Israel/Hamas War Superthread

[Bengalzona]

(12-27-2023, 02:59 PM)Dill Wrote: In retrospect I think a lot of Palestinians would agree with the bolded--certainly those who supported Oslo. Though it was a hard sell at the time, since it meant hundreds of thousands, who had no say in the resolution process, would have to turn over their homes and land to newly arrived immigrants from Europe. Israelis aren't even ready to give up the West Bank because of the recent settlements there, so you can imagine how hard it would be for people who had lived on land for generations to give it up to settle someone else's desire for a state. In any case, I think our focus should not be on getting people without military power to accept the terms dictated by aggressor nations. Rather, the goal should be to curb aggression, not validate and reward it.

Well, of course I'm going to agree with the embolden statement. Who isn't? I mean, that would be like saying "People shouldn't murder other people." and then waiting to see if someone argues against the point, eh. (LOL!)

The partition plan also meant thousands of Jewish settlers who had lived there for awhile at that time had to leave their homes and lands and resettle. For those people, there was no question about moving due to anger and recriminatory actions. But the Palestinians who were within the area reserved for the "Jewish state" (and, btw, I loathe that terminology because of events in Israel in recent years, even though that was the wording used by the U.N.) did have another option. When Israel became a nation, citizenship was offered to the Palestinians living within the borders (along with other groups such as Druze, Arabs, Christians, etc. living within the borders). And thousands did accept that citizenship. Today, there approximately 1.6 million Palestinians who are Israeli citizens. Not denying that there are issues with being a Palestinian Israeli citizen (especially under the current repressive regime there). But those who stayed have overall fared far better than those who left in almost all aspects of life.

My only point in mentioning this is that at that time, there was another viable option for the people within the Jewish partition rather than flight. I can understand why many did not trust that option, particularly in light of the terrorist activities by some Jewish organizations prior to that (yes, I do acknowledge those events). There was "bad blood" on both sides during that time period (hence the pressing need felt by the U.N. to get involved). And what I am really focusing on in my posts are the ancestors of the Palestinians who did choose to leave at that time.

Quote:Also, it wasn't really in the national interest of Egypt, Syria or Iraq to attack Israel in '48. They were outnumbered, outgunned, and uncoordinated, but pushed by their populations who were incensed at the dispossession of fellow Arabs, with the aid of European colonial powers, especially Great Britain, which had also occupied Egypt for three generations. So as far as Arab populations were concerned, I don't think the goodwill was feigned. Still isn't. Your final comment could certainly apply to the government of Jordan at the time.

Essentially correct. There certainly was a disconnect between the populations and their governments.

King Abdullah I of Jordan (Transjordan at that time) was the ring leader and definitely coveted the West Bank of the proposed Palestinian territory (BTW, Abdullah actually supported the partition plan seeing it as a means to acquire that area). As far as King Farouk of Egypt, he definitely had other issues going on at that time: internal and external. But he also wanted to annex all of southern Palestine (BTW - It was reported in Intelligence and National Security magazine in 2019 (Vol. 34, Issue 6) that there was also a cabal of British MI6 officer in Cairo were pushing Farouk to participate in the war without London's knowledge or permission). Nuri al-Said of Iraq had very minor ambitions. He merely wanted to conquer all of the Fertile Crescent and saw this as a good starting point. Syria and Lebanon coveted northern areas of Palestine.

Outside of their populations sympathizing with the Palestinians and putting some pressure on their governments, the involvement of each of country had nothing directly to do with the Palestinians despite what they told the Palestinian representatives and the media. And they certainly did not want a Palestinian state to develop. It was all territorial ambitions. And because they each had their own ambitions, they did not trust each other and they did not co-operate despite being in the same alliance (i.e. alliance in name only).

By the way, you know the only country in the region who wanted the Palestinians to develop their own state? Israel.

Quote:I'm familiar with this argument, B, and I do love to discuss international law (or at least its philosophical foundations), so three points in response to the bolded:


1. The Ottoman Empire was a recognized "nation" until 1922; through its 500 year administration of Palestine, it generated and maintained land records and deeds which were as "legitimate" as those of any other country. That is why the first two waves of Jewish immigration from Europe and Russia, beginning in 1882, were able to record the land they purchased in an existing legal apparatus with courts, records, surveyed maps, etc. When the British took over the Mandate in 1920, they also took over and maintained land records and a judicial system through which the next three waves of Jewish settlers could continue to buy and privately own land. No way to grant the legitimacy of Jewish ownership recognized in either the Peel proposal of '37 or the UN Resolution of '47, and simultaneously delegitimate Palestinian ownership recorded in the same system.

Your addressing individual ownership of land in the area. And nuder that caveat, your comments are correct. And, personally, I am glad the people in the regions have carried those individual ownership rights and legal traditions over despite the ongoing turmoil of the times.

But I am discussing sovereign national ownership, as in national area boundaries. The area where the government can officially exert its influence and conduct its business. This is also what the U.N. Resolution concerns. When the Israeli state was formed, as I understand, individual land rights within the "Jewish state" were recognized, so long as the owners elected citizenship. Some Palestinians did. Most Palestinians did not. Still, is that a worse offer than the Palestinians received from the Egyptians and Jordanians when they ceded southern Palestine and the West Bank areas? In those cases, Egypt and Jordan did recognize individual land ownership rights. The same with the Palestinians who left the "Jewish state" area between 1947 to 1949 (the people who Israeli citizenship was offered, but they chose to leave). They were not offered citizenship in the most of the countries they went to. This i why those people are known are as the Palestinian refugees and 5.6 million of them currently live in 68 camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip and have been receiving aid from the United Nations for 74 years.

(Correction: Jordan did begin allowing the 2 million refugees within their border to seek citizenship during the past 20 years or so, after about 55 years of limbo status.)

Quote:2. The conception of universal human rights, upon which both the League of Nations (the authority handing Mandatory Palestine to GB) and the UN were founded, was understood to require state recognition for enforcement, but did not require national citizenship before universal rights could apply to people living anywhere.


So when the armed forces of the Jewish settlers in the Mandate (Hagenah, Irgun, Stern Gang) began seizing the property of Palestinians living there and driving them out of cities and villages, there was no sanction for that in international law, and especially not for the additional massacres intended to speed the flight. The Declaration of Universal Human Rights was not yet validated by the UN, but it would establish the protection of property, lives and dignity of humans everywhere, stateless or not, under which the UN was already presumably operating when it proposed partition in '47.

Certainly, I do not endorse such actions. Even recognizing that there were equally egregious violations of human rights by Palestinians against Jewish settlers at the time (Jaffa riots, Hebron massacre, Black Hand riots, Higher Arab Committee revolt, Kfar Sirkin bus attack, Jaffa bus attacks, Haifa Oil Refinery massacre, etc.). But the escalating violence on both sides and the human rights violations are exactly why the U.N. felt action and resolutions were needed in the first place.

Quote:3. The Jewish settlers in Palestine did not have a "nation" either in '47. They took land by force to create one, in the process dispensing with international law and the universal human rights upon which it was supposedly based. Once founded though, and recognized by the US, they have since invoked international law in the form of a "right" to self defense and territorial sovereignty--a right they denied Syria when they annexed the Golan. "Recognized ownership" in the modern world still, apparently, recognizes force over right as a legitimating principle in some cases. 

By November 1947, the U.N. approved the partition plan. The British police force began withdrawing from the area in December 1947, and by April 1948 no longer had any effective control anywhere in the country. During that time, there were a back-and-forth series of murders and reprisals between the two groups, with violence escalating to terrorist attacks (by both sides... apparently, that needs to be said here). There was also maneuvers by groups from each side to seize what they thought might be key terrain or locations prior to one side or the other or both declaring independence and nationhood (in the event, there would be only one side declaring themselves a nation). As examples of Jewish violence, Jewish settlers attacked the villages of Balad ash-Sheikh and Hawassa and Irgun and Lehi bombed busy bus stops. As examples of Palestinian violence, they enacted a massacre at the Haifa Oil Refinery and blockaded the 100,000 Jewish residents of Jerusalem.

So groups on both sides were basically "dispensing withr international law" (btw- Does international law apply to a people who have no nation yet?) and universal human rights. So, what is the difference between the two sides? Just one. One May 14, 1948, the day before the British Mandate expired, Israel declared itself a nation. The Palestinians did not. The Israelis began the process that would lead to recognition as a sovereign nation by most of the community of nations. This was recognized by the U.N. when they voted to admit Israel in 1949. With that comes certain responsibilities and benefits. One benefit is citizenship for the people of that nation. Most Palestinians do not have this now. One of the responsibilities is following and enforcing international laws.


I'm going to finish with some things I believe:
1) I support Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation because it has been accepted by the U.N.
2) I am highly sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people who, in my opinion, made only one error (not declaring statehood when it was available) and have been made to pay dearly over the years (often by neighboring Arab governments pretending to be their friends).
3) I do not agree with many of the actions of Netanyahu's administration/regime. They have instigated many of the current events. I hope the Israeli people vote them out.
4) I abhor the violence of Hamas and the purpose they exist.
5) I abhor the Israeli violence in the Gaza Strip. For a nation which has made many shrewd decisions over the years, doing exactly what a terrorist organization wants and expects them to do is just plain dumb (see #3 above).

[Dill]

(12-27-2023, 05:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Thank you for the direct answer.  I will ignore the first sentence in the spirit of proceeding amicably.  In regard to your second answer, that finds you in direct contrast to the ADL, who absolutely consider such comparisons to be antisemitic.
https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/allegation-israels-actions-against-palestinians-can-be-compared-nazis
"Moreover, it can be argued that those that make the comparison between the Jewish state and the Nazis and Hitler – who perpetrated the greatest and largest act of antisemitism in world history – have not chosen this comparison innocently or dispassionately. It is a charge that is purposefully directed at Jews in an effort to associate the victims of Nazi crimes with the Nazi perpetrators and serves to diminish the significance and uniqueness of the Holocaust.

