The Middle East Conflict Thread

Nonsense, if you read the quote you would have seen it was because Israel opened up part of its archives in the 1980s for investigation by historians.

Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus
"Part of". Again, if you had comitted a crime, would you release documents that proved it?

There is a mountain of evidence, not only on that page itself but on many other pages that the ethnic cleansing did occur.

For example, from that same page :

The only authorised expulsion at this time took place at Qisarya, south of Haifa, where Palestinian Arabs were evicted and their houses destroyed on 19 February - 20 February 1948.[34] In attacks that were not authorised in advance several communities were expelled by the Haganah and several others were chased away by the Irgun.[35]
More ethnic cleansing. Israel can say that it is not responsible for its actions, but that does NOT mean that Israel is not responsible for its actions, any more than an accused rapist is not responsible just because he says he's not responsible.

To try to blame other people for actions you took is morally reprehensible, and Israel should fess up to its crimes, and you should stop turning a blind-eye to reality.

How many examples of people being forced to leave their homes at gunpoint is it going to take for you to believe that people were forced to leave their homes at gunpoint?

LOL.... I'm praising you.
No, actually you're quoting Gary and using every opportunity you get to insult my level of education. That is a personal attack.

You have to give Xarog an extra point on this one :)

That said Xarog has a rather conceited though tongue-in-cheek one himself.
It's self-deprecating humour.

I think its also important not to confused ethnic cleansing with war-time forced removal. Many millions of Germans and Italians during WWII found themselves with faced with a choice of either having to leave the UK, US etc of or face imprisonment for the duration of the war, regardless of whether they agreed with the war or not.

Something to keep in mind.
Maybe, but then there's a huge difference between allowing them to return after the war, or forcing them to stay away from their homes.
 
" His son, chief rabbi of Safed, elaborated: "If they don't stop after we kill 100, then we must kill a thousand, and if they do not stop after 1,000 then we must kill 10,000. If they still don't stop we must kill 100,000, even a million. Whatever it takes to make them stop."

Is this any different from the democratically elected Hamas stating they want to wipe israel from the face of the earth......
 
You claimed ethnic cleansing so it is your responsibility to prove it.
I have done so, but you're being willfully ignorant. If there are 100 sources which point to ethnic cleaning, but one source disputes the claim, and that one source also happens to be the accused perpetrator, then who is it reasonable to believe?

Edit : Note how the Israeli government does not deny that it occurs, but merely chooses to claim that they were not responsible for their actions.

Shall we now also call Jews fleeing from the Arab states ethnic cleansing ?

But the critical factor here is that no one has a right to opress anyone else. No one has the right to say "This state is now [x], and everyone who isn't [x] is no longer welcome here." It wasn't right of the Nats to try to turn South Africa into a white state, and it wouldn't be right if the ANC tried to turn South Africa into a black state. Niether is it right for a Jewish state to exist, or an Islamic theocracy. Those who were ethnically cleansed have a reasonable expectation to compensation (same goes for ethnically cleansed Jews). It doesn't matter who lives where; if someone came and chased you out of your home, they comitted a crime against you. It is wholly unreasonable for anyone to expect that someone else must now foot the bill.
I really don't like having to repeat myself.
 
Now this is just provocative, unnecessary, innapropriate and stupid.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292925360&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

The Israel Police and the Justice Ministry were dealt a blow Wednesday when the High Court of Justice blasted them for repeatedly delaying a planned right-wing protest through the streets of Umm el-Fahm.


Slideshow: Pictures of the week Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levy criticized the state's representative, Attorney Michal Tzuk, for discriminating against the appellants - ultra-right activists Itamar Ben-Gvir and Baruch Marzel.

Marzel and Ben-Gvir had challenged the decision made by Northern District Police to delay the march in spite of two previous High Court rulings that the march must be allowed to take place.

And the problem is ...

