A look at the 1948 Palestinian exodus

Belisarius

Forum Staff
Jun 2006
10,339
U.K.
I'm pretty sure that Egyptian forces also crossed there border into the proposed partition state of Israel.
Yup you're right. One under strength brigade of "light forces" mainly irregular volunteers under Egyptian command under Col. Ahmed abd-el-Aziz split off from the main Egyptian force moving along to coast and crossed the Negev to Beersheba and then on to Hebron. Although not part of the original plan, this was a technical "invasion" of territory allotted to the Israelis. :)
 

Belisarius

Forum Staff
Jun 2006
10,339
U.K.
Kenny Wong said:
It is radical islamic fundamentalism, and not radical nationalism or ethnocentrism, that made peace talks over the decades failed, that made the egyptian president killed, that made the fighting spirit of local palestinians strong, despite the rationale of putting the life of women and children as priority in the face of a great enemy. Whenever the word 'jihad' is used, the issue is already contaminated with religion. At the surface the Palestinians might say 'this is our land, they should leave and find some place else'. Sounds nationalistic, but what gives them such a big inspiration to fight on? Even many supporting organisations and agencies used the word 'Aqsa' instead of Palestine. Why? They are calling a united force to protect one of their holiest mosques. What makes so many nations on earth to come together and do something for the Palestinians? Strictly religion. The nature of this issue has changed greatly, therefore I say that currently, the issue is definitely about radical islamic fundamentalism, the greatest justifications for which comes not from nationalistic aspirations, but solely from an non-retreat-able religion.
You seem to be conflating 50-60 years of history and ascribing modern motivations from around the world to historical events within one region. As far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict goes; it's always been about "nationalism" and "ethnicity". The European Zionists arrived in Palestine in order to create a "homeland" for themselves at the same time that the native population in Palestine and the surrounding areas were in the grip of pan-Arab nationalism after the first world war. the conflict was always about territory, religion was a secondary consideration (especialy as most Zionists were secular socialists and/or communists at the time). Consider, if you will, that after 1948 Egypt and Syria both made genuine attempts to make peace with the new state of Israel, but all such attempts by the Arab side were rebuffed by Israeli Prime Minister Ben Gurion. Over time pan-Arabism was replaced by Palestinian nationalism especially after 1967; the PLO was originally mainly composed of secular Muslims. Radical Islamic fundamentalism is a more recent phenomenon which has gained influence, in small part due to Israeli policies, but mainly as a backlash against Western, mainly U.S. interference in the region.
 
Apr 2014
1,067
Malaysia
You seem to be conflating 50-60 years of history and ascribing modern motivations from around the world to historical events within one region. As far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict goes; it's always been about "nationalism" and "ethnicity". The European Zionists arrived in Palestine in order to create a "homeland" for themselves at the same time that the native population in Palestine and the surrounding areas were in the grip of pan-Arab nationalism after the first world war. the conflict was always about territory, religion was a secondary consideration (especialy as most Zionists were secular socialists and/or communists at the time).
At what time? Was this situation the same for the entire length of 50-60 years of history? Your points are mostly correct at the time of the foundation of Israel, but in a decade or two religious aspiration had contaminated the originally ethnic and cultural conflict.

Consider, if you will, that after 1948 Egypt and Syria both made genuine attempts to make peace with the new state of Israel, but all such attempts by the Arab side were rebuffed by Israeli Prime Minister Ben Gurion.
I think Ben Gurion was very interested in creating equality and peace in relation to the arabs in the first place. He later became more and more disillusioned with this possibility and opted for jewish occupation for the sake of development and security instead. I think he had a strong reason to do so and we should be more careful to judge him from the historical perspective.

Over time pan-Arabism was replaced by Palestinian nationalism especially after 1967; the PLO was originally mainly composed of secular Muslims.
Yasser Arafat gave a big religious tinge to the PLO. Moreover, the assassination of Anwar Sadat by islamist groups clearly shows the religious theme of the conflict, and gave us a glimpse of the cause of the impossibility of peace attempts.

Radical Islamic fundamentalism is a more recent phenomenon which has gained influence, in small part due to Israeli policies, but mainly as a backlash against Western, mainly U.S. interference in the region.
How recent is your recent? Is 1980 considered recent? 1990?

And by the way, US invaded only two places in ME: Afghan and Iraq. These invasions happened after 911, which was obviously an act of radical islamic fundamentalism. The Persian Gulf war did not cause the collapse of Saddam, so it should be ruled out. What was the biggest source of the islamist propaganda after 1990s? I can only think of israel. And there are two more important points that I think is true in regard to the current situation.

1. The Israel-Palestinian Conflict on its own may not be able to trigger an explosion of radical islamic fundamentalism as we experience today, nevertheless it has always been the greatest source of attraction for such ideology.

2. Radical Islamic fundamentalism is the key to the solution of the Israel-Palestinian Conflict today, though it had never been the primary cause of the Conflict.
 