To make such a comparison is antisemitic and constitutes blatant hostility toward Jews, Jewish history and the legitimacy of the Jewish State of Israel."

That the ADL considers such comparisons antisemitic doesn't sway me much, especially when they are trying to dissociate such comparison from the context and intent of deployment. I.e., the goal of the bolded is to protect and deflect, not to recognize, analyze and understand. 

In the current context of war in Gaza, and the protestors in your images, the analogy is chosen to drive home the fact and the irony that the current Israeli state is doing things that Jews--along with most of the world--condemned when done by Nazis--e.g., on the West Bank collective punishment (e.g. bulldozing homes with families still inside), summary arrests even of children, and a population held under military terror, without rights, etc. 

Many Jews and Israelis also make such comparisons with the intent of reigning in the human rights violations. E.g. Russian-born journalist Masha Gessen, descendent of Holocaust survivors, was almost denied the Hannah Arendt Prize* this year for her recent New Yorker article which, in one paragraph compared Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto. https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-weekend-essay/in-the-shadow-of-the-holocaust

Gessen's article is a pretty good example of an effort to "recognize, analyze, and understand," as she explores the limits of Nazi/Israel comparisons, and the difficulty people have recognizing that victims can also be perpetrators, and the consequences of defining the Holocaust as "unique" and "incomparable" to other genocides. 

Early on, her essay addresses two competing definitions of antisemitism, one by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance which does not effectively distinguish between criticism of Israel and antisemitism https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism , and the more rigorous and logically consistent Jerusalem Declaration, which does effectively distinguish between criticisms of Israel which are antisemitic and those which are not. https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/. The former has gotten much traction though, recognized as a standard by 14 countries and in an executive order signed by Trump. 

Gessen notes that in 1948, Hannah Arendt herself flagged a new Israel political party, the "Freedom Party," for its analogous methods of organizing and thinking. That would be "antisemitic" under the IHRA definition.  

Some Germans awarding the Arendt prize objected to her essay because, after noting an important difference between the Warsaw Ghetto and Gaza--Jews in the Ghetto were not rocketing people outside it--she went on to say that, nevertheless, in both cases the isolation was/is predicated on a claim that "an occupying authority can choose to isolate, immiserate--and now mortally endanger--an entire population of people in the name of protecting its own." 

So I generally side with Arendt and Gessen here, that critique of any state should not be pre-empted by rules forbidding comparisons even where the facts on the ground establish such.

*Awarded by the Heinrich Boell Foundation in Berlin, for work in defense of human rights. 

[Dill]

(12-28-2023, 03:05 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I'm going to finish with some things I believe:
1) I support Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation because it has been accepted by the U.N.
2) I am highly sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people who, in my opinion, made only one error (not declaring statehood when it was available) and have been made to pay dearly over the years (often by neighboring Arab governments pretending to be their friends).
3) I do not agree with many of the actions of Netanyahu's administration/regime. They have instigated many of the current events. I hope the Israeli people vote them out.
4) I abhor the violence of Hamas and the purpose they exist.
5) I abhor the Israeli violence in the Gaza Strip. For a nation which has made many shrewd decisions over the years, doing exactly what a terrorist organization wants and expects them to do is just plain dumb (see #3 above).

OK B., you've done it now. I'm going to have to take a stand right here and affirm that . . . . I agree with you on all this--except the bolded (by which I mean a choice was never genuinely there).

I loved reading your thoughtful and richly detailed post, which pushes this thread to another level of historical historical discussion. 

Don't have time for a full response this evening, but tomorrow I'd like to review what happened in the months between Nov. '47 and May '48, Plan Dalet, and why UN "options" didn't matter much as masses of people were being driven from their homes. I appreciate the balance you bring with reference to Palestinian violence at the time. Some closer comparisons of method, scale, intent, and coordination should follow. 

Sunday * I want to address your comments on sovereignty as this applies to the intricacies of the UN settlement. You've mounted an unusually informed defense of the Jewish declaration of statehood and the UN Partition. Your very developed geopolitical sense (manifest in other topics) appears to be complemented on this issue by your professional competence in assessing/sorting property law on multiple levels.  All this is much appreciated enrichment of the forum discussion. 

*I'm in MT for the holidays, traveling between relatives. That means I have to spread responses out between visits. 

[Bengalzona]

(12-28-2023, 08:55 PM)Dill Wrote: OK B., you've done it now. I'm going to have to take a stand right here and affirm that . . . . I agree with you on all this--except the bolded (by which I mean a choice was never genuinely there).

I loved reading your thoughtful and richly detailed post, which pushes this thread to another level of historical historical discussion. 

Don't have time for a full response this evening, but tomorrow I'd like to review what happened in the months between Nov. '47 and May '48, Plan Dalet, and why UN "options" didn't matter much as masses of people were being driven from their homes. I appreciate the balance you bring with reference to Palestinian violence at the time. Some closer comparisons of method, scale, intent, and coordination should follow. 

Sunday * I want to address your comments on sovereignty as this applies to the intricacies of the UN settlement. You've mounted an unusually informed defense of the Jewish declaration of statehood and the UN Partition. Your very developed geopolitical sense (manifest in other topics) appears to be complemented on this issue by your professional competence in assessing/sorting property law on multiple levels.  All this is much appreciated enrichment of the forum discussion. 

*I'm in MT for the holidays, traveling between relatives. That means I have to spread responses out between visits. 

Aw gee! So many compliments that you are making me blush! (LOL!)

I think of the Israel/Palestine situation today, and it reminds me of this old nugget:



Especially the last two.

Travel safe, brother!

[GMDino]

https://www.tbsnews.net/world/israel-admits-airstrike-ambulance-near-hospital-witnesses-say-killed-and-wounded-dozens-732978

Quote:Israel admits airstrike on ambulance near hospital that witnesses say killed and wounded dozens

I am horrified by the reported attack in Gaza on an ambulance convoy: UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres

Palestinians pull an ambulance after a convoy of ambulances was hit near the entrance of Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City. Photo curtesy CNN

Israel has claimed responsibility for an attack on an ambulance outside Gaza City's Al-Shifa Hospital, the enclave's largest medical facility, which witnesses say killed and injured others.

According to the Hamas-run health authorities, at least 15 individuals were killed and 50 more were injured. At least a dozen bloodied casualties were scattered over the ground near an ambulance, according to footage from the site. At least one of the cars on the scene looks to have shrapnel damage.

Israel claimed they struck the ambulance because it was being used by Hamas. "An IDF aircraft struck an ambulance that was identified by forces as being used by a Hamas terrorist cell in close proximity to their position in the battle zone," the statement said.

"A number of Hamas terrorists were killed in the strike... According to the statement, "we have information demonstrating that Hamas' method of operation is to transport terror operatives and weapons in ambulances."

Following the ambulance strike, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres reiterated his appeals for a cease-fire in Gaza, which Israel has ignored.

"I am horrified by the reported attack in Gaza on an ambulance convoy outside Al Shifa hospital," said UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in a statement.

"The images of bodies strewn on the street outside the hospital are harrowing," he stated, adding, "I will not forget Hamas' terror attacks in Israel, as well as the killing, maiming, and abductions, including of women and children." All hostages held in Gaza must be immediately and unconditionally liberated."

"Now, for nearly one month, civilians in Gaza, including children and women, have been besieged, denied aid, killed, and bombed out of their homes," he told reporters. "This must stop."

The attack was carried out by Israel, according to a representative for the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza who was present at Al-Shifa Hospital.

According to the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS), one of its ambulances was in the convoy, however none of its team members were hurt during the strike.

According to the PCRS, the ambulance was damaged when a shell dropped near it. "Upon arrival at Al-Shifa hospital's gate, the gate was targeted again," PRCS stated, adding that a second Ministry of Health ambulance was then directly hit, killing and injuring hundreds of people.

Dr. Ashraf Al-Qidra said authorities planned a medical convoy from the hospital and informed the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) of the move.

He said the caravan was heading to the Rafah Crossing, which is located in the south of the beleaguered enclave and is viewed as the last option for Gazans to flee as Israel attacks the strip.

"When the ambulances moved towards the south, the occupation [Israel] targeted the ambulances in multiple locations, including on the gate of Al-Shifa medical compound," he added. "The Israeli occupation targeted intentionally those ambulances."

The ICRC verified to CNN that it had received a request to accompany the convoy before it left. However, while it was aware of a convoy of trucks conveying wounded patients from northern Gaza to the south of the enclave on Friday, it was not a part of it, it stated later.

"Even if we were not present, this is still medical convoy, and any violence towards medical personnel is unacceptable," a statement from the ICRC read. "No doctors, nurses, or any medical professionals should ever die while working to save lives."

Al-Shifa Hospital has increasingly found itself on the frontlines, with Israel claiming last week that the building houses a substantial Hamas command and control center.

The Israeli army's assertion has been denied by Palestinians. Dr. Medhat Abbas, Director General of the Gaza Health Ministry, told CNN last week that Gaza's hospitals "are used to treat patients only" and are not used "to hide anyone."

The assertion was also denied by Hamas, which called on "the United Nations, Arab and Islamic countries to intervene immediately to stop the madness of bombing and destroying the medical system."

It is situated in one of the world's most densely inhabited places, the 140-square-mile Gaza Strip, which is being bombarded and ringed by Israeli forces.

Calls for a cease-fire by Hamas, relief organizations, and much of the international community have been unequivocally rejected by Israel's leadership, which has pledged to eradicate Hamas following its terror attack last month, which slaughtered more than 1,400 Israelis, the majority of them were civilians.

In Gaza, civilian casualties have continued to escalate as Israel conducts military target strikes on big residential neighborhoods, schools, and some areas immediately surrounding hospitals. According to the most recent estimates from the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Ramallah, which drew on sources in the Hamas-controlled enclave, more than 9,100 individuals have been killed in Israeli attacks in the Gaza Strip since October 7.

