quote:

---

originally posted by Stockholm:
Here is a cute map depicting the attacks on Israel by the armies of five Arab countries in May 1948.
Notice all the arrows pointing into Isreali territory??? There was a famous attempt by the Syrians to conquer and destroy Kibbutz Degania. The Jordanians also immediately expelled all the Jews who had been living in the Jewish Quarter of Old Jerusalem for hundreds of years etc...

---

This is cute map alright Stockholm. Anyone can draw arrows on a map: "Look the warmongering Arabs are invading Jenin!"

What I see on this map, is a depiction of Arab manouvers placing them on the periphery of the zones designated for the Israeli state. The person who drew this map, also took the liberty of of making aggressive looking pointy red arrows that in a few places cross over the hazy little line depicting the partition on the map.

It also describes "attacks" which, when examined for what they represent, are very clearly "skirmishes" in the border regions, not battles as such. Describing Degania as a battle is overeaching.

Yes, it is true that the Jordanian army expelled the Jews from the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, after they expelled Israeli forces from Arab Quarter of the city, which the Israelis had occupied under plan Delat, whereby Ben Gurion had ordered Israeli forces to go on the offensive, in April.

quote:

---

Abdullah ordered Glubb Pasha, the commander of the Transjordanian Arab Legion, to enter Jerusalem on 17 May, and heavy house-to-house fighting occurred between 19 May and 28 May, with the Arab Legion succeeding in expelling Israeli forces from the Arab quarters of Jerusalem as well as the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. All the Jewish inhabitants of the Old City were expelled by the Jordanians.

---

Stockholm, why were there Israeli forces in the Arab quarter of Jerusalem, so that they could be expelled by the Jordanian Army? Simple enough, Israeli forces were already expanding their offensive outside of the Israeli zones of the partition plan, before any Arab armies appeared on the scene, because they were so ordered by Ben Gurion to start an offensive under what was called plan Delat, a month before Arab main forces came onto the field.

In other words, Israeli irregular and regular forces had occupied the Arab Quarter of Jerusalem, and had taken yet another Arab population under their care at around the same time that the first reports about the massacre of Der Yassin was being reported.

This is what this map actually shows, once one considers the actuallity of what these agressive red lines depict:

The Egyptian occupies Gaza, Arab land; and moves to the zone between Hebron, and Beersheba, Arab land; The Jordanians occupy Jerusalem, UN territory illegally occupied by the IDF; The Lebanese army occupies the Arab zone south of Lebanon; the Syrian army moves to the frontier around the northern Israeli settelement, also on Arab land.

This was an agressive Arab operational manouver, whose chief purpose was to secure the main Arab areas of the partition, after the IDF went over to offensive operations in April. Anyone can draw agressive read line on a map.

They can also draw inoffensive looking blue ones on a map, as in this case depicting the further expansion of Israeli operations in October:

Please explain why there are only tiny little blue lines on this map, and why extensive offensive operations, such as the IDF's attacks into the Sinai desert (Arab land), the occupation of Gaza (also Arab land), the conquest of the entire Negev desert to what is today known as Eilat (Arab land), and the march up to the Litani river in Lebanon (Arab land) are not represented?

A close look at this map from October, actually shows that the IDF continued to be on the offensive from April, and into October, capturing several Arab towns, such as the one identified as Beersheba. This is true, except for the sole exception of Jerusalem, where the Arab counter-attack succesfully discomfitted Israeli forces that had illegally occupied the entire area of Jerusalem in April, in violation of the UN mandate there.

In fact Stockholm, maps are politicized, just as are phrases like "invasion," and "war of independence".

Link to article

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

As the war progressed, the IDF managed to field more troops than the Arab forces. By July 1948, the IDF was fielding 63,000 troops; by early spring 1949, 115,000. The Arab armies had an estimated 40,000 troops in July 1948, rising to 55,000 in October 1948, and slightly more by the spring of 1949.

---

In other words, even though the situation on the border was more or less stabalized in June, Israel embarked on a massive forced recruitment campaign, even during the period of truce, not simply to protect its border, but precisely because the intended to engage in an agressive territorial conquest in October, after they had achieved a 2 to 1 superiority of men in arms, in addition to their clear technological and organizational superiority.

In a clear example of how the apparent disadvantage of fighting a two front campaign, or a multiple front campaign can be fought along "interior lines," by using the centrality of your position between your opponents to rapidly move from one front to the other, and defeat each of your opponents in detail. In this case they defeat each Arab force in turn, in what was essentially a prototype for the 1967 campaign -- I guess they studied Napoleon.

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Azzam Pasha, the Arab League Secretary, declared on Cairo radio : 'This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.

---

One really has to ask, if the Pasha was serious, and given the huge amount of human resources available to the Arabs, why they did not field an army 10 times the size of the Israeli army?

In fact, the introduction of the regular Arab armies only gave the combined Arab forces rough parity with the Israeli forces.

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

They must kick themselves everyday that they didn't accept that deal when they had the chance.

Instead, over and over again, the Arab countries choose war over peace and in every single case, the war causes them to lose even more territory. When will they ever learn?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
But just think, if instead of declaring war on Israel and pledging to have a "mongolian style" massacre, the Arabs had simply said "we accept the UN partition" - there would be a Palestine today that would be almost half of the territory between the Meditterranean and the Jordan River - way more than the West Bank and Gaza that they now say they would settle for - and Jerusalem would be an international city.

---

No there would not be such a state, because in April the Israeli forces, having already defeated the Arab militias, were already expanding beyond the designated territory as is clearly shown by the Israeli occupation of the Arab quarter of the "international city," Jerusalem, and their operations in place like Der Yassin, before the "regular" Arab armies appeared.

Furthrmore, the agressive intent of Ben Gurion is clearly shown by the October campaign after the expansion of the IDF. This expansion was no accident but policy aimed at again achieving clear tactical, operational, and strategic superiority, so that they then could launch a series of campaigns deep in Arab territory, way beyond the Israli zones of the Partition.

The Arabs engaged in no such build up during the truce, adding a mere 20% to their available forces, while the Israelis doubled the size of their army.