May 2015
1,008
The Netherlands
Whether by invasion or the 'cunning' land-buying strategy, Israel had obtained what the UN had drawn up. These areas are Legal according to the Organisation of Nations, no matter this organisation was directed by biased superpowers or not. The EXTRA LANDS were obtained in the DEFENSIVE WARS.
False, Israel held 78% of Mandatory Palestine after the 1948 War, which was a lot more than the 56% that was awarded to it according to the UN Partition Plan. No less than 22% of Israeli territory was actively conquered in 1948, and it was this aggression that partially triggered the Arab intervention.

3. The current Israel-Palestinian Conflict is definitely about radical Islamic fundamentalism.
You might be conflating the Israel-Palestine Conflict with the Israeli-Arab Conflict, but you're very wrong. The Israel-Palestine Conflict has never been a religious conflict. The main causes behind the conflict are today and have always been nationalism and colonial dispossession. All propaganda aside, religion plays a minor role. Unless you're talking of course about the religious Jewish settlers, which are a bigger source of terrorism and a bigger obstacle to peace than Hamas is.

Kenny Wong said:
What was the biggest source of the islamist propaganda after 1990s? I can only think of israel.
The self-proclaimed victory of the US-backed Mujahideen over the Soviet Empire in Afghanistan and the stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia. Yes, persistent Western support for Israeli crimes throughout the years has also been a powerful recruitment tool.
 
Apr 2014
1,067
Malaysia
False, Israel held 78% of Mandatory Palestine after the 1948 War, which was a lot more than the 56% that was awarded to it according to the UN Partition Plan. No less than 22% of Israeli territory was actively conquered in 1948, and it was this aggression that partially triggered the Arab intervention.
I mean before the war. What Israel had before the war was legal, right?

You might be conflating the Israel-Palestine Conflict with the Israeli-Arab Conflict, but you're very wrong. The Israel-Palestine Conflict has never been a religious conflict. The main causes behind the conflict are today and have always been nationalism and colonial dispossession. All propaganda aside, religion plays a minor role.
I don't separate Israel-Arab Conflict from Israel-Palestinian Conflict in this case. Couldn't agree more with your points, except for the last sentence. Religion has been playing a bigger and bigger role in this conflict, as nationalistic aspiration itself does not have the capability to cause such extremity.

Perhaps the terror that Bobby mentioned early is more akin to the nationalistic terrorism as had committed by the IRA; and the the association of religion into this kind of conflict is purely an inevitable outcome of a strongly-religious society. However, I do not believe that the extreme reluctance of creating peace by sacrificing some land, to the extent of putting the lives of many in constant danger; the suicidal and meaningless rocket attacks; the outstandingly-high level of hatred that the general Palestinian society has towards the jews; the strength of the no-compromise attitude even when given the chance of full integration into a secular and equal society with no one more well-treated than the other; that all these are solely the result of nationalistic aspiration.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,291
I think Ben Gurion was very interested in creating equality and peace in relation to the arabs in the first place. He later became more and more disillusioned with this possibility and opted for jewish occupation for the sake of development and security instead. I think he had a strong reason to do so and we should be more careful to judge him from the historical perspective.
Ben Gurion was always a firm advocate of transfer which was the removal of most of the Palestinian population. this policy was with Zionism before the Zionists even came to Palestine. in no way was it a reaction to Palestinian behaviour. it was seen as a fundamental requirement of the Jewish state to have a overwhelmingly Jewish population.
ben gurion also said he would never give up even a small part of Palestine in the long term though he might agree to partition as a tactical move to get some land now.

Ben grunion always believed in getting all the land and removing the Palestinian population.
 
Apr 2014
1,067
Malaysia
Ben Gurion was always a firm advocate of transfer which was the removal of most of the Palestinian population. this policy was with Zionism before the Zionists even came to Palestine. in no way was it a reaction to Palestinian behaviour. it was seen as a fundamental requirement of the Jewish state to have a overwhelmingly Jewish population.
ben gurion also said he would never give up even a small part of Palestine in the long term though he might agree to partition as a tactical move to get some land now.

Ben grunion always believed in getting all the land and removing the Palestinian population.
What about Ben Gurion's earlier days? Should you not see Ben Gurion as a separate entity from Zionists? From what i read, he wasnt that 'zionistic' in his younger days. Maybe i was reading the wrong stuff
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,291
the zionist leadership was always opposed to the mere presence of significant numbers of non jews in any state they would create. the Idea of 'transfer' the removal of the native population pre-dates the arrival of zionists in Palestine and was integral part of the idea of zionism from the moment the movement was created. it actually pre-dates the selection of Palestine as the area the zionists were going to try and form a state in, it's not rejection of the Palestinians it's rejection of any other.

it was not a reaction to Palestinian violence.

the zionists were never in favour of living with the native population of Palestine.

Terrorism was used by zionist extremists as much as Palestinians before the creation of Israel.
 
Apr 2014
1,067
Malaysia
So, back to the topic where Ben Gurion was first mentioned. So is it accurate to say that it was Ben Gurion's fault that peace attempts made by the arabs (if there were) failed?

Was it largely the fault of Zionism that 'any peace attempt by Egypt and Jordan after 1948' failed??
So it was the fault of Zionism that the six days war happened?
 

Similar History Discussions