According to CBS, in 2001 the ethnic makeup of the city was 100.0% Arab (99.7% Muslim), with no significant Jewish population
 
What is the Arab history in Palestine?

Arabs are not a singular people. Origins are complex and intermingled with many peoples and lines. According to tradition, true Arabs are descendants of Abraham and his son Ishmael and prior to the 20th century, "Arab" designated the Bedouin, tribal-based society of the Arabian desert, which is the birthplace of Arabic. Other Arabs are ethnic groups that have been extant in their lands of origin for millennia. Modern Arab nationalism is a product of 19th- and 20th-century developments and has no prior historical basis. Before the rise of nationalism, most Arabic-speakers identified themselves as members of a particular family or tribe; as residents of a village, town, or region; as Muslims, Christians, or Jews; or as subjects of large political entities such as the Ottoman empire.

Historians generally agree that the ancient Semitic peoples (Assyrians, Aramaeans, Canaanites (including the Phoenicians and Hebrews) and, later, the Arabs themselves) migrated into the area of the Fertile Crescent. Arab invasions came after successive crises of overpopulation in the Arabian Peninsula beginning in the third millennium BC and ending with the Muslim conquests of the 7th century AD. These peoples spoke languages based on similar linguistic structures, and the modern Semitic languages of Arabic, Hebrew, and Amharic (the language of Ethiopia) maintain important similarities.

In approx. 1200 BC, the Petra area (in modern Jordan, about 80 kilometers south of the Dead Sea) was populated by Edomites, descended from Esau according to the Bible, and was known as Edom ("red"). Before the Israelites arrived in Canaan and repeatedly battled with them, the Edomites controlled the fertile valleys from the Red Sea at Elath to the Dead Sea, and hence the trade routes from Arabia in the south to Damascus in the north.

Subsequently, the Nabataeans, one of many Arab tribes, migrated into Edom, forcing the Edomites to move into southern Palestine. By 312 BC the Nabataeans occupied Petra and made it the capital of their kingdom. The Edomites were later forcibly converted into Judaism by John Hyrcanus (died 105 BC), and then became an active part of the Jewish people. Petra prospered as the principal city of the Nabataean empire from 400 BC to AD 106 when it was absorbed by the Romans. The Nabataeans flourished in the spice trade and engineered an impressive hydraulic engineering system of pipes, tunnels, and channels that carried drinking water into the city and reduced the chance of flash floods.

After the Roman conquest of Judea, the Nabataeans and others, "Palastina" became a province of the pagan Roman Empire and then of the Christian Byzantine Empire, and very briefly of the Zoroastrian Persian Empire. In 638 AD, an Arab-Muslim Caliph took Palastina away from the Byzantine Empire and made it part of an Arab-Muslim Empire. The Arabs, who had no name of their own for this region, adopted the Greco-Roman name Palastina, that they pronounced "Falastin".

In 1099, Christian Crusaders from Europe conquered Palestine and took Jerusalem. After 1099, it was never again under Arab rule. The Christian Crusader kingdom lasted less than 100 years. Thereafter, Palestine was joined to Syria as a subject province first of the Egyptian Mameluks, and then of the Ottoman Turks, whose capital was in Istanbul.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_first_arabs.php
.
 
Where did the name Palestine come from?

The name Palestine refers to a region of the eastern Mediterranean coast from the sea to the Jordan valley and from the southern Negev desert to the Galilee lake region in the north. The word itself derives from "Plesheth", a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as "Philistine". Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine's invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea. The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs.

The Philistines reached the southern coast of Israel in several waves. One group arrived in the pre-patriarchal period and settled south of Beersheba in Gerar where they came into conflict with Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. Another group, coming from Crete after being repulsed from an attempted invasion of Egypt by Rameses III in 1194 BCE, seized the southern coastal area, where they founded five settlements (Gaza, Ascalon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gat). In the Persian and Greek periods, foreign settlers - chiefly from the Mediterranean islands - overran the Philistine districts.

