until 21 days after receiving this letter. The municipality is not responsible for property damage if the house is not evacuated as mentioned."
This comes after the Israeli court postponed its decision on an appeal lodged last month by two of the seven Palestinian families in Silwan facing forced displacement from their homes.
Outside, residents of Silwan had gathered alongside dozens of supporters to denounce the demolition orders.
However, Israeli security forces violently disturbed the rally, beating protestors and arresting 16-year-old Sultan Surhan and Qutaiba Odeh, a resident of Silwan whose house is threatened with a demolition order.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/2...an-home-face-demolition-in-jerusalems-silwan/
The Al-Bustan neighbourhood in Silwan, which is south of the Old City, has 119 families in 88 buildings that are under threat of demolishment to make way for an Israeli archaeological park
The Israeli-run Jerusalem Municipality on Monday issued demolition orders to dozens of Palestinian families of Al-Bustan suburb in occupied East Jerusalem's Silwan neighbourhood.
The demolition notice stated: "We wanted to inform you that we will carry out the demolition according to the court's decision. To minimise damages, you must leave the home without people and items until 21 days after receiving this letter. The municipality is not responsible for property damage if the house is not evacuated as mentioned."
This comes after the Israeli court postponed its decision on an appeal lodged last month by two of the seven Palestinian families in Silwan facing forced displacement from their homes.
Outside, residents of Silwan had gathered alongside dozens of supporters to denounce the demolition orders.
However, Israeli security forces violently disturbed the rally, beating protestors and arresting 16-year-old Sultan Surhan and Qutaiba Odeh, a resident of Silwan whose house is threatened with a demolition order.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/2...an-home-face-demolition-in-jerusalems-silwan/
At least your open to other ideas
Being open to apartheid, as many leading human rights watch dogs have described the situation in Israel, does not make you smart or nuanced it's just makes you a war crime apologist.
You say that this is how the world is when there's only a handful of past examples. The other thing is, those genocides have already happened, we can't bring back those exterminated by the Brits, Spanish, Dutch, etc. We can however prevent it happening again, although it seems pretty bleak given we have people like you making excuses at every turn.
You can repurpose the words apartheid and genocide all you want. But if you're that sincere about war crimes, what, by your leading example, can we do about Syria, Yemen, China, Africa and all the other whatabouteries that are chopping heads off while somebody in Israel farts the wrong way?At least your open to other ideas
Being open to apartheid, as many leading human rights watch dogs have described the situation in Israel, does not make you smart or nuanced it's just makes you a war crime apologist.
You say that this is how the world is when there's only a handful of past examples. The other thing is, those genocides have already happened, we can't bring back those exterminated by the Brits, Spanish, Dutch, etc. We can however prevent it happening again, although it seems pretty bleak given we have people like you making excuses at every turn.
Last edited:
Great scene. Funny how no Palestinians feature in the film though.
C'mon don't be biggus dickus.
Has anyone tried denying those crimes? FYI, Syria's been invaded, the West sells arms to the Saudis, which is spoken about a lot, the West props up China by buying it's goods, which again is spoken about a lot and I'm not sure which African conflict you're talking about but I think you get the picture. So, we can cut military funding to Israel and refuse to sell them arms. We can refuse to sell arms to the Saudis. We can stop buying so much from China. All of these are spoken about lots but generally, in the Israel Palestine thread, I prefer to keep it on topic.
What's your take? Would you say Israel is an apartheid state? Please don't whatabout me on this one.
The west is hostile with Syria, and Israel, a western proxy, regularly bombs Damascus and provides medical support to rebels in Syria who are linked with al-Qaeda and Hamas and antagonistic to Hezbollah. So, the relationship between Assad's crimes and the West is very different than between the west and Israel.
The west is openly advocating a long-term strategy to contain and possible defeat China. In a divided and dysfunctional US Senate, yesterday a bill regarding manufacturing passed 68-32 because it was framed as a competitive bill against China. The US and most of Europe has no military relationship with China (though Israel and China do have a flourishing arms trade), so, again, the relationship between the West and China is nothing like between the West and Israel.
The closest comparison is Saudi and its domestic repression and the genocide it is committing on its border country. With arms sales and diplomatic support, it is a somewhat comparable relationship with Israel.
However, the degree of compatibility is different. The House and Senate voted to materially restrict US support for the genocide in Yemen before being vetoed by Trump. OTOH, not even a toothless resolution regarding Israel can pass either chamber, in fact, it would struggle to cross 10%.
So in terms of "bad actors*" whose actions are being aided by the West, there is one relationship that stands out.
*obviously there are many more including the US itself.
Ah textbook Zionist response. ‘But but what about what all these other places are doing? Why focus on Israel? Waaah.’
You have some very high expectations Raven, they won't be met unfortunately.
No. Please present identical evidence to which the Black South African citizens suffered.
You know why.
Because you can’t back up your position with any meaningful information so deflecting and avoiding addressing it head on is the only thing you can do? Thought so.
Ex Israeli ambassadors to South Africa have said it’s apartheid. But what do they know, right?
Identical? Why must it be identical when human rights organisations have done the research and confirmed what people have been saying for years, which is that Israel is an apartheid state?
Just because sout Africa was an apartheid doesn't mean anything that isn't south Africa isn't apartheid. Ridiculous logic.
Ex Israeli ambassadors to South Africa have said it’s apartheid. But what do they know, right?
In other words you can't be bothered or can't present any evidence that perfectly matches South Africa in any way.
Lets make this easier for you. Name just one thing that replicates apartheid.
Keep a close eye on my conversation with Raven.
I’ve read your shite for a while now. Keep a close eye on the word shite.
No need to be rude. Well, from my side anyway.
Some interesting bits about Hamas activities from the 2nd one of Hassan Yousef's kids to defect
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy
There is a pretty fair wiki on this from my point of view at least with lots of external sources and arguments. I think its very widely accepted that the term apartheid does apply to Israel.
There is a pretty fair wiki on this from my point of view at least with lots of external sources and arguments. I think its very widely accepted that the term apartheid does apply to Israel.
Then those very same arguments are inapplicable to South Africa.
$200 in a Gaza restaurant? Some open-air prison then.