Israel - The Right to exist as a State?

[Uranass]

I have an interest in both sides of the debate.
And I still don't have an opinion on the Law of Return, mostly because I don't really care.
I'm not sure why you find that unbelievable, not everyone takes an interest, or expends energy, for the same reason, or for any reason at all.

I don't find that believable because it simply isn't, how can you read most of the exhaustive (ly boring I might add) life work of Benny Morris, something a very interested scholar might do, under the pretense that you want to know 'both sides' (insinuating that you spend even more time studying the conflict from other sides) and claim that you are "not interested" in the whole basis for which Israel is founded and the main reason there was and will continue to be a conflict (though am not sure what side unapologetically Zionist Benny Morris who openly wishes Israel had kicked all Palestinians supposed to be representing to you)
Seriously you're insulting people's intelligence (obviously not the ones that liked your post ;D) by claiming that you are "not interested". You either formed an opinion and you don't want to share it, or you don't have one because you are truly "not interested" at all in the conflict and haven't read anything about it outside of google criticism of Benny Morris.

Heres the beginning of the Israeli declaration of independence
"ERETZ-ISRAEL was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books."
After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.
Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses."

So I'll ask again, since you seem to have formed an opinion about the Palestinian right of return, what do you think about the pretext Zionists use to justify colonizing Palestine which they claim is acceptable since they have a "natural right" to a "Jewish state"? and their refusal to allow the actual refugees back in for so long because it would be a demographic threat?.

As for whether or not the Palestinians were told to flee by Arab leaders, by whatever medium. There's a litany of quotes from Arab leaders and daily's, antiquated and contemporary, confirming they were told to leave, and the Arab armies would ensure their return in short order. Once the Jews were expunged from the region.
An excellent example being...

Khaled al-`Azm, who served as Prime Minister of Syria in 1948 and 1949, wrote in his memoirs, Beirut 1973 (Part 1, pp. 386-387). that among the reasons for the Arab failure in 1948 was . . .

Well since I have the actual memoir of al-Azm at hand I'll indulge. As you'd expect his memoir as a Syrian leader is mainly about Syria but he does mention the conflict at the end of the book on page 379 he begins
"If this memoir is considered a history book, then it cannot be allowed for me not to mention the Palestinian cause. But since this is a memoir recording my own actions and what I witnessed, heard and what I had a role in, It is better for those who did play a role in what happened in Palestine to subject themselves to public opinion and publish their own memoirs so that historians can in the future write a correct history of Palestine"
He then goes on describing the events after the war and criticizes pretty much every single Arab leader (bar himself) for almost everything that happened, which is a recurring theme , this is expected of course, Arab people were legitimately pissed at their leaders and their failure, him blaming them is the easy way out. He mentions a suggestion he made that Syria should not give up the areas it occupied during the war as to better its defense in the future but that the leaders negotiating (he names Hussni al Za'em) were eager to please the US and gave up everything.
and then he goes back to the war and he again begins by saying
"And I am not, as I've said earlier, qualified in telling the story and facts of the war in Palestine, that's because I was in Paris, away from Syria" then he goes on to say that there is no harm in him stating his "different opinions" as to why the war was lost and he lists his different reasons. And finally the quote;

you cite;
“the call by the Arab Governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it and to leave for the bordering Arab countries, after having sown terror among them…"

the actual quote ;
"#5 the Arab governments' invitation to the people of Palestine to escape from it and seek refuge in nearby Arab countries, after terror had spread among their ranks in the wake of the Deir Yassin incident. This mass flight has benefited the Jews and the situation stabilized in their favor without effort. Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homeland, while it is we who facilitated their exodus. Between the invitation extended to the refugees and the request to the United Nations to decide upon their return, there elapsed only a few months"

What we can deduce from all that is that
1) As he admits he wasn't there, and as he admits he isn't qualified to "cite the facts" of what happened during that period in Palestine
2) The word he used (or claims the governments used) is "invite" which is miles away I think from 'order' and 'force' the official claim made by Zionists and by Israel.
3) He attributes this exodus to wide spread panic and fear of terrorism amongst Palestinians in the wake of the Deir Yassin massacre, claiming that it is Arab governments that are "sowing terror" is a blatant distortion of the quote.


what he is implying I think is that he wanted the governments to take a harsher stand and force Palestinian refugees back and deny them entry (evidence shows that certain governments did just that, check the link at the end of the post)

Producing the narrative is not required, when the culprits admit the act.

