PDA

View Full Version : Israeli & Palestinian Conflict



DoctorNO
05-05-04, 19:48
The Palestinian conflict is one that dates back hundreds of years. The land of Israel/Palestine was originally settled 3000 years ago by feuding Hebrews & Canaanites which later merged together to become the people of ancient Israel. The land was later conquered and reconquered by surrounding super powers, thus scattering the Jews throughout Europe, Africa and Arabia. Although some jews were able to remain continuously in the land. Late in the 1800s the growing persecution of jews inspired the jews to resettle back into their ancestral homeland. Which became increasingly possible with the defeat of the Ottomon empire after World War I. WWII convinced the U.N. to partition the land (almost) equally between the jews & the arabs. Although the partition was more in favor for the arabs, it was not enough to them for they expected the whole region. Thus in 1947 after the Jews proclaimed independence 7 arab armies, with the help of British training and british soldiers attacked Israel on all sides. Against all odds the jews emerged victorious and what lands the arabs willingly abandoned (to give way to arab war machine) the Israelis reclaimed. And even the arabs later declared those lands as a complete loss and gave up on it. The current conflict was mostly hinged on the 1967 war, wherein a besieged Israel launched a preemptive strike which destroyed all the armies surrounding it, also allowing Israel to occupy the remaining Palestinian lands. Later wars of 1972 and 1979 hardened Israel’s stand to occupy these lands as a form of self-defense or so they say. Palestinians since then had resorted to terrorist plots. And the conflict persists today. An endless cycle of revenge.

What do you think about this issue?

Frank D. White
06-05-04, 01:20
we have a summer camp called "THE SEEDS OF PEACE".
Every summer it brings teen agers from both sides
to show they can live togeather in peace some day if they work at it. It's a great program, and when they interview
the kids, it seems to be helping them understand how to
make a better future for themselves.
It must be horrible to live somewhere surrounded by
death & destruction; never feeling safe!

Frank
:(

noyhauser
06-05-04, 02:19
you run this Frank?

Frank D. White
06-05-04, 02:35
you run this Frank?

No, my church supports it and a friends son is going to be a counselor their this summer! I always wonder how the kids handle the peer presure & family presure to return to hateing back home?

Frank

Elizabeth
06-05-04, 02:49
Kinda hard to say overall who we should blame going back more than a century -- I'm more interested in what the Palestinians right now are thinking with the leveling off of suicide bombings over the last few months, the wall going up along the border as well as talk of an Israeli pullout of Gaza and of course continuing violence in the hunt for militants :(. Media reports are few and far between, so any news is welcome.

noyhauser
06-05-04, 03:08
read my long essay in the other thread. It explains what is going on now with the wall and the US's position

bossel
06-05-04, 03:08
The land of Israel/Palestine was originally settled 3000 years ago by feuding Hebrews & Canaanites which later merged together to become the people of ancient Israel.
Hmm, I remember the story slightly different: the Canaanites were already there, then the Israelites came & conquered parts of the land.



WWII convinced the U.N. to partition the land (almost) equally between the jews & the arabs. Although the partition was more in favor for the arabs, it was not enough to them for they expected the whole region.
Almost equally? Hmm, ~1,2 m Palestinians were supposed to get 43.53 % of the land, while ~600,000 Jews would have got 56.47 %. That's what you call in favour of the Arabs?



Thus in 1947 after the Jews proclaimed independence 7 arab armies, with the help of British training and british soldiers attacked Israel on all sides.
You talk of 1948, I suppose?
Well, 1st Jewish "clearing" operations against Palestinian villages started in December 1947. The beginning of 1948 saw several skirmishes initiated by both sides. War broke out on May, 15, 1948, one day after the declaration of the state of Israel.
Which sources do you have that British soldiers fought on Arab side against Israel?
Don't know about the Arabs, but what you forget to mention is that the Jews were partly British trained as well.



Against all odds the jews emerged victorious and what lands the arabs willingly abandoned (to give way to arab war machine) the Israelis reclaimed.
Willingly abandoned? Hmm, what about the "clearing" operations? What with the Deir Yassin massacre of 9 April? What about other Israeli atrocities?
There may have been Arab leaders urging people to leave, but for a great part the Palestines fled for fear of the Israelis, not in order to give Arab armies room to manoeuvre.



And even the arabs later declared those lands as a complete loss and gave up on it.
Even if so (the Arabs, who exactly?), that doesn't take away the right of return for the refugees.

kirei_na_me
06-05-04, 03:25
I saw an NHK Special about it not too long ago, and it seems that the US only shows one side of it, which is not surprising. All we see are supposed suicide bombings done by the Palestinians to the Israelis. In this special I saw, they were showing how the Israelis do just as much bombing of the Palestinians, if not more.

It's interesting to see how subjects like this are shown from a different country's point of view sometimes. Makes you want to question what we're always fed...or at least, it should.

noyhauser
06-05-04, 05:40
Im going to say this once, because afterwards I don't want to discuss this issue because inevitably it just gets to the point where I have to defend one side which is not my intention.

I don't talk about Israeli palestinian issues because it inevitably becomes polaraized to the point where discussions are completely useless. I'm sorry to say this bossel, but your post seems to be the first step in this process. I'll often post essays on the subject and read some of the responses but I will almost never engage in debate. I've done extensive work in the field, authoring a 30 page paper on the subject using a wide range of sources from both sides. Im almost sure I've heard most arguments thrown up justifying both sides. I love reading and discussing the subject however the dogged thinking of some people dismays and sickens me, enough to make me not discuss it at all except to people who are open minded. There is so much poor press and skewed perspectives in the conflict that the truth is often buried within rhetoric.

