[skinster]

Why? They feared for their security as violence began

Yes they feared their security because zionist militias were committing violence on their communities causing them to flee their homes and land.

Example?

The read lines in my post are links for your attention.

No, he's just quoting rather selectively from it. Morris dedicates a complete chapter on the debate among Zionists on the concept of transfer precisely because it cannot summarized in a single paragraph and because the debate went through different stages.

"Transfer" is a euphemism for ethnic cleansing.

You actually believe that leftist student unions are representative of the general population? Don't make me laugh

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Your position on the BDS movement had got passed the laughing stage elsewhere in this forum where you support the zionist fight against BDS. Feel free to laugh, but the Israelis are spending millions of shekels trying to fight the movement.

You say that the facts on the ground vindicate Peled, yet I don't really see how.

The facts on the ground show there is no Palestinian state, still, and that ethnic-cleansing in the land that's supposed to be a Palestinian state continues to this day.

[noemon]

Like this one you mean?Do you? How can you explain the letter quoted above?

The explanation is among the posts you ignored:

The apologetic non-sense Morris says to the Irish do not overpower the statements he makes in his own books and in Israel itself, especially this one where he is calling upon official Israeli documents. If Morris says it's in the documents, are you claiming he's lying wat0n? Your favourite historian that is?

They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

"There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing.

The term `to cleanse' is terrible.
"I know it doesn't sound nice but that's the term they used at the time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am immersed."

But the displacement of Arabs from Palestine or from the areas of Palestine that would become the Jewish State was inherent in Zionist ideology and, in microcosm, in Zionist praxis from the start of the enterprise.

Jordan aimed to conquer the complete city, and East Jerusalem was not allotted to the Arab state either.
Upon conquering territory like East Jerusalem and the West Bank, Jordan expelled the Jewish population that remained as the case of Kfar Etzion can attest. So, why wouldn't it be valid to say that the Yishuv was defending them?

Because that would make an Arab invasion of Israel itself equally valid and justified. And because that is not pugsville's question, why does Morris consider the invasion of Jerusalem as an invasion of Israel when Jerusalem was not part of the partition plan?

Do you have an explanation or do you not?

[skinster]

The apologetic non-sense Morris says to the Irish do not overpower the statements he makes in his own books

Finkelstein calls Morris out on his revisionism here.
[youtube]qTWxfdVHJWU[/youtube]

[wat0n]

Yes they feared their security because zionist militias were committing violence on their communities causing them to flee their homes and land.

Irgun and Lehi were, though they were quite small and unable to do much. The Haganah - which represented the mainstream Zionist leadership - wasn't as it didn't even believe it was ready to go on the offensive and wanted to avoid facing the risks of doing so.

Most importantly, fleeing war is not the same as being expelled from your home at gunpoint. The latter only took place later in the war.

"Transfer" is a euphemism for ethnic cleansing.

Ethnic cleansing goes beyond simply "transfer".

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Your position on the BDS movement had got passed the laughing stage elsewhere in this forum where you support the zionist fight against BDS. Feel free to laugh, but the Israelis are spending millions of shekels trying to fight the movement.

Oh believe me, they most certainly take it seriously. And Israeli politicians use that fear to get votes by showing how hard they fight.

That doesn't mean BDS is really in a position to get Western governments implement its desired policies anytime soon.

The facts on the ground show there is no Palestinian state, still, and that ethnic-cleansing in the land that's supposed to be a Palestinian state continues to this day.

And yet, the fact that Israel reached a agreements with Egypt and Jordan shows it is not really impossible for it to reach one with Palestinians, don't you think? They do show that Israel can and has left land in order to reach peace deals (namely, the Sinai, which also has a clear religious value mind you).

The explanation is among the posts you ignored:

The apologetic non-sense Morris says to the Irish do not overpower the statements he makes in his own books and in Israel itself, especially this one where he is calling upon official Israeli documents. If Morris says it's in the documents, are you claiming he's lying wat0n? Your favourite historian that is?