From the fifth century BC, following the historian Herodotus, Greeks called the eastern coast of the Mediterranean "the Philistine Syria" using the Greek language form of the name. In AD 135, after putting down the Bar Kochba revolt, the second major Jewish revolt against Rome, the Emperor Hadrian wanted to blot out the name of the Roman "Provincia Judaea" and so renamed it "Provincia Syria Palaestina", the Latin version of the Greek name and the first use of the name as an administrative unit. The name "Provincia Syria Palaestina" was later shortened to Palaestina, from which the modern, anglicized "Palestine" is derived.

This remained the situation until the end of the fourth century, when in the wake of a general imperial reorganization Palestine became three Palestines: First, Second, and Third. This configuration is believed to have persisted into the seventh century, the time of the Persian and Muslim conquests.

The Christian Crusaders employed the word Palestine to refer to the general region of the "three Palestines." After the fall of the crusader kingdom, Palestine was no longer an official designation. The name, however, continued to be used informally for the lands on both sides of the Jordan River. The Ottoman Turks, who were non-Arabs but religious Muslims, ruled the area for 400 years (1517-1917). Under Ottoman rule, the Palestine region was attached administratively to the province of Damascus and ruled from Istanbul. The name Palestine was revived after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and applied to the territory in this region that was placed under the British Mandate for Palestine.

The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Roman "Palaestina". Quoting Golda Meir:

The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation's supposed ancient name, though they couldn't even pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin a fictional entity. [In an article by Sarah Honig, Jerusalem Post, November 25, 1995]
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_name_origin.php
.
 
What about Israeli atrocities against Arabs?

Pro-Arab sources cite examples of Israeli massacres and other atrocities during the 1948 War of Independence. Some Israeli revisionist historians support the atrocity claims as part of their political agenda, but mainstream historians do not think the claims are credible. The crux of the issue is whether the Jewish forces acted in a manner which goes beyond the normal course of warfare or if, on the contrary, any casualties were either opposing Arab armed forces or civilians who were accidently killed due to battle.

The weight of evidence from eyewitnesses and sparse documentation is that:

The Jewish population came under attack from Palestinian Arabs in the latter days of the British Mandate and, after independence was declared, from the armies of Arab nations.


The heavily outnumbered and under-supplied Jews fought both conventional and unconventional battles against their foes, but did not engage in atrocities, massacres, or other improper acts.


Arab casualties that did occur were either Arab armed forces in battle, or civilians caught in battle areas. Since Arabs often attacked from civilian areas, most of these casualties were the result of such Arab attacks.


The most often mentioned location is Dir Yassin, one of the bases of the Arab forces maintaining pressure on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv road. For the full story on this battle, see the Dir Yassin page.

Other atrocities attributed to Jewish forces in the War of Independence timeframe include this list and more:

Yehida: 13 December 1947


Khisas: 18 December 1947


Qazaza: 19 December 1947


Al-Sheikh Village: 1 January 1948


Naser Al-Din: 13-14 April 1948


Abu Shusha: 14 May 1948


Beit Daras: 21 May 1948


Tantura: May 22-23, 1948


Dahmash Mosque: 11 July 1948


Dawayma: 29 October 1948


Certainly claims of massacres and atrocities should not go without investigation. The problem is that, like the case of Dir Yassin, even when the claim is shown to be unfounded, the legend persists. It is convenient for the enemies of Israel to portray her armed forces as ruthless savages, but that propagandistic position cannot be supported by any facts.