When I do write about this issue in a constructive sense, I attempted to start with the idea of removing the idea of blame from the conflict. Blame is a powerful tool because it is used to justify the current state of affairs. This is how most people in the conflict think. The palestinians attacked us, or the Jews killed my nephew. remember Jenin, remember the Oceanside bombing. It just perpetuates conflict. If you remove the idea of blame all you are left with the question, what do you really want? Most will say security and access to prosperity. Those goals that can be worked to.

Beyond the masses there are the extremists who point to a higher calling for justification for their actions and these must be acknowledged, and dealt with. For every Hamas individual advocating the death of all Jews, there is a Ultra Orthdox jew who believes that eretz israel should exist. These individuals must be ignored and marginalized because if they aren't, then peace will never be achieved.

As a political analyst I look to what do both sides want in order to achieve peace. What I see is that both sides must make big compromises. Both sides must quit antagonizing each other. Right of return will never happen, and Arabs must accept that Israel has a right to exist, which has not happened. Israel must stop incursions, and dismantle the most egregious settlements, and recognize a palestinian state. There are others but I'm not going to list them because that is not the point of my post.

Is peace possible in our time?I think so. Camp David, Taba and Plan Clinton Came very close. The roadmap is another step. Given time I think both sides will become weary of conflict.


No, my church supports it and a friends son is going to be a counselor their this summer! I always wonder how the kids handle the peer presure & family presure to return to hateing back home?

Frank


Wow frank. I think the next generation will finally be able to see peace. I think the older ones aren't able, like the Sharons and Arafats. They belong in a different age, and the younger generations will see alternatives than the constant tit for tat warfare and uninspired peace negotiations.

bossel
06-05-04, 06:34
I don't talk about Israeli palestinian issues because it inevitably becomes polaraized to the point where discussions are completely useless. I'm sorry to say this bossel, but your post seems to be the first step in this process.
[...]
Right of return will never happen, and Arabs must accept that Israel has a right to exist, which has not happened. Israel must stop incursions, and dismantle the most egregious settlements, and recognize a palestinian state. There are others but I'm not going to list them because that is not the point of my post.

Well, I agree with most of what you wrote, Noyhauser. Just these 2 points above I have a certain problem with.

What I pointed out in my post is history, nothing more, nothing less (or did you see any mistakes? If so, say it & I will do a little more research). I'm not blaming the Israelis for anything. Neither do I support the Palestinians in everything.

I support the right of the refugees to return, though.
I agree, that it's pretty improbable that this right will be implemented, but it's their right nevertheless. If they are not allowed to return, they need to be compensated otherwise.

noyhauser
06-05-04, 06:43
Right of return won't happen, and it is not the issue the international media makes it out to be. According to Last Summers issue of international security, really less than 15% of refugees want to go back, if given some sort of compensation. Part of the problem is that it has been used by Arab regimes as a sort of panecea for their refugees ills, which it is not. And you know that the israeli state won't accept its population being swamped by refugees that bear a hostility to the people existing within the state.

Im not going to get into a spitting match about your earlier post. Again it will just push me to support Israel when I am not. The only one I will say (because it is a clear cut issue) is that a large portion of Israel's land is the Negev desert, which is nominally unihabitable.

bossel
06-05-04, 07:41
A spitting match? Very funny.
Sometimes you write excellent essays (just a bit lengthy), then again you come up with such strange stuff as above.

"Again it will just push me to support Israel when I am not."
Well, I am not really indicting Israel, am I? So, what's the big deal?

Re: right of return
Can't see any contradiction in what you say to what I said.

Re: Negev
True, but at the same time the Jews should have got some of nicest slices in the West/North West. Can't really say that they were discriminated against.

You should not try to read things into my words that are not there! I am not anti-Israel (though I'm definitely anti-Sharon).

noyhauser
06-05-04, 08:08
Spitting match is a common (north american? Canadian? english?) term meaning a drawn out dirty verbal fight, which is something I do not want to be involved in. Maybe a few months ago, but in the last few months I've become tired of getting into fights. Like the right of return argument, I could say something more, but Im not interested.

That said I'm done with the issue.

senseiman
06-05-04, 08:19
Im going to say this once, because afterwards I don't want to discuss this issue because inevitably it just gets to the point where I have to defend one side which is not my intention.

I don't talk about Israeli palestinian issues because it inevitably becomes polaraized to the point where discussions are completely useless. I'm sorry to say this bossel, but your post seems to be the first step in this process. .

If you don't want to discuss the issue, then why did you post anything in the first place?

I think it is absurd to say Bossel's post was the first step in the process of 'polarizing' the debate. Surely Doctorno's extremely one-sided and erroneous original depiction of events (not to mention the poll seeking to attribute blame for the conflict) was the beginning of that. It seemed clear to me that Bossel was just trying to clear up some misconceptions.

noyhauser
06-05-04, 09:31
If you don't want to discuss the issue, then why did you post anything in the first place?

I think it is absurd to say Bossel's post was the first step in the process of 'polarizing' the debate. Surely Doctorno's extremely one-sided and erroneous original depiction of events (not to mention the poll seeking to attribute blame for the conflict) was the beginning of that. It seemed clear to me that Bossel was just trying to clear up some misconceptions.

Because I want to mark out a position, maybe offer something for people to think about. What I would like to discuss is effectively contemporary peacemaking. However very few people understand the what that entails and revert to old frameworks of viewing the conflict utilizing historical statements such as "resolution 242 says" ect. So in my experience, I just don't participate in these subjects after making my position clear.

senseiman
06-05-04, 12:42
Because I want to mark out a position, maybe offer something for people to think about. What I would like to discuss is effectively contemporary peacemaking. However very few people understand the what that entails and revert to old frameworks of viewing the conflict utilizing historical statements such as "resolution 242 says" ect. So in my experience, I just don't participate in these subjects after making my position clear.