More likely when one has no evidence to support their claim they resort to silly heavily debunked myths.

Morris claims 5% left due to Arab orders (I think the actual number of people who left due to orders is less than that but then again Benny is a Zionist "fraud" who favors mass expulsion so its not that surprising), maybe you can find more quotes (and this time who knows, they could be legitimate ones) of a random leader who "invites" or urges or whatever, the Arabs of Palestine to leave but the number of those who were ordered to or left because of that is insignificant.

Actually, given the fact that the Arabs that didn't leave, became citizens of Israel, in peace. Your theory develops a fairly decent hole.

Again, disingenuous. Even with a tenth of the native Arab population within its borders Israel and Israelis are scarcely getting along with them, as you'd expect, Israeli Jews are weary of demographics, with nearly half of them openly wanting the government to "encourage" Arabs to leave, If i remember the wording of the study correctly. it could have been 'urge' 'plead' or 'facilitate' though ;D. Moreover if Israel could have existed peacefully with them then there is no reason why Palestinian refugees can't return no?
Palestinians mostly kept to themselves, my grandfather is zealous about marrying a non Palestinian, The refugees would still have had the same descendants if they weren't kicked or have they not had their homes and villages immediately destroyed after they fled and their return made illegal, the Jewish state couldn't allow the natives back 60 years ago for the same reason it can't allow them and their descendants back today.
the only difference between those that stayed and those who didn't is that the former should be praised for their "courage, heroism, and endurance." as Kind Abdullah during the war puts it in his message to Palestinians asking them to stay.
Khalidi, Why Did The Palestinians Leave?
its on page 47 (or page 6 on Adobe reader), its just 13 pages long am sure you can spare some time for it even if you're not interested ;D.

Am sure the memoir is available online in Arabic (I can find a link for it if you want) am not sure if there's a complete English translation though.

 

[earth_as_one]

To say the least.

Here's an article I really enjoyed.

It's a shame really. Benny is such a passion and intelligent man. Why he succumbed to acting so stupid, and destroyed his credibility, is beyond me.

I see EAO has finally made up his mind, and thinks Israel has a right to exist now.

Middle East Forum is really Daniel Pipes. Oslo mass murderer also referenced Daniel Pipes in his manifesto.

...As Norway mourns the loss of at least 76 of its citizens in Friday's bombing of government buildings in Oslo and mass shootings at a Labour Party youth camp, attention here has focused on the US bloggers and groups whose Islamophobic message appears to have fuelled the alleged perpetrator's murderous rage. Their identity was established through the online publication by the alleged terrorist, 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik, of a 1,500-page manifesto entitled "2083: A European Declaration of Independence"...Among other sources cited by the manifesto, the "Jihad Watch" blog and its author, Robert Spencer, is cited no less than 162 times, while Daniel Pipes and his Middle East Forum (MEF) gets 16 mentions, according to a tally by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank here. Another blogger, Pamela Geller, and her "Atlas Shrugs" blog is cited 12 times in the manifesto, while the Center for Security Policy (CSP), its president, Frank Gaffney, and CSP's senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs, Caroline Glick, appear a total of eight times.
Islamophobes distance themselves from Breivik - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Daniel Pipes is a Islamaphobic nut case who has built a career out of distortions, twisting words, quoting people out of context and stretching the truth to suit his purpose. He is the antithesis of a peer reviewed academic.
The War on Academic Freedom | The Nation

Benny Morris is a recognized authority regarding Israel's history. Morris backs his peer reviewed claims up with references to hard evidence. Pipes mostly blows unsubstantiated smoke out his ass in order to justify his hate and paranoia regarding Muslims.