I find the inverted relationship between stated intent and overt action in regards to both parties ironic, but predictable. The Arab leadership is being belicose to compensate for lack of military ability, and resolve, in the hope of intimidating Israel, while the Israeli leadership is pattering on about peace, while preparing for war.

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Even if we were accept the idea that the Arab countries only invaded the Arab Palestine and not Israel - it's obvious that they did it in order to annex those territories. Notice that after the armistice of 1949 - there was no declaration of an independent Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza. Instead, Jordan simply annexed the West Bank and Egypt annexed Gaza.

---

Who and what they were fighting for "indepedence" from is yet to be determined, I guess, but from the refugee statistic being independent from Arabs seems to be latent in the concept "War of Independence", but that is another story.

But then, what is the official statement of the Arab League, aside from what may or may not have been said on a Cairo radio station, way back when:

quote:

---

the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, ....

---

I really don't find this statement objectionable at all.

Who and what they were fighting for "indepedence" from is yet to be determined, I guess, but from the refugee statistic being independent from Arabs seems to be latent in the concept "War of Independence", but that is another story.

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

The Israeli government is the aggressor. The Palestinians and those who support them are in self defense mode.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
But just think, if instead of declaring war on Israel and pledging to have a "mongolian style" massacre, the Arabs had simply said "we accept the UN partition" - there would be a Palestine today that would be almost half of the territory between the Meditterranean and the Jordan River - way more than the West Bank and Gaza that they now say they would settle for - and Jerusalem would be an international city.

They must kick themselves everyday that they didn't accept that deal when they had the chance.

---

Umm what deal? Do you forget that nearlyy half of the people living in the "jewish" half of the partition were palestinian Arabs? I think they had maybe 50,000 fewer people out of about 1 million total.

Or is it the fact that the would have lost half the land to something like a third of the population, and in a disgraceful parcelling of their homeland into pieces that were not even connected.

quote:

---

Or is it the fact that the would have lost half the land to something like a third of the population, and in a disgraceful parcelling of their homeland into pieces that were not even connected.

---

If you would actually look at the 1947 partition map you would see that both the proposed Jewish and Arab states in Palestine consisted of three "sausage links" and were equally parcelled. While it's tru that the Jewish state had somewhat more territory - over half of it was the totally barren and worthless Negev desert. On the other hand, the Arabs were already given 70% of Palestine when the British arbitrarily carved off everything east of the Jordan and decided to call the eastern two thirds of Palestine Transjordan. So the Arabs were being given about 85% of the original mandate of Palestine.

In both of these maps, we can clearly see that there was no Arab invasion of Israel in 1948, and that almost all of the cross-border activity were attacks by Israel into Arab territory.

The value of your arguement that "if only the Arabs" had accepted partition, is undermined by the fact that for all intents and purposes the Arab states did accept partition, as can be seen by the fact that they did not make a serious effort to raise an army to cross the line. It becomes clear that Ben Gurion had no intention of limiting himself to the Israeli part of the partition, since he ordered his generals to go on the offensive in April of 1948 beyond the borders of partition.

This is when the Arab states delcared war.

Once the Arab armies arrived on the scene he had every opportunity to settle for an armistice along lines similar to the original partition agreement, but clearly as in plan Delat, Gurion did not accept partition. This is clearly evident because he took the opportunity of the truce to double the size of the Israeli army and then attack again in October, bringing huge amounts of Arab land under Israeli control.

The Arab leagues call for a unitarian state is quite logical. Gurions desire to create a single larger "unitarian state" is also quite logical. The problem is that Gurion wants one without Arabs in it. This is the source of the conflict. It was Gurion who overtly rejected partition repeatedly during the course of the 1948 war because partition as it was planned was obviously unworkable.

He did not want an unworkable Jewish state, but a workable one. He used militaty means to occupy sufficient territory, denuded of their non-Jewish populations, in order to make Israel functional.

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Azzam Pasha, the Arab League Secretary, declared on Cairo radio : 'This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.

---

Your position is based on a few alledged quotes dragged up from old radio brodcasts, and then welded together with some theories about what might have happened.

Pay close attention to what people do at all times Stockholm not what they say, or are alledged to have said.

Simple facts, Ben Gurion ordered that Plan Delat should go into operation, after nearly 200,000 Arabs had been expelled from the Israeli side of the partion. Israeli forces expanded their zone of operation, outside of the zone of partion. The massacre at Der Yassin happened. Arab forces intervened, and took up positions in the land that was under attack by the Israeli forces, and drove the Israelis from Jerusalem. The expulsion of the Jews from the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem happened. The front was stabalized. Truce was declared. Ben Gurion then ordered a general call up, ensuring that the IDF was clearly capable of conducting offensive operations. Ben Gurion then ordered the an offensive in October, driving of the inferior Arab armies that were in Arab land and then these territories came under Israeli control.

Those are the facts. They are clear as day. Those were the things that were done.

Your selective quoting of the record from obscure and unprovable sources, and theorizing about what might have happened, can not change the clear and evident record of what actually did happen.

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

The fact remains that if the Arabs had simply accepted the UN partition - they would be vastly better off than they are now after fighting and losing war after war after war.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Trying to claim that Israel attacked the Arab countries in 1948 and not vice-versa is like trying to claim that Poland invaded Germany in 1939.

---

quote:

---

Despite this, the Mapai members voted against the proposal, but found themselves in a minority, and the Jewish Agency Executive ratified the agreement by a majority (the General Zionists and Mizrahi voting in favor). Some members of the Executive were not in the country at the time, and Ben-Gurion, the Chairman, asked that the signing of the agreement be postponed until the views of the absentees were canvassed. About a month later, on April 7, the Executive Committee of the Agency convened to decide the issue. During their week-long deliberations, Irgun and Lehi forces captured the Arab village of Deir Yassin. Mapai leaders tried to exploit allegations that the occupiers had slaughtered villagers in order to tip the balance against the agreement. However, they again found themselves in the minority, and on April 12 1948 the Executive approved the agreement.