Fair enough, I guess. It just doesn't seem very sporting of you to preface your first post by saying "I don't want to talk about this so I'll only post once" and then going on to single out Bossel's post for criticism which is of course just inviting a rebuttal and so on.

I also don't see what is so wrong with quoting documents like resolution 242, especially given that the whole peace process is based on the principles laid out in 242 and 348. Seems pretty relevant to me.

Anyway, for what its worth I think for a peace agreement to work the Israelis are going to have to withdraw from most of the settlements in the West Bank and all of the settlements in Gaza. Its not realistic to expect Israel to grant a right of return to all Palestinian refugees (though from a moral standpoint they certainly should be entitled to one). It is reasonable to expect that a limited program of repatriation for some (perhaps those with relatives already living in Israel) and financial compensation for others should be enacted. The issue of Jerusalem is a sticky subject but I think the Israelis are going to have to allow the capital of a Palestinian state to be established in the eastern quarter of the city.

Unfortunately peace simply isn't going to happen so long as Sharon is in power in Israel and Bush (who probably couldn't find Israel on a map) is in office in Washington. Sharon's power base is too dependent on the support of militant right wing fringe groups and Bush simply doesn't give a shit about middle east peace. This stupid wall, which is built entirely on Palestinian land, isn't helping things much. It doesn't really matter who is in charge of the Palestinians as the Israelis will apparently just keep killing or exiling Palestinian leaders until they find one they like.

Its a depressing time.

Elizabeth
06-05-04, 15:17
It doesn't really matter who is in charge of the Palestinians as the Israelis will apparently just keep killing or exiling Palestinian leaders until they find one they like.

Its a depressing time.
Although is Israeli targeting of Palestinian leaders along with the occasional street fighting/Palestinian gunman shooting at police or settlers pretty much the extent of the killing going on now ? It may not be peace, but it sounds rather contained in terms of actual casualties.

noyhauser
06-05-04, 17:51
Fair enough, I guess. It just doesn't seem very sporting of you to preface your first post by saying "I don't want to talk about this so I'll only post once" and then going on to single out Bossel's post for criticism which is of course just inviting a rebuttal and so on.

Nope your right. But you have to understand this is not a passing interest for me, this is my job and my career. I look at my desk right now and there are 12 books/journals on the subject. I research and write on these subjects daily, and to be honest, I don't like debating against unresearched opinions, especially when it people believe they are absolutely right on their position. I do debate these issues; if I see someone that has devoted significant time to work in the field, or has a personal stake in the conflict, Im usually eager to listen to them. Thats why Frank's post interested me, because that is a unique vantage point, dealing with children from the environment. I am not however interested in hearing from someone who is reading about it second or third hand source, because I've heard it before.

Getting most of you information for the guardian and BBC is not a "researched opinion." Reading from Journal of Conflict Resolution, Haretz Daily, the Jerusalem Post, the Al Jazeera english news service, Survival, Foreign Affairs, Intenrnational security ect, is a researched opinion. Thats not to say I know everything on the topic or my contentions are correct. I would never claim to be so crass. But I have progressed to the point where I have read most arguments, and understand the nature of the conflict from multiple viewpoints. Thats why I'd rather post essays on the subject and not debate, because people can read them and think about what I have to say. I have no problems answering questions about them either. But I would rather not engage in debate.




Unfortunately peace simply isn't going to happen so long as Sharon is in power in Israel and Bush (who probably couldn't find Israel on a map) is in office in Washington. Sharon's power base is too dependent on the support of militant right wing fringe groups and Bush simply doesn't give a shit about middle east peace. This stupid wall, which is built entirely on Palestinian land, isn't helping things much. It doesn't really matter who is in charge of the Palestinians as the Israelis will apparently just keep killing or exiling Palestinian leaders until they find one they like.

Its a depressing time.

I don't know if you have read my draft essay that I posted. It explains the strategic mindset of the Sharon government. It was not edited so mind the grammar please.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8525

Winter
07-05-04, 01:06
The violence today isnt as much political, or religious, as it is a cultural tradition.

It would 'disgrace thy forefathers, and soil the bloodshed by thee' to stop the violence now and establish true peace.

Just look at the most popular Jewish holiday. It celebrates victory in a war long gone. So its obvious that war isnt so much politically, or religiously driven so much as it is tradition.

bossel
07-05-04, 03:04
I don't like debating against unresearched opinions, especially when it people believe they are absolutely right on their position.
Now you hit some nerve, guy! Unresearched opinions?
Believe to be absolutely right? :kaioken: Not me, anyway.
I was talking about history, not about the news or current diplomatic affairs. If you think that the facts are different, then state what you see as factual & I will do some more research.



Getting most of you information for the guardian and BBC is not a "researched opinion."
I never read The Guardian. The BBC is a secondary/tertiary source, but generally pretty reliable.



Reading from Journal of Conflict Resolution, Haretz Daily, the Jerusalem Post, the Al Jazeera english news service, Survival, Foreign Affairs, Intenrnational security ect, is a researched opinion.
Great history sources, really! That makes a researched opinion then.

senseiman
07-05-04, 08:13
I read your essay, and it was interesting and I can agree with most of your conclusions in it. But I have to say that typing up long essays on a message board like this, which is designed for quick back-and-forth discussions, may not be the best way of making your point.

I also think it is highly unfair to say that mere laymen like ourselves aren't capable of debating with a person of 'researched opinion' like yourself. Of course one shouldn't base their opinions on a single source, be that the Guardian, the New York Post or Foreign Affairs. That is just common sense and really doesn't merit mentioning here especially given the fact that no one has been quoting from the Guardian or the BBC.

