Avskaffa Israel?

While it is widely reported that the resulting war eventually included five Arab armies, less well known is the fact that throughout this war Zionist forces outnumbered all Arab and Palestinian combatants combined – often by a factor of two to three. Moreover, Arab armies did not invade Israel – virtually all battles were fought on land that was to have been the Palestinian state.

Finally, it is significant to note that Arab armies entered the conflict only after Zionist forces had committed 16 massacres, including the grisly massacre of over 100 men, women, and children at Deir Yassin. Future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, head of one of the Jewish terrorist groups, described this as “splendid,” and stated: “As in Deir Yassin, so everywhere, we will attack and smite the enemy. God, God, Thou has chosen us for conquest.” Zionist forces committed 33 massacres altogether.

By the end of the war, Israel had conquered 78 percent of Palestine; three-quarters of a million Palestinians had been made refugees; over 500 towns and villages had been obliterated; and a new map was drawn up, in which every city, river and hillock received a new, Hebrew name, as all vestiges of the Palestinian culture were to be erased. For decades Israel denied the existence of this population, former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir once saying: “There is no such thing as a Palestinian.”

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/

In April 1949, Yoseftal reported that of '190,000' 'olim who had arrive since the establishment of the State, 110,00 had been settled in abandoned Arab Houses. Most had been settled in the former Arab neighbourhoods of Jaffa and the mixed towns; 16,000 had been settled in towns (Ramle, Lydda, Acre); and 18,800 in abandoned villages. By May, the number of 'olim settled in abandoned villages had risen to 25,000.

http://books.google.se/books?hl=sv&id=uM_kFX6edX8C&q

The 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle was the flight or expulsion of 50,000–70,000 Palestinian Arabs when Israeli troops captured the towns in July that year. The military action occurred within the context of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The towns, which were predominately Arab areas in Palestine at the time, and which the UN partition resolution had designated to be in the Arab nation, became predominantly Jewish areas in the new State of Israel, known as Lod and Ramla.[1]

Ramle surrendered immediately, but the conquest of Lydda took longer and led to an unknown number of deaths; Israeli historian Benny Morris suggests up to 450 Arabs and 9–10 Israeli soldiers died.[2] Once the Israelis were in control of the towns, an expulsion order signed by Yitzhak Rabin was issued to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) stating, "1. The inhabitants of Lydda must be expelled quickly without attention to age.…",[3] Ramle's residents were bussed out, while the people of Lydda were forced to walk miles during a summer heat wave to the Arab front lines, where the Arab Legion, Transjordan's British-led army, tried to provide shelter and supplies.[4] The harsh conditions of the exodus for the refugees from Lydda caused deaths, mostly from exhaustion and dehydration, with estimates ranging from a handful to 350; it became known as the Lydda death march. From the Israeli perspective, the conquest of the towns averted an Arab threat to Tel Aviv, thwarted an Arab Legion advance by clogging the roads with refugees, and helped demoralize nearby Arab cities.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus_from_Lydda_and_Ramle

Jag förstår inte ditt resonemang öht. Varje gång man försöker likställa, jämföra eller utveckla ett mer sammanhängande och kontextuell resonemang kring fenomenet och konflikten - får ni Atyp Autistiskt anfall - och kan hålla er bara till en och mycket snäv detalj. Det lovar inte gott inte!!

Benny Morris, har tagit avstånd från större delen av sin " The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem "...efter att ha insett att hans påstående... hans funderingar , antaganden och fantasi använts flitigt mot honom själv och Israel. Han har dessutom vänt sig mot storkäftade Pappe Ilans lögnaktiga goja.. !!

http://www.israel-palestina.info/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=417

Varje tilläggsord blir härmed överflödigt

mvh
Giladi

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a plan to replace the British Mandate for Palestine with "Independent Arab and Jewish States

”Palestiniernas” flytkingproblem skulle lösas genom att etablera en Palestinsk stat där de skulle bosätta sig i, inte i Israel. Tyvärr accepterade araberna inte det och startade krig mot Israel, som förvärrade läget för ”Palestinska” flyktingar. Hur kan du klandra Israel för något som araberna själva orsakade?”? Planen var från första början att etablera en Arabisk och en Judisk stat.