---

THE IRGUN IN JERUSALEM PREPARES ITSELF

quote:

---

On May 8, 1948, a general ceasefire was proclaimed in Jerusalem, which remained in effect until the British departed. Ben-Gurion was anxious to extend the ceasefire after the end of the Mandate, and when Shaltiel requested permission, on May 11, to launch an attack immediately after the British withdrawal, it was denied. On May 13, Ben-Gurion received the following cable from Shaltiel: 1

Jerusalem is being emptied of Arab fighters, who are exploiting the ceasefire to leave for various other fronts. Request permission to take advantage of this opportunity to capture important objectives, even if this requires us to open fire.

In response, Ben-Gurion gave Shaltiel the go-ahead to launch Operation Kilshon (Pitchfork) after the British withdrawal.

---

THE BRITISH LEAVE JERUSALEM

Typical of the kind of twisted logic of Israeli propaganda, withdrawal of Arab irregulars from Jerusalem is deemed to be an Arab ruse, because they "exploiting the ceasefire to leave for various other fronts," and this duplicity is deemed justification for attacking.

The idea that the departure of Arab irregulars from Jerusalem could be complying with the ceasefire, is not even worthy of consideration, of course.

Summary: Gurion intends to use Israeli irregular forces of Irgun, who he signs an agreement with on Aril 12, a mere 4 days after the massacre at Deir Yassin, to effect the capture of Jerusalem, and authorized those forces to capture Jerusalem on May 13th the day before Israel declares "independence" with the clear intention of creating a greater Israel, with Jerusalem as its capital.

He had no intention of allowing for an "international city" to exist there, otherwise he would not have authorized operation Kilshon, on May 13th, in order to take advantage of the fact that the Arab militias were leaving the city.

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Israel is quite unique in being able to get invaded and then end up with much more land afterwards.

---

Maybe Arab tanks have one gear for forward and three for reverse?

There are many other cases like this though. Germany invaded Russia in WW2 and was not only eventually pushed out of Russia, but Russia went all the way to Berlin and various parts of Germany were ceded to Poland and East Germany became a Soviet colony.

Germany also started WW1 and lost various territories to Russia and Poland and France afterwards.

In the 19th century Paraguay declared war on Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay all at once (not very smart) after the war, Paraguay was one third the size it was when it declared war.

and there are many other cases. When you invade a country without provocation, you have to be prepared for your plans to backfire and to end up with less territory than you began with.

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

I suggest you read the above articles by people who Irgun people who were actually there, concerning their agreements with Ben Gurion, and his orders to take over Jerusalem after the end of the British mandates, instead of whimisically going on about the "International City" that would have been founded in Jerusalem had the Arabs accepted partition.

1) Fact: It has been shown in this thread that no invasion of Israel took place, contrary to your assertion.

2) Fact: It has been shown that Ben Gurion actively supported Israeli forces outside of the Israeli partition zone prior to the entry of the Arab state into the conflict.

3) Fact: It has been shown that Ben Gurion authorized a plan to assert total Israeli control of Jerusalem prior to the entry of the Arab states into the conflict.

4) Fact: It has been shown that at no time did the Arab states bring to bear forces in sufficient numbers to take on offensive operations, despite the ability to do so.

5) Fact: It has been shown that Ben Gurion enforced conscription upon all Israelis in order to aquire the necessary forces to commence sweeping offensive operations, and then did so.

6) Fact: It has been shown, that even if one takes the oft-quoted statement of Azzam Pasha about a "war of extermination" at face value, that in fact when populations of civilian Jews came under the control of Arab armies, that no such extermination took place, but rather in-kind expulsions.

7) Fact: It has been shown here that nothing you say, or any of the suppositions you make can be supported by any evidence, other than a few random quotes and some supposition, none of which is actually related to anything other than your desire to believe the mythology you want to believe.

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

It has been shown, that even if one takes the oft-quoted statement of Azzam Pasha about a "war of extermination" at face value, that in fact when populations of civilian Jews came under the control of Arab armies, that no such extermination took place. but rather in kind expulsions.

---

During the "arab uprising" of 1936-39 - several thousand Palestinian Jews were massacred by the Arabs. After what had happened in the Holocaust and after the head of the Arab League was boasting about leading a war of extermination - who wants to wait around and see whether or not the Arabs were going to finish off the job Hitler started. Remember the spiritual leader of the Palestinians - the Mufti of Jerusalem was a personal friend of Adolf Hitler's.

On March 1, 1944, while speaking on Radio Berlin, al-Husayni said:

'Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you.'

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

Perhaps a few off hand quotes from this or that person are not as relevant to policy, except in as much as you can string them together as some kind of tattered threadwork of slander.

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

# Not even militant Arab leaders or anti-Zionist historians could conceivably accept the view that the 1948-49 conflict was a war of Jewish origin. On February 16, 1948, the UN Palestine Commission reported to the Security Council: "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." The Arabs themselves were unambiguous in accepting responsibility for starting the war. Jamal Husseini informed the Security Council on April 16, 1948: "The representatives of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight." As for the British commander of Jordan's Arab Legion, John Bagot Glubb, he remarked candidly: "Early in January, the first detachments of the Arab Liberation Army began to infiltrate into Palestine from Syria. Some came through Jordan and even through Amman....They were in reality to strike the first blow in the ruin of the Arabs of Palestine." Israel came into being on May 14, 1948. The five Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq immediately invaded the new microstate. Their combined intention was expressed publicly by Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."

- Louis Rene Beres
Professor of International Law
Department of Political Science
Purdue University

# Damascus radio called on all Arabs to "undertake the liberation battle that will tear the hearts from the bodies of the hatefull jews and trample them in the dust" - quoted in TIME, June 2, p. 20

# "the surviving Jews would be helped to return to their native countries, but my estimation is that none will survive"

- Ahmed Shuqeiri (later to be PLO chief) quoted in Churchill and Churchill, p. 52

# "We were racists, admiring Nazism, reading its books and the source of its thought... Whoever lived during this period in Damascus would appreciate the inclination of the Arab people to Nazism, for Nazism was the power which could serve as its champion, and who is defeated will by nature love the victor".