The bombing has overloaded Gaza's medical institutions, which are now battling to stay operational due to decreasing supplies and fuel.

Guterres drew attention to the severe humanitarian situation in Gaza in his statement on the ambulance strike.

"The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is atrocious." Food, water, and medicine are not arriving in sufficient quantities to meet people's requirements. "The fuel used to power hospitals and water treatment plants is running out," he warned.

Medical personnel at Al-Shifa are fatigued, and inadequate fuel supplies have rendered wards dark, cutting off basic activities such as oxygen generation. Only one operating theater, the emergency department, and the intensive care unit (ICU) remain operational, according to Dr. Yousef Abu Al-Rish, director of Gaza's hospitals, in a video acquired by CNN.

Doctors at Al-Shifa are seeing children with the majority of their bodies and faces charred, missing limbs, and other "catastrophic injuries," according to Dr. Tanya Haj-Hassan of the medical organization Doctors Without Borders, also known as Médecins Sans Frontières.

Doctors must also treat patients with poor pain management since they are "running out of anesthetic drugs," she told CNN. "We do not have enough antibiotics to treat wound infections, we don't have enough dressings."

Sooner or later Israel will have to see that the casual killing of civilians while claims they got a couple Hamas is turning the tide of sentiment against them.

[GMDino]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/live-blog/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-rcna131060

Quote:What to know

• At least 70 people have been killed in what have been described as attacks on the al-Maghazi refugee camp in Gaza, the Health Ministry said today. The IDF said it's reviewing reports of "an incident" there and that it is taking steps to minimize harm to civilians.
• Fifteen IDF soldiers were killed over the weekend in the bloodiest days of combat since the war began. Israeli military officials say 152 soldiers have been killed during the country's ground invasion in Gaza, which came after Hamas killed 1,200 people and seized about 240 hostages on Oct. 7.
• Israel appears to be intensifying its military campaign, with reports of strikes and raids across Gaza over the weekend, including in the Jabalia refugee camp and Gaza City in the north, Deir al-Balah in central Gaza, Khan Younis in the south and Rafah on the border with Egypt. Over 160 people were killed in 24 hours.
• In a call following a landmark U.N. Security Council vote, President Joe Biden reiterated to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the importance of protecting civilians. The heavily negotiated resolution ceded to the U.S. position by stopping short of calling for a cease-fire.
• Netanyahu told Biden that Israel "would fight until the absolute victory — however long it takes." Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant encouraged troops in their operations in the leveled city of Beit Hanoun. "These images reverberate in the entire region," he said. "Everyone can use Google Maps and imagine what may happen in Beirut."
  

[Bengalzona]

Here is what pisses me off about this current situation. There are no good guys or bad guys. Each 'side' consists of a small group of evil actors and a large group of innocents.

Hamas is downright evil. If you have any doubts about this, check their history or some of their videos on YouTube. Their crass use of murder, rape, and torture taints and distorts the Palestinian cause they purport to support. And worse yet, they hide behind the mass population of innocents and deliberately "poked the bear" to invoke an extremist reaction that they knew would ensue and slaughter their own people.

In my opinion, the Netanyahu regime is almost equally as evil. But because they are an organized government, they have the option of hiding their ill deeds. But they can't hide everything. There should have been no surprise that their reaction to Hamas' actions would be so extreme and over-the-top. It was what Hamas was counting on all along. They have also been "poking the bear" with the Palestinians for over a decade by encouraging Israeli settlers to encroach on lands reserved for the Palestinians. And in the same manner which Hamas cowers behind its civilian population, this regime also uses its population as a shield.

This isn't a battle between Israelis and Palestinians. This is a battle between vile extremist organizations within those populations. And whatever close political sentiments you or I as outside observers may feel for Israel or Palestine only fuels the evil of those small groups and many innocent people get slaughtered. And there is historical precedence for all of this. This his how extremists and despots rise to power and function in the modern world.

The people of Israel and Palestine need peace. Hamas and Netanyahu won't let them have it. Know who the real enemies are.

[Dill]

(12-28-2023, 03:05 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: The partition plan also meant thousands of Jewish settlers who had lived there for awhile at that time had to leave their homes and lands and resettle. For those people, there was no question about moving due to anger and recriminatory actions. But the Palestinians who were within the area reserved for the "Jewish state" .... did have another option. When Israel became a nation, citizenship was offered to the Palestinians living within the borders (along with other groups such as Druze, Arabs, Christians, etc. living within the borders). And thousands did accept that citizenship. Today, there approximately 1.6 million Palestinians who are Israeli citizens. Not denying that there are issues with being a Palestinian Israeli citizen (especially under the current repressive regime there). But those who stayed have overall fared far better than those who left in almost all aspects of life.

My only point in mentioning this is that at that time, there was another viable option for the people within the Jewish partition rather than flight. I can understand why many did not trust that option, particularly in light of the terrorist activities by some Jewish organizations prior to that (yes, I do acknowledge those events). There was "bad blood" on both sides during that time period (hence the pressing need felt by the U.N. to get involved). And what I am really focusing on in my posts are the ancestors of the Palestinians who did choose to leave at that time....

Yo B! I'll start here by addressing the bolded, especially as it frames Jewish settlers in the Arab Partition as without choice, while Palestinians in the Jewish Partition had "a viable option." 

Remember that in '47, The Jewish Agency proposed to the UN its plan for converting the mandate into a Jewish state; the Arab Higher Committee representing Palestinian Arabs proposed a single state, but one based on ethnic equality. The original Partition plan was a compromise which proposed that Arabs in the Jewish state would automatically be citizens thereof, same for Jews in the Arab state. 

Neither side liked this. The Jewish Agency approved it nevertheless, since it gave them the majority of the Mandate and Palestinian-owned land. But so far as I can tell, their leadership had no intention of allowing a 47% Arab majority in a Jewish state. E.g., Ben Gurion, in Dec. '47, stated that a 60% Jewish state was not viable; it needed to be at least 80%. The AHC rejected a plan which gave the majority of Arab-owned land to immigrants from Europe. 

I agree with you that Jews in the Arab Partition faced "violence and recriminatory actions." But the historical record we now have suggests that violence against Jews then was largely spontaneous, unorganized and retaliatory.*  In contrast, violence against Arabs in the Jewish Partition was systematic from Dec. '47 on, and by March '48, planned and organized with the goal of "cleansing" (Ben-Gurion's term) the Arab population, first from the Jewish Partition, then from the remainder of the Mandate. Ben-Gurion and the Jewish Agency's higher committee determined which regions were to be depopulated, using lists of villages with numbers of inhabitants, which had been compiled earlier. Having observed in December how Palestinian civilians fled from attacks on villages, the Hagenah command hit on the idea of using terror systematically to depopulate areas (called Plan Dalet).

In the countryside, this meant assaulting villages from three sides, allowing them to flee through the open one. This morphed into a serious terror when accompanied by rape and massacre.  The 2nd ed. of Benny Morris' The Origin of the Palestinian Refugee problem lists 20 village massacres. Probably the most well known was at Deir Yassin (04/09/48), in which some 90+ villagers were summarily executed, including 30 babies, and after a number of women were raped. 

Cities were besieged and the inhabitants driven out. E.g., Haifa fell on 23 April 48; 70,000 Arabs were expelled, Jaffa fell on 13 May, '48. It had been defended by about 1500 fighters, including German colonists (Templars) who had settled there in the 19th century. 5,000 Hagenah overwhelmed them and expelled 50,000.  By the time of the declaration of independence, some 250,000 had fled the Jewish Partition in terror, and another 400+ thousand would be driven from the Arab Partition by Nov. '48. 

You may ask how it was that some Arabs remained to become the 1.6 million current Arab citizens of Israel? In some cases, villages were spared at the request of nearby Kibbutzim who needed the labor.  When Haifa fell, 4,000 were allowed to remain, relocated to a poorer section of the city, their homes and furnishings given to Jewish settlers. That remainder was eventually "offered citizenship" as you say above.

Despite that remainder, it seems to me that the majority of Palestinians in the designated Jewish state did not, in practice, have an "option" to stay and become citizens should they want to. The mass were systematically driven out by violence and terror until the needed 80% Jewish goal was reached.

*E.g., the oil refinery massacre you mentioned, in which 39 Jewish workers were killed by a mob, was triggered by an Irgun terror attack which killed six Arabs. 

(12-28-2023, 03:05 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: By November 1947, the U.N. approved the partition plan. The British police force began withdrawing from the area in December 1947, and by April 1948 no longer had any effective control anywhere in the country. During that time, there were a back-and-forth series of murders and reprisals between the two groups, with violence escalating to terrorist attacks (by both sides... apparently, that needs to be said here). There was also maneuvers by groups from each side to seize what they thought might be key terrain or locations prior to one side or the other or both declaring independence and nationhood (in the event, there would be only one side declaring themselves a nation). As examples of Jewish violence, Jewish settlers attacked the villages of Balad ash-Sheikh and Hawassa and Irgun and Lehi bombed busy bus stops. As examples of Palestinian violence, they enacted a massacre at the Haifa Oil Refinery and blockaded the 100,000 Jewish residents of Jerusalem.

So groups on both sides were basically "dispensing withr international law" (btw- Does international law apply to a people who have no nation yet?)* and universal human rights. So, what is the difference between the two sides? Just one. One May 14, 1948, the day before the British Mandate expired, Israel declared itself a nation. The Palestinians did not. The Israelis began the process that would lead to recognition as a sovereign nation by most of the community of nations. This was recognized by the U.N. when they voted to admit Israel in 1949. With that comes certain responsibilities and benefits. One benefit is citizenship for the people of that nation. Most Palestinians do not have this now. One of the responsibilities is following and enforcing international laws.