I'm not a professional in the field, though I do have a certain amount of academic background in the field, and I have to say that I find your attitude here quite condescending, noyhauser.

Ash_s
10-05-04, 11:59
hey you noyhauser i think your mind is closer to jews minds than arabs, and why not since you are a christian or zio-christian maybe. second you doesn't support the palestinians right of return as you say (Right of return will never happen). i wonder how someone need to talk to open minded people while his is closed.

i hope people can see the truth as the member kirei_na_me sees it. whiout the black magic of media.

Rachel
10-05-04, 16:16
I honestly don't know who's really to blame, but I do know the jewish side isn't helping matters.
I've said it before, so I'm going to say it again. Isn't it amazing how the jews who under went such brutality and persecution, have become the very thing they learnt to hate.
What was it that Nietzsche said "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster."

This is a leason they don't seem to have learnt. Maybe it's time they did.

noyhauser
10-05-04, 18:01
hey you noyhauser i think your mind is closer to jews minds than arabs, and why not since you are a christian or zio-christian maybe. second you doesn't support the palestinians right of return as you say (Right of return will never happen). i wonder how someone need to talk to open minded people while his is closed.

Thank you for proving my point completely. This is exactly why I don't argue on the boards.

avi
11-05-04, 04:19
I was searching the net to find people talking about this subject, and i found you all here, and i saw all of you have good and different sides of the argument, so i decided to join the forums and see what you all have to say.

I have lived in Israel for the better part of my life. I move around alot, and i have lived in the U.S for quite a while also. Ive been conducting research papers and debates about the israel/palestine issue for a long time, and ive seen what both sides have to say about the conflict, and whats really going on, as well as the history, which many can argue dates about 100 years, or 3000.

My stand on this conflict would probably shift a little more to the Israeli side more often because ive lived and been raised there, but i always looked at the palestinian side, and treated both sides to the conflict the same.

alright so heres what i think. Both the Jews and the Arabs deserve to be there. There is no doubt about that. If one side or the other cant recognize the fact that either Israel is a state, or that Palestinians deserve to be on the land and have a state of thier own, then both sides are going to go nowhere. This occurs much on the radical terrorist islamic groups such as hamas, islamic jihad, fatach and other groups, and on the Israeli side this occurs much on the radical right wing settlers that can be seen living on Palestinian land.

What i think should be done is very simple. Israel constantly gets bashed everywhere for their supposedly horrid occupation of Palestinian land. Many of you probably wont agree with me here, but i know first hand why Israel is there and arent moving out. The anwser is radical terrorism. Im not blaming a whole Palestinian nation of hating Israel, but im blaming radical terrorist groups that are hard to stop, and that wont stop until they see their goal complete. Israel has attempted several times to leave Palestinian territories (west bank, gaza), but the terrorist groups keep killing Israeli civilians, and Israel has no choice but to re enter, and attempt to hack down terrorism. Believe me when i say, 18-21 year old soldiers do not want to go there, and dont want to do what many of you see as depicted as horrible on television, but life is not a disposable comodity, and when people are getting killed, the military has to try and stop it. If terrorism ends, no more Israeli occupation in palestinian terrotitories. Its as simple as that. This is the reason this violent circle keeps reocurring.

Next, if partial peace is reached, and terrorist attacks stop, Israel must allow a Palestinian state, and remove all of those ridiculous settelments that do nothing but cause further trouble. Actually, i think that if they start removing those settlements now, Palestinian violence and thus Israeli military violence will end.

I want peace. I cant stand going back to this shook up land and witnessing such pain inflicted on BOTH sides. I believe that one day, two new leaders will rise up soon on both sides, and reach an agreement sooner than everyone believes.

senseiman
11-05-04, 04:59
Thank you for proving my point completely. This is exactly why I don't argue on the boards.

I see your point there. But I think there are a lot of other people on this board with coherent arguments to be made. Might be worth your while not to lump us all together as a body of uneducated masses whose opinions aren't worth debating.

noyhauser
11-05-04, 06:36
No, but even so called "educated people" often fall into a trap of just being horribly biased towards the conflict, often introducing a moral tone, which is exactly what a intelligent coherent discussion is not. there are enough bad apples in the bunch to ruin the basket for me and has turned me off ever discussing the conflict and politics in general on an open forum.

Rachel
11-05-04, 16:08
No, but even so called "educated people" often fall into a trap of just being horribly biased towards the conflict, often introducing a moral tone, which is exactly what a intelligent coherent discussion is not. there are enough bad apples in the bunch to ruin the basket for me and has turned me off ever discussing the conflict and politics in general on an open forum.

Right ! That's enough of that Noyhauser. If you can't get off your hobby horse and say what you feel CONSTRUCTIVELY !
Then just don't bother replying at all, this a friendly forum for friendly people.
You may very well be more of a intellectual than most people here noyhauser, but that doesn't mean you have to act like a snob and rub it in peoples faces. The only thing that kind of behavour does is make you look like a first rate DICK !
And if you don't like that then tough, you only have yourself to blame for the way you behave.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------




I want peace. I cant stand going back to this shook up land and witnessing such pain inflicted on BOTH sides. I believe that one day, two new leaders will rise up soon on both sides, and reach an agreement sooner than everyone believes.

I liked what you had to say Avi, you had a intresting take on the situation. I really hope your dream of peace becomes reality, but I don't think it will come soon or easly. I hope I'm proved wrong.
But in the mean time welcome to the forum, I hope you'll take part in some of the other topics and bravo.
:bravo: :-) :wave:

bossel
12-05-04, 02:54
If terrorism ends, no more Israeli occupation in palestinian terrotitories. Its as simple as that. This is the reason this violent circle keeps reocurring.

