[skinster]

There's no debating with hasbarists. They can enjoy the pariah-status of the racist state they support.

[wat0n]

If you do not want to debate, why are you here and why do you pretend to support free speech when you just insult people expecting them to shut up when you cannot provide any arguments?

@Heinie: How can that happen? I mean, those "reservations" you mention (Area A?) still take much of the West Bank and block any real attempts to settle the West Bank to annex it.

I find it rather far fetched that the Zionists who seem to be so cunning in fucking Palestinians seem to be so sloppy at this strategic planning.

[skinster]

It's pointless to debate with hasbarists who deny history which is recorded even by historians they source (the ethnic cleansing of Palestine).

Adios for now.

[noemon]

If this [Benny Morris] 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

Fixed that for you..and because:

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."

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that Ben-Gurion erred in expelling too few Arabs?

"If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations."

I find it hard to believe what I am hearing.

"If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it will be because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer in 1948. Because he left a large and volatile demographic reserve in the West Bank and Gaza and within Israel itself."

In his place, would you have expelled them all? All the Arabs in the country?

"But I am not a statesman. I do not put myself in his place. But as an historian, I assert that a mistake was made here. Yes. The non-completion of the transfer was a mistake."

And today? Do you advocate a transfer today?

"If you are asking me whether I support the transfer and expulsion of the Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza and perhaps even from Galilee and the Triangle, I say not at this moment. I am not willing to be a partner to that act. In the present circumstances it is neither moral nor realistic. The world would not allow it, the Arab world would not allow it, it would destroy the Jewish society from within. But I am ready to tell you that in other circumstances, apocalyptic ones, which are liable to be realised in five or ten years, I can see expulsions.[/b] If we find ourselves with atomic weapons around us, or if there is a general Arab attack on us and a situation of warfare on the front with Arabs in the rear shooting at convoys on their way to the front, acts of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential."

Including the expulsion of Israeli Arabs?

"The Israeli Arabs are a time bomb. Their slide into complete Palestinization has made them an emissary of the enemy that is among us. They are a potential fifth column. In both demographic and security terms they are liable to undermine the state. So that if Israel again finds itself in a situation of existential threat, as in 1948, it may be forced to act as it did then. If we are attacked by Egypt (after an Islamist revolution in Cairo) and by Syria, and chemical and biological missiles slam into our cities, and at the same time Israeli Palestinians attack us from behind, I can see an expulsion situation. It could happen. If the threat to Israel is existential, expulsion will be justified."

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.

They would destroy it like Israel destroyed Palestine, don't see the difference and what makes Israel any different. Jerusalem was not in Israel for your argument to be applicable. Israel invaded Jerusalem and Jordan also invaded Jerusalem, why do you and Morris consider the Jordanian invasion of Jerusalem as an invasion to Israel when Jerusalem was not Israeli and when you pretend that Israel abided by the partition plan?

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

It's all good then they should stay occupied and stateless forever and be content in the thought that they might sue Israeli leaders.

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.

By May 14th close to 2,000 Israelis had died.

No mention of Palestinian militias anywhere in the article you provided. That would be your third misquoting and misrepresentation in the past 2 pages.

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 fact does remain:

It is true that Plan D gave the regional commanders carte blanche to occupy and garrison or expel and destroy the Arab villages

It's pointless to debate with hasbarists who deny history which is recorded even by historians they source (the ethnic cleansing of Palestine).

I disagree skinsterina, it is not pointless to see how far wat0n is willing to ridicule himself before the community.

[Heinie]

@Heinie: How can that happen? I mean, those "reservations" you mention (Area A?) still take much of the West Bank and block any real attempts to settle the West Bank to annex it.

I find it rather far fetched that the Zionists who seem to be so cunning in fucking Palestinians seem to be so sloppy at this strategic planning.

The Israelis are not cunning, merely brazen. The Reservations do not take up most of the land, natural resources, and agricultural land in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. They are in pockets with travel restrictions and checkpoints rendering a viable Palestinian state impossible.

[noemon]

wat0n probably thinks he too is being cunning rather than just brazen.

[youtube]wlQf41CJjjc[/youtube]

Cunning or brazen?

This poor refugee family was given this piece of land by the UN when they were kicked out of their own house by Israel, then Israel kicked them out of the UN land on which they had built their second house and all that inside occupied territory.

[skinster]

I disagree skinsterina, it is not pointless to see how far wat0n is willing to ridicule himself before the community.