Well, an independent state of Palestine was declared in Gaza in Sept. of '48 too, but the critical difference here is not dates and declarations so much as the military force and territorial control behind the claims. So I'd say the critical difference between the sides was, from the get go, the imbalance of forces. 

The Jewish Agency had been, in effect, a para-state during the Mandate, with a parallel control over public works in many places, educational institutions and its own diplomatic core. This was because the British intended to create a "national home" for the Jews in Palestine, and did not intend to ask the Arab population what they thought about that. In Nov. '47, the JA could easily operate as a centralized,  independent government. The Palestinians had nothing comparable to that centralized organization, which had been forbidden them during the Mandate, and the majority of their political leaders had been deported in '36-37.  Critically, also, the Jewish Agency had outside resources--money from America and modern arms from Czechoslovakia. The Palestinians only foreign resources were those which could be mustered from poor, newly liberated and relatively disorganized Arab countries. One of them, as you've noted, collaborating with the JA to grab Palestinian land.

In Jan. '48, on the ground for the civil war phase of the "war for independence," the Hagenah had about 50,000 armed men at its disposal, at least 20,000 trained in the British Army. The Palestinians had about 7,000 armed men--mostly scattered in defense of villages, plus another 1,000 from Iraq which arrived in February, plus a few hundred other volunteers from Egypt and Syria. No centralized command.

So from a historical distance, one can certainly see "both sides" dispensing with international law and maneuvering for position and murdering each other, but up close it is something rather different--a settler society, with the blessing and help of European powers, who did not want Jews in their own countries, and the US, displacing an indigenous population resisting that displacement. 

Anyway B, I'll address the second part of your post on Sunday.  Meantime, I'm curious to get your take on all this. Perhaps the discussion should turn to sources as well. 

*International Humanitarian Law does apply to stateless actors, yes. 

[Dill]

(12-30-2023, 12:55 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: This isn't a battle between Israelis and Palestinians. This is a battle between vile extremist organizations within those populations. And whatever close political sentiments you or I as outside observers may feel for Israel or Palestine only fuels the evil of those small groups and many innocent people get slaughtered. And there is historical precedence for all of this. This his how extremists and despots rise to power and function in the modern world.

The people of Israel and Palestine need peace. Hamas and Netanyahu won't let them have it. Know who the real enemies are.

Yeah! What he said!

[Bengalzona]

Dill Wrote:Yo B! I'll start here by addressing the bolded, especially as it frames Jewish settlers in the Arab Partition as without choice, while Palestinians in the Jewish Partition had "a viable option." 

Remember that in '47, The Jewish Agency proposed to the UN its plan for converting the mandate into a Jewish state; the Arab Higher Committee representing Palestinian Arabs proposed a single state, but one based on ethnic equality. The original Partition plan was a compromise which proposed that Arabs in the Jewish state would automatically be citizens thereof, same for Jews in the Arab state. 

Neither side liked this. The Jewish Agency approved it nevertheless, since it gave them the majority of the Mandate and Palestinian-owned land. But so far as I can tell, their leadership had no intention of allowing a 47% Arab majority in a Jewish state. E.g., Ben Gurion, in Dec. '47, stated that a 60% Jewish state was not viable; it needed to be at least 80%. The AHC rejected a plan which gave the majority of Arab-owned land to immigrants from Europe. 

Okay, so far.

Quote:I agree with you that Jews in the Arab Partition faced "violence and recriminatory actions." But the historical record we now have suggests that violence against Jews then was largely spontaneous, unorganized and retaliatory.*  In contrast, violence against Arabs in the Jewish Partition was systematic from Dec. '47 on, and by March '48, planned and organized with the goal of "cleansing" (Ben-Gurion's term) the Arab population, first from the Jewish Partition, then from the remainder of the Mandate. Ben-Gurion and the Jewish Agency's higher committee determined which regions were to be depopulated, using lists of villages with numbers of inhabitants, which had been compiled earlier. Having observed in December how Palestinian civilians fled from attacks on villages, the Hagenah command hit on the idea of using terror systematically to depopulate areas (called Plan Dalet).


In the countryside, this meant assaulting villages from three sides, allowing them to flee through the open one. This morphed into a serious terror when accompanied by rape and massacre.  The 2nd ed. of Benny Morris' The Origin of the Palestinian Refugee problem lists 20 village massacres. Probably the most well known was at Deir Yassin (04/09/48), in which some 90+ villagers were summarily executed, including 30 babies, and after a number of women were raped. 

Cities were besieged and the inhabitants driven out. E.g., Haifa fell on 23 April 48; 70,000 Arabs were expelled, Jaffa fell on 13 May, '48. It had been defended by about 1500 fighters, including German colonists (Templars) who had settled there in the 19th century. 5,000 Hagenah overwhelmed them and expelled 50,000.  By the time of the declaration of independence, some 250,000 had fled the Jewish Partition in terror, and another 400+ thousand would be driven from the Arab Partition by Nov. '48. 


You may ask how it was that some Arabs remained to become the 1.6 million current Arab citizens of Israel? In some cases, villages were spared at the request of nearby Kibbutzim who needed the labor.  When Haifa fell, 4,000 were allowed to remain, relocated to a poorer section of the city, their homes and furnishings given to Jewish settlers. That remainder was eventually "offered citizenship" as you say above.

Despite that remainder, it seems to me that the majority of Palestinians in the designated Jewish state did not, in practice, have an "option" to stay and become citizens should they want to. The mass were systematically driven out by violence and terror until the needed 80% Jewish goal was reached.

*E.g., the oil refinery massacre you mentioned, in which 39 Jewish workers were killed by a mob, was triggered by an Irgun terror attack which killed six Arabs.

First, kudos for the reference to Benny Morris and "The Origin of the Palestinian Refugee problem". I am familiar with Benny and the "New Historians" and think this is a good wellspring for our conversation. (For anyone reading this who is unfamiliar here is an online excerpt: https://ismi.emory.edu/documents/Readings/Morris,%20Benny%20Origins.pdf. It is worth the read!). I would also caution that Benny's views are as complex and as evolving as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict itself. In other words, some views and terms that he wrote about 35 years ago may not be the same views he holds today (see 
http://larryjhs.fastmail.fm.user.fm/The%20Birth%20of%20the%20Palestinian%20Refugee%20Problem%20Revisited.pdf) . But you are probably already aware of that.

But I'm going to get away from Benny for a moment and discuss a different view that I believe links back in to his writings that can help make sense of some of the things going on in the Mandate in 1947-1948. I'm sure you are very familiar with the My Lai (Son My) massacre in Vietnam in 1968. In my generation, it was a required reading part of the ethics and UCMJ training for officer cadets (and hopefully sill is). There are obvious parallels to that situation and the Deir Yassin massacre. At My Lai, a battalion-sized task force was ordered to close in on the village, burn the houses, kill the livestock, destroy food supplies, and poison the wells in order deny the enemy (VC 48th Local Force Battalion) access and refuge at the village (the village was suspected of supporting the VC).

I'll pause here for a moment to note that, as distasteful as this may sound to some folks, this (so far) is a military procedure. Clearing a village and then destroying it in order to deny the enemy access has been standard operating procedure for just about every army in the world at some point for the past several hundred years. The Soviets evacuated and razed thousands of miles of the entire western portion of their own country when they retreated from the Germans in 1941. In World War II, the order was often as simple as "clear the village". Nowadays, we also include it in our counter-terrorism/asymmetrical warfare playbook.

Skipping back to My Lai. Things went afoul, obviously. A stressed-out company which had just suffered 28 casualties due to mines and booby-traps in the prior weeks before was led into an orgy of murder and rape by a "dumber-than-a-hoe-handle" butterball lieutenant and vague operation orders from his equally dumbass captain. In the aftermath, the story got publicized and some people back in the U.S. felt bad about it. 2LT Calley was the only soldier court martialed for the massacre, but the sentence was commuted by Nixon. The U.N. police never showed up to arrest soldiers and hold war crimes trials a la Nuremburg or Kosovo. Funny how that works, eh.

So, let us look at Plan Dalet. Plan Dalet was the final part of a four-part plan by the Haganah to accommodate their goal of securing a Jewish state and began on April 2, 1948. In late 1947, Jewish and non-Jewish populations were inter-mixed. The main concept of the plan was a plan to link up command. communications, and support between Jewish majority areas for mutual protection from a promised offensive by regional Arab forces. To create those link-ups and secure them, it was realized that a large number of villages with primarily Arab occupants would need to be addressed. These villages fell into two main categories: villages which were along the defensive fortification system and villages which were not, but were within the partition plan border or in a strategic position just outside the border (see Plan Dalet, Section 3 (b) for reference). In the former category, a search and control operation would be mounted, the population expelled, and the village destroyed. In the latter category (the majority of villages, the procedure was to first determine if there was any resistance. If there was resistance, then any armed resistance would be destroyed and the villagers expelled. If there was no resistance, the the village would be searched and a garrison would be temporarily left, eventually transitioning to the village's own administration with a just a regional Jewish liason officer.  