Next, if partial peace is reached, and terrorist attacks stop, Israel must allow a Palestinian state, and remove all of those ridiculous settelments that do nothing but cause further trouble. Actually, i think that if they start removing those settlements now, Palestinian violence and thus Israeli military violence will end.

I want peace. I cant stand going back to this shook up land and witnessing such pain inflicted on BOTH sides. I believe that one day, two new leaders will rise up soon on both sides, and reach an agreement sooner than everyone believes.
I underline everything Rachel said.

I think, everyone here shares your hope for peace. Since I am who I am, I still have a point or 2 to make regarding your post.

IMO, to make the end of terrorism a requirement for withdrawal is exactly the wrong way. With Israeli troops on Palestinian grounds the terrorists will always have something to support their tough stance. Without occupation they will lose a lot of credibility among Palestinians if they still commit acts of terrorism.

Regarding settlements, my point is even not as harsh as yours. If there is a Palestinian state & the Jewish settlers try to integrate, why not let them stay (after potential original owners of the land have been compensated, that is)? I don't think that this is probable to happen (on a large scale) for several reasons, but it should at least be a possible option.

Your last point is probably the crucial one: new leaders! Unless the old guys are gone (notably Sharon & Arafat, but others as well) it will be hard to achieve lasting peace. Not only for their own stubbornness, but also for being like a red rag to the opposite side.

senseiman
12-05-04, 07:24
No, but even so called "educated people" often fall into a trap of just being horribly biased towards the conflict, often introducing a moral tone, which is exactly what a intelligent coherent discussion is not. there are enough bad apples in the bunch to ruin the basket for me and has turned me off ever discussing the conflict and politics in general on an open forum.

And yet here you are, oddly enough, discussing the conflict and politics on an open forum. It is possible to have an intelligent coherent discussion with a moral tone you know. And its not like you, despite all the reading you do, aren't without your biases either.

At any rate, making blanket statements that nobody here could possibly be educated enough to debate you (aren't you still a student, BTW) is about the diplomatic equivalent of giving everyone on this board the finger. If you don't want to debate, fine, but next time you might want to exercise a little tact when explaining your reasons why. Otherwise, don't be surprised if nobody reads your essays or responds politely to your posts.

DoctorNO
12-05-04, 19:12
The land of Israel/Palestine was originally settled 3000 years ago by feuding Hebrews & Canaanites which later merged together to become the people of ancient Israel.

Hmm, I remember the story slightly different: the Canaanites were already there, then the Israelites came & conquered parts of the land.

What you said was mostly true, except for the fact that the Israelites completely conquered the land and completely assimilating the Canaanites. What I said doesn’t contradict that fact. The Hebrews & the Canaanites did merge.




Almost equally? Hmm, ~1,2 m Palestinians were supposed to get 43.53 % of the land, while ~600,000 Jews would have got 56.47 %. That's what you call in favour of the Arabs?

Check the quality not just the quantity. What the Jews got was mostly the Negev desert.



You talk of 1948, I suppose?
Well, 1st Jewish "clearing" operations against Palestinian villages started in December 1947. The beginning of 1948 saw several skirmishes initiated by both sides. War broke out on May, 15, 1948, one day after the declaration of the state of Israel.
Which sources do you have that British soldiers fought on Arab side against Israel?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/israel_at_50/history/78601.stm



Don't know about the Arabs, but what you forget to mention is that the Jews were partly British trained as well.

That is true. Skills they acquired for fighting the Germans in WWII.



Willingly abandoned? Hmm, what about the "clearing" operations? What with the Deir Yassin massacre of 9 April? What about other Israeli atrocities?

Those are part of the reasons too. But generally it was because of Arab advise to give way.



There may have been Arab leaders urging people to leave, but for a great part the Palestines fled for fear of the Israelis, not in order to give Arab armies room to manoeuvre.

What I know is that is only a small part. And the Israelis even encouraged the arabs to stay.



Even if so (the Arabs, who exactly?), that doesn't take away the right of return for the refugees.
Other refugees have already occupied those lands. Jewish refugees escaping persecutions from arab lands. Jewish refugees were about the same number as the arab refugees.

The real player here are the surrounding Arab states. The Palestinian arabs are merely pawns for them. That is why they refuse to adopt their fellow muslims.

senseiman
13-05-04, 06:50
Check the quality not just the quantity. What the Jews got was mostly the Negev desert.

As mentioned earlier, the Israelis also got a lot of the best coastal areas too. The fact is that the partitioning was so imbalanced in the Israeli's favor that even just in the land they were granted Jews only made up 49% of the population.






That is true. Skills they acquired for fighting the Germans in WWII.
True, but its worth noting that it was only the Jordanian army (not coincidentally the only Arab army that was able to effectively resist the Israeli attack) that had any British support. The other armies were on their own, which more or less explains why they were trounced so badly.



Those are part of the reasons too. But generally it was because of Arab advise to give way.
This makes no sense whatsoever if you think about it. The Israeli army and its affiliated militias running amock massacring civilians by the hundreds isn't enough to convince Palestinians to leave. Their primary reason for leaving is that some Arab leader who they may or may not have had any allegiance to tells them over the radio, which almost none of them had, that they should leave? Sorry, don't buy it.



What I know is that is only a small part. And the Israelis even encouraged the arabs to stay.
Don't know which Israelis you are talking about here, but the commander of the Israeli army at the time made it quite clear that he was conducting 'cleansing' operations whose objective was to drive the Palestinians off their land, pure and simple.