 

[Colpy]

...As Norway mourns the loss of at least 76 of its citizens in Friday's bombing of government buildings in Oslo and mass shootings at a Labour Party youth camp, attention here has focused on the US bloggers and groups whose Islamophobic message appears to have fuelled the alleged perpetrator's murderous rage. Their identity was established through the online publication by the alleged terrorist, 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik, of a 1,500-page manifesto entitled "2083: A European Declaration of Independence"...Among other sources cited by the manifesto, the "Jihad Watch" blog and its author, Robert Spencer, is cited no less than 162 times, while Daniel Pipes and his Middle East Forum (MEF) gets 16 mentions, according to a tally by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank here. Another blogger, Pamela Geller, and her "Atlas Shrugs" blog is cited 12 times in the manifesto, while the Center for Security Policy (CSP), its president, Frank Gaffney, and CSP's senior fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs, Caroline Glick, appear a total of eight times.
Islamophobes distance themselves from Breivik - Opinion - Al Jazeera English
.

According to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.....there is no such thing as Islamophobia.

I think she probably knows better than this idiot.

 

[CDNBear]

Seriously you're insulting people's intelligence by claiming that you are "not interested".

I don't find that believable because it simply isn't, how can you read most of the exhaustive (ly boring I might add) life work of Benny Morris...

(insinuating that you spend even more time studying the conflict from other sides)

You either formed an opinion and you don't want to share it, or you don't have one because you are truly "not interested" at all in the conflict and haven't read anything about it outside of google criticism of Benny Morris.

Interesting examples of fabrication and fabrication by exaggeration, to say the least.

Why don't you stick to the facts, and the topic, unless I bring personal experiences into the discussion. At that point you can set up for character assassination.

More likely when one has no evidence to support their claim they resort to silly heavily debunked myths.

A common failing of the extremist.

Thankfully, there's evidence that supports that Arab leaders told Palestinians to leave.

(and this time who knows, they could be legitimate ones)

It was legitimate, your interpretation, is subjective and self serving.

Even your extended quotation supports the the fact that the Arab leaders told Palestinians to leave. I don't care if they used the word "invite" or if it was an order. It took place.

Again, disingenuous.

No it isn't, it's fact.

Arab-Israeli citizens live in Israel, in peace.

its just 13 pages long am sure you can spare some time for it even if you're not interested ;D.

I've stated a lack of interest in the Law of Return. If you want to start fabricating commentary (Or discussing "Me", without warrant, as the first part of your post attempts to do), I'll simply place you in the same category as EAO and treat you accordingly.

Benny Morris is a recognized authority regarding Israel's history. Morris backs his peer reviewed claims up with references to hard evidence. Pipes mostly blows unsubstantiated smoke out his ass in order to justify his hate and paranoia regarding Muslims.

Pipes didn't write the article, Efraim Karsh did, and Benny conceded to Karsh's challenges.

Maybe you could start there, instead of dismissing it out of hand, simply because you don't like what it says.

 

[Uranass]

A common failing on your side.

And yet am the one with evidence and you're the one who gets caught using obviously distorted "quotations" to support his myth.

It was legitimate, your interpretation, is subjective and self serving.

Lol are you really sticking to that? you know people can just read it right?
your quote;
“the call by the Arab Governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it and to leave for the bordering Arab countries, after having sown terror among them…"
Talk about self serving ha.
You conveniently remove the reference to Deir Yassin (just 3 words) and distort the statement so it is now claiming that Arab governments were the ones 'sowing terror' in Palestinians as opposed to supposed Zionist terrorism in Deir Yassin as Azm very clearly puts it, which was the primary motive for leaving, Moreover the guy who you use as evidence in that same source admits
1)he wasn't there and that
2)he isn't qualified to report on these events.