This looks to me like pretty straight forward military plan to occupy an area and prepare for its defense, the type of plan with the same logic and military procedures we have been using here in the U.S. for decades. And I don't see this as a plan of mass expulsion or ethnic cleansing. As Benny Morris wrote:

"The essence of the plan was the clearing of hostile and potentially hostile forces out of the interior of the territory of the prospective Jewish State, establishing territorial continuity between the major concentrations of Jewish population and securing the future State's borders before, and in anticipation of, the invasion [by Arab states]. The Haganah regarded almost all the villages as actively or potentially hostile." - Benny Morris, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited", p.164

I'll get back to Benny in a moment. As Yoav Gelber wrote:

"Although it provided for counter-attacks, Plan Dalet was a defensive scheme and its goals were (1) protection of the borders of the upcoming Jewish state according to the partition line; (2) securing its territorial continuity in the face of invasion attempts; (3) safeguarding freedom of movement on the roads and (4) enabling continuation of essential daily routines." - Yoav Gelber, "Palestine, 1948: War, Escape and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem",

But this was just the plan. And as we have seen from My Lai, the implementation of the plan can dramatically vary from the intent, eh. I'd like to circle back to Deir Yassin. The massacre at Deir Yassin occurred on April 9, 1948 when members of the extremist Zionist military groups Irgun and Lehi (terrorist organizations, IMO) killed over 100 Palestinian Arabs, including women and children. The groups were located in and around Jerusalem, where approximately 100,000 Jews were encircled and blockaded by the Arab Liberation Army at the time. The village was to be seized as part of Haganah Operation Nachson, an effort to break through the blockade. Operation Nachson was a seperate plan from Plan Dalet. Ostensibly, Irgun and Lehi were to operate together (for the first time since Lehi split from Irgun in 1940) and in their first operation under the orders of Haganah. Haganah issued the order for the two groups to seize the town and expel the population. Per accounts from members of Irgun and Lehi, the leadership of Lehi decided to commit the murders. The Lehi commander Ben-Zion Cohen later reportedly stated "had there been three or four more Deir Yassins,.. not a single Arab would have remained in the country", which I believe succinctly shows the intent of the Lehi groups' thinking. The leader of the Irgun group, Menachim Begin, reportedly objected to the murders and ordered his troops not to participate. In any event, they did not intervene. As far as the rapes, that may have occurred or it may not have occurred. And if it did, how many victims would also be unknown. My take on it is, it wasn't Lehi's modus operandi... but I wouldn't put it past the sick f**ks. In the aftermath, Haganah and the Jewish Agency condemned the murders and Arab leaders decried it. And that was about the extent of it. No U.N. police showed up to arrest the perpetrators. In fact, most of the world ignored it. That is, except for the Arab nations, some of whom now felt compelled to support a fight against the Jewish state. Sadly enough, the Lehi group correctly predicted how this evil act would impact things (and I really hate that fact).


If I were to refer to the recent Hamas attack in Israel as a "a massacre conducted by the Palestinians", I think you and quite a few others would find that phrasing unacceptable. Some might even want to correct me and say that it was an attack by the Hamas group and not an attack by all of the Palestinian people. It would be kind of like saying the My Lai massacre was the fault of all of the Americans. So, why would some people find it acceptable to attribute the massacre at Deir Yassin on the Haganah and Jewish leadership of that time? Especially since the Lehi group openly and proudly announced that they had done it. If someone is not bothered by the varying subjectivity of views, perhaps they might do very well in a career at Fox News, eh.

So, back to Plan Dalet. Here is what Benny Morris had to say on its implementation:

"The plan was neither understood nor used by the senior field officers as a blanket instruction for the expulsion of 'the Arabs'. But, in providing for the expulsion or destruction of villages that had resisted or might threaten the Yishuv, it constituted a strategic-doctrinal and carte blanche for expulsions by front, brigade, district and battalion commanders (who in each case argued military necessity) and it gave commanders, post facto, formal, persuasive cover for their actions. However, during April–June, relatively few commanders faced the moral dilemma of having to carry out the expulsion clauses. Townspeople and villagers usually left their homes before or during battle, and Haganah rarely had to decide about, or issue, expulsion orders." - Benny Morris, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited", p.165

Quote:Well, an independent state of Palestine was declared in Gaza in Sept. of '48 too, but the critical difference here is not dates and declarations so much as the military force and territorial control behind the claims. So I'd say the critical difference between the sides was, from the get go, the imbalance of forces. 

The Jewish Agency had been, in effect, a para-state during the Mandate, with a parallel control over public works in many places, educational institutions and its own diplomatic core. This was because the British intended to create a "national home" for the Jews in Palestine, and did not intend to ask the Arab population what they thought about that. In Nov. '47, the JA could easily operate as a centralized,  independent government. The Palestinians had nothing comparable to that centralized organization, which had been forbidden them during the Mandate, and the majority of their political leaders had been deported in '36-37.  Critically, also, the Jewish Agency had outside resources--money from America and modern arms from Czechoslovakia. The Palestinians only foreign resources were those which could be mustered from poor, newly liberated and relatively disorganized Arab countries. One of them, as you've noted, collaborating with the JA to grab Palestinian land.

In Jan. '48, on the ground for the civil war phase of the "war for independence," the Hagenah had about 50,000 armed men at its disposal, at least 20,000 trained in the British Army. The Palestinians had about 7,000 armed men--mostly scattered in defense of villages, plus another 1,000 from Iraq which arrived in February, plus a few hundred other volunteers from Egypt and Syria. No centralized command.

So from a historical distance, one can certainly see "both sides" dispensing with international law and maneuvering for position and murdering each other, but up close it is something rather different--a settler society, with the blessing and help of European powers, who did not want Jews in their own countries, and the US, displacing an indigenous population resisting that displacement. 

Anyway B, I'll address the second part of your post on Sunday.  Meantime, I'm curious to get your take on all this. Perhaps the discussion should turn to sources as well. 

*International Humanitarian Law does apply to stateless actors, yes.

- The All-Palestine Government was viewed by many as being Egyptian construct/puppet, since Gaza was under Egyptian control. Some saw it as a political tool by Egypt to foil Transjordan's effort to annex the West Bank (the All-Palestine Government control over all of the Palestinian Mandate, including the West Bank). Sure, Egypt renounced its claim to Gaza. But then Nasser came along with Pan-Arabism and shelved any notions of Palestinian self-rule. Besides, the nations in the rest of the world (as represented by the U.N.) were not going to accept a independent Palestinian state which did not recognize the partition plan.

- When you say the leaders were deported in '36-'37 you must mean Sheikh Iss ad-Din al-Qassam, the Black Hand, Amin al-Husseini, and the Arab Higher Committee, the ones who led a terrorist campaign against Jewish settlers (which led to formation of Irgun as a reaction, btw) and led an open and declared insurrection against the British. Funny, but that sounds an awful lot like how Lehi was operating for the Jews (i.e. a terrorist organization) rather than a group seeking to openly and legally seek to better their people and form a nation state. It seems to me that their mandate was merely, "We don't like those new guys! Let us kill them!"

- I think when you say "money from America" that you must mean money and equipment donated from private donors in America. Heck, less than ten years earlier, we were kicking them away from our shores because the administration was afraid of anti-Semitic backlash. Until 1967, the U.S. government really didn't want anything to do with Israel (from 1967 to 1977, we found them to be useful as a proxy in the Cold War). And it wasn't just Israel. The U.S. focus after WWII was on Europe and east Asia. Outside of Iran (which proved to be quite useful in the Cold War), we didn't care much about the whole Middle East. Southwest Asia either. We saw it as more of a 'European problem' for the British and French to deal with. 

- I'm not sure where you are getting the "modern arms from Czechoslovakia". Both sides in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War conflict were using whatever WWII surplus equipment they could scrounge. And kinda crappy stuff for 1945 standards, even. There was an arms embargo against Israel in 1948. The Czech's did send small arms (mostly their knockoffs of the WWI-era German Karabiner 98k rifle), 25 Avia S-199 fighter (Czech knock-offs of the German Messerschimtt BF-109G, outdated by 1943) and 16 Submarine Spitfire Mk. IX fighters (also outdated by 1943). That doesn't constitute modern for that time. The Transjordanians and Egyptians also had Submarine Spitfires.

- In January 1948, Haganah had 9 brigades with approximately 27,000 soldiers. But not all of the force could by operational at any one time has they only averaged 1 rifle per every three soldiers. This is where the importance of the Czech small arms shipments came into play (i.e. it wasn't because they were modern, it was merely because they were arms of any kind). The first two shipments arrived on 4/1 and 4/2 1948, just before the start of Plan Dalek. The Jewish force increased to 35,000 in April and 88,000 at the end of 1948 due to mobilization and increasing immigrants.

Estimates vary on the number Palestinians and volunteers at the start. But the meager Palestinian force was not what the Jewish forces were preparing for. Their main concern was preparing to defend against the the forces sent by Transjordan (@10,000) and Egypt (also @10,000 initially), both trained and equipped by the British (The Jordanian Arab League included 48 former British officers) and also had sizeable armored contingents.

The biggest problem for the Arab forces was, as you noted, their disorganization. The Palestinians themselves were mostly just a simple agrarian people. I think you have characterized that correctly.

- As I noted before, the U.S. (either officially or unofficially) did not want anything to do with the situation. Yes, they voted for the partition plan and the state of Israel. And if the Palestinians had approached the U.N. with a state plan that was within the partition, they would have agreed to that too. They were far more concerned with potential Soviet aggression in Western Europe and the fall of China at that time.

I suppose that you could look at the British as bad guys in this. After all, they 'bit off more than they could chew' by taking on the mandate in the first place. Even in the 20's and 30's they were overstretched and could not do much to assist the development of the locals even if they cared to (and I'm not really sure they ever did). But I can see the British in the late 40's looking for a way out (not only of Palestine, but also in many other places) and seeing a highly organized group of immigrants as being a possible salvation for them. I imagine they felt it was a lot easier to deal with the Jordanians, as well.

Hope you had safe travels and good holidays!

[Dill]

(01-01-2024, 03:34 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: First, kudos for the reference to Benny Morris and "The Origin of the Palestinian Refugee problem". I am familiar with Benny and the "New Historians" and think this is a good wellspring for our conversation. (For anyone reading this who is unfamiliar here is an online excerpt: https://ismi.emory.edu/documents/Readings/Morris,%20Benny%20Origins.pdf. It is worth the read!). I would also caution that Benny's views are as complex and as evolving as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict itself. In other words, some views and terms that he wrote about 35 years ago may not be the same views he holds today (see 
http://larryjhs.fastmail.fm.user.fm/The%20Birth%20of%20the%20Palestinian%20Refugee%20Problem%20Revisited.pdf) . But you are probably already aware of that.