For example, Tantura. A Haifa University revisionist historian, Theodor Katz, claimed in his M.A. thesis (released January 2000) that an IDF unit had massacred over 200 Arab residents of the village of Tantura in the 1948 War of Independence. He was brought to court in 2001 by surviving officers and men of the unit who presented contrary evidence including review of Katz's tape recordings showing how he had manipulated the testimony of survivors. Katz admitted finally that he had selectively used reports from Arab sources, taking only those that supported his thesis. The lawsuit was dropped after Katz signed a renunciation of his own work and Haifa University pulled the thesis from library shelves. [It was revealed in September 2002 that tormer Palestinian Authority minister Feisal Husseini paid $8,000 for the legal defense of Teddy Katz.] The University conducted its own review of the evidence. After six months of work, the committee had managed to review only a little more than one-fourth of Katz's tapes, mostly in Arabic, which bore direct relation to the question of whether any massacre took place. Yet even in that limited selection, 14 major discrepancies - in which the tapes didn't accord with the written text - came to light.

No pro-Palestinian Arab source had ever pointed to a massacre at Tantura before Katz's thesis appeared in 2000. The thesis has been completely debunked. Nonetheless, there are now hundreds of web sites that cite the "Tantura massacre" as historical fact. And while Arab sources rushed into print to trumpet the news of Katz's thesis, none has mentioned the retraction save a few who cite it as an example of a massive coverup.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_war_atrocities_israeli.php
.
 
What happened at Dir Yassin?
Dir Yassin was certainly not a massacre of a peaceful village, but rather was an Arab-Jewish battle with unfortunate civilian casualties.

Dir Yassin lies on a hill west of Jerusalem, eight hundred meters above sea level, and 700 meters from the Jewish neighbourhood of Givat Shaul. The Dir Yassin fortified position overlooked the westerly Jewish neighborhoods: Givat Shaul, Bet Hakerem, Yefe Nof, and the road to Bayit Vagan. The village also overlooked the section of road linking Jerusalem to Tel-Aviv. Dir Yassin served as a halfway site for forces moving up from the Arab villages of Ein Karem and Malha in the south to Kastel and Kolonia, which overlooked the main Jerusalem - Tel Aviv road.

On April 2, 1948, the Arab inhabitants of Dir Yassin began sniping at the Jewish Quarters of Bet Hakerem and Yefe Nof. According to reports by the Shai (Haganah Intelligence), fortifications were being constructed in the village and a large quantity of arms being stockpiled. Several days before the attack on Dir Yassin, the presence of foreign fighters was reported, including Iraqi soldiers and irregular forces. An Arab research study conducted at Bir Zeit University (near Ramallah) relates that the men of Dir Yassin took an active part in violent acts against Jewish targets and that many of the men of the village fought in the battle for Kastel, together with Abd-el-Kadr el-Husseini. The report also stated that trenches had been dug at the entry to the village, and that more than 100 men had been trained and equipped with rifles and Bren guns. A local guard force had been set up and 40 inhabitants guarded the village every night.

On April 6, 1948, Operation Nachshon was launched by the Haganah with the aim of opening up the road to Jerusalem. The Palmach was part of this effort together with the Irgun (under Menachem Begin) and Lehi forces, their first combined operation. On Thursday, April 8, 1948 they launched an attack on Dir Yassin between 4 and 5 AM. A loudspeaker mounted on an armored car warned the Arabs and asked them to evacuate their women and children. Hundreds left, but hundreds stayed. A pitched battle ensued, and when the smoke cleared, 110 to 120 Arabs were killed, 40 Jews were seriously injured and four Jews were dead. The number killed has been confirmed even by Palestinian Arab researchers, such as Bir Zeit University professor Sharif Kanaana who puts the number no higher than 120 (although he clings to the claim of massacre). Another contemporary Arab source deflates the number killed to less than 100, stating, after a count, "that there were no more than 46 corpses". The head of the coroner unit, professor Yehoshua Arieli, testified that the number was 110.

The use of the loudsepaker to warn the civilians to evacuate is a key point, certainly not the action of soldiers planning to murder the population. The loudspeaker is not in dispute. A publication of the Arab League titled Israeli Aggression states:

On the night of April 9, 1948, the peaceful Arab village of Deir Yassin was surprised by a loudspeaker, which called on the population to evacuate it immediately.
The village was not peaceful, but the essential part of this quote agrees with Jewish accounts.