- Sami al Jundi, leader of Syrian Baath party, "Al Baath" Beirut, 1961. From B. Lewis, "Semites and Anti-Semites" pp.147-148.

# "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacare which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacares and the crusades"

Arab Leugue Secretary General Azam Pasha, May 15, 1948 (quoted in "New Dimensions" Jan. '91).

---

Where do these qoutes, match the actions that actually took place in 1948?

In the face of clearly established actions policies, agreements, and documents you serve up a bunch of essentially disconected hearsay quotes, as the basis of your counter-arguement?

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Damascus radio called on all Arabs to "undertake the liberation battle that will tear the hearts from the bodies of the hateful jews and trample them in the dust" - quoted in TIME, June 2, p. 20

---

This thread is about what happened in the 1948 war, not what some people alledge some people wanted to happen.

You have nothing from the record of what actually did happen to establish the veracity of your theory, just hearsay. Compare that to the direct statements of former Irgun soldiers describing what they did, and the agreements they made with Ben Gurion.

quote:

---

Damascus radio called on all Arabs to "undertake the liberation battle that will tear the hearts from the bodies of the hateful jews and trample them in the dust" - quoted in TIME, June 2, p. 20

---

Or did you miss a few classes in your Poli sci 101 course, and miss the section on propoganda?

All this is just radio chitter-chatter, its not even attributed to a person. It's good for historical flavour, but some Arab radio guy alledgedly going off on some patriotic rant does not amounts to a hill of beans in terms of historical analysis.

Ben Gurion signing agreements with Irgun just days after the Massacre of Deir Yassin, and then ordering the Irgun to capture Jerusalem, all confirmed by Zionist sources, is historical evidence of a completely different order.

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

Just go to page 20 of TIME Magazine, June 2, 1948

---

http://www.peacefaq.com/warindep.html

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
just for you cueball, all in one place, a tidy place where all the quotes are altogether even for easy cut and paste.

http://www.peacefaq.com/warindep.html

---

Thanks, but I don't think we should give anyone a free ride, and I am seem to be able to spend the time to set up links, I don't see why Stockholm can't?

quote:

---

"Another Antisemitic reprocussion of Israel's rebirth was that most of the Arab Muslim countries of the Middle East expelled EVERY single Jew living there and confiscated all their assets."

---

"EVERY single Jew"?

Me. I am pretty sure that the Arabs would have tried "invasion" had they thought it possible, but the political situarion was really against them, had they really tried invasion, there would likey have been real super-power intervention, (lets not forger both the US and the USSR were warning them off) and I think they were told that publically and privately, so, they did what the did -- try to hold the line and make themselves sound serious through a whole bunch of belicose talk.

This was mostly for domestic consumption, however.

Then there is the issue of capability. It seems that the Syrians were particularly committed to "testing the water" in the early stages, but decided they really just didn't have the guns to bring anything serious off, so they hoped, I think to hold the line, and get a settlement.

I think there was a tacit agreement, as Pappe says, between Abdullah and Gurion for the Jordanians to keep the West Bank, and the military issue was Jerusalem only. This kind of "arrangement" was repeated in 73, when the Jordanians could easily have attacked across the Jordan river in order to make the Israeli position in Golan untenable, but instead they marched up to the Golan, and joined the Syrians and the Iraqi's in the direct assault on the Israeli position.

In 48, there was a lot show for domestic consumption on the part of the Arabs, and then the attempt to hold the line, but not much beyond that. The fact that they never deployed in strength enough to be a real threat indicates this, even though they had to be aware of the Israeli build up.

There is just really nothing that indicates any kind of resolve on the part of the Arabs, but mostly a lot of saber rattling. Invasion and extermination may have been on the lips of more than a few Arab leaders, but anything even close to that was politically impossible.

In the end you just have to ask: "where were the Arab hordes?"

Certainly the size of the Arab population would suggest some kind of horde or other was achievable, but none appeared. Just a lot of tough talk, a few raids and a lot of political jockeying in diplomatic circles, and Abdullah's ficklness.

The wiki link also is a good example of the kind of stock manipulation of the facts that exists in the basic materials available. Those two maps are classic cartographic disinformation, and I am sure come from an Israeli source. It's hilarious really.... Great big nasty red lines for Arabs, and tinnie-innie little wee blue ones representing Israel armies that were twice the size of the Arab armies in the first map... go figure...

Truth be told I was waiting for Stockholm to make an issue of that map, so I let it lie until he did, so that I could deconstruct his "evidence," as political propoganda, which it is. The Arabs could only dream of having armies that could be fairly represented by arrows like those, that's real Germans invading Russia type stuff from 41.

40,000 soldiers? Pfffttt! That like 4 divisions from WW2. In other words the entire Arab world fielded an army 1/10 the size of the Belgian army of 1939!

Canada enlisted more men than that in September 1939.

Ben Gurion had other ideas, though. He could easily see that no one was going to step in on behalf of the Arabs, and in fact the British leaving indicated precisely this. So he was free to do and act as he pleased, operating under a margin of internationl preassure that was far more prejudiced in his favour.

Both the USSR and the USA stepped up to the plate for him at the UN, and so Gurion had a free hand. That tells you everything you need to know about 48.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

On 15 October, the IDF broke the truce and launched Operation Yoav to expel the Egyptian forces from the Negev. In a week of fighting, the Israelis captured Beersheba and Bayt Jibrin, and surrounded an Egyptian brigade (which included Major Gamal ‘Abd al-Nasir) in Faluja. As Ben-Gurion expected, Transjordan remained neutral in the war between Israel and Egypt. The Arab Legion was in a position to intervene to help the Egyptian brigade trapped in the Faluja pocket but it was directed instead to take Bethlehem and Hebron, which had previously been occupied by the Egyptians. ‘Abdullah and Glubb were apparently happy to see the Egyptian army defeated and humiliated.

---

The War against Egypt

Remind that is a really good long scholastic piece on the whole Jordanian/Israeli angle, in the war.

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Instead, Jordan simply annexed the West Bank and Egypt annexed Gaza.

---

quote:

---

Or did you miss a few classes in your Poli sci 101 course, and miss the section on propoganda?