I meant that I wasn't willing to waste time on zionist interrogation techniques because I see them for the distractions that they are and there's only so much hasbara one can bother with.

But you do have a good point.

[skinster]

dp

[pugsville]

I'm amazed you understood that when I was clearly talking about the position of the Zionist leadership on the issue of so-called transfer according to Morris himself. In particular, it was opposed to the wholesale expulsion of Arabs and, indeed, as Morris says it did not have any prior plans or decision of a wholesale expulsion of the Palestinians.
.

Morris is hardly to be totally trusted he definitely has a dog in the fight. but even he says that transfer was central to zionism, and the ben-gurion was a firm prophet of transfer. ben-Gurion also wanted all of the mandate of Palestine and more, any agreement to a partition was merely tactical. ben-Gurion wrote of the need to for any talk of trader to come the others and not the Zionists. there was widespread agreement that the vast bulk the Palestine should be compelled to leave. denying them employment and never selling land to them were pretty much agreed.there was no way to achieve the Zionist goal without wholesale expulsions. they knew it and they were not giving up there Idea of greater Israel and that meant explusions.

morris say of 1948 the 'transfer was in the air' a lot of the people involved wanted the removal of the Arab population. why is there a need for prearranged deep planning.

it quite a matter of the historical record that the IDF carried out large scale expulsions of Arab population. Lydda and Ramle alone counted for 10% done in a brutal manner with no provisions which was definitely a war crime.

They simply wanted to defend the Jewish population of Jerusalem from the possibility of being expelled or killed by the Jordanian army if it took control of the Jewish neighborhoods of the city, just like it did in Kfar Etzion.

as Kfar Etzion has not happened when the drive to conquest to Jerusalem started it cannot have been a factor. and the leadership was definitely committed to expansion. they dreamed of having Jerusalem to say they started a military operation to basically conquer Jerusalem and the expulsion of the most of the Arabs on the way and they were panning not to kept is simply unbelievable

Actually the idea of a wholesale forcible expulsion of the Arabs was a taboo even within the leadership, and the issue was only seriously discussed after the British raised the possibility of an agreement which included transferring Arabs out of the proposed Jewish State in the Peel Plan. Even then, it took place in the context of an international agreement on the matter rather than a war fought to expel Palestinians.

an agreement which the zionist leadership had no intention of abiding by. ben-gurion says \he would give up any part of Palestine. discussing the peel plan ben grunion makes clear it was only a start and the 'need for talk of transfer not to come form us' (the zionists)

Furthermore, as I have shown in the past, there are confidential cables by Zionist leaders showing surprise to see the Palestinians fleeing in April 1948 (like in the case of Haifa). Hardly proof of planning, even if you may choose to disregard it based on some conspirational claim like saying that it was meant to be read (which is based on nothing). It's not like we haven't discussed this in the past...

cables readily readable by the US. really the Zionists normally played a pretty high quality diplomatic game. i see no reason to give these cables any credence.
haifa could hardly of been a surprise to military commanders on the ground who drove the populace from their homes.afterwards they were gathered in the marketplace when the Israelis striated firing on the civilians. and they civilians boarded ships rather than be killed. the actions of IDF were hardly of anatomy with any concern with arab civilians lives. of course in front of the British the fiction was maintained. much like the declaration of the state of Israel, there was no intent to actually accept the Arab population as equals. no one would be punished for killing them. the irgun would be supplied with weapons and co-operated with, the would be driven from their homes and prevented from returning. many Arabs who remained would have their land and property taken from them in legalised theft. the words in the declaration were a lie.

[wat0n]

Fixed that for you..and because:

...And still ignoring the letter he wrote in the Irish Times, let alone address that paragraph as it was rather than your nonsense.

They would destroy it like Israel destroyed Palestine, don't see the difference and what makes Israel any different.

Israel didn't destroy Palestine, Palestinians could have still had a state if Jordan and Egypt had granted them one.

Jerusalem was not in Israel for your argument to be applicable. Israel invaded Jerusalem and Jordan also invaded Jerusalem, why do you and Morris consider the Jordanian invasion of Jerusalem as an invasion to Israel when Jerusalem was not Israeli and when you pretend that Israel abided by the partition plan?

Jerusalem was supposed to be an international city, yet the Arabs laid siege to it even before the British left and Jordan marched on it as soon as they left. What else was the Yishuv to do, watch the Jordanians expel the Jews of the city?