Fantastic post, B. Above and beyond the call of duty.  

It'll take me a day or two to respond to all this. Most of it seems to me a darn good review of the conflict/issue.

Meantime a comment about Morris and the New Historians--Morris I have relied on frequently in forum discussions here and elsewhere, though mostly from his more recent (2009) 1948: The First Arab Israeli War https://archive.org/details/1948historyoffir00morr. His politics have become unapologetically Zionist (as you hint), but we judge his works on the quality of his research, right? As for other Israeli historians, for this period in Arab-Israeli history, and addressing US audiences, I also rely on Illan Pappe's The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine and The Biggest Prison on Earth, Tom Segev's 1949: The First Israelis, as well as Avi Shlaim's The Wall. 

If people reading our exchange are curious about the "New Historians" reference, it is to a group of historians (and also some sociologists) whose work emerged from the opening of Israeli military and government archives in 1980. Much of what they found conflicted with national myth, making their work controversial in Israel at the time, though now it is the basis of an international consensus among historians. E.g. no professional historian thinks Palestinians in '48 were called to evacuate to allow Arab armies to operate; there was a Plan Dalet to remove Arab populations, etc.

If people are coming to this subject to first time and interested in gaining foundational knowledge the conflict, though, I recommend beginning with brief but comprehensive introductions like this one from the Oxford "very short introduction to" series. https://www.amazon.ca/Palestinian-Israeli-Conflict-Short-Introduction-Introductions-ebook/dp/B00DZIB5XK/ref=sr_1_36?crid=R8C46VVS77HN&keywords=arab+israeli+conflict&qid=1704161484&s=books&sprefix=arab+israeli+conflict%2Cstripbooks%2C274&sr=1-36. So many books out there are really propaganda than history. 

[Bengalzona]

(01-01-2024, 11:25 PM)Dill Wrote: Fantastic post, B. Above and beyond the call of duty.  

It'll take me a day or two to respond to all this. Most of it seems to me a darn good review of the conflict/issue.

Meantime a comment about Morris and the New Historians--Morris I have relied on frequently in forum discussions here and elsewhere, though mostly from his more recent (2009) 1948: The First Arab Israeli War https://archive.org/details/1948historyoffir00morr. His politics have become unapologetically Zionist (as you hint), but we judge his works on the quality of his research, right? As for other Israeli historians, for this period in Arab-Israeli history, and addressing US audiences, I also rely on Illan Pappe's The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine and The Biggest Prison on Earth, Tom Segev's 1949: The First Israelis, as well as Avi Shlaim's The Wall. 

If people reading our exchange are curious about the "New Historians" reference, it is to a group of historians (and also some sociologists) whose work emerged from the opening of Israeli military and government archives in 1980. Much of what they found conflicted with national myth, making their work controversial in Israel at the time, though now it is the basis of an international consensus among historians. E.g. no professional historian thinks Palestinians in '48 were called to evacuate to allow Arab armies to operate; there was a Plan Dalet to remove Arab populations, etc.

If people are coming to this subject to first time and interested in gaining foundational knowledge the conflict, though, I recommend beginning with brief but comprehensive introductions like this one from the Oxford "very short introduction to" series. https://www.amazon.ca/Palestinian-Israeli-Conflict-Short-Introduction-Introductions-ebook/dp/B00DZIB5XK/ref=sr_1_36?crid=R8C46VVS77HN&keywords=arab+israeli+conflict&qid=1704161484&s=books&sprefix=arab+israeli+conflict%2Cstripbooks%2C274&sr=1-36. So many books out there are really propaganda than history. 

I'm familiar with Pappe. He does good research, but obviously I don't really agree with all of his analyses and conclusions. Not familiar with Segev, but I have heard about Shlaim's "The Wall".

My feelings sort of track with Morris' "spiritual journey". He did the research (with others, of course) and brought it out into the light. But I think he began to fear the backlash from revealing it was leading to so much anti-Israel sentiment that it could possibly lead to an existential crisis for the country. And I think the equation in his head is the same as in mine: two wrongs are not gonna make a right. The Palestinians are a simple people who have been poorly treated. Not just by Israel, but also by their Arab neighbors and the rest of the world. I truly want for them to have their own country, and I think it is in Israel's best interest for that to happen as well. And, in my fantasy mind, I think they need a high-speed underground rail under Israel connecting the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (and the U.S. should pay for it by using the Israeli aid from the Camp David Accord and shift it from arms to this purpose. Honestly, I get more pissed off that my tax dollars are funding the continuing violence and free healthcare for Israelis than I do for tax dollars spent on the illegal alien issue here in the U.S.). But fat chance of something like that happening with Netanyahu in office.

[Belsnickel]

Definitely an interesting turn of events: https://www.npr.org/2024/01/02/1222511035/hamas-official-saleh-arouri-killed-beirut

There is concern this could draw Iran into the conflict in a more hands-on way.

[Bengalzona]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-war-hamas-benjamin-netanyahu-supreme-court-judicial-overhaul-ruling/

Quote:World
Israel's Supreme Court deals Netanyahu a political blow as Israeli military starts moving troops out of Gaza

Israel's Supreme Court struck down part of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's controversial judicial overhaul on Monday, a move that could exacerbate political tension in the country as it changes its footing in the war with the Palestinian militant group Hamas. The judicial overhauls sparked months of protests after Netanyahu took office for a new term as prime minister a year ago.

With its ruling, Israel's highest court overturned a law passed in July that prevented Supreme Court judges from overruling government decisions by declaring them unreasonable. The law was the first major part of the controversial plan by Netanyahu's far-right coalition government to curb the judicial branch's power and give more authority to the national legislature.

The measures drew accusations from Israel's political opposition that Netanyahu was deliberately eroding the country's democratic system of checks and balances — right as he faced multiple personal legal battles over alleged corruption. The war with Hamas, sparked by the militant group's unprecedented Oct. 7 terror attack on southern Israel, united the country, but did not resolve the underlying division stoked by Netanyahu's formation of the country's most far-right government ever last year.

Just hours before the Supreme Court struck down the key component of Netanyahu's contentious judicial overhauls, Israel's military confirmed plans for a significant drawdown of troops in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.

Netanyahu has vowed to press ahead with the military offensive until Hamas is crushed and the more than 100 hostages still held in Gaza are freed.

Israel has come under growing international pressure to scale back its offensive in Gaza, however, which has led to the deaths of nearly 22,000 Palestinians, according to health officials in the Hamas-run enclave. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who has repeatedly urged Israel to do more to protect Palestinian civilians, is expected in the region next week.

In its announcement, the army said five brigades, or several thousand troops, would be taken out of Gaza in the coming weeks. Some will return to bases for further training or rest, while many older reservists will go home. The war has taken a toll on the economy by preventing reservists from going to their jobs, running their businesses or returning to university studies.

The army's chief spokesperson, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, did not say whether the withdrawal of some troops reflected a new phase of the war.

"The objectives of the war require prolonged fighting, and we are preparing accordingly," he told reporters late Sunday.

But the move is in line with the plans that Israeli leaders have outlined for a low-intensity campaign, expected to last for much of the year, that focuses on remaining Hamas strongholds and "pockets of resistance."

Israel has said it's close to operational control over most of northern Gaza, reducing the need for forces there. Yet fierce fighting has continued in other areas of the Palestinian territory, especially the south, where many of Hamas' forces remain intact and where most of Gaza's 2.3 million people have fled.

Israel has vowed to crush Hamas' military and governing capabilities in the ongoing war, which was sparked by the militant group's Oct. 7 attack on southern Israel in which 1,200 people were killed and 240 others were taken hostage.

Israel responded with an air, ground and sea offensive that has killed more than 21,900 people in Gaza, two-thirds of them women and children, according to the Health Ministry in the Hamas-ruled territory, which does not differentiate between civilians and combatants in its count. The Israeli military says 173 of its soldiers have died since it launched its ground operation.

Israel also says, without providing evidence, that more than 8,000 militants have been killed. It blames Hamas for the high civilian death toll, saying the militants embed within residential areas, including schools and hospitals.

The war has displaced some 85% of Gaza's population, forcing tens of thousands of people in overcrowded shelters or teeming tent camps in Israeli-designated safe areas that the military has nevertheless bombed. Palestinians say they've been left with a sense that nowhere is safe.

With tensions high across the region, the United States announced Monday that it would send an aircraft carrier strike group home and replace it with an amphibious assault ship and accompanying warships.

In Khan Younis, a city in southern Gaza that Israel says is a key Hamas stronghold, residents reported airstrikes and shelling in the west and center of the city. Combat was also reported in urban refugee camps in central Gaza, where Israel expanded its offensive last week.

An Associated Press reporter saw at least 17 bodies, including those of four children, at a hospital in the central town of Deir al-Balah after a missile struck a house.

"It's our routine: bombings, massacres and martyrs," said Saeed Moustafa, a Palestinian from the Nuseirat camp.

Gaza's Hamas-run Health Ministry said Monday that 156 people had been killed in the past day alone. The Israeli military said an airstrike killed Adel Mismah, a regional commander of Hamas' elite Nukhba forces, in Deir al-Balah.

In Israel, Kibbutz Be'eri, one of the communities hit by Hamas on Oct. 7, announced Monday that Ilan Weiss, who was thought to have been kidnapped, is now believed to be dead. Weiss' daughter, Noga Weiss, 18; and wife, Shiri Weiss, 53; were held in captivity in Gaza and released on Nov. 25 during a weeklong cease-fire.

The Israeli Supreme Court's landmark decision to strike down part of Netanyahu's planned judicial overhaul could reopen the fissures in Israeli society that preceded the war against Hamas.

The plan sparked months of mass protests and rattled the cohesion of Israel's military. Those divisions were largely put aside after Oct. 7.

Benny Gantz, a rival of Netanyahu's who joined the three-member War Cabinet, called on all sides to put aside their differences and focus on the war. "These are not days for political arguments. There are no winners and losers today," he said.