Morris also says that the documents did not include any plans or orders to expel Palestinians en masse.

Because that would make an Arab invasion of Israel itself equally valid and justified. And because that is not pugsville's question, why does Morris consider the invasion of Jerusalem as an invasion of Israel when Jerusalem was not part of the partition plan?

Do you have an explanation or do you not?

Why would it make an Arab invasion equally justified? I mean, the Arab states announced that they would wage war against Israel as soon as the partition was voted and Palestinian armed groups attempted to besiege Jewish population centers as the British were leaving - including Jerusalem.

Indeed, much of the Israeli war effort in Jerusalem was devoted to break the siege it was being put in.

[Heinie]

... "Transfer" is a euphemism for ethnic cleansing. ...[/url]

Transportation is the most fitting word. Do unto others what was done unto you, in manner of speaking.

[skinster]

Most importantly, fleeing war is not the same as being expelled from your home at gunpoint. The latter only took place later in the war.

Ethnic cleansing goes beyond simply "transfer".

When Morris talks of transfer in his books, he's talking about ethnic cleansing.

Oh believe me, they most certainly take it seriously. And Israeli politicians use that fear to get votes by showing how hard they fight.

Ok you're going back to "BDS is not a threat". That's okay, you're allowed to change your position. It's nice to see you admit that the Israeli government likes to scare its population for votes. Nice state you're apologizing for here.

That doesn't mean BDS is really in a position to get Western governments implement its desired policies anytime soon.

Nobody's saying it'll happen tomorrow, but Israel is already considered a pariah state and is forever complaining about wanting legitimacy. We have time ahead to see how things go.

[noemon]

Morris also says that the documents did not include any plans or orders to expel Palestinians en masse.

Morris says clearly:

They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

"There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing.

The term `to cleanse' is terrible.
"I know it doesn't sound nice but that's the term they used at the time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am immersed."

]Why would it make an Arab invasion equally justified?

You said that Jordan invading Jerusalem makes the Irgun invasion of Jerusalem valid and justified as it entered to protect the Jewish population. The very same thing makes an invasion to Israel valid and justified as the Arabs aim to protect the Palestinians from Israeli abuse and ethnic-cleansing.

And you are still evading and ignoring pugsville's question. In the next post you will claim that you forgot about it already.

I mean, the Arab states announced that they would wage war against Israel as soon as the partition

They announced that at the absence of authority they will interfere to protect the security of the Arab natives.

was voted and Palestinian armed groups attempted to besiege Jewish population centres as the British were leaving - including Jerusalem.

Jewish terrorists were already ethnic-cleansing people and 100,000 Arabs had been cleansed before the war even begun.

Indeed, much of the Israeli war effort in Jerusalem was devoted to break the siege it was being put in.

Indeed much of the Arab war effort was devoted to protect the Arab natives who were being ethnic-cleansed like there was no tomorrow.

After all Morris said it best:

But the displacement of Arabs from Palestine or from the areas of Palestine that would become the Jewish State was inherent in Zionist ideology and, in microcosm, in Zionist praxis from the start of the enterprise.

[wat0n]

Under your reasoning, every time people flee a war zone, they are being ethnically cleansed.

When Morris talks of transfer in his books, he's talking about ethnic cleansing.

Not really. Or what, schemes of voluntary emigration such as those Morris mentions that were clearly preferred are also ethnic cleansing?

Ok you're going back to "BDS is not a threat". That's okay, you're allowed to change your position. It's nice to see you admit that the Israeli government likes to scare its population for votes. Nice state you're apologizing for here.

It's not that it likes to scare Israelis, they are already scared and politicians take advantage of it to get votes.

When did I say BDS is a threat?

Nobody's saying it'll happen tomorrow, but Israel is already considered a pariah state and is forever complaining about wanting legitimacy. We have time ahead to see how things go.