Other refugees have already occupied those lands. Jewish refugees escaping persecutions from arab lands. Jewish refugees were about the same number as the arab refugees.

From what I've read the number of Palestinian refugees caused by the 1948 war was in excess of 700,000. The total number of Jewish refugees from Europe at the end of the war was slightly over 200,000 and many of those went to America instead of Israel. The Jewish population of all the Arab states combined numbered in the thousands, not hundreds of thousands, so there is no way that the above statement could be correct even if you included Jewish refugees from Europe in the equation.


The real player here are the surrounding Arab states. The Palestinian arabs are merely pawns for them. That is why they refuse to adopt their fellow muslims.

No, the real players here are the surrounding Arab states AND Israel. And I might add that the weakness and incompetence of the surrounding Arab regimes have meant that Israel's role in the conflict has been quite a bit more important than theirs. I agree that the Palestinians are just pawns though.

DoctorNO
13-05-04, 17:11
As mentioned earlier, the Israelis also got a lot of the best coastal areas too. The fact is that the partitioning was so imbalanced in the Israeli's favor that even just in the land they were granted Jews only made up 49% of the population.

Desperate people need areas to inhabit, not beaches to relax into.



True, but its worth noting that it was only the Jordanian army (not coincidentally the only Arab army that was able to effectively resist the Israeli attack) that had any British support. The other armies were on their own, which more or less explains why they were trounced so badly.

You know how they got trounced so badly? Because the outnumbered and outgunned jews used unconventional but smarter tactics. Like fooling and scaring the arabs into thinking there were thousands of reinforcements, when in fact during the night there were only a couple of vehicles traveling back & forth with headlights turned on one way and turned off when going back the other direction.



This makes no sense whatsoever if you think about it. The Israeli army and its affiliated militias running amock massacring civilians by the hundreds isn't enough to convince Palestinians to leave.

Are you using an isolated case to generalize the whole? Or are you claiming that the Israeli army generally behaved that way? Please prove it.



Their primary reason for leaving is that some Arab leader who they may or may not have had any allegiance to tells them over the radio, which almost none of them had, that they should leave? Sorry, don't buy it.

Their religion unites them and word could not only travel through radio waves.




Don't know which Israelis you are talking about here, but the commander of the Israeli army at the time made it quite clear that he was conducting 'cleansing' operations whose objective was to drive the Palestinians off their land, pure and simple.

Lets see your sources. You could be misinterpreting events as far as I know.



From what I've read the number of Palestinian refugees caused by the 1948 war was in excess of 700,000. The total number of Jewish refugees from Europe at the end of the war was slightly over 200,000 and many of those went to America instead of Israel. The Jewish population of all the Arab states combined numbered in the thousands, not hundreds of thousands, so there is no way that the above statement could be correct even if you included Jewish refugees from Europe in the equation.

I wasn’t limiting that to 1948 alone. After 1948 persecution of jews intensified in muslim states. Thus creating more refugees.



No, the real players here are the surrounding Arab states AND Israel.

Of course. I only meant that one side was composed of the Arab states.

bossel
14-05-04, 03:08
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/israel_at_50/history/78601.stm
According to Noyhauser, that wouldn't be much of a researched opinion. ;-)
Well, I think, there were some 40 British officers in the Arab legion at the beginning of 1948. Even if they would not have been withdrawn at the beginning of fighting (I know that was planned, but don't remember right now if it was implemented), that wouldn't be a lot of support.
Anyway, for what I know the Arab legion was the only army of any value that the Arabs had in Palestine at the time, but their action was mostly constrained to the West Bank & Jerusalem, if I remember correctly.



Other refugees have already occupied those lands
It's about the right of return, which should be acknowledged. As I said before, if return is not possible compensation should then be paid.



Desperate people need areas to inhabit, not beaches to relax into.
Coastal areas doesn't mean the beaches alone.



You know how they got trounced so badly? Because the outnumbered and outgunned jews used unconventional but smarter tactics.
The Jews were not very much in the disadvantage right from the start of the hostilities, & the longer the conflict lasted the better their situation got.
The only Arab army that was a match to Israeli forces was the Arab legion, which numbered at the beginning of 1948 around 4500, at the end of the conflict roughly 8000. Other involved Arab armies were ill-equipped, poorly trained & un-motivated. The total number of Arab soldiers was somewhere around 30,000 in the beginning (again, if I remember correctly).

For reference look at Illan Pappé The making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947 - 51. I don't have the book at hand now, for it is not lendable (can only be used in the university library), hence I rely on my memory at the moment.

BTW, regarding the cause of the refugee problem this book relies on Israeli documents, made available in the 1990's.

senseiman
14-05-04, 07:43
You know how they got trounced so badly? Because the outnumbered and outgunned jews used unconventional but smarter tactics. Like fooling and scaring the arabs into thinking there were thousands of reinforcements, when in fact during the night there were only a couple of vehicles traveling back & forth with headlights turned on one way and turned off when going back the other direction.

As Bossel mentioned, the Israelis were neither outgunned or outnumbered, the Arab armies facing them were small, poorly trained and led and very weakly armed. This isn't meant to impune Israel's military strength or the tactical brilliance of some of its commanders. But facts are facts.



Are you using an isolated case to generalize the whole? Or are you claiming that the Israeli army generally behaved that way? Please prove it.

Deir Yassin was the biggest incident, over 300 civilians killed. That is well documented. There were several other smaller documented massacres commited as well. Of course it wasn't the policy of the Israeli military to butcher the inhabitants of every Palestinian village they captured, their only purpose was to spread terror in the hearts of the Palestinians and for that purpose a single demonstrative atrocity like Deir Yassin proved sufficient.