The massacre claim, meaning the killing of defenceless people, has long since been discredited by the Israeli government and every other historical study. The story persists because pro-Arab sources constantly repeat it, often inflating the number of dead to 250 or more. There are completely fictional accounts written about Arabs being marched to the mosque and shot against the walls, or even worse stories of torture, rape or any other shocking aspect the storyteller invents. As an example, here is how one Arab website describes the scene:

[The Jews used] machine guns, then grenades and finished of with knives. Women's bellies were cut open and babies were butchered in the hands of their helpless mothers. Around 250 people were murdered in cold blood. Of them 25 pregnant women were bayoneted in the abdomen while still alive. 52 children were maimed under the eyes of their own mothers, and they were slain and their heads cut off.
To say there is not a shread of evidence for these embellishments is giving them too much credit.

On the contrary, there are eyewitness accounts from the time, Jewish and Arab, that tell the story as it happened. For example, according to the Daily Telegraph, April 8, 1998, Ayish Zeidan, a resident of the village and a survivor of the fighting there, stated:

The Arab radio talked of women being killed and raped, but this is not true... I believe that most of those who were killed were among the fighters and the women and children who helped the fighters. The Arab leaders committed a big mistake. By exaggerating the atrocities they thought they would encourage people to fight back harder. Instead they created panic and people ran away.
Dir Yassin was a reasonable military target for Jewish forces, there was warning given before the battle, a fierce battle was fought with casualties on both sides. No massacre, no mutiliations, no atrocities.

Palestinian Arab eyewitnesses have recently admitted that some of their claims about Dir Yassin were deliberate fabrications. The issue of the Jerusalem Report dated April 2, 1998 describes a BBC television program in which Hazem Nusseibeh, an editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service's Arabic news in 1948, admits that he was told by Hussein Khalidi, a prominent Palestinian Arab leader, to fabricate claims of atrocities at Dir Yassin in order to encourage Arab regimes to invade the expected Jewish state.

According to the Jerusalem Report:

Nusseibeh "describes an encounter at the Jaffa Gate of Jerusalem's Old City with Deir Yassin survivors and Palestinian leaders, including Hussein Khalidi... 'I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story,' recalled Nusseibeh. 'He said, "We must make the most of this." So we wrote a press release stating that at Deir Yassin children were murdered, pregnant women were raped. All sorts of atrocities.' "
The BBC program then shows a recent interview with Abu Mahmud, who was a Dir Yassin resident in 1948, who says:

... the villagers protested against the atrocity claims: We said, "There was no rape." [Khalidi] said, "We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews."
Khalidi was one of the originators of the "massacre" allegation in 1948. It was Khalidi's claims about Jewish atrocities in Dir Yassin that were the basis for an article in the New York Times by its correspondent, Dana Schmidt (on April 12, 1948), claiming a massacre took place. The Times article has been widely reprinted and cited as "proof" of the massacre throughout the past 50 years.

Nusseibeh, who is a member of one of Jerusalem's most prominent Arab families and presently lives in Amman, told the BBC that the fabricated atrocity stories about Dir Yassin were:

"...our biggest mistake," because "Palestinians fled in terror" and left the country in huge numbers after hearing the atrocity claims.
It has also been alleged that the Dir Yassin hoax was supported by the left-wing political party of David Ben-Gurion in order to smear the right-wing, the Irgun and its commander Menachem Begin.

Note: Also spelled Dayr Yasin, Deir Yassin, Dir Yassin, and variants.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_war_diryassin.php

Deir Yassin Myth Debunked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdX3kQKO3wU
 

Palestinefacts.org? Please you're just making a fool of yourself...

Use factual sources next time and not sites owned by the ZOA or Zionist organization of America who are known to twist facts for their pro-Israel anti-Arab agenda.
 