I don't care if they used the word "invite" or if it was an order.

I would expect that it doesn't matter to you because you obviously have an agenda that you will continue to push even when presented with evidence, but it of course to a neutral person does matter, forcing someone into your home is abduction and you bear responsibility for it, inviting someone in distress to your home is the humanitarian and right thing to do; Israel claims it was orders therefore even if there were such invites Israel ends up lying either way.

It took place.

In a minority of cases, maybe, even for those cases it appears you have no credible evidence though, whereas there is plenitude of evidence to the contrary, proof that Arabs were asked to stay was even reported on Zionist/israeli radio, also Arab radio, major Arab newspapers. Not to mention the unavoidable direct correlation between Zionist attacks/occupations, their proximity to a village/city as well, and the inhabitants escaping.

I would link the source for that evidnce again but since this is the second time you ignore it, why bother.

No it isn't, it's fact.

Only in your world.

Arab-Israeli citizens live in Israel, in peace.

And Israel is able to tolerate them as you know not because it could have tolerated the native population (if it could then why the hell did they refuse entry to the remaining refugees for so long? its not like they are at all different from Israeli Arabs)It is simply because it can only tolerate a minority of them, scantly, as I said earlier, I mean though they only had 1 tenth of the native population staying in Israel, today nearly half the Jews want even that minority out. Imagine having an Arab majority in Israel today had they allowed the natives back or allowed them back in today. How do you suppose could Israel exist as Jewish state? its not like the Palestinians' birth rates and numbers are a secret.

You should stop being dishonest about it.

I've stated a lack of interest in the Law of Return. If you want to start fabricating commentary (Or discussing "Me", without warrant, as the first part of your post attempts to do), I'll simply place you in the same category as EAO and treat you accordingly.

I did not put anything in your mouth, If I did please go ahead and point it out, I know its hard to come out from the hole you're in when you get caught with so many disingenuous fabrications, and taking the easy way out claiming some sort of intellectual high ground by I assume 'ignoring the posts?' seems to be your only logical way out while saving face.

You could not have spent a hundred+ hours reading Morris (and I now am assuming; also spending hundred+ hours reading the "other side" to be fair, and maybe even hundreds of hours reading other writers on both supposed sides) and then actually claim that you "do not care" and have not formed an opinion on about, pretty much the premise of Zionism and the main reason there is an Israel in the Arab world as the Israelis declaration puts it, It simply defies logic.

 

[CDNBear]

Lol are you really sticking to that? you know people can just read it right?

Yep and yep.

I said nothing about, nor offered the quote, to support an opinion on who had sown terror.

It was offered to support the the opinion that Arab leaders asked, told, invited, ordered, or whatever, Palestinians to leave.

You can be as dishonest as you want in your attempt to move the goalposts, but in the end, the evidence stands on its own.

1)he wasn't there and that
2)he isn't qualified to report on these events.

By those metrics, no one is qualified, not even the revisionists, lol.

I would expect that it doesn't matter to you because you obviously have an agenda that you will continue to push even when presented with evidence, but it of course to a neutral person does matter, forcing someone into your home is abduction and you bear responsibility for it, inviting someone in distress to your home is the humanitarian and right thing to do; Israel claims it was orders therefore even if there were such invites Israel ends up lying either way.

That's nice, and if I used the Israeli narrative, you would be factual too, lol.

In a minority of cases, maybe...

Well at least you concede to the possibility, lol.

You should stop being dishonest about it.

I am being honest, Arab-Israeli's live in Israel, in peace.

Speaking of dishonest though, lol, the rest of your paragraph dives into subject matter I've not commented on, nor offered an opinion on, lol.

I did not put anything in your mouth...

lol, ya, OK.

... It simply defies logic.