Their religion unites them and word could not only travel through radio waves.

This is wrong. Palestinians come from a variety of religious backgrounds, and a fairly large number of the Palestian population are christian. At any rate, human behaviour is fairly easy to predict. If you were a Palestinian in 1948, which would be the stronger motivator? Some leader telling you to move away (and its worth noting that most leaders were actually telling people to stay put) or the advance of a hostile army that has just murdered every man, woman and child in a neighboring village? Seems common sense which one would be the biggest factor. Do you actually believe that Palestinians just went about their every day life after hearing tales of Israeli atrocities and thought to themselves "Gee, looks like if we stay here we'll get killed. But the only thing that'll make us leave is if so-and-so, who fled weeks ago with all his wealth, tells us so." Sorry, but its just the most insanely ridiculous argument I've ever heard.




Lets see your sources. You could be misinterpreting events as far as I know.

What, you think I'm lying? I promise I'm not. Sorry, don't have any weblinks or my big book of Israeli history to back me up at the moment. Moshe Dayan's words were quoted in a book called the "Fateful Triangle" about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that I read about 10 years ago. Don't have it anymore, so you'll just have to take my word for it.



I wasn’t limiting that to 1948 alone. After 1948 persecution of jews intensified in muslim states. Thus creating more refugees.
.

As I said before, the ENTIRE Jewish population of all the muslim states in the world combined was far less than the number of Palestinian refugees created by the 1948 war, so even if ALL of them became refugees their numbers would have still been less than the number of Palestinian refugees.

Hachiko
14-05-04, 18:50
Both are responsible. It's the wants and greedy wishes by both sides that results in this. :okashii:

DoctorNO
14-05-04, 22:08
It's about the right of return, which should be acknowledged. As I said before, if return is not possible compensation should then be paid.

The jews also claim a right of return. The number of jews who fled to Israel from the arab nations were approximately equal to the number of arabs who fled from Israel. About 600,000. But the arab nations decided not to refill those vacancies because they needed pawns.



Coastal areas doesn't mean the beaches alone.

But add them up and the arabs still got the share with the most fertile & habitable grounds.



The Jews were not very much in the disadvantage right from the start of the hostilities, & the longer the conflict lasted the better their situation got.

Yes you are right. The Jews were badly outnumbered but they were better equipped.

However may I correct you that the British led Arab Legion was the STRONGEST FIGHTING FORCE in the region. http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story457.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :souka:


As Bossel mentioned, the Israelis were neither outgunned or outnumbered, the Arab armies facing them were small, poorly trained and led and very weakly armed. This isn't meant to impune Israel's military strength or the tactical brilliance of some of its commanders. But facts are facts.

You didn’t hear Bossel correctly. That is fact.



Deir Yassin was the biggest incident, over 300 civilians killed. That is well documented.

Really? According to this documentation there was only a little over 100 killed. http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2082/2_63/72435149/print.jhtml

And if youll notice the arabs enjoyed slaughtering and mutilating 36 jews well before that incident. Action-reaction.



There were several other smaller documented massacres commited as well.

By both parties. Action-reaction.



Of course it wasn't the policy of the Israeli military to butcher the inhabitants of every Palestinian village they captured, their only purpose was to spread terror in the hearts of the Palestinians and for that purpose a single demonstrative atrocity like Deir Yassin proved sufficient.

Terror was a strategy used by both parties.



This is wrong. Palestinians come from a variety of religious backgrounds, and a fairly large number of the Palestian population are christian.

Large number? As in 2%?



At any rate, human behaviour is fairly easy to predict. If you were a Palestinian in 1948, which would be the stronger motivator? Some leader telling you to move away (and its worth noting that most leaders were actually telling people to stay put) or the advance of a hostile army that has just murdered every man, woman and child in a neighboring village? Seems common sense which one would be the biggest factor.

Wrong assumptions. And one sided. Both committed massacres and there is no such thing as “every man, woman and child in a neighboring village”



Do you actually believe that Palestinians just went about their every day life after hearing tales of Israeli atrocities and thought to themselves "Gee, looks like if we stay here we'll get killed. But the only thing that'll make us leave is if so-and-so, who fled weeks ago with all his wealth, tells us so." Sorry, but its just the most insanely ridiculous argument I've ever heard.

Straw man. You made that argument up.




What, you think I'm lying? I promise I'm not.

I never said you were lying. I do doubt if you know what your talking about.




As I said before, the ENTIRE Jewish population of all the muslim states in the world combined was far less than the number of Palestinian refugees created by the 1948 war, so even if ALL of them became refugees their numbers would have still been less than the number of Palestinian refugees.
FYI,

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/research/cjl/Israel_Palestine/establishment_Israel.htm

“ May 15 - Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq invade the new state of Israel, but the assaults are repulsed. Perhaps 750,000 native Arabs either flee or are forcibly displaced from their lands within the borders of the new state. At the same time, about 800,000 Jewish residents flee Iraq, Tunisia, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and other Arab countries. About 500,000 were immediately went to Israel and became citizens in the new state.”

avi
14-05-04, 23:30
Right ! That's enough of that Noyhauser. If you can't get off your hobby horse and say what you feel CONSTRUCTIVELY !
Then just don't bother replying at all, this a friendly forum for friendly people.
You may very well be more of a intellectual than most people here noyhauser, but that doesn't mean you have to act like a snob and rub it in peoples faces. The only thing that kind of behavour does is make you look like a first rate DICK !
And if you don't like that then tough, you only have yourself to blame for the way you behave.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------




I liked what you had to say Avi, you had a intresting take on the situation. I really hope your dream of peace becomes reality, but I don't think it will come soon or easly. I hope I'm proved wrong.
But in the mean time welcome to the forum, I hope you'll take part in some of the other topics and bravo.
:bravo: :-) :wave:





Thanks. This looks like a place with alot of people that have interesting things to say. Im looking foward to it, thanks again.

bossel
15-05-04, 03:30
The jews also claim a right of return. The number of jews who fled to Israel from the arab nations were approximately equal to the number of arabs who fled from Israel. About 600,000. But the arab nations decided not to refill those vacancies because they needed pawns.
Regarding the numbers look at the end of the post. But I'd say: equal rights for all!



