A look at the 1948 Palestinian exodus

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
7,973
If you had an enemy that wanted to 'push you to the sea', how could peace attempts be possible i wonder?
yes how could the Palestinians accepts the zionists who wanted to push them out of Palestine?

remember it's the Zionists who decided that the native population had to be removed in principle before they even came to Palestine.

Zonism was always implacably opposed to the mere presence of non jews in their Jewish state. it was always fundamentally hostile to the Palestinian people. The Zionist goal could only be achieved by fundamentally trampling on the Palestinian population.

the 1967 war was stated by Israel. as was the 1956 war, where Israel asked the French and British if they could annex the west bank, golan and southern Lebanon.
 
Apr 2014
1,067
Malaysia
yes how could the Palestinians accepts the zionists who wanted to push them out of Palestine?

remember it's the Zionists who decided that the native population had to be removed in principle before they even came to Palestine.

Zonism was always implacably opposed to the mere presence of non jews in their Jewish state. it was always fundamentally hostile to the Palestinian people. The Zionist goal could only be achieved by fundamentally trampling on the Palestinian population.

the 1967 war was stated by Israel. as was the 1956 war, where Israel asked the French and British if they could annex the west bank, golan and southern Lebanon.
I do not believe they wanted to remove the Palestinians who lived beyond the UN-designated border prior to 1948. I also do not believe that annexation meant expulsion, but merely absorption, since it was impossible to expulse them beyond the jordanian border, for why would jordan let the entire people moved in anyway. I believe that if the attitude of the palestinians and the neighbouring arab nations was nicer before 1948, or even after 1948, things would not have been that complicated. If Zionism had the intention of squeezing out the palestinians by giving them money or settling more jews, i believe this was limited to the UN-designated border prior to 1948; the unapproved illegal actions after 1948 were carried out merely out of necessity, out of the need for the very survival of Israel as a working country.
 

Belisarius

Forum Staff
Jun 2006
10,339
U.K.
I do not believe they wanted to remove the Palestinians who lived beyond the UN-designated border prior to 1948.
Then explain why in the case of every land purchase made by the European Zionists, before 1947 the native muslim tennant farmers were evicted and why after the conflict had ended those who fled the fighting were not allowed to return to their homes?
 
May 2015
987
The Netherlands
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.
You should distinguish between the two. Religious zealots from the Gulf States have a different relation to Israel and the conflict than ordinary Palestinians, who are above all concerned with freedom of movement, the safety of their families and the desire to have their own country. Religion only comes into play when the religious right in Israel makes threats towards the Temple Mount, but even then it's probably more about identity politics.

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.
Simple, it's not solely the result of nationalistic aspiration. The Palestinians have been subjected to decades of military occupation, colonial dispossession and continuous encroachment on their lands. They are subjected to degrading, dehumanizing policies (including human shielding), institutional apartheid and settler violence (condoned by the IDF) almost on a daily basis, as well as collective punishment, mass incarceration, and in many cases denial of basic human rights. For instance, drinking water is always on short supply in the West Bank, because the Palestinians are forced to buy back their own water (stolen by Israel to supply its illegal settlements on Palestinian land). Last week Israel decided it was a good idea to cut off water to the West Bank in the middle of a heat wave during Ramadan. What a class act.

I dispute your suggestion about "the outstandingly-high level of hatred that the general Palestinian society has towards the jews". There's a lot of ignorance on both sides which can lead to violence, but Palestinians freely interact and trade with Israeli settlers and sometimes even work for them. I've visited West Bank cities with groups of Israeli jews without any problems as well. Palestinians and settlers share spaces in the West Bank without causing a lot of problems. The big problem is of course that one group encroaches on the other and has a lot of rights, whereas the second group has almost no rights.

Also, I hope you're aware that the PLO and the entire Arab League have been committed to peace and normalization of relations with Israel based on the Two State Solution since at least 2002. Your suggestion of "extreme reluctance of creating peace by sacrificing some land, to the extent of putting the lives of many in constant danger" applies to Israel alone, which continuously blocks every peace intiative. The Palestinian people have been forced to compromise and give up land to the point that they don't have much left to give.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
7,973
I do not believe they wanted to remove the Palestinians who lived beyond the UN-designated border prior to 1948. I also do not believe that annexation meant expulsion, but merely absorption, since it was impossible to expulse them beyond the jordanian border, for why would jordan let the entire people moved in anyway. I believe that if the attitude of the palestinians and the neighbouring arab nations was nicer before 1948, or even after 1948, things would not have been that complicated. If Zionism had the intention of squeezing out the palestinians by giving them money or settling more jews, i believe this was limited to the UN-designated border prior to 1948; the unapproved illegal actions after 1948 were carried out merely out of necessity, out of the need for the very survival of Israel as a working country.
ben gurion openly said he would not yield one square mile of Palestine , he always wanted it all. he openly said that a Jewish state could not exist with a significant Arab minority.

what measures did the Israeli authorities take to defend it's Arab citizens during the 1948 war? what punishments were handed out to those who murdered them? what measures were taken to reverse these 'unapproved illegal actions"?

your last sentence
" the unapproved illegal actions after 1948 were carried out merely out of necessity, out of the need for the very survival of Israel as a working country"

does not make sense if there were a necessity surely any responsible leadership would have ordered it. we know ben Gurion thought it was a necessity.
 
Apr 2014
1,067
Malaysia
ben gurion openly said he would not yield one square mile of palestine , he always wanted it all. He openly said that a jewish state could not exist with a significant arab minority.

What measures did the israeli authorities take to defend it's arab citizens during the 1948 war? What punishments were handed out to those who murdered them? What measures were taken to reverse these 'unapproved illegal actions"?