In Monday's decision, the court narrowly voted to overturn a law that prevents judges from striking down government decisions they deem "unreasonable." The law passed in July was the first part of the government's plan to curb the authority of unelected judges.

The fighting in Gaza has threatened to spread across the region.

Israel has engaged in near-daily battles with Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, to Israel's north, and struck Iranian-linked targets in neighboring Syria as well.

Israel's warplanes and drones struck several areas in southern Lebanon, including a strike on the village of Kfar Kila that killed three people, state media and security officials said. Hezbollah said the three were some of its fighters.

Since the latest exchange of fire began along the Lebanon-Israel border on Oct. 8, 133 Hezbollah fighters and around 20 civilians have been killed in Lebanon.

Meanwhile, Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen have fired long-range missiles at Israel and attacked civilian cargo ships in the Red Sea.

The United States has sent warships to the Mediterranean and Red Seas, providing protection for Israel and underscoring concerns that the fighting could widen.

On Monday, the U.S. Navy announced that after months of extra duty at sea, the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier strike group would head home. The Ford will be replaced by the amphibious assault ship the USS Bataan and its accompanying warships.

[Dill]

(01-03-2024, 09:30 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Definitely an interesting turn of events: https://www.npr.org/2024/01/02/1222511035/hamas-official-saleh-arouri-killed-beirut

There is concern this could draw Iran into the conflict in a more hands-on way.

I'm more concerned that this assassination might draw the US more directly into the war, as Israel is apparently counting on the US carrier group in the Mediterranean to keep Hezbollah cowed. Arouri was a guest of Hezbollah when he was killed. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/01/03/israel-lebanon-assassination-hamas-gaza/

[Dill]

(12-28-2023, 03:05 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: King Abdullah I of Jordan (Transjordan at that time) was the ring leader and definitely coveted the West Bank of the proposed Palestinian territory (BTW, Abdullah actually supported the partition plan seeing it as a means to acquire that area). As far as King Farouk of Egypt, he definitely had other issues going on at that time: internal and external. But he also wanted to annex all of southern Palestine (BTW - It was reported in Intelligence and National Security magazine in 2019 (Vol. 34, Issue 6) that there was also a cabal of British MI6 officer in Cairo were pushing Farouk to participate in the war without London's knowledge or permission). Nuri al-Said of Iraq had very minor ambitions. He merely wanted to conquer all of the Fertile Crescent and saw this as a good starting point. Syria and Lebanon coveted northern areas of Palestine.
Outside of their populations sympathizing with the Palestinians and putting some pressure on their governments, the involvement of each of country had nothing directly to do with the Palestinians despite what they told the Palestinian representatives and the media. And they certainly did not want a Palestinian state to develop. It was all territorial ambitions. And because they each had their own ambitions, they did not trust each other and they did not co-operate despite being in the same alliance (i.e. alliance in name only).

By the way, you know the only country in the region who wanted the Palestinians to develop their own state? Israel.

B-zona, this is in response to the second part of your first post. I could develop it further, but I want to get on to your second one.

I agree with all of the above. Abdullah was working with the Jewish Agency to divide Palestine, carving out the West Bank and East Jerusalem for itself--though its protection of these areas is basically what prevented the IDF from taking over the complete mandate. 

Wait! I don't quite agree with the bolded. The JA accepted partition, sure, but they did not want Palestinians to develop their own state--at least if we go by their internal debates and the personal writings of their leaders. "Greater Israel" was always their goal. (Just to avoid the impression that Zionism was monolithic, though, I want to add that there were many Jews who wanted the Mandate to be a "national home" for Jews, but disagreed that it should take the form of an ethnic state. Albert Einstein would be a well known example of that trend. There were also members of the JA and Hagenah who did not agree with Ben-Gurion's "cleansing" goals.) 

(12-28-2023, 03:05 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Your addressing individual ownership of land in the area. And nuder that caveat, your comments are correct. And, personally, I am glad the people in the regions have carried those individual ownership rights and legal traditions over despite the ongoing turmoil of the times.
But I am discussing sovereign national ownership, as in national area boundaries. The area where the government can officially exert its influence and conduct its business. This is also what the U.N. Resolution concerns. When the Israeli state was formed, as I understand, individual land rights within the "Jewish state" were recognized, so long as the owners elected citizenship. Some Palestinians did. Most Palestinians did not. Still, is that a worse offer than the Palestinians received from the Egyptians and Jordanians when they ceded southern Palestine and the West Bank areas? In those cases, Egypt and Jordan did recognize individual land ownership rights. The same with the Palestinians who left the "Jewish state" area between 1947 to 1949 (the people who Israeli citizenship was offered, but they chose to leave). They were not offered citizenship in the most of the countries they went to. This i why those people are known are as the Palestinian refugees and 5.6 million of them currently live in 68 camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip and have been receiving aid from the United Nations for 74 years.
(Correction: Jordan did begin allowing the 2 million refugees within their border to seek citizenship during the past 20 years or so, after about 55 years of limbo status.)

In my previous post, I discussed the limits placed on Palestinian "choice" within the Jewish state. The hundreds of thousands driven from their home with terror were in no position to "elect" anything. Those ALLOWED to remain (the Israeli's choice) and have become citizens of Israel cannot have full equality in an ethnic state. 

And I forgot to add something in my previous post: despite the demand of both the UN and US to allow re-patriation of Palestinians that fled, Israel would not allow any Palestinian "right of return," nor would it allow Arabs remaining in Israel to buy land of Arabs who had fled. 

That is important, because it helps explain why Arab countries are reluctant to offer Palestinians citizenship. They see that as ratifying the original dispossession. E.g., that's why Egypt is so leery of accepting Gaza residents in the current conflict--the fear is they will not be allowed to return.  

The Palestinians living in the West Bank area and East Jerusalem, as well as refugees within Jordan, were given Jordanian citizenship in 1950. Half the population of today's Jordan are originally Palestinian, most from that first wave of refugees from the '48 war. The Palestinians in the camps in Jordan today are refugees from the '67 war. No country has absorbed more Palestinians than Jordan. Syria also absorbed a number. But they still view the original dispossession as a wrong that needs to be righted and support the Palestinian right of return.

[Dill]

(01-01-2024, 03:34 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: But I'm going to get away from Benny for a moment and discuss a different view that I believe links back in to his writings that can help make sense of some of the things going on in the Mandate in 1947-1948. I'm sure you are very familiar with the My Lai (Son My) massacre in Vietnam in 1968. In my generation, it was a required reading part of the ethics and UCMJ training for officer cadets (and hopefully sill is). There are obvious parallels to that situation and the Deir Yassin massacre. At My Lai, a battalion-sized task force was ordered to close in on the village, burn the houses, kill the livestock, destroy food supplies, and poison the wells in order deny the enemy (VC 48th Local Force Battalion) access and refuge at the village (the village was suspected of supporting the VC).

I'll pause here for a moment to note that, as distasteful as this may sound to some folks, this (so far) is a military procedure. Clearing a village and then destroying it in order to deny the enemy access has been standard operating procedure for just about every army in the world at some point for the past several hundred years. The Soviets evacuated and razed thousands of miles of the entire western portion of their own country when they retreated from the Germans in 1941. In World War II, the order was often as simple as "clear the village". Nowadays, we also include it in our counter-terrorism/asymmetrical warfare playbook.

Skipping back to My Lai. Things went afoul, obviously. A stressed-out company which had just suffered 28 casualties due to mines and booby-traps in the prior weeks before was led into an orgy of murder and rape by a "dumber-than-a-hoe-handle" butterball lieutenant and vague operation orders from his equally dumbass captain. In the aftermath, the story got publicized and some people back in the U.S. felt bad about it. 2LT Calley was the only soldier court martialed for the massacre, but the sentence was commuted by Nixon. The U.N. police never showed up to arrest soldiers and hold war crimes trials a la Nuremburg or Kosovo. Funny how that works, eh.

So, let us look at Plan Dalet. Plan Dalet was the final part of a four-part plan by the Haganah to accommodate their goal of securing a Jewish state and began on April 2, 1948. In late 1947, Jewish and non-Jewish populations were inter-mixed. The main concept of the plan was a plan to link up command. communications, and support between Jewish majority areas for mutual protection from a promised offensive by regional Arab forces. To create those link-ups and secure them, it was realized that a large number of villages with primarily Arab occupants would need to be addressed. These villages fell into two main categories: villages which were along the defensive fortification system and villages which were not, but were within the partition plan border or in a strategic position just outside the border (see Plan Dalet, Section 3 (b) for reference). In the former category, a search and control operation would be mounted, the population expelled, and the village destroyed. In the latter category (the majority of villages, the procedure was to first determine if there was any resistance. If there was resistance, then any armed resistance would be destroyed and the villagers expelled. If there was no resistance, the the village would be searched and a garrison would be temporarily left, eventually transitioning to the village's own administration with a just a regional Jewish liason officer.  

This looks to me like pretty straight forward military plan to occupy an area and prepare for its defense, the type of plan with the same logic and military procedures we have been using here in the U.S. for decades. And I don't see this as a plan of mass expulsion or ethnic cleansing. As Benny Morris wrote:

"The essence of the plan was the clearing of hostile and potentially hostile forces out of the interior of the territory of the prospective Jewish State, establishing territorial continuity between the major concentrations of Jewish population and securing the future State's borders before, and in anticipation of, the invasion [by Arab states]. 

You've put a heap on my plate, B, so I'll have to chew it in small pieces--starting with the analogy between My Lai and Deir Yassin.

1. Your analogy raises the issue of "military necessity," which is recognized in the laws of war, and can include the transfer of civilians from battle space and destruction of hard structures and material which could advantage an enemy. I agree this is the law, though My Lai doesn't seem the best example of legal "clearing." The question is whether this doctrine can be applied to Deir Yassin--was there legitimate grounds for clearing this and surrounding villages--and by extension to the 529 other villages so cleared.

