This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 219 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Zafar:But it’s reasonable to place this several dozens in the context of the 400 towns and villages that were depopulated (in part or wholly) of Arabs during the Nakba.

    Correct?

    It depends on whether the residents left because obeying the instructions of the legal government (Israel) or of a genocidal illegal invasion force and its propaganda arm. Other reasons to leave would be rumor, guilty conscience  (when we win we’ll murder them all so they’ll do that to us if they win) or just running from impending or actual fighting.

    Ben Gurion in August 1948 from Mitchell Bard’s article I linked above:

    When the Arab states are ready to conclude a peace treaty with Israel this question will come up for constructive solution as part of the general settlement, and with due regard to our counter­claims in respect of the destruction of Jewish life and property, the long-term interest of the Jewish and Arab populations, the stability of the State of Israel and the durability of the basis of peace between it and its neighbors, the actual position and fate of the Jewish communities in the Arab countries, the responsibilities of the Arab governments for their war of aggression and their liability for reparation, will all be relevant in the question whether, to what extent, and under what conditions, the former Arab residents of the territory of Israel should be allowed to return.

    [quotation from Bard continued below]

    • #211
  2. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    [continued from #211]

    The UN discussions on refugees had begun in the summer of 1948, before Israel had completed its military victory; consequently, the Arabs still believed they could win the war and allow the refugees to return triumphant. The Arab position was expressed by Emile Ghoury, the Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee:

    It is inconceivable that the refugees should be sent back to their homes while they are occupied by the Jews, as the latter would hold them as hostages and maltreat them. The very proposal is an evasion of responsibility by those responsible. It will serve as a first step towards Arab recognition of the State of Israel and partition.

    One reason for maintaining this position was the conviction that the refugees could ultimately bring about Israel’s destruction, a sentiment expressed by Egyptian Foreign Minister Muhammad Salah al-Din:The Arabs demanded that the United Nations assert the “right” of the Palestinians to return to their homes, and were unwilling to accept anything less until after their defeat had become obvious. The Arabs then reinterpreted Resolution 194 as granting the refugees the absolute right of repatriation and have demanded that Israel accept this interpretation ever since.

    It is well-known and understood that the Arabs, in demanding the return of the refugees to Palestine, mean their return as masters of the Homeland and not as slaves. With a greater clarity, they mean the liquidation of the State of Israel (Al-Misri, October 11, 1949).

    • #212
  3. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Zafar:

    Newspaper articles and (potentially) letters are evidence. Where are they?


    It will be a war of annihilation. It will be a momentous massacre in history that will be talked about like the massacres of the Mongols or the Crusades.

    Secondary sources:

    “It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees’ flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem.”

    The Near East Broadcasting Station (Cyprus) April 3rd 1949. [Samuel Katz, Battleground, (NY:Bantam Books, 1985) p. 15].

    And:

    “This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country.”

    – Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London) in The Arabs (London, 1955), p. 183

    This was a classic gaffe. Atiyah here ascribes partial responsibility to the Arab press before the genocidal invasion of 1948, but later more or less completely blamed the Zionists. He was backtracking in response to being cited by Katz, who described Atiyah as “the leading Arab propagandist” of the day.

    • #213
  4. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    All this, and my suspicion that @zafar employs a double standard when writing about Israel, led me to search Ricochet for “zafar” and “occupation.” I thought I remembered numerous comments containing that word. If my memory does in fact serve, the internal search utility at Ricochet is worse than useless. I got very few hits. So I did a google advanced search for “zafar” + “occupation” on the ricochet.com domain,  understanding that this would only return main feed posts and comments. This, too seemed incomplete. (Ricochet support: any input here?) Also, @zafar (I know you’re a busy man, I’m not expecting you to provide full citations of your Ricochet output,) did these searches miss something?

    In those searches: Israel/Palestine came up, as did Iraq. I think also post WWII Japan and Germany. China’s occupation of Tibet, Jordan’s post 1948 occupation of the “West Bank” didn’t come up.

    @zafar made very interesting comments on the Treaties of Versaille and Lausanne in a discussion of the disassembly of the Ottoman empire and the “population exchanges” that created the more ethnically homogeneous states we have today.

    All of the above maintained an irenic tone.

    Not so with Israel.

    @zafar, IIRC you described Israel’s establishment as “illegitimate.” Does this original sin apply to its existence today? Is this because you consider the vision of ethnic/national self-determination that established Kemalist Turkey and other modern nations including Israel to be fundamentally wrong? Am I missing something here?

    • #214
  5. Kay of MT Inactive
    Kay of MT
    @KayofMT

    Ontheleftcoast: Am I missing something here?