It's all good then they should stay occupied and stateless forever and be content in the thought that they might sue Israeli leaders.

On the contrary, suing Israel may actually be their real negotiating chip as of today.

No mention of Palestinian militias anywhere in the article you provided. That would be your third misquoting and misrepresentation in the past 2 pages.

Israel and the Palestinians
Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 00:00

Madam, - Israel-haters are fond of citing - and more often, mis-citing - my work in support of their arguments. Let me offer some corrections.

The Palestinian Arabs were not responsible "in some bizarre way" (David Norris, January 31st) for what befell them in 1948. Their responsibility was very direct and simple.

In defiance of the will of the international community, as embodied in the UN General Assembly Resolution of November 29th, 1947 (No. 181), they launched hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence of the Jewish state and perhaps destroying that community. But they lost; and one of the results was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes.

It is true, as Erskine Childers pointed out long ago, that there were no Arab radio broadcasts urging the Arabs to flee en masse; indeed, there were broadcasts by several Arab radio stations urging them to stay put. But, on the local level, in dozens of localities around Palestine, Arab leaders advised or ordered the evacuation of women and children or whole communities, as occurred in Haifa in late April, 1948. And Haifa's Jewish mayor, Shabtai Levy, did, on April 22nd, plead with them to stay, to no avail.

Most of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders). But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops.

The displacement of the 700,000 Arabs who became "refugees" - and I put the term in inverted commas, as two-thirds of them were displaced from one part of Palestine to another and not from their country (which is the usual definition of a refugee) - was not a "racist crime" (David Landy, January 24th) but the result of a national conflict and a war, with religious overtones, from the Muslim perspective, launched by the Arabs themselves.

There was no Zionist "plan" or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of "ethnic cleansing". Plan Dalet (Plan D), of March 10th, 1948 (it is open and available for all to read in the IDF Archive and in various publications), was the master plan of the Haganah - the Jewish military force that became the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) - to counter the expected pan-Arab assault on the emergent Jewish state. That's what it explicitly states and that's what it was. And the invasion of the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq duly occurred, on May 15th.

It is true that Plan D gave the regional commanders carte blanche to occupy and garrison or expel and destroy the Arab villages along and behind the front lines and the anticipated Arab armies' invasion routes. And it is also true that mid-way in the 1948 war the Israeli leaders decided to bar the return of the "refugees" (those "refugees" who had just assaulted the Jewish community), viewing them as a potential fifth column and threat to the Jewish state's existence. I for one cannot fault their fears or logic.

The demonisation of Israel is largely based on lies - much as the demonisation of the Jews during the past 2,000 years has been based on lies. And there is a connection between the two.
I would recommend that the likes of Norris and Landy read some history books and become acquainted with the facts, not recycle shopworn Arab propaganda. They might then learn, for example, that the "Palestine War" of 1948 (the "War of Independence," as Israelis call it) began in November 1947, not in May 1948. By May 14th close to 2,000 Israelis had died - of the 5,800 dead suffered by Israel in the whole war (ie almost 1 per cent of the Jewish population of Palestine/Israel, which was about 650,000).

- Yours, etc,

Prof BENNY MORRIS, Li-On, Israel

Bullshit, he blames the Palestinians for the violence quite clearly.

The fact does remain:

Israel and the Palestinians
Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 00:00

Madam, - Israel-haters are fond of citing - and more often, mis-citing - my work in support of their arguments. Let me offer some corrections.

The Palestinian Arabs were not responsible "in some bizarre way" (David Norris, January 31st) for what befell them in 1948. Their responsibility was very direct and simple.

In defiance of the will of the international community, as embodied in the UN General Assembly Resolution of November 29th, 1947 (No. 181), they launched hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence of the Jewish state and perhaps destroying that community. But they lost; and one of the results was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes.

It is true, as Erskine Childers pointed out long ago, that there were no Arab radio broadcasts urging the Arabs to flee en masse; indeed, there were broadcasts by several Arab radio stations urging them to stay put. But, on the local level, in dozens of localities around Palestine, Arab leaders advised or ordered the evacuation of women and children or whole communities, as occurred in Haifa in late April, 1948. And Haifa's Jewish mayor, Shabtai Levy, did, on April 22nd, plead with them to stay, to no avail.

Most of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders). But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops.