2. My Lai isn't just an example of "clearing," but also of rogue behavior--rape and massacre of innocents. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the juxtaposition to My Lai suggests that what happened at Deir Yassin was a similar breach of protocol--a kind of one off that doesn't really characterize Haganah goals (the IDF did not exist yet, and Irgun had not been organizationally absorbed into its single command). 

The way to assess "1" is to determine, first, what the  ultimate goal and extent of the "clearing" was, and the way to assess "2" is determine how common village massacres were and their relation to operational goals. And in this case, especially, to the goals of Plan Dalet. 

You are correct that clearing Deir Yassin (and two other villages in the vicinity) was part of the effort to secure the coastal road into Jerusalem. But the driving of villagers from their homes, which had begun the final week of Nov. '47, and continued into late fall of '48, was ultimately intended first to alter the demographic of the Jewish Partition, and then of the territory taken from the Arab Partition. Another consideration was that, under the UN proposal, all those Arabs would not only be citizens but own most of the land. When villages were emptied of Palestinians, they were then either permanently destroyed or given over to Jews or, in a few cases, Druze and Christian refugees from other destroyed villages. Those that were not destroyed were given Hebrew names, and most Mosques and churches were destroyed or converted to something else--the goal being to erase the Arab presence/history altogether.  Hundreds of villages thus secured did not "resist," and so it was quite beyond the STATED goals of plan Dalet. In some cases, Palmach or Irgun went in at night and dynamited homes with families in them, driving out those who still lived by morning.  On this score, one of the primary criticisms of Morris is that he doesn't draw the conclusion regarding "ethnic cleansing" that his own work demonstrates, though he does agree that the expulsion of inhabitants from Lydda (also accompanied by masscre) and Ramle (now renamed "Lod" and "Ramla") was to induce "civilian panic" and flight--intended to be permanent.

A final point to be made with regard to "military necessity" is that once the war was over, Israel kept the land and homes thus taken, distributing all to Jewish immigrants through auctions and the like.  Home furnishings in places like Jaffa and Haifa were simply turned over to Jewish families, along with the homes and apartments. And the former owners/citizens of the Jewish state were not allowed to return. Both the US and the UN demanded that the expelled Arab citizens be expelled after the war, and Ben Gurion refused. That was not from military, but political necessity. Remember that Ben-Gurion wanted a "viable" Jewish state, an ethnic state, which he thought could never be secure if Arabs made up 47% of the population and owned most of the land.

The frequency of massacres is another touchy question. The IDF touts a "Purity of Arms" doctrine and has for 70 years tended to dispute any and all accusations it has wantonly killed civilians. Accusations of violation are often treated as "blood libel" and straightforward anti-semitism. As of 1969, the Israeli state denied that even Deir Yassin was a massacre, though "official" Israeli history has been in retreat ever since. The definition of "massacre" is also in question, with Israeli sources tending to call it a "battle" if any shots were fired in self defense.  Morris lists but 20 massacres. Pappe says 35 with 6 still being investigated. Palestinian historians like Jamal go as high as 70. If we go by historians like Pappe and Rashidi, as well Morris to some degree, then Deir Yassin is only exceptional in the attention it has received. It was not even the largest massacre (Morris puts Lydda at somewhere between 250-1700), but the most famous because the Irgun went to great lengths to publicize it, welcoming European and US reporters to a briefing and upping the number killed at 254 (to increase panic), though not mentioning the killing of children and rape. (The question of rape, at Deir Yassin and elsewhere, deserves as separate post.) 

As you note in the remainder of your post, documentation of military actions by the UN was very difficult. My goal here is just to raise questions about the assessment of historians like Gelber, who seem to adhere to closely to the written document of "D" and not how it was actually, routinely implemented. The Jewish Agency and the Hagenah's Consultancy of course are not going to write out orders for massacre, and if Pappe is correct (he had access to the records) they argued bitterly about expulsions and the harshness of methods, but then tended to accept everything that worked to clear Arabs from land the new state wanted to control. 

[Dill]

(01-02-2024, 01:37 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I'm familiar with Pappe. He does good research, but obviously I don't really agree with all of his analyses and conclusions. Not familiar with Segev, but I have heard about Shlaim's "The Wall".

My feelings sort of track with Morris' "spiritual journey". He did the research (with others, of course) and brought it out into the light. But I think he began to fear the backlash from revealing it was leading to so much anti-Israel sentiment that it could possibly lead to an existential crisis for the country. And I think the equation in his head is the same as in mine: two wrongs are not gonna make a right. The Palestinians are a simple people who have been poorly treated. Not just by Israel, but also by their Arab neighbors and the rest of the world. I truly want for them to have their own country, and I think it is in Israel's best interest for that to happen as well. And, in my fantasy mind, I think they need a high-speed underground rail under Israel connecting the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (and the U.S. should pay for it by using the Israeli aid from the Camp David Accord and shift it from arms to this purpose. Honestly, I get more pissed off that my tax dollars are funding the continuing violence and free healthcare for Israelis than I do for tax dollars spent on the illegal alien issue here in the U.S.). But fat chance of something like that happening with Netanyahu in office.

Tom Segev wrote a book about the war of independence, but he is most respected for 1967, an analysis of the motivations and actions of all sides leading to the '67 war. Worth reading, but a different subject from the one at hand. The Iron Wall basically argues that from the beginning Israel had a strategy of becoming militarily dominant in the region and by constantly demonstrating/using overwhelming military power, forcing Arab neighbors to sue for peace. Shlaim thinks this strategy has had short term successes, but long term failure, preventing any real long-term security.  He also illustrates well the weakness of democracies--namely the erratic shifts in foreign policy created by elections. 

Just wanted to address the bolded here, as it puts a finger on the unusual stress on Israeli historians. Many feel, with good reason, that the legitimacy and continued existence of their state as an ethnic state depends on how the rest of the world understands what happened in '48 and '67. The result is a massive clash between nationalist ideology and mythmaking and the historical record, as assessed by professional historians--an international audience. 

It also, I think, foregrounds the research ideals and ethos of history as a form/discipline of modern knowledge, insofar as many Israeli historians have been made to feel thy must choose between country and and historical accuracy. To their credit, many have chosen accuracy over ideology, conforming to the research ideal. The same issue comes up only a little less urgently in the US when we debate the kind of history which should go into school curricula. But no one thinks the very existence of the US could be rocked by revelations of un-democratic treatment of slaves, native Americans and Mexicans. 

[GMDino]

https://www.thenational.scot/news/24042943.blinne-ni-ghralaigh-lawyers-closing-statement-icj-case-israel-praised/

Quote:Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh: Lawyer's closing statement in ICJ case against Israel praised
11th January
POLITICS

By Steph Brawn@BrawnJournoMultimedia Political Journalist
Share
17 Comments

Irish lawyer Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh spoke at the International Court of Justice in the genocide case against Israel (Image: ICJ)



A LAWYER speaking for South Africa at the International Court of Justice has painted a powerful picture of “Israel’s genocidal assault” on Gaza.

South Africa has accused Israel of committing genocide in the Gaza Strip through its military bombardment of the enclave following the October 7 attacks by Hamas.
A team of top lawyers at The Hague laid out in stark detail the ways in which South Africa believe Israel is committing genocide.


And a statement from Irish lawyer Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC has sparked a particularly emotional response from people following the case, with journalist Owen Jones saying it “floored” him.

She outlined how, each day, Palestinians were being “blown to pieces” and dozens of children were harrowingly being labelled WCNSFs – Wounded Child, No Surviving Family.



READ MORE: RECAP: South Africa brings genocide case against Israel at Hague

She said: “On the basis of the current figures, on average 247 Palestinians are being killed and are at risk of being killed each day, many of them literally blown to pieces. They include 48 mothers each day, two every hour and over 117 children each day, leaving Unicef to call Israel’s actions a war on children.


“On current rates, which show no sign of abating, each day over 3 medics, 2 teachers, more than one UN employee and more than one journalist will be killed, many while at work or in what appeared to be targeted attacks on their family homes or where they are sheltered.

“The risk of famine will increase each day. Each day, an average of 629 people will be wounded, some multiple times over as they move from place to place desperately seeking sanctuary.


“Each day over 10 Palestinian children will have one or both legs amputated, many without anaesthetic. Each day, on current rates, an average 3900 Palestinian homes will be damaged or destroyed, more mass graves will be dug, more cemeteries will be bulldozed and bombed, denying even the dead any dignity or peace.


"Each day ambulances, hospitals and medics will continue to be attacked and killed. The first responders who have spent three months without international assistance trying to dig families out of the rubble with their bare hands will continue to be targeted. On current figures, one will be killed almost every second day, sometimes in attacks launched against those attending the scene to rescue the wounded.


“Each day yet more desperate people will be forced to relocate from where they are sheltering or will be bombed in places they have been told to evacuate to. Entire multigenerational families will be obliterated.


READ MORE: SNP MP hits out at UK Government's response to journalist deaths in Gaza


“Yet more Palestinian children will become WCNSF. Wounded Child, No Surviving Family. The terrible new acronym born out of Israel’s genocidal assault on the Palestinian population in Gaza.”


The statement has been described as “utterly earth shattering” and “flawless” by viewers on social media. Others said it made them cry.
In her address, Ní Ghrálaigh also showed two photos of a whiteboard at a hospital in Gaza. The first showed a handwritten message on it by a doctor which said: “We did what we could. Remember us.”

The second photo was of the same whiteboard after an Israeli strike on the hospital on November 21 – which killed the author of the message. It showed the board completely obliterated.

[GMDino]

Jesus Christ... They are doing everything they can to erase the existence of the Palestinian people.

While the world watches pic.twitter.com/48OkyJM8oU

— ?_ Imposter_? (@Imposter_Edits) January 19, 2024

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>