---

quote:

---

Remember the spiritual leader of the Palestinians - the Mufti of Jerusalem was a personal friend of Adolf Hitler's.

---

Personal friends? They met precisely once - on November 20, 1941.

And how the tables turn. Husayni was, in fact, appointed to the position of Mufti in 1921 by Herbert Samuel, in spite of losing a limited election for the job. His later title "Grand Mufti" was entirely a British fabrication adding the "Grand" onto the traditional Mufti or "teacher". Husayni only became eligible for the position after Samuel pardoned him for his involvement in the 1920 anti-Jewish riots. It was Samuel's hope to use Husayni as a counterbalance to other powerful Arab aristocratic families and to keep control amongst the Arab population.

His later position as head of the Supreme Muslim Council (another British invention) was also as a result of Mandate intervention in the selection process. In many ways, the British had decided to keep him close because his rivals in the Nashashibi clan were far more moderate on the Jewish question, with some high-ranking members of the family receiving money from the Jewish Agency. In other words, Husayni's position was largely due to British Mandate plan to control and balance Jewish and Arab aspirations to their own ends.

Even after he became increasingly radical in his incitements against the British and Jews and became head of the Arab Higher Committee, it's not certain how much influence he really had among rank-and-file Palestinians. There's been a fair amount of scholarship on this, which I unfortunately don't have to hand at the moment.

But, you really ought to do some non-internet reading on the political divisions within Palestinian society during the period before you go making the assumption that Husayni held more sway in Palestinian society - especially on spiritual matters - than he really did. As I recall, there's some work on this in Rashid Khalidi's book on Palestinian identity, but I can't remember for sure. Unfortunately, most of my books on this subject were sold not long ago.

Of course, I don't suspect you'll bother to look into this any more deeply because what you find might ruin your effort to malign Palestinian "spirituality" and nationalism with vague associations to Nazism.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

You apparently relied on Irshad Manji's mastery of things Islam and things history.

In 1948, the Second World War had just ended three years earlier and the world learned a lesson about the consequences of just ignoring a dismissing the bellicose murderous rants of a corporal from Austria in Mein Kampf.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
So we're supposed to believe all your heavily biased islamist websites instead?a

---

Typical Stockholm: "I know you are, but what am I?"

Perhaps you'd like to point out the "Islamist" websites you mean, Stockholm? The only links in this thread are to websites that certainly can't be called "Islamist". Unless you're calling Avi Shlaim at Cambridge an "Islamist"? The other links are to the original Wikipedia article containing the maps and two others to Daat.il; The English version of a website written almost entirely in Hebrew. Probably an "Islamist" propaganda outfit posing as Jews, I guess. Seriously, have you even bothered to read the thread in between spouting off bogus propaganda?

quote:

---

I think that Israelis in 1948 can be forgiven for thinking that when Arab leaders give speeches calling for a mass slaughter of all Jews in Palestine - they ought to take them at their word. Why sit back and figure on doing nothing, allowing the Arabs to conquer Israel and "wait-and-see" whether they decide to do what the Nazis had done just three years earlier. I were them i wouldn't want to take that chance.

---

And you'll forgive me if I ask you for evidence that this was on the minds of Israel's military and political leaders. Can you show some evidence that Gurion et al actually believed this to be the case and were acting accordingly? From my study of the subject, nothing of the sort seems to be the case. In fact, by happy coincidence, if you'd bothered to read the link to Avi Shlaim's "Islamist" article on the Cambridge Press website, you'd find that the leaders of the nascent Israeli state were keenly aware of the weakness and division on the Arab side of the war - if there can be said to be a monolithic "Arab" side to the war.

BTW, I know this is niggling, but when you say "Arab leaders" in the plural; might you list exactly who those "leaders" were and what, exactly, they said? Please provide citations this time around.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

In the end you just have to ask: "where were the Arab hordes?"

---

Say Stockholm, what if someone blamed Jewish defeats (and there have been a couple of notable ones) on Jewish "cowardice"? I mean, how can you blame everyone for kicking their butts over and over throughout history? They clearly just weren't up to the task, right? They should've sued for peace and nothing bad ever would've happened to them. Had they just welcomed the Romans with open arms would we be having this conversation today?

Isn't that the logic you're following?

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

The Jewish population of Palestine was about 500,000 in 1948. Compared to the Arab world's population of 100 million.

In 1967, it was 3 million Israelis against 150 million Arabs - armed to the teeth with state of the art Russian weaponry - and still they lost with the whole Egyptian air force being destroyed while it sat on the ground.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
The Jewish population of Palestine was about 500,000 in 1948. Compared to the Arab world's population of 100 million.

---

A fine job of framing numbers. Now I'm sure you didn't miss the Poli-Sci 101 primer on propaganda.
Who cares how many Arabs there are/were? The relevent question is whether or not the states involved in supposedly "invading" Israel in 1947-8 had the intention and ability - and were perceived by the Israelis to have the intention and ability - to "push the Jews into the sea". You've claimed that fear of genocide was driving the military and political decisions of the nascent Israeli state. Prove it. I suspect you keep returning to these tired propaganda tropes because you simply can't.

Please, go right ahead. Right after showing us all those "Islamist" websites that have been linked to in this thread. I'm sure you'll be right on that.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
I'm not implying cowardice - just being a very bad army. You can be brave and still be forced to retreat.

---

Funny then that you toss out a tired old joke about Arab tanks that has been used to jibe Arab cowardice for decades. That one used to get used to describe French tanks as well. I guess you didn't get the joke.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

Esam has a history of the conflict page

quote:

---

When it became clear that the British intended to leave by May 15, leaders of the Yishuv decided (as they claim) to implement that part of the partition plan calling for establishment of a Jewish state. In Tel Aviv on May 14 the Provisional State Council, formerly the National Council, "representing the Jewish people in Palestine and the World Zionist Movement," proclaimed the "establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, to be called Medinat Israel (the State of Israel) … open to the immigration of Jews from all the countries of their dispersion."