    Yes, Zafar hatred of the Jews. He doesn’t hate the Arab Lebanese who fairly well cleansed out the Christians, a French Mandate. Iraq which has also gotten rid of most of their Jews and Christians and are now busy killing each other, another French Mandate. Syria and Jordan are British mandates appointed with their Kings and thugs, also pretty well cleansing their lands of Jews and Christians and killing each other. These Mandated countries are fully legitimate countries, seemingly doing as they darn well please and the world doesn’t seem to sanction them or care, least of all Zafar. But that tiny little strip of Israel, a British Mandate can do nothing right in Zafar’s eyes, they are the worlds worst evil and mistreat everybody within their fought for and won borders. In the 3 years I’ve been a member of Ricochet I do not remember Zafar ever giving Israel positive credit for anything. Almost all of his posts regarding Israel are negative responses when another member post something positive about Israel.

    • #215
  6. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Podkayne of Israel: Zafar, I have things to do right now, so I can’t play Internet rebuttal tag with you

    Wikipedia:

    British policies dissatisfied both Arabs and Jews. The Arabs’ opposition developed into the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, while the Jewish resistance developed into the Jewish insurgency in Palestine (1944–1947). In 1947 these ongoing tensions erupted into civil war, following the 29 November 1947 adoption of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine which planned to divide Palestine into three areas: an Arab state, a Jewish state and the Special International Regime for the cities of Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

    A combined invasion jihad by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, together with expeditionary forces from Iraq, entered Palestine – Jordan having declared privately to Yishuv emissaries on 2 May it would abide by a decision not to attack the Jewish state. The invading forces took control of the Arab areas and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements.

    As a result of the war the State of Israel retained the area that the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 had recommended for the proposed Jewish state as well as almost 60% of the area of Arab state proposed by the 1948 Partition PlanTransjordan took control of the remainder of the former British mandate, which it annexed, and the Egyptian military took control of the Gaza Strip.

    Jordan broke its word and lost territory. Egypt and Jordan occupied territory.

    Without the attempted  genocidal jihad, there’s no Nakba.

    • #216
  7. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Ontheleftcoast:…my suspicion that @zafar employs a double standard when writing about Israel, led me to search Ricochet for “zafar” and “occupation.”…a google advanced search..did these searches miss something?

    @ontheleftcoast – First of all I’m flattered (should I be?) at your researching my posts.

    IIRC you described Israel’s establishment as “illegitimate.” Does this original sin apply to its existence today?

    No, lots of countries were begotten in sin.  What shores up or undermines Israel’s legitimacy today are its actions and positions today. Its attitude to/understanding of its past informs these.

    Is this because you consider the vision of ethnic/national self-determination that established Kemalist Turkey and other modern nations including Israel to be fundamentally wrong?

    There is nothing intrinsically wrong with ethnic self-determination – but at the same time it’s not an over-riding moral imperative.

    In heterogenous situations it leads, very often, to discrimination, bloodshed and ethnic cleansing.  Iow, it’s a bad idea.

    Consider Turkey itself – not ethnically or religious homogenous in 1923 – and after almost a century of ethnic cleansing and suppression of minority religions and languages it still isn’t.

    Kemalist founding ideology did not fit the country, and attempts to make the country fit the ideology have been brutally violent.

    Wrt comments on Israel – nobody writes approving posts on Ricochet about these other countries and how they were formed.

    I respond to what is posted.

    You notice it (perhaps?) because it is at odds with majority consensus.

    • #217
  8. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Podkayne of Israel:

    Zafar, I have things to do right now, so I can’t play Internet rebuttal tag with you.

    @Podkayneofisrael – I would honestly much rather just have a conversation with you.

    Where one of us makes a claim that turns out be unsupported (me: no Arab Leaders asked Palestinians to leave; you: there were radio broadcasts urging the population to leave and promising them they could return to a conquered Jewish people) we should just acknowledge it and move along in the conversation rather than getting defensive (I know, easier for me because it’s not my country) or moving the goal posts/massaging our definitons.

    ….if all the Arab villages were uprooted, how come we still have so many thriving Arab villages here?

    It’s a good point.  But how come you have so few, compared to 1946?  Also a good question, right?

    Again, the Arab residents of Israel have full citizenship, which is more than the Palestinians in Jordan have, and their civil rights, not to mention financial benefits, are far greater than Arabs living under either the PA or Hamas.

    Again – arguably yes.  But at the same time they don’t have equal rights to you.

    But I get it, of all the forces in the Middle East, Israel is uniquely guilty and the Palestinians are uniquely innocent even when they murder both Israelis and Arabs.

    I haven’t said that.

    If you need a straw man what does it say about your argument?

    • #218
  9. Matt White Member
    Matt White
    @

    Zafar: No, lots of countries were begotten in sin. What shores up or undermines Israel’s legitimacy today are its actions and positions today. Its attitude to/understanding of its past informs these.

    That’s not how you’ve been making your case, though. You always point back to the claim that the Palestinians were forced out.  That’s the entire excuse for Palestinian terrorism.

    • #219
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.