The displacement of the 700,000 Arabs who became "refugees" - and I put the term in inverted commas, as two-thirds of them were displaced from one part of Palestine to another and not from their country (which is the usual definition of a refugee) - was not a "racist crime" (David Landy, January 24th) but the result of a national conflict and a war, with religious overtones, from the Muslim perspective, launched by the Arabs themselves.

There was no Zionist "plan" or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of "ethnic cleansing". Plan Dalet (Plan D), of March 10th, 1948 (it is open and available for all to read in the IDF Archive and in various publications), was the master plan of the Haganah - the Jewish military force that became the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) - to counter the expected pan-Arab assault on the emergent Jewish state. That's what it explicitly states and that's what it was. And the invasion of the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq duly occurred, on May 15th.

It is true that Plan D gave the regional commanders carte blanche to occupy and garrison or expel and destroy the Arab villages along and behind the front lines and the anticipated Arab armies' invasion routes. And it is also true that mid-way in the 1948 war the Israeli leaders decided to bar the return of the "refugees" (those "refugees" who had just assaulted the Jewish community), viewing them as a potential fifth column and threat to the Jewish state's existence. I for one cannot fault their fears or logic.

The demonisation of Israel is largely based on lies - much as the demonisation of the Jews during the past 2,000 years has been based on lies. And there is a connection between the two.
I would recommend that the likes of Norris and Landy read some history books and become acquainted with the facts, not recycle shopworn Arab propaganda. They might then learn, for example, that the "Palestine War" of 1948 (the "War of Independence," as Israelis call it) began in November 1947, not in May 1948. By May 14th close to 2,000 Israelis had died - of the 5,800 dead suffered by Israel in the whole war (ie almost 1 per cent of the Jewish population of Palestine/Israel, which was about 650,000).

- Yours, etc,

Prof BENNY MORRIS, Li-On, Israel

And more selective reading, i.e. bullshit, he does say Plan Dalet did not call for the wholesale expulsion of Palestinians.

@Heinie: I agree, the Israelis are not being cunning when they send settlers, but they aren't stupid enough to believe that keeping the Palestinians in reservations would solve their problems in the slightest. After all, they most certainly don't want to be in conflict forever, not even the hard right wants that. As you have posted in the past on the forum, the assessment by the IDF is that the status quo is one of the reasons for the current violence. That doesn't suggest to me that there is a strategy to send Palestinians into reservations or anything like that, even if it is not particularly smart. Honestly, I just think they know the status quo is untenable in the long run but the current crop of politicians doesn't want to do what needs to be done to improve the situation to a great deal because it is costly and improvements would only accrue in the long run.

[noemon]

Israel didn't destroy Palestine, Palestinians could have still had a state if Jordan and Egypt had granted them one. On the contrary, suing Israel may actually be their real negotiating chip as of today.

Israel did destroy Palestine as it replaced Palestine with Israel.

Jerusalem was supposed to be an international city, yet the Arabs laid siege to it even before the British left and Jordan marched on it as soon as they left. What else was the Yishuv to do, watch the Jordanians expel the Jews of the city?

Whether an Israeli or a Jordanian invasion on Jerusalem was justified is not for me to say, I and pugsville have asked you a simple question:

Why do you and Morris consider the Jordanian invasion of Jerusalem as an invasion to Israel when Jerusalem was not Israeli and when you pretend that Israel abided by the partition plan?

Bullshit, he blames the Palestinians for the violence quite clearly.

No mention of Palestinian militias killing 2000 Jews before the war as you falsely claimed anywhere in the article you provided. That would be your third misquoting and misrepresentation in the past 2 pages.

And more selective reading, i.e. bullshit, he does say Plan Dalet did not call for the wholesale expulsion of Palestinians.

What he says is very clear and does not require any zionist misinterpretations:

It is true that Plan D gave the regional commanders carte blanche to occupy and garrison or expel and destroy the Arab villages

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.

[wat0n]

Morris is hardly to be totally trusted he definitely has a dog in the fight. but even he says that transfer was central to zionism, and the ben-gurion was a firm prophet of transfer. ben-Gurion also wanted all of the mandate of Palestine and more, any agreement to a partition was merely tactical. ben-Gurion wrote of the need to for any talk of trader to come the others and not the Zionists. there was widespread agreement that the vast bulk the Palestine should be compelled to leave. denying them employment and never selling land to them were pretty much agreed.there was no way to achieve the Zionist goal without wholesale expulsions. they knew it and they were not giving up there Idea of greater Israel and that meant explusions.