---

quote:

---

On May 15 the armies of Egypt, Transjordan (now Jordan), Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq joined Palestinian and other Arab guerrillas who had been fighting Jewish forces since November 1947. The war now became an international conflict, the first Arab-Israeli War.

---

Followed by

quote:

---

The Arabs failed to prevent establishment of a Jewish state, and the war ended with four UN-arranged armistice agreements between Israel and Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. The frontiers defined in the armistice agreements remained until they were altered by Israel's conquests during the Six-Day War in 1967.

---

Now this is but one site out their in the webland on the conflict.

But according to this site. Their was an invasion

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Stockholm: ... Helmut Schmidt ... commented that Italian tanks had one gear for forward and three for reverse.

---

quote:

---

But according to this site. Their was an invasion

---

This is but one website on the expanse of the interweb, but according to it, the Earth is flat.

Flat Earth Society

BTW, nothing in what you quoted says anything about an invasion. I haven't read the whole site, just yet, though.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

I thought babble had a policy in regard to racist remarks, jokes, etc.?

---

The joke's intent is clear and has been for many decades as it's been repeated about various supposedly cowardly groups - i.e. Italians, French, Arabs. Frankly, I can live with the joke a lot more easily than your suggestion above that Palestinian spiritual life is connected to Nazism. I suppose that was just about the transmissions, too?

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

What if in 1947 the Arabs had said " we happily accept the UN partition plan" and they had then proceeded to start setting up a Palestinian in the part of Palestine that was set aside for that purpose and what if all the neighbouring Arab countries had offered a hand of friendship to Israel and Palestine and had exchanged diplomatic relations.

How did the Arabs "invade" without ever invading? And how did Israel expand without "invading". And how is it that we hear the story of "David vs. Goliath" about the 1948 war when it's clear that the Israeli leadership believed nothing of the sort and were keenly aware of the Arab coalition's weakness.

Why don't we answer the questions posed by the thread, first.

I'm sure you'd love it if we'd dig you out of your hole for you.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
If the Arabs really were so militarily weak compared to Israel in 1948 - it was pretty damn stupid of them to declare war wasn't it? What do you suppose they thought they could accomplish?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
So we're supposed to believe all your heavily biased islamist websites instead?

In 1948, the Second World War had just ended three years earlier and the world learned a lesson about the consequences of just ignoring a dismissing the bellicose murderous rants of a corporal from Austria in Mein Kampf.

I think that Israelis in 1948 can be forgiven for thinking that when Arab leaders give speeches calling for a mass slaughter of all Jews in Palestine - they ought to take them at their word. Why sit back and figure on doing nothing, allowing the Arabs to conquer Israel and "wait-and-see" whether they decide to do what the Nazis had done just three years earlier. I were them i wouldn't want to take that chance.

---

One radio broadcast, by one Major Arab leader, allegdedy made on the 15th of May, 1948, made after a year of hostilities, including the packing off a 1/4 million Palestinians as refugees, and almost 1 month to the day of the Massacre at Deir Yassin.

Or is it that you are saying that when Ben Gurion signed off on plan Delat to organize more offensives in April, signed his accord with Igrun on April 12th, and then ordered an offensive to occupy Jerusalem on May 13th, two days before the Arab States intervened, and Azsam Pasha made the single radio broadcast it is alledged he made, that Ben Gurion had the text of that future speech in hand when he made his decisions to break every single aspect of the partition agreement, except the ones that advantaged his own political position.

One speech like that is hardly a massive political indoctrination campaign, nor is it indicative of Arab policy on a general level. Nor does even mesh with the results, for in fact when Jordanian army entered Hebron, it stopped the local Arab population killing captured Jews, and interned them instead, and when they arrived in Jerusalem they released the local Jewish population to Israel, rather then exterminating them.

Expulsion was the policy precedent set up Ben Gurion himself, and expulsion was the policy the Arab armies generally followed after having Jewish civilians fall into their hands.

Those are the facts.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Max Bialystock ]

quote:

---

For an unbiased account see Norman Finkelstein's Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict.

---

Notice, for example, I have mostly used Israeli sources to show that Ben Gurion was pursuing expansionist policies before Azsam Pasha made the radio speech he is alledged to have made, so that speech can in no way be construed to have been a factor in Ben Gurion's decision to attack the Arabs outside of the Israeli partition zone.

In other words, we are not discussing "opinions" here.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

Norman Finklestein is not "unbiased" he is just very biased in a way that you agree with.

---

How do you know? Have you read any of his stuff?

He very well outlines Zionism's racist origins.
He also does a good critique of Benny Morris, the "reviosionist" historian who has disproven many of the Zionist myths (i.e. the alleged Arab radio broadcasts) though he is still a Zionist. Maybe you should read his work. He'll bring you halfway in your journey from the dark side to the side of peace and justice.

As for Finklestein he is a first rate scholar who angered people in high places. He was thrown out of his university. This is what happens to honest critics.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Max Bialystock ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
So, in other words, when the Arabs declared war on Israel in 1948 - they played into Ben-Gurion's hands by giving him the pretext he needed to expand Israel's territory.

I wonder if the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq were all secretely Mossad agents who were acting on Ben Gurion's orders when they declared war!!

---

On this point, I am saying that alledged Pasha's statement on Cairo Radio had nothing to do with Ben Gurion's decision making, so you can just drop that as part of your list of Arab provocations, because it comes after Ben Gurion had ordered an expansion of operations for Israeli forces under his direct command into Arab areas of the partion.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
so were the leaders of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq all Mossad agents in 1948 - or were they just all very, very, very stupid?

---

I think that the current leader of the United States is very, very, very stupid for having invaded Iraq. Does that make me an anti-American bigotted racist too?

If so, just about everyone on this site is racist for ever having called Bush "stupid".