”Och det finns många liknande fall gällande andra folkgrupper, religioner, o.s.v. runt om i världen - judar är faktiskt inte de enda som drabbats av våld. Historiska oförrätter finns det gott om.” - Fast vi diskuterar araber och judar, inte ”runt om i världen”.

Efraim Karsh is professor of Mediterranean studies at King's College, University of London, and editor of Israel Affairs.

As a general rule, every war is fought twice: first on the battlefield, then in the historiographical arena. The Arabs failed to destroy the State of Israel in 1948; in the next fifty years, they and their Western partisans waged a sustained propaganda battle to cast the birth of Israel as the source of all evil. In the late 1980s this effort received a major boost with the advent of a group of Israeli academics calling themselves the New Historians who claim to have discovered archival evidence substantiating the anti-Israeli case.

These politicized historians have turned the saga of Israel's birth upside down, with aggressors turned into hapless victims and the reverse. The Jewish acceptance of the United Nations Resolution of November 29, 1947, partitioning Mandatory Palestine into two new states—Jewish and Arab—is completely ignored or dismissed as a disingenuous ploy; similarly, the violent Palestinian and Arab attempt to abort this resolution is overlooked. The concerted Arab attack on the newly-established State of Israel in mid-May 1948 is whitewashed as a haphazard move by ill-equipped and poorly trained armies confronted with a formidable Jewish force. It has even been suggested that the Palestinians, rather than the Israelis, were the target of this concerted Arab attack.1

So successful has this effort been that what began as propaganda has become received dogma. It is striking to see how popularity has widely come to be equated with veracity, as if the most commonly held position must by definition be the correct one. I personally learned this when some critics rejected my exposure of the New Historians methods2 not on scholarly grounds but because my work ran counter to the popular view. [...]

MISREPRESENTATION

The first problem concerns a faulty account of the contents of documents. Morris tells of statements never made, decisions never taken, events that never happened. Consider, for example, the Israeli cabinet meeting of June 16, 1948, about which Morris
commits a double misrepresentation: he misattributes a decision to bar the return of the Palestinian refugees to this meeting; then he charges the Israeli establishment with concealing this nonexistent decision!

On the first matter, Morris writes that

The cabinet meeting of 16 June 1948 was one of the war's most important. It was at that session that, without a formal vote, agreement was reached among the thirteen ministers of Israel's "Provisional Government" to bar a refugee return. The decision in effect sealed the fate of the 700,000 or so Palestinians who had become, or were to become, dispossessed exiles.5

Did it seal their fate? This cabinet meeting took place one month after the war began, at the time of the conflict's first armistice, with fighting to be resumed within three weeks. Its protocol tells nothing of a decision "to bar a refugee return." In fact, it indicates there was no discussion of this issue, much less a decision. Only three participants (Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, and Agriculture Minister Aharon Tzisling) referred to refugees at all, and they did so only in the context of a general survey of the situation. All three cabinet members feared that so long as the war was not over, the return of refugees would tilt the scales in the Arabs' favor. However, while two cabinet members (Sharett and Ben-Gurion) believed that the refugees should not return after the war, a third (Tzisling) emphatically argued they should. Where is the consensus of the cabinet Morris alleges?


[..Läs hela rtkl !! .. ]

According to Morris, Arafat then led his people into the second intifada, a claim which the international commission led by George Mitchell pointedly failed to substantiate. It is a claim also severely undercut by Israeli documentation showing that over-preparation by the IDF and overuse of force, including one million rifle shells in the first days, were crucial to the escalating violence of the intifada. We are told that that Abbas indulged in similar rejectionism in response to then Israeli Prime Minister Olmert’s 2008 proposals, a claim which Olmert himself was again busy refuting in a speech at the J Street conference just last month.