No, it defies your needs, for proper categorization,

 

[MapleDog]

To those who think others are always wrong,read The USS Liberty Story

 

[Colpy]

To those who think others are always wrong,read The USS Liberty Story

P

Okay, let's put this particular bit of stupidity to bed right now.

Here are the facts;

The USS Liberty was patroling between al' Arish and Port said, in an area Egypt had declared off-limits to neutrals.

The skipper was worried enough about his position to request destroyer escort, which was denied.

The Israelis had repeatedly requested a US naval liason officer, a request repeatedly denied. The Israelis had no means of communicating with the US Navy.

The Israelis informed the US Naval attache that the USA must either acknowledge ad ID all their ships in the region, as all unidentified vessels traveling at over 20 knots would be sunk. The Israelis were very concerned about Egyptian naval assets, as Egyptian gun boats outnumbered IDF by four to one.

al'Arish had been shelled by Egyptian gun boats the day before. Orders were given to find the Egyptian gunboats and destroy them.

The Liberty was sighted by IDF gunboats headed in the direction of Egypt, just off al 'Arish....they assumed she was Egyptian, and gave chase. They could not catch her, so called in the Air Force.

And the attack took place....first with 30mm cannon, then with napalm bombs. Initial orders were to sink her, but controllers became concerned when there was no return fire, and asked the aircraft to cease-fire and look for ID ing marks.......the order to sink her was countermanded the instant the IDF realized her markings were NOT in Arabic..

However, when IDF boats approached, they were fired upon (understandibly), and they, still not knowing what the ship was, fired torpedoes into her......

Here are the questions;

Why would Israel alienate her most dependable ally in the most severe way possible......when they were in desperate need of US assistance and munitions??....and they needed the threat of US retaliation to keep the Russians out.

Why, if it was an intentional attack, did they not sink her and blame it on the Egyptians??? Easily done, as they were in an Egyptian exclusion zone.......

 

[MapleDog]

You do know racism is fueled by religion,israelis ar far from perfect,they like muslims and christians have their f***tards in charge.

 

[CDNBear]

You do know racism is fueled by religion,israelis ar far from perfect,they like muslims and christians have their f***tards in charge.

Those are religions, not races.

And of course that has no bearing on what Colpy posted about the USS Liberty either.

I agree, as most of us do, Israel is far from perfect.

 

[MapleDog]

Also recently these last 10 years i've heard that apparently Israel supported the racist gov of South Africa.
If true that makes them no better than the inbred white supremacists.

 

[gerryh]

You do know racism is fueled by religion,israelis ar far from perfect,they like muslims and christians have their f***tards in charge.

Sounds more like bigotry, and yours is showing.

 

[MapleDog]

Sounds more like bigotry, and yours is showing.

OK you got me i'm a racist,i deserve to die.

Funny i had friend in all colors,like the Benetton ads.

 

[CDNBear]

Also recently these last 10 years i've heard that apparently Israel supported the racist gov of South Africa.

Which one? The contemporary one, or the previous one?

If true that makes them no better than the inbred white supremacists.

Along with the other 54 independent member states of the Commonwealth?

You might want to brush up on the matter. It's not nearly as cut and dry, or as simplistic as your post would make it out.

 

[gerryh]

OK you got me i'm a racist,i deserve to die.

Funny i had friend in all colors,like the Benetton ads.

I didn't say you were a racist.

 

[CDNBear]

Funny i had friend in all colors,like the Benetton ads.

I always found those ads to be patronizing and mildly racist in nature.

 

[Colpy]

You do know racism is fueled by religion,israelis ar far from perfect,they like muslims and christians have their f***tards in charge.

Most Israeli Jews and most Muslims are the same race........

 

[petros]

I always found those ads to be patronizing and mildly racist in nature.

Me too.

 

[MapleDog]

I didn't say you were a racist.

Isn't the word bigot similar to racist?

 

[petros]

Israel got all ****ed up when the savages from the former USSR came to town post 91