But the concept of transfer Morris discusses is not necessarily one of wholesale expulsions, as you are aware. In particular, he does show that the whole idea of doing that was taboo and that they preferred one transfer in the context of an agreement.

it quite a matter of the historical record that the IDF carried out large scale expulsions of Arab population. Lydda and Ramle alone counted for 10% done in a brutal manner with no provisions which was definitely a war crime.

Agreed, though that doesn't really change the conclusions Morris reached.

as Kfar Etzion has not happened when the drive to conquest to Jerusalem started it cannot have been a factor. and the leadership was definitely committed to expansion. they dreamed of having Jerusalem to say they started a military operation to basically conquer Jerusalem and the expulsion of the most of the Arabs on the way and they were panning not to kept is simply unbelievable

I am sure they most certainly wanted to have Jerusalem, but it is true that the overarching priority was to make sure that the Jewish population of the city would actually stay put during the siege. The case of Kfar Etzion further confirmed what was seen as obvious.

an agreement which the zionist leadership had no intention of abiding by. ben-gurion says \he would give up any part of Palestine. discussing the peel plan ben grunion makes clear it was only a start and the 'need for talk of transfer not to come form us' (the zionists)

I very much doubt he was stupid enough to believe that Israel would have had much, if any chance of enlarging had the Peel Plan (or the UN one) been implemented no matter how much Ben Gurion or others wanted to. Not if the Arab world did not fight Israel and gave it an excuse to wage war.

cables readily readable by the US.

So according to you the US read them?

really the Zionists normally played a pretty high quality diplomatic game. i see no reason to give these cables any credence.
haifa could hardly of been a surprise to military commanders on the ground who drove the populace from their homes.afterwards they were gathered in the marketplace when the Israelis striated firing on the civilians. and they civilians boarded ships rather than be killed. the actions of IDF were hardly of anatomy with any concern with arab civilians lives. of course in front of the British the fiction was maintained. much like the declaration of the state of Israel, there was no intent to actually accept the Arab population as equals. no one would be punished for killing them. the irgun would be supplied with weapons and co-operated with, the would be driven from their homes and prevented from returning. many Arabs who remained would have their land and property taken from them in legalised theft. the words in the declaration were a lie.

Except for the fact that, once the city was secured, the Haganah even barred Arabs from leaving it. Likewise, Arabs who returned were compensated by Israel (though admittedly late, in 1973).

Israel did destroy Palestine as it replaced Palestine with Israel.

No, it did not. Palestine was conquered by Jordan, then occupied (not annexed) by Israel.

Whether an Israeli or a Jordanian invasion on Jerusalem was justified is not for me to say, I and pugsville have asked you a simple question:

Why do you and Morris consider the Jordanian invasion of Jerusalem as an invasion to Israel when Jerusalem was not Israeli and when you pretend that Israel abided by the partition plan?

Already answered.

No mention of Palestinian militias killing 2000 Jews before the war as you falsely claimed anywhere in the article you provided. That would be your third misquoting and misrepresentation in the past 2 pages.

Morris says explicitly the Palestinians started the violence against the Yishuv and puts the death toll up to May 14, 1948 at 2,000, as clearly shown in the letter you can't bring yourself to quote and read in full.

What he says is very clear and does not require any zionist misinterpretations.

It is clear you are selectively quoting from his letter.

Nothing new, sadly: You just prefer to distort what the sources and other posters say when you have no arguments to offer be it by selectively quoting or just ignoring what you do not like, even pretending no answer was provided to your nonsense. I'll be gladly awaiting an answer that doesn't involve any of this, but God I'll have to wait forever I think.

[noemon]

No, it did not. Palestine was conquered by Jordan, then occupied (not annexed) by Israel.

Israel has indeed destroyed Palestine as it has replaced Palestine entirely. Soon you will tell us that the sun does not rise in the morning.

Already answered.

It's clear you have gone into full hallucination mode, I really like it when you are there cause it entertains me the most.

Why do you and Morris consider the Jordanian invasion of Jerusalem as an invasion to Israel when Jerusalem was not Israeli and when you pretend that Israel abided by the partition plan?

Morris says explicitly the Palestinians started the violence against the Yishuv and puts the death toll up to May 14, 1948 at 2,000, as clearly shown in the letter you can't bring yourself to quote and read in full.