If you disagree and you think that the leaders of those Arab countries that declared war on Israel in 1948 (with disastrous results) were actually really shrewd and smart to have done that - please tell us why???? I for one would love to know if there was any "method to their madness"

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

As for contact between Israel and the Arab leadership, this catches my attention:

quote:

---

The Jewish Agency tried to tie ‘Abdullah down to a written agreement but he was evasive. Yet, according to Yaacov Shimoni, a senior official in the Political Department of the Jewish Agency, despite ‘Abdullah's evasions, the understanding with him was:

entirely clear in its general spirit. We would agree to the conquest of the Arab part of Palestine by ‘Abdullah. We would not stand in his way. We would not help him, would not seize it and hand it over to him. He would have to take it by his own means and stratagems but we would not disturb him. He, for his part, would not prevent us from establishing the state of Israel, from dividing the country, taking our share and establishing a state in it. Now his vagueness, his ambiguity, consisted of declining to write anything, to draft anything which would bind him. To this he did not agree. But to the end, until the last minute, he always said again and again: "perhaps you would settle for less than complete independence and statehood, for full autonomy, or a Jewish canton under the roof of the Hashemite crown." He did try to raise this idea every now and again and, of course, always met with a blank wall. We told him we were talking about complete, full, and total independence and are not prepared to discuss anything else. And to this he seemed resigned but without ever saying: "OK, an independent state." He did not say that, he did not commit himself, he was not precise. But such was the spirit of the agreement and it was totally unambiguous.

Incidentally, the agreement included a provision that if 'Abdullah succeeded in capturing Syria, and realized his dream of Greater Syria--something we did not think he had the power to do--we would not disturb him. We did not believe either in the strength of his faction in Syria. But the agreement included a provision that if he did accomplish it, we would not stand in his way. But regarding the Arab part of Palestine, we did think it was serious and that he had every chance of taking it, all the more so since the Arabs of Palestine, with their official leadership, did not want to establish a state at all. That meant that we were not interfering with anybody. It was they who refused. Had they accepted a state, we might not have entered into the conspiracy. I do not know. But the fact was that they refused, so there was a complete power vacuum here and we agreed that he will go in and take the Arab part, provided he consented to the establishment of our state and to a joint declaration that there will be peaceful relations between us and him after the dust settles. That was the spirit of the agreement. A text did not exist.

---

Do you think that Yaacov Shimoni is perhaps an Islamist agent working for the bin Laden family in 1948, secretly inflitrated into the Jewish Agency?

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Since when is there anything wrong with saying that political leaders of certain countries have done some very self-destructive and stupid things.

I think that the current leader of the United States is very, very, very stupid for having invaded Iraq. Does that make me an anti-American bigotted racist too?

If so, just about everyone on this site is racist for ever having called Bush "stupid".

---

No, it's a continuation of your previous theme, slightly reworded, but with the same intent.
ETA: The latest offering would have passed without remark had the other not defined it.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Slumberjack ]

quote:

---

So we're supposed to believe all your heavily biased islamist websites instead? Stockholm

---

My websites, Stockhom? And me"Islamist"?

Moderators Slumberjack and/or Michelle: Please look into these accusations Stockhol hurled at me. Thank you!

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
What I would really like answer to is the following:

What if in 1947 the Arabs had said " we happily accept the UN partition plan" and they had then proceeded to start setting up a Palestinian in the part of Palestine that was set aside for that purpose and what if all the neighbouring Arab countries had offered a hand of friendship to Israel and Palestine and had exchanged diplomatic relations.

If that had happened, what would the middle east look like today?

---

This question has already been answered.

Partition was total antithesis to the aspirations of people of Palestine. The whole point was to free themselves from colonial divisions of their land not to accept new ones. What would you say if a group of people from somewhere else, oh let's say Mormon refugees from Manitoba, landed on the coast of Israel and built up heavily the Mormon Manitoban population until they made up 50% of the population in some select areas that were linked roughly together like the spaces on a checkerboard, "sausage links" as you call it, and then petitioned to get half the state made into their own state.

My question was - what would the Middle East look like today if the Arabs had accepted the UN partition plan of 1947. The answer is simple. Today, it appears that Palestinians would be happy just to get control of the occupied territories pre-1967. But if they had accepted the 1947 partition, they would have a Palestine that would be TWICE the size of just the West Bank and Gaza Strip combined...and Jerusalem would be an international UN controlled city.

It's interesting that now they say they would be happy with a settlement giving them less than half of what acceptance of the UN partition of 1947 would have given them.

What else can you say about a commander who sees that the Arabs are leaving Jerusalem, and as a consequence ordered Irgun to take it over.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
so, once again they decided that unless they could have the whole loaf it was better to have no loaf at all.

---

quote:

---

What are you talking about stockholm, it was their loaf in the first place, why should've they settled?

---

There are two peoples with a historical claim to what is referred to as Palestine. Neither going to go away and its also clear that they cannot live together in one country. Partition was clearly the only solution.

The Arabs rejected getting almost 50% of the territory in 1948 - so they then got pushed back to about 25%. They wouldn't accept 25% so in 1967 they lost that. They could have regained the 25% in 2000 - but they rejected it again and now all they have is Gaza. Sometimes people have to try to compromise and need to wake up to the fact that they will never get 100% of what they want.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Azzam Pasha, the Arab League Secretary, declared on Cairo radio in 1948: 'This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.

What do you suppose he was referring to?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

There are two peoples with a historical claim to what is referred to as Palestine. Neither going to go away and its also clear that they cannot live together in one country. Partition was clearly the only solution.

The Arabs rejected getting almost 50% of the territory in 1948 - so they then got pushed back to about 25%. They wouldn't accept 25% so in 1967 they lost that. They could have regained the 25% in 2000 - but they rejected it again and now all they have is Gaza. Sometimes people have to try to compromise and need to wake up to the fact that they will never get 100% of what they want.

I'd still like someone to tell me how the life of the average Palestinian is BETTER today because in 1947, the leaders of the Arab world refused to accept any compromise whatsoever.

---

But Ben Gurion did not accept the partition borders, he authorized offensive military operations before the Arab states intervened. He easily could have parlayed for a permanent truce, but when he as informed that the Arab militias were leaving Jerusalem he ordered the capture of Jerusalem.

You have no evidence to contradict this fact, that I established using Zionist sources. Also there is no question that Israel broke the truce again in October in order to sieze the Negev and Gaza, and part of Sinai.