But add them up and the arabs still got the share with the most fertile & habitable grounds.
Don't forget that there were twice as many Arabs than Jews. I don't have time to research the exact numbers now, but the Jews got more than their equal share.
What you also should not forget: most of the Jews were immigrants! To me, it looks very generous to even consider giving them their own country there. I wonder, how Germans would react if the UN now decided to give the Turks their own nation on German grounds.



Yes you are right. The Jews were badly outnumbered but they were better equipped.
That's not really what I said, maybe you should re-read it.

From your own link:
"in terms of military manpower available for combat in Palestine the two sides were fairly evenly matched. As time went on and both sides sent reinforcements the balance changed in the Jews' favor; by October they had almost 90,000 men and women under arms, the Arabs only 68,000."

From your BBC-link:
"[Abdullah of Jordan] had already colluded with the Jewish leaders on territorial matters and who had ambitions in Palestine.
The Arab Legion, therefore, was restricted to defending territory in and around East Jerusalem and the Old City and on the West Bank of the Jordan, which it did successfully."



At the same time, about 800,000 Jewish residents flee Iraq, Tunisia, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and other Arab countries. About 500,000 were immediately went to Israel and became citizens in the new state.
I have slightly different numbers here. According to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics came from 1948 to 1952 around 330,000 Jewish immigrants from Asia & Africa. I don't know how many of those came from Arab countries, though. Neither do I know how many were forced to leave & how many left voluntarily.

senseiman
15-05-04, 16:00
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :souka:


You didn’t hear Bossel correctly. That is fact.

Actually, Bossel in his response to your last post seems to be backing up what I said.



Really? According to this documentation there was only a little over 100 killed. http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2082/2_63/72435149/print.jhtml

And if youll notice the arabs enjoyed slaughtering and mutilating 36 jews well before that incident. Action-reaction.



By both parties. Action-reaction.


Terror was a strategy used by both parties.

There seems to be some disagreement over the number killed at Deir Yassin, I'm not interested in debating the numbers but I will say that even if there was only 100 it was still a viscious act.



Large number? As in 2%?

I believe the number is closer to 15%, but I admit I could be mistaken.



Wrong assumptions. And one sided. Both committed massacres and there is no such thing as “every man, woman and child in a neighboring village”

According to Israeli author Simtra Flapan;

"For the entire day of April 9, 1948, Irgun and LEHI soldiers carried out the slaughter (of the population of Deir Yassin) in a cold and premeditated fashion. The attackers lined men, women and children up against the walls and shot them."

Perhaps they didn't kill EVERY man woman and child in the village, but it wasn't for lack of trying. I'm not saying the Israelis were alone in using terror, but the fact is that they used it in a very calculated fashion. This wasn't just tit-for-tat violence either, it seems obvious there was a deliberate campaign of terror carried out by the Israelis in an effort to force the Arab population to flee. According to the former director of the Israeli army archives;
"In almost every Arab village occupied by us during the war of independence, acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murder, massacres and rapes."

For the record, if the Arab armies had been more powerful I'm sure they would have carried out a similar campaign of terror against the Jewish population - as evidenced by the massacre of Jews you cite. But the point in question here is whether or not the Israelis deliberately drove the Palestinian population from their homes or the people just up and left of their own accord.


Straw man argument you made that up.

OK, here is a real argument, quoted from Peretz Kidren;

"Israeli propoganda has largely relinquished the claim that the Palestinian exodus of 1948 was 'self inspired'. Official circles implicitly concede that the Arab population fled as a result of Israeli action - whether directly, as in the case of Lydda and Ramleh, or indirectly, due to the panic that and similar actions (the Deir Yassin massacre) inspired in Arab population centres throughout Palestine."

Another piece of evidence is provided by British researcher Erskine Childers who did a survey of BBC and American records from the period. Every single radio broadcast in the middle east was monitored and recorded at that time, and a survey of them reveals that not a single broadcast was made by Arab leaders urging people to flee: yet there were numerous occasions on which they ordered the population to stay put.

It seems, even if we ignore the plain non-sensical reasoning of it, that the whole argument that the Arabs 'voluntarily' left their homes in 1948 has long since been widely discredited as nothing more than war-time propoganda.







“ May 15 - Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq invade the new state of Israel, but the assaults are repulsed. Perhaps 750,000 native Arabs either flee or are forcibly displaced from their lands within the borders of the new state. At the same time, about 800,000 Jewish residents flee Iraq, Tunisia, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and other Arab countries. About 500,000 were immediately went to Israel and became citizens in the new state.”
[/list]

This conflicts with facts too. If the new state of Israel was indeed invaded by all the neighboring Arab states as soon as it declared independence, then why were the majority of the battles on the first day of combat fought in the Palestinian state? Menacham Begin was planning on attacking the Palestinian entity as soon as he saw the UN partition plans, which he viewed as unsatisfactory. The fact is that BOTH sides started the war, the notion that Israel was unilaterally attacked by the Arab side is nothing more than propoganda.

Can't argue about the numbers, asides from what Bossel says. Maybe there were as many Jewish refugees as Palestinians in the early days.