Yes, Israelis are insecure. Decades of constant conflict can do that.

Morris says clearly:

He doesn't say the Zionists perpetrated ethnic cleansing in his letter to the Irish Times. In fact, he says the complete opposite.

They announced that at the absence of authority they will interfere to protect the security of the Arab natives.

No, they said much more than that. They said they completely opposed the bipartition and formation of Israel.

Jewish terrorists were already ethnic-cleansing people and 100,000 Arabs had been cleansed before the war even begun.

The Mandate fell in civil war almost immediately after the bopartion was voted, why do you think 2,000 Jews had already died before the Arab states invaded?

Indeed much of the Arab war effort was devoted to protect the Arab natives who were being ethnic-cleansed like there was no tomorrow.

After all Morris said it best:

They said explicitly they would destroy any Jewish state that was founded as a result of the bipartition.

[skinster]

Under your reasoning, every time people flee a war zone, they are being ethnically cleansed.

You twisting things doesn't change that what zionist militias did was ethnic cleansing and current Israeli policy continues to be ethnic cleansing.

Not really.

Yes really, "transfer" is the pretty word for 'ethnic cleansing'.

[noemon]

He doesn't say the Zionists perpetrated ethnic cleansing in his letter to the Irish Times. In fact, he says the complete opposite.

They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

"There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing.

The term `to cleanse' is terrible.
"I know it doesn't sound nice but that's the term they used at the time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am immersed."

But the displacement of Arabs from Palestine or from the areas of Palestine that would become the Jewish State was inherent in Zionist ideology and, in microcosm, in Zionist praxis from the start of the enterprise.

No, they said much more than that. They said they completely opposed the bipartition and formation of Israel. They said explicitly they would destroy any Jewish state that was founded as a result of the bipartition.

Do you support or oppose the partition of Israel itself? You mean like Israel destroyed Palestine and caused the fleeing of 100,000 of their people before the war even begun and a further 700,000 during the war?

The Mandate fell in civil war almost immediately after the bopartion was voted, why do you think 2,000 Jews had already died before the Arab states invaded?

Because the British killed them?

[wat0n]

@skinster: Weak, I assume you do not really have any answer then.

Do you support or oppose the partition of Israel itself? You mean like Israel destroyed Palestine and caused the fleeing of 100,000 of their people before the war even begun and a further 700,000 during the war?

Why would it be necessary to divide Israel when Palestinians do have a territory that is internationally recognized as their State? The Yishuv and the Jews in general did not.

Because the British killed them?

Please provide evidence that British forces killed 2000 Jews in the period between December of 1947 and March 14 of 1948.

I have never seen any historians claiming so, not even anti-Zionist ones.

Also, I note you did not even quote from Morris' letter to the Irish Times.

[noemon]

Why would it be necessary to divide Israel when Palestinians do have a territory that is internationally recognized as their State? The Yishuv and the Jews in general did not.

Why would the Arabs care about what the Jews had? Do you care that Palestinians are stateless? And why would the Palestinians not be granted a state of their own based on the principle of self-determination, the very same principle the Jews used to take away Arab land? and no Israel has not recognised a Palestinian state.

Please provide evidence that British forces killed 2000 Jews in the period between December of 1947 and March 14 of 1948.

Why would I provide evidence for a question I'm asking you? You claimed that 2,000 Jews died in British Palestine before the war begun. You did not say anything else so if you want to provide context to your claim you are more than welcome to.

Also, I note you did not even quote from Morris' letter to the Irish Times.

The apologetic non-sense Morris says to the Irish do not overpower the statements he makes in his own books and in Israel itself, especially this one where he is calling upon official Israeli documents. If Morris says it's in the documents, are you claiming he's lying wat0n? Your favourite historian that is?

They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.
"There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing.
The term `to cleanse' is terrible.
"I know it doesn't sound nice but that's the term they used at the time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am immersed."