Morris says that the Palestinians defied the partition plan and because they refused the destruction of Palestine they are magically responsible for the war as if any sane person would willingly accept foreign rule and ethnic-cleansing. Full stop, that is in his opening paragraph. In his closing paragraph he says that 2000 Israelis were killed in British Palestine, he does not say by who and for what, he does not say that Palestinian militias killed them as you falsely claim. His general petty-moralistic statement in the first paragraph is completely unrelated to his statements at the closing paragraph. And Morris is the one who wishes to see circumstances that would justify a new ethnic-cleansing so he does intend to justify ethnic-cleansing even if he has the balls to call it as it were unlike you that is.

It is clear you are selectively quoting from his letter.

It is clear that even he who wants to see circumstances that would justify a new ethnic-cleansing is not denying the obvious like you are which makes you even worse than him. You should put that into perspective and find some other creative way to deny the obvious:

It is true that Plan D gave the regional commanders carte blanche to occupy and garrison or expel and destroy the Arab villages

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.

[Hindsite]

The Israelis are not cunning, merely brazen. The Reservations do not take up most of the land, natural resources, and agricultural land in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. They are in pockets with travel restrictions and checkpoints rendering a viable Palestinian state impossible.

These Palestinian Arabs might as well accept the fact that the Lord has given all that land to Israel. This is what the Lord said concerning His land he gave to Israel to inhabit:

"For behold, in those days and at that time, When I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, will gather all the nations And bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat. Then I will enter into judgment with them there on behalf of My people and My inheritance, Israel, Whom they have scattered among the nations; And they have divided up My land.
(Joel 3:20-21)

[wat0n]

Morris says that the Palestinians defied the partition plan and because they refused the destruction of Palestine they are magically responsible for the war as if any sane person would willingly accept foreign rule and ethnic-cleansing. Full stop, that is in his opening paragraph. In his closing paragraph he says that 2000 Israelis were killed in British Palestine, he does not say by who and for what, he does not say that Palestinian militias killed them as you falsely claim. His general petty-moralistic statement in the first paragraph is completely unrelated to his statements at the closing paragraph. And Morris is the one who wishes to see circumstances that would justify a new ethnic-cleansing so he does intend to justify ethnic-cleansing even if he has the balls to call it as it were unlike you that is.

Tell me, then, if he blames the Palestinians for starting the war and doesn't mention any British attacks against Zionist militias, who do you infer from the text that killed those 2000 Jews?

The rest is your usual tactic of selective quoting be my posts or now Morris' writings (and thus I have no reason to say anything more about that), but the above is an amazing attempt (and contortion) to get Morris to agree with your nonsense when it should be clear to anyone that he doesn't.

[redcarpet]

Morris doesn't claim ALL Israeli forces were engaged in the expulsions either. Nor that there was a plan, say signed by Ben Gurion.

In his famous phrase "it was born of war, it was not by design."

Depending on the total, maybe just 10-20% were expelled. The rest fled, as people tend to, from the war and violence to escape and perhaps return after it is all over.

The emphasis on 'Palestinians were expelled in 1948' seems to have the intentional implication that all or most were. Which didn't happen. Only a portion were, and there is no evidence the Provisional Cabinet made such a decision. It was a rogue operation by the Israeli military, particularly half-integrated Irgun & Lehi rats that pretended they had reformed.

[pugsville]

Morris doesn't claim ALL Israeli forces were engaged in the expulsions either. Nor that there was a plan, say signed by Ben Gurion.

In his famous phrase "it was born of war, it was not by design."

Depending on the total, maybe just 10-20% were expelled. The rest fled, as people tend to, from the war and violence to escape and perhaps return after it is all over. sure another 20 % was unofficial, and maybe 50-60% fled, but if the they had not feld they would have been forced out anyway. and as Israeli prevented them from return Israeli is 100% responsible.

The emphasis on 'Palestinians were expelled in 1948' seems to have the intentional implication that all or most were. Which didn't happen. Only a portion were, and there is no evidence the Provisional Cabinet made such a decision. It was a rogue operation by the Israeli military, particularly half-integrated Irgun & Lehi rats that pretended they had reformed.