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Here is an interesting article that is actually quite even-handed about Syria's role in the war.

http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/L/Joshua.M.Landis-1/Syria_1948.htm

quote:

---

Public pressure on Quwwatli and his government to commit Syria to the fight in Palestine was strong and Quwwatli could not ignore public opinion; It is easy to forget that Syria was the only working democracy among the principal Arab combatants. Parliament took up the call for war as vociferously as did the people it represented. As Muhsin al-Barazi told an American diplomat in April 1948, the “public's desire for war is irresistible."[50]

On the eve of the parliamentary vote that would commit Syria to war, only one parliamentary deputy, Farzat Mamlouk, spoke out against it. He would later spend years in prison for his pro-Iraqi and British sympathies. In his unpublished memoirs he describes the mood in the parliament on April 27, 1948, when the proposal to go to war was first debated. Outside the parliament crowds of demonstrators had gathered to “chant in favor of war.” Mamlouk writes: [51]

Their cries and chants had a profound effect on the deliberations of the chamber, particularly as the deputies were divided into three groups. The first group was composed of those deputies whose nationalist feelings were inflamed just as were the voices of the demonstrators we could hear outside. The second group was composed of “the followers,” those who automatically followed whatever the others did in all matters -- and how were they going to vote...? The last group included the experienced and judicious deputies who were unable to oppose the government on such a weighty matter for fear of the voices they could hear resounding outside. Because of this, debate was restricted to the first group. They proclaimed their views in passionate and fiery speeches without any regard for the evil toward which they were driving the country.

---

Ironically, Bernadotte found little enthusiasm among the Arabs for independence. He wrote in his diary:

quote:

---

If Ben Gurion accepted the partion boundaries why did he sign a deal with Irgun on April 12th, and then order them to go on the offensive after the mandate ended?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

Because he knew that the moment the mandate ended armies from five Arab countries were poised to invade.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Incidentally, Count Bernadotte (who was tragically assassinated by rightwing Jewish extremists because he was thought to be so pro-Arab, wrote the following in his diary:

Ironically, Bernadotte found little enthusiasm among the Arabs for independence. He wrote in his diary:

The Palestinian Arabs had at present no will of their own. Neither have they ever developed any specifically Palestinian nationalism. The demand for a separate Arab state in Palestine is consequently relatively weak. It would seem as though in existing circumstances most of the Palestinian Arabs would be quite content to be incorporated in Transjordan.13

---

I still think that if they had accepted the UN plan in 1947 and gone about setting up n actual Arab Palestinian state apparatus (something that no one bothered to do) - the world would be a far better place today.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
All they had to do was to say yes to the UN partition plan (remember the UN? the body whose decisions and resolutions we are all supposed to abide by?) and everyone would have kept their homes and orchards on both sides. Jews living in what was slated to be the Arab state could have been left there and Arabs in the Jewish state could have been left there (or if both sides agreed they could have done some population exchanges like what happened when India and Pakistan were created - only without the bloodshed) - but the moment that the Arabs rejected the UN plan and refused to negotiate and insisted that they would settle for nothing other than 100% for themselves - civil war, strife and violence was then inevitable result with predictable results.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
[QB]All they had to do was to say yes to the UN partition plan (remember the UN? the body whose decisions and resolutions we are all supposed to abide by?)

---

It's pretty rich for someone to talk about UN authority in the context of Israeli actions.

For starters, the Plan was a non-binding recommendation by the General Assembly. Nobody had to take it to heart. In fact, even the United Kingdom refused the plan because it wasn't satisfactory to both sides.

Israel didn't abide by the UN plan, either. Note that its troops moved immediately to capture areas not slated to them by the Partition Plan, even before British troops had entirely vacated the Mandate territory. Back to the opening thread of the post, Stockholm - why is it that we call it an "invasion" when Israel actually did the expanding?

[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
That's their fault for not bothering to create one.

---

Only "nations" have rights? Shall we blame Jews for the various beatings they've taken because they "didn't bother" to have a nation-state? I mean, who can blame Nazi Germany for exterminating them: they weren't a real nation and didn't organise themselves well enough to defend themselves? Right? Same logic, Stockholm; same logic.

It seems the UN (who your were just praising a minute ago) felt that a Palestinian state was deserved, regardless of whatever stage of development you might think Palestinian nationalism was in.

The truth is that there WERE Palestinian organisations and a distinct Palestinian identity. Rashid Khalidi's book documents it's genesis and the institutions that sustained it. Who do you suppose those people battling with Zionists in the streets of Haifa were? Who do you think they thought they were?

[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

Just for balance, I'm going to be presenting some arguments in favour of his viewpoint.

quote:

---

The truth is that there WERE Palestinian organisations

---

Well then they were negligent for not bothering to create any state institutions to govern the Arab Palestine that was to be created.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
That's their fault for not bothering to create one.

---

Actually, this has everything to do with the British active repression of the Palestinian leadership during the war. They were met with a highly committed and well organized political movement, which had the ear of the international community because they happened to be part of an ethnic group that had been among the principle victims of the enemies of the victors.

In anycase this has nothing to do with the thread topic, which is the lack of an "invasion" the lack of a "war of independence" and a lack of a "declaration of war".

Three things you have asserted as true, but when examined for veracity are clearly dubious statements. After your track record here for verifiable factual support for your arguement, your observations on the framework of Palestinian social organization is very suspect.

You have still yet to provide a docuement establishing that there was a state of war existent between the Arab league and the State of Israel in 1948. Instead you shower us in a lot of rhetoric, and "what if" theories.

[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
The upper class twits in charge of the mandatory Palestine were almost all garden variety haughty British anti-semites.

---

Yeah, all those upper-class Brits love Muslims and Arabs. As they are proving today in Iraq.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Everything I've read has said that the British were totally biased towards the Arabs, they made sure to turn over every strategically important base the to the Arabs. The upper class twits in charge of the mandatory Palestine were almost all garden variety haughty British anti-semites.

---

You haven't even bothered to look for and read the official Declaration of War by the Arab league, yet you talk about it all the time as if you kow what it contained, yet you want us to take on face value your framing of the pre-Israel period of British occupation.

[ 23 February 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]