But the displacement of Arabs from Palestine or from the areas of Palestine that would become the Jewish State was inherent in Zionist ideology and, in microcosm, in Zionist praxis from the start of the enterprise.

I also note that you are still ignoring pugsvilles question and argument.

[skinster]

@skinster: Weak, I assume you do not really have any answer then.

You twisting things doesn't change that what zionist militias did was ethnic cleansing and current Israeli policy continues to be ethnic cleansing.

Transfer = ethnic cleansing but Morris went so far as referring to it as actual ethnic cleansing, as noeman has repeatedly quoted.

You can continue lying away with nothing to back it up with, but that's not going to get me to shut up.

You support and apologize for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and then cry about racism and then call other people weak.

[wat0n]

Why would the Arabs care about what the Jews had?

The international community did, for sure.

Do you care that Palestinians are stateless?

Yes, I actually do. I think they have every right to one, I support the two-state solution as the only way to end the conflict.

And why would the Palestinians not be granted a state of their own based on the principle of self-determination, the very same principle the Jews used to take away Arab land?

The question is moot since I think they should get one.

and no Israel has not recognised a Palestinian state.

But the international community has, for the most part.

Why would I provide evidence for a question I'm asking you? You claimed that 2,000 Jews died in British Palestine before the war begun. You did not say anything else so if you want to provide context to your claim you are more than welcome to.

I have never seen any evidence that they were killed by the British. Not even anti-Zionist historians claim that (on the contrary, there are those who think the British supported the Zionists).

I also don't see why would Morris tell Ha'aretz something different from what he tells international media, it's not like the internet doesn't exist.

As for pugsville's question, I think I provided an adequate answer. It is not really moralistic to say that the Yishuv had reasons to fear a Jordanian conquest of Jerusalem given the precedent of Kfar Etzion. It'd have been a major disaster for it, at a humanitarian level, for tens of thousands of Jews to be displaced from Jerusalem.

@skinster: So you prefer to ignore Morris' letter to the Irish Times too

As I said, weak.

[skinster]

I support the two-state solution as the only way to end the conflict.

There was never a plan for two states. Zionists want all the land and that is why there are no Israeli borders and why Israeli policy of settlement in occupied-Palestinian territory continues to this very day.

@skinster: So you prefer to ignore Morris' letter to the Irish Times too

Of course I do. His revisionism as a zionist-shill doesn't change the facts about ethnic cleansing committed by zionist militias that continues to this day in the West Bank along with genocide in Gaza.

[noemon]

The question is moot since I think they should get one.

You are forgetting your original claim again, like you forgot pugsvilles question. It has to do with whether the Arab invasion was justified and since you claim that the Jerusalem invasion by Israel was justified then don't see how can you deny the same justification to the Arabs. Double standards much?

But the international community has, for the most part.

Which is irrelevant because Israel is brutally occupying them despite the calls of the international community to withdraw to its borders.

I have never seen any evidence that they were killed by the British. Not even anti-Zionist historians claim that (on the contrary, there are those who think the British supported the Zionists).

You claimed 2000 Jews died in British Palestine before the war begun you did not say anything else and to whim you are referring to, if you want to provide context and evidence to your claim that the British were not responsible, you should bring it forward. It goes without say that the authorities are responsible for what happens inside their territory unless shown otherwise.

I also don't see why would Morris tell Ha'aretz something different from what he tells international media, it's not like the internet doesn't exist.

The fact remains that in Haaretz he is calling upon Zionist documents and unless you claim that the documents lie, then you have no leg to stand on.

As for pugsville's question, I think I provided an adequate answer. It is not really moralistic to say that the Yishuv had reasons to fear a Jordanian conquest of Jerusalem given the precedent of Kfar Etzion. It'd have been a major disaster for it, at a humanitarian level, for tens of thousands of Jews to be displaced from Jerusalem.

