Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

shira

(30,109 posts)
23. Still no context, and yes it matters. Here's Benny Morris...
Sun May 20, 2012, 04:58 PM
May 2012
Neither Ben-Gurion nor the Zionist movement ‘planned’ the displacement of the 700,000-odd Arabs who moved or were removed from their homes in 1948. There was no such plan or blanket policy. Transfer was never adopted by the Zionist movement as part of its platform; on the contrary, the movement always accepted that the Jewish state that arose would contain a sizeable Arab minority.

But in 1947-48 the Palestinian Arabs, joined by invading Arab states’ armies from outside, launched a war whose aim – which they (and even Pappe, Israel’s Lord Haw-Haw) have never denied – was to destroy the nascent state of Israel (and quite probably its inhabitants as well). But – what can you do? – the Arabs were beaten. And in the course of beating them, the Israelis drove out the Palestinians, who were not ‘totally innocent ... peasants’ (a ludicrous phrase). Their villages and towns served as the bases from which their militiamen and armies attacked Jewish communities and convoys.

The ‘innocent’ Palestinians were the aggressors – and dispossession was the price they paid for their aggression. In the circumstances, had the Jews not driven them out, Israel would not have arisen and its (Jewish) population would have been slaughtered – or, at the least, the Jewish state would have been established with a considerable Fifth Column in its midst and rendered mortally unstable. (Conversely, had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN Partition Resolution, refrained from violence, and gone on with their lives as loyal Israeli citizens, nothing would have happened to them.)

Nonetheless, Israel emerged from the 1948 War with a 160,000-strong Arab minority (alongside 700,000 Jews) – a fact that tends to undermine the charge that there was a blanket policy of ethnic cleansing.
You don't have to pay to read full articles at Ha'aretz oberliner May 2012 #1
Thanks. I must have been trying to read one that was part of their premium content... Violet_Crumble May 2012 #2
No problem oberliner May 2012 #39
Thanks and it's true in attempting to outlaw the Nakba azurnoir May 2012 #3
There's simply no excuse in outlawing Nakba Day Ken Burch May 2012 #4
Isn't Nakba Day a day of mourning for the failure of Israel's neighbors... shira May 2012 #5
As usual, yr wrong. The Nakba was the dispossession of around 700,000 Palestinians... Violet_Crumble May 2012 #6
So you know that if no war on the Jews was declared in 1948... shira May 2012 #7
The Zionist side had been discussing forcible transfer for years. Ken Burch May 2012 #9
Very unlikely for many reasons. One being that Ben Gurion wouldn't do it. n/t shira May 2012 #10
Ben-Gurion on transfer: Ken Burch May 2012 #12
Context. Where is it? shira May 2012 #15
It was from testimony to the Peel Commission. Ken Burch May 2012 #22
Still no context, and yes it matters. Here's Benny Morris... shira May 2012 #23
why no citation? n/t azurnoir May 2012 #24
Sorry...here's three sources for the second quote: Ken Burch May 2012 #28
I don't think you understand what a source is oberliner May 2012 #37
Do you even know what the Peel Commission is? oberliner May 2012 #40
I stand corrected on the date. Ken Burch May 2012 #46
How confident are you of the validity of that quote? oberliner May 2012 #16
I believe it came from here azurnoir May 2012 #25
I do believe he said no such thing and in fact said something else entirely oberliner May 2012 #26
I'll have to rememberthis the n ext time you attempt to delegitimize wiki however azurnoir May 2012 #27
and the first quote by Ben-Gurion was rather a non-sequator azurnoir May 2012 #35
See post #28 Ken Burch May 2012 #29
There are not multiple sources for the quote oberliner May 2012 #36
ah you mean the wiki quotes from 1919 and 1920 ? azurnoir May 2012 #38
Is there something you didn't understand about the information I gave you? Violet_Crumble May 2012 #17
You say you know what 1948 was about. Hmm.... shira May 2012 #19
Yeah, their land.... Violet_Crumble May 2012 #20
No land was being taken prior to the wars of 1948.... shira May 2012 #21
But they did not have the right Ken Burch May 2012 #30
Do you hear yourself? They did not have the right.... shira May 2012 #31
The Palestinians weren't against Jews living in Palestine Ken Burch May 2012 #32
It wasn't up to them. The Turks allowed Jews to live throughout the mideast.... shira May 2012 #42
The issue with Jerusalem is EAST Jerusalem, not ALL of Jerusalem Ken Burch May 2012 #33
Both Hamas and the PA are calling for all Jerusalem.... shira May 2012 #43
No, it isn't, and yes, you're wrong. Ken Burch May 2012 #8
It's only about being dispossessed? shira May 2012 #11
If they had been allowed to return, without retribution, after the war was over Ken Burch May 2012 #13
Oh stop it... shira May 2012 #14
Of course I knew there were two wars Ken Burch May 2012 #34
Yes, and the first was a civil war. And you cannot understand why Israel was reluctant... shira May 2012 #41
They could at least have let the oldest come back. Ken Burch May 2012 #44
Ken, a few posts back you said that Israel should have let all refugees back in.... shira May 2012 #45
Very interesting article LeftishBrit May 2012 #18
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Israel/Palestine»Thank you, Russian immigr...»Reply #23