Morris has idealogical position he does not come to the topic as a neutral. he has a dog in the fight. his peculiar way of working (only from written sources unless the Israelis came back and wrote killed and expelled so many arabs it never happened. it's hardly reliable and certain to under estimate the figures.)

nothing accidental about it. maybe most of the palestinians fled by something like 20% were ordered out by with ben-gurion issuing orders or the commanding officers nothing rogue about it.

the expulsions of lydda and ramble were ordered. nothing rogue about the operation that 10% of the total refugees

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of ... March_1948

"Morris also reports expulsions during these events. For example, concerning whether in Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion order he replied:

Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on 31 October 1948, the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population. Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July 1948]."
" United Nations observers, who had been dispatched to monitor how the partition plan, reported in October that Israeli policy was that of "uprooting Arabs from their native villages in Palestine by force or threat""
"n the Negev the clearing was more complete because "the OC, Allon, was known to want "Arab-clean" areas along his line of advance" and "his subordinates usually acted in accordance"[149] and the inhabitants were almost uniformly Muslim. In the Galilee pocket, for various reasons, about 30–50 per cent of the inhabitants stayed.[150] More specifically regarding the causes of the exodus Morris says: "Both commanders were clearly bent on driving out the population in the area they were conquering," and "Many, perhaps most, [Arabs] expected to be driven out, or worse. Hence, when the offensives were unleashed, there was a 'coalescence' of Jewish and Arab expectations, which led, especially in the south, to spontaneous flight by most of the inhabitants. And, on both fronts, IDF units 'nudged' Arabs into flight and expelled communities.""

ramale, lod, negrev, galilee operational orders for the army commanders to exile much the native population this was not rogue.

why the great differentia; with irgun and the rest of the Israeli military, who armed the irgun and co-operated with them. the irgun were pawns being used to do the nasty stuff. if the rest of Israeli forces don't want to be tarred by the actions they could have stepped in and stopped it, there was a a fair bit of co-operation and symbiotic relations between the irgun and the rest of the Israeli forces.

[wat0n]

Lol, the IDF forcibly disbanded the Irgun units on June 1948. Symbiotic relationship my ass

[pugsville]

Lol, the IDF forcibly disbanded the Irgun units on June 1948. Symbiotic relationship my ass

it was an agreement to merge rather than a forcible disbanding,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun
" a formal agreement.and the process of absorbing all military organizations into the IDF started. On June 1, an agreement had been signed Between Menachem Begin and Yisrael Galili for the absorption of the Irgun into the IDF. "


well once they no longer had particular reasons to keep their tame terrorists. the Haganah instructed the Irgun to carry out the King David Hotel bombing. (in part to destroy documents there implicating the zionist leaders in terrorism)

they also had a semi formal alliance the Jewish resistance movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Re ... e_Movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
"The Palmach, the strike force of the Haganah—whose leadership was aligned with the political left (see Mapai)—also took part, though to a lesser extent. Morris writes that two Palmach squads evacuated the wounded, and helped invade and secure some of the villagers' houses. When the Irgun and Lehi fighters ran low on ammunition, they obtained thousands of rounds from the Haganah. Haganah squads also provided covering fire, and fired on villagers fleeing south towards "

and integrated them into the IDF.
Israeli later awarded a Lehi medal. Begin, Shamir were members went on to prime ministers of Israel.

Israel response to Count Bernadotte's assignation is just typical of the nod and wink the Zionist leaders gave to terrorism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_Ber ... assination
"Yellin-Mor and another Lehi member, Mattityahu Shmulevitz, were charged with belonging to a terrorist organization. They were found guilty but immediately released and pardoned. Yellin-Mor had meanwhile been elected to the first Knesset.[52] Years later, Cohen's role was uncovered by David Ben-Gurion's biographer Michael Bar Zohar, while Cohen was working as Ben-Gurion's personal bodyguard. "

[Rich]

It really shows how inferior Muslim culture is that the supporters of the Palestinians have to rely on Morris, a Zionist as their primary source in this dispute. The Palestinian Muslims have proved incapable of producing any serious history of their own, all they know how to make is propaganda. Look around you Palestinians, look at the shit holes that Islam has produced. And stop this effing whining about invasions and western intervention. The West has occupied or dominated and intervened in Japan, China, South Korea, India and Sri Lanka but they don't sit around whining: "Its not our fault that we've created shitholes its all the West's fault." Time to wake the fuck up, Israel is not the problem. Islam is.

Muslims you might be popular be with Western hipsters and western Libertarians who want to use you as a weapon to destroy the social solidarity of western nations, but from Angola to the Central African Republic, to Lebanon, to Armenia, to Serbia, to India, to Burma, to Thailand, to China, people hate you. Have you never ever started to wonder why that might be?