Finally, we are back re-litigating 1947-1948. Morris denies having made the case that for the nascent Jewish state, implementation of partition “necessitated transfer,” and denies being a champion of cleansing. Yet he is hoist by his own petard, it is all there—in his historical writings, in his books, in his Haaretz interview of 2004. In 1948 and After, he describes how intent the then Yishuv leadership was “to thwart the emergence of a Palestinian-Arab state.” In Refabricating 1948, Morris notes “at no point during the 1930s and 1940s did Ben Gurion ever go on record against the idea or policy of transfer. On the contrary, Ben Gurion left a paper trail a mile long as to his actual thinking. And no amount of ignoring, twisting and turning, manipulation, contortion, and distortion, can blow it away.”

In Revisiting the Palestinian Exodus of 1948, Morris goes into more details on the transferist inclinations of the Zionist leadership, ending with his own conclusion that “the most logical solution to the Zionist democratic problem lay the way of transfer.” No one has done a better job of demonstrating how the UN partition resolution, 181, was a recipe for transfer than Benny Morris. For a blow-by-blow account of historians versus historians on this, read Benny Morris’ critique of Steve Walt and John Mearsheimer, and their response. As the latter conclude, “Morris is certainly free to disagree with us today, but only by repudiating his prior scholarship.”

Morris takes umbrage with my describing him as a champion of future ethnic cleansing. Let’s see whether that is justified. Well, Morris says he opposes expulsion of Arabs from Israel and the West Bank/Gaza, except under circumstance of Israel “being under existential threat.” According to Benny Morris, writing just one month ago, Iran represents “an existential threat to Israel.” He set the bar, he met the bar, and for good measure, he recently shared with us via Moment magazine that “the Israel I want to see is more humane, more open, less religious and—to put it frankly—less Arab.” Benny Morris tells us that he prefers his Palestinian rejectionists to be “more open and honest” like “Hamas,” but I’m not sure I prefer my Israeli bigots to be “more humane, more open” like Morris.

Det icke märkliga anledning måste väl ändå vara kriget de/deras ledare satt igång. Ingen av er tänker någon gång 1. flyktingproblemet är en konsekvens av Palestinas araber upphetsade av 5 arabiska länders aggression - låt arabiska politiker lösa detta. Med 1% av den totala avkastningen av Oljeproduktionen i arabvärlden, hade man kunnat lösa problemet för 60 år sedan... 2. Hur vanligt är inte det, att förbjuda återvändandet av fientliga folkgrupper efter krig och konflikter. Att sedan Israel är omringat av just hatiska element av samma etnicitet gör inte saken bättre. Är det fel att inte låta dödsfiender att återvända..? Knappast, det är mer naturligt och regel än onaturligt undantag.

kompensation är lösningen -inget annat. ..LoL !!

Det kanske ändå bäst att du fortsätter debattera med dig själv. Du ställer frågorna, besvarar ..och upprätthåller din snäva egna sanning kring konflikten i MÖ och flyktingproblemet. Vilken självklar rätt dessa har att återvända efter att ha utsätta den judiska befolkning först för terror sedan genom att starta ett krig...kan du säkert hitta inom den arabisk-islamistiska suprematistiska rätten.

..and he made a big f....- salad av all that..

http://www.meforum.org/466/benny-morris-and-the-reign-of-error

Nu vet jag vilken Benny Morris du talar om - den sim ljög om 1948..eller om 2000.

http://melaniephillips.com/benny-morris-in-londonistan.

...eller den som tar tillbaka det han tagit tillbaka och förnekar det han först förnekat..Jag skulle som Palestina-vän ha varit jätteförsiktigt med att anlita just denna alltid politikkorrekte prof.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/sep/08/benny-morris-jonathan-freedland

eller .... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/16/of-herrings-and-elephants-benny-morris-and-palestinian-rejectionism.html

Nej förresten kanske denne....http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/24/a-second-response-to-benny-morris.html