Jerusalem Program
The platform of the WZO is the Jerusalem Program. The Zionist Council, meeting in Jerusalem in June 2004, adopted this text as the latest version. [9]

Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, brought about the establishment of the State of Israel, and views a Jewish, Zionist, democratic and secure State of Israel to be the expression of the common responsibility of the Jewish people for its continuity and future. The foundations of Zionism are:
- The unity of the Jewish people, its bond to its historic homeland Eretz Yisrael, and the centrality of the State of Israel and Jerusalem, its capital, in the life of the nation;
- Aliyah to Israel from all countries and the effective integration of all immigrants into Israeli Society.
- Strengthening Israel as a Jewish, Zionist and democratic state and shaping it as an exemplary society with a unique moral and spiritual character, marked by mutual respect for the multi-faceted Jewish people, rooted in the vision of the prophets, striving for peace and contributing to the betterment of the world.
- Ensuring the future and the distinctiveness of the Jewish people by furthering Jewish, Hebrew and Zionist education, fostering spiritual and cultural values and teaching Hebrew as the national language;
- Nurturing mutual Jewish responsibility, defending the rights of Jews as individuals and as a nation, representing the national Zionist interests of the Jewish people, and struggling against all manifestations of anti-Semitism;
- Settling the country as an expression of practical Zionism.

Now if that is not blatant discrimination...
as much as I support the idea of a nation with a Jewish identity at least do it practically FFS this is just plain stupid.
 
Very much so.

The last few paragraphs are particularly thought provoking :

The preference for expansion over security has been particularly evident since Israel's fateful decision in 1971, backed by Henry Kissinger, to reject the offer of a full peace treaty by President Sadat of Egypt, offering nothing to the Palestinians - an agreement that the US and Israel were compelled to accept at Camp David eight years later, after a major war that was a near disaster for Israel. A peace treaty with Egypt would have ended any significant security threat, but there was an unacceptable quid pro quo: Israel would have had to abandon its extensive settlement programs in the northeastern Sinai. Security was a lower priority than expansion, as it still is. Substantial evidence for this basic conclusion is provided in a magisterial study of Israel's security and foreign policy by Zeev Maoz, Defending the Holy Land.

Today, Israel could have security, normalization of relations, and integration into the region. But it very clearly prefers illegal expansion, conflict, and repeated exercise of violence, actions that are not only criminal, murderous and destructive but are also eroding its own long-term security. US military and Middle East specialist Andrew Cordesman writes that while Israel military force can surely crush defenseless Gaza, "neither Israel nor the US can gain from a war that produces [a bitter] reaction from one of the wisest and most moderate voices in the Arab world, Prince Turki al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia, who said on January 6 that `The Bush administration has left [Obama] a disgusting legacy and a reckless position towards the massacres and bloodshed of innocents in Gaza...Enough is enough, today we are all Palestinians and we seek martyrdom for God and for Palestine, following those who died in Gaza'."

One of the wisest voices in Israel, Uri Avnery, writes that after an Israeli military victory, "What will be seared into the consciousness of the world will be the image of Israel as a blood-stained monster, ready at any moment to commit war crimes and not prepared to abide by any moral restraints. This will have severe consequences for our long-term future, our standing in the world, our chance of achieving peace and quiet. In the end, this war is a crime against ourselves too, a crime against the State of Israel."



There is good reason to believe that he is right. Israel is deliberately turning itself into perhaps the most hated country in the world, and is also losing the allegiance of the population of the West, including younger American Jews, who are unlikely to tolerate its persistent shocking crimes for long. Decades ago, I wrote that those who call themselves "supporters of Israel" are in reality supporters of its moral degeneration and probable ultimate destruction. Regrettably, that judgment looks more and more plausible.



Meanwhile we are quietly observing a rare event in history, what the late Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling called "politicide," the murder of a nation -- at our hands.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X