Your last sentence
" the unapproved illegal actions after 1948 were carried out merely out of necessity, out of the need for the very survival of israel as a working country"

does not make sense if there were a necessity surely any responsible leadership would have ordered it. We know ben gurion thought it was a necessity.
Untitled.jpg
 
Apr 2014
1,067
Malaysia
You should distinguish between the two. Religious zealots from the Gulf States have a different relation to Israel and the conflict than ordinary Palestinians, who are above all concerned with freedom of movement, the safety of their families and the desire to have their own country. Religion only comes into play when the religious right in Israel makes threats towards the Temple Mount, but even then it's probably more about identity politics.
I did distinguish as I pointed out the IRA resemblance. However I also noted the association of nationalistic aspiration with islamic aspiration, which is 'no-retreat' and 'defense of the third holiest mosque'. The intolerant trait was and still is inherent in the palestinian people, whether as a result of a response to foreign occupation or not. Palestine had not been a sovereign state since roman times and had been subjected to non-Arabs for at least a millennium since then. It was and still is not just about simple people who want to move around and move abroad, to get all the necessities of life; providing these people with the basic welfare they deserve as a human being won't solve the problem, but aggravate it by storing up future trouble. You would not want to settle and let grow, in your immediate vicinity, a people bounded by culture and ideologically-strengthened by a heavy-handed religion who always wants to 'push you to the sea', if you have no idea of how to pacify them other than leaving the land altogether.

Simple, it's not solely the result of nationalistic aspiration. The Palestinians have been subjected to decades of military occupation, colonial dispossession and continuous encroachment on their lands. They are subjected to degrading, dehumanizing policies (including human shielding), institutional apartheid and settler violence (condoned by the IDF) almost on a daily basis, as well as collective punishment, mass incarceration, and in many cases denial of basic human rights. For instance, drinking water is always on short supply in the West Bank, because the Palestinians are forced to buy back their own water (stolen by Israel to supply its illegal settlements on Palestinian land). Last week Israel decided it was a good idea to cut off water to the West Bank in the middle of a heat wave during Ramadan. What a class act.
On the other hand, palestinians living within the borders of Israel are having basic human rights and human necessities in a well-developed and well-organised country, one of the best in ME and probably in the whole world.

I do not reject the anti-Palestinian policy out of consideration for the primary goal which is the control of lands and peoples in the immediate vicinity for security purposes, the failure of which is evidently dangerous. However, I do personally think the extent of mobility restriction and the denial of basic human necessities are too inhumane.

I dispute your suggestion about "the outstandingly-high level of hatred that the general Palestinian society has towards the jews". There's a lot of ignorance on both sides which can lead to violence, but Palestinians freely interact and trade with Israeli settlers and sometimes even work for them. I've visited West Bank cities with groups of Israeli jews without any problems as well. Palestinians and settlers share spaces in the West Bank without causing a lot of problems. The big problem is of course that one group encroaches on the other and has a lot of rights, whereas the second group has almost no rights.
Interaction by no means means the absence of hatred, or the absence of ideological issues. Ideological conflict is always there, no matter how many palestinians smile to the jews or vice versa.

Also, I hope you're aware that the PLO and the entire Arab League have been committed to peace and normalization of relations with Israel based on the Two State Solution since at least 2002. Your suggestion of "extreme reluctance of creating peace by sacrificing some land, to the extent of putting the lives of many in constant danger" applies to Israel alone, which continuously blocks every peace intiative. The Palestinian people have been forced to compromise and give up land to the point that they don't have much left to give.
This is Israeli-domination-of-Palestine in progress. This is a long-running program that is too difficult to slow down. Besides the strong presence of Zionist faction in the Israeli politics, there are also various reasons, including the instability of neighboring countries in particular Syria; the surge of islamic terrorism in the immediate vicinity which the PLO and the arab nations find it difficult to control, if not clandestinely support; the madness of dictators; Iran's nuke given a 'go' by the US; Russia's ambition and so on. And since Israel is so into protecting each and every one of its citizen and soldier that its retaliatory strikes are often cruel, it is natural that it find out that occupying and absorbing the remaining Palestinian territory is the only means of increasing its capability to defend itself, amidst a land where madness rages.
 
Apr 2014
1,067
Malaysia
Then explain why in the case of every land purchase made by the European Zionists, before 1947 the native muslim tennant farmers were evicted and why after the conflict had ended those who fled the fighting were not allowed to return to their homes?
I do believe they wanted to expel the native palestinians in the lands they bought, and I say not the native people living beyond the UN-designated borders prior to 1948. So whatever immoral actions done prior to the UN decision, but within the borders that would later be drawn up by the UN, were altogether another issue and should be treated separately. After the UN decision, the lands within the borders were legally jewish-owned, whether immorally or not; the extra lands beyond the borders were taken in the Defensive wars when Five Arab Nations invaded, though some of them just put up a demonstration.

Thus, if there was not a war in 1948, would not an independent sovereign Palestinian state be set up? It is inconceivable to think that the Zionists had the immediate ambition of intruding the lands of the UN-designated Palestinian state prior to the war in 1948. But rather, Israel at that moment was just interested in messing up with the Palestinians within its borders.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
7,973
when Five Arab Nations invaded, t
why do you continue with this false statement? this has been pointed outs historically inaccurate and yet you keep posted this?

? It is inconceivable to think that the Zionists had the immediate ambition of intruding the lands of the UN-designated Palestinian state prior to the war in 1948. But rather, Israel at that moment was just interested in messing up with the Palestinians within its borders.
why? they clear aim all along was a larger state. they never accepted that the Palestinians had any rights at all.
 

Similar History Discussions