A look at the 1948 Palestinian exodus

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,291
if you are going to post stuff, saying what it is from would be better than just posting an image/

well this is an example of ben Gurion saying one thing and doing another. Ben
Gurion was not particularly honest and often engaged in very deceptive behaviour and sought to represent black as white.

it was long standing Zoinists policy not never ever sell land to the Palestinians. there was also a pouchy of not employing Palestinians.

the Jewish agency insisted that Jews be hired preferentially during he mandate and paid more.
 
Apr 2014
1,067
Malaysia
why do you continue with this false statement? this has been pointed outs historically inaccurate and yet you keep posted this?
Then I think it would be more accurate to say 'five arab nations mobilized their army'

why? they clear aim all along was a larger state. they never accepted that the Palestinians had any rights at all.
Since the 1948 Independence War did happen and was the direct cause of the exodus, I think Israel was somewhat justified. If the war did not happen then I would think otherwise.
 
Apr 2014
1,067
Malaysia
if you are going to post stuff, saying what it is from would be better than just posting an image/
https://books.google.com.my/books?i...he state, should he be elected by all&f=false

well this is an example of ben Gurion saying one thing and doing another. Ben Gurion was not particularly honest and often engaged in very deceptive behaviour and sought to represent black as white.

it was long standing Zoinists policy not never ever sell land to the Palestinians. there was also a pouchy of not employing Palestinians.

the Jewish agency insisted that Jews be hired preferentially during he mandate and paid more.
I do not disagree on the fact that Zionism prior to the establishment of Israel was unfair and immoral. But as for the many anti-Palestinian policies later on, i do not think they were simply inspired solely from zionism, a natural process; rather i believe they were responses to instability and threats to national security. To put it another way round, the attitude and reactions of the palestinians and the happenings in the arab nations had made the general attitude of the Israelis to lean towards the Zionist ideology, rather than becoming more just and moral.

That many policies after independence were drawn out of the need to survive in a harsh world. Survival, instead of the pure desire to expand, became the greatest reason, the only reason, or a perfect excuse, in the minds of the majority of israelis to reoccupy the entire land of Palestine.
 
Last edited:

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,291
I do not disagree on the fact that Zionism prior to the establishment of Israel was unfair and immoral. But as for the many anti-Palestinian policies later on, i do not think they were simply inspired solely from zionism, a natural process; rather i believe they were responses to instability and threats to national security. To put it another way round, the attitude and reactions of the palestinians and the happenings in the arab nations had made the general attitude of the Israelis to lean towards the Zionist ideology, rather than becoming more just and moral.

That many policies after independence were drawn out of the need to survive in a harsh world. Survival, instead of the pure desire to expand, became the greatest reason, the only reason, or a perfect excuse, in the minds of the majority of israelis to reoccupy the entire land of Palestine.
a guy assaults another man and hits him and takes his stuff, the man he hits him back, and the first man them says "he was forced to defend himself"....

the zionists appeared bent of disposing and driving out the native population to form their state. they are the initial aggressors, saying that their subsequent driving out dispossession of the native population because the native population did not embrace them and make them feel welcome is reverse the actual situation.


Efraim Karsh I do not find a credible historian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efraim_Karsh
 
Apr 2014
1,067
Malaysia
a guy assaults another man and hits him and takes his stuff, the man he hits him back, and the first man them says "he was forced to defend himself"....

the zionists appeared bent of disposing and driving out the native population to form their state. they are the initial aggressors, saying that their subsequent driving out dispossession of the native population because the native population did not embrace them and make them feel welcome is reverse the actual situation.
What if that man hits him back again and again, even knowing that he will lose anyway, and even sustain much more injuries, and forcing the initial aggressors to take more of his things. Is this not a folly?

If the attitude of the locals and the arab nations were nicer after 1948, by now international pressure would have pressured greater freedom and rights for the Palestinians.

I agree that Zionism was the initial aggressor. But I also think that subsequent aggressive actions were, for most of the time, out of public safety, and ultimately the sheer survival of the nation. Whether immoral or not they had to do it; otherwise they might well just jump into the sea themselves.

Efraim Karsh I do not find a credible historian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efraim_Karsh
No worries about his credibility. Clicking on the link and you can find two versions of the same speech - one recorded as a protocol of a meeting and another written in Ben's book named Medinat Israel. Karsh was merely citing things.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,291
What if that man hits him back again and again, even knowing that he will lose anyway, and even sustain much more injuries, and forcing the initial aggressors to take more of his things. Is this not a folly?

If the attitude of the locals and the arab nations were nicer after 1948, by now international pressure would have pressured greater freedom and rights for the Palestinians.

I agree that Zionism was the initial aggressor. But I also think that subsequent aggressive actions were, for most of the time, out of public safety, and ultimately the sheer survival of the nation. Whether immoral or not they had to do it; otherwise they might well just jump into the sea themselves.



No worries about his credibility. Clicking on the link and you can find two versions of the same speech - one recorded as a protocol of a meeting and another written in Ben's book named Medinat Israel. Karsh was merely citing things.
historians question his credibility. the problem with ben grunion is he is simply totally dishonest in public statements.

in 1948 the Palestinians population did almost nothing. served in cal defence roles. the terrorism, ethnic cleanings and looting by jewish forces was much much more extreme.
 
Mar 2018
2
Nomadic
For those still interested in the Palestinian exodus, please check out my recent interview with Prof. Benny Morris of Ben-Gurion University on the topic:




If you find the content valuable, please subscribe, share & support!

Many thanks,
J
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
31,528
T'Republic of Yorkshire
For those still interested in the Palestinian exodus, please check out my recent interview with Prof. Benny Morris of Ben-Gurion University on the topic:




If you find the content valuable, please subscribe, share & support!

Many thanks,
J
Posting this ONCE is enough.
 
Apr 2018
1,480
Mythical land.
1)

13) Four attempts? 1948 is not a clear-cut attempt, the moreso if we remember the terrorism, including blowing up British men, women, and children, that preceded it directed by such heroes as Menachem Begin. 1967, Israel shot first. 1973 *was* a direct attack aimed at the Israelis, but when the Arab goals included reclaiming territory that belonged to Arab states and had been conquered at gunpoint in 1967, how one defines aggression is not clear. And if you're calling Gurion's handling of Suez a defensive measure, that is entirely out of any rational standard of defense. Even Hitler would have blushed at using defense in that regard.
Err,No,actually in 1967 blocking of straits of Tiran will triggered the war,israel already said that blocking that would be casus belli,arabs ignored and rest is history.
 

Similar History Discussions