The Arabs had reason to fear that the Jews will ethnic-cleanse their people and their fears were correct as the Jewish terrorists did and as Morris says that is an inherent part of Zionist praxis right from the start of the enterprise. But that was not pugsvilles question. Pugsville asked you why does Morris consider the invasion of Jerusalem as an invasion to Israel when Jerusalem was not part of Israel according to the partition plan which the Israelis supposedly abided by?

Do you have an answer for that? Or do you not?

@skinster: So you prefer to ignore Morris' letter to the Irish Times too

As I said, weak.[/quote]

[wat0n]

There was never a plan for two states. Zionists want all the land and that is why there are no Israeli borders and why Israeli policy of settlement in occupied-Palestinian territory displays.

Of course I do. His revisionism as a zionist-shill doesn't change the facts about ethnic cleansing committed by zionist militias that continues to this day in the West Bank along with genocide in Gaza.

I don't get something. If this nonsense were true, why didn't Israel just expel as many Palestinians from the West Bank in 1967 as possible (you don't really believe it had any issues with it since you claim it fought the 1948 with a decision to expel as many Palestinians as possible and now you claim it is exterminating the Palestinians in Gaza and expelling them from the West Bank)? Who would have stopped them? Why hasn't the Palestinian population of the region continually decreased during all these years since the Six Day War?

[skinster]

zionist-interrogation mode is lol.

[wat0n]

You are forgetting your original claim again, like you forgot pugsvilles question. It has to do with whether the Arab invasion was justified and since you claim that the Jerusalem invasion by Israel was justified then don't see how can you deny the same justification to the Arabs. Double standards much?

The Arabs didn't invade Israel to defend the Palestinians, they said they would destroy it as soon as the bipartition was passed and then Jordan annexed as much land as it could rather than leave Palestine as an independent state.

Which is irrelevant because Israel is brutally occupying them despite the calls of the international community to withdraw to its borders.

On the contrary, having recognition gives them rights like joining the ICC and suing Israeli leaders.

You claimed 2000 Jews died in British Palestine before the war begun you did not say anything else and to whim you are referring to, if you want to provide context and evidence to your claim that the British were not responsible, you should bring it forward. It goes without say that the authorities are responsible for what happens inside their territory unless shown otherwise.

Morris claimed Palestinian militias killed 2000 Jews between December and May 14 of 1948 in his letter to the Irish Times. He never said the British did.

The fact remains that in Haaretz he is calling upon Zionist documents and unless you claim that the documents lie, then you have no leg to stand on.

The fact remains that in the Irish Times he is calling upon Zionist documents and unless you claim that the documents lie, then you have no leg to stand on.

The Arabs had reason to fear that the Jews will ethnic-cleanse their people and their fears were correct as the Jewish terrorists did and as Morris says that is an inherent part of Zionist praxis right from the start of the enterprise. But that was not pugsvilles question. Pugsville asked you why does Morris consider the invasion of Jerusalem as an invasion to Israel when Jerusalem was not part of Israel according to the partition plan which the Israelis supposedly abided by?

Do you have an answer for that? Or do you not?

I already provided an answer, the rest is your pathetic attempt to distort what Morris said. That's why you ignore his letter to the Irish Times, too - where he says explicitly the Yishuv did not fight the 1948 with the goal to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. That's also why skinster doesn't like him in case you did not realize.

@skinster: I know you can't debate so I do not find it surprising you answer like this.

[Heinie]

I don't get something. If this nonsense were true, why didn't Israel just expel as many Palestinians from the West Bank in 1967 as possible (you don't really believe it had any issues with it since you claim it fought the 1948 with a decision to expel as many Palestinians as possible and now you claim it is exterminating the Palestinians in Gaza and expelling them from the West Bank)? Who would have stopped them? Why hasn't the Palestinian population of the region continually decreased during all these years since the Six Day War?

It is not necessary to liquidate all Palestinians in order to ethnically cleanse their homeland. It is sufficient that they be confined to reservations while the natural resources, water, agricultural land and lebensraum is acquired for the exclusive use of Jews.