Thousands rally against Israel in Istanbul

The Brits were "entrusted" by the League of Nation - you say, there was also a legal paper from the LoN about the Mandate and in this paper a "Jewish National homeland" is clealry mentioned - so your whole "you dont belong here" from legal perspective is refuted, and from a national sense of belonging - you or the Arabs cannot tell a person or a nation where they belong, only they can decise on it with actions.

 

The LoN had the authority just like they created others states in the area at the same time,

You next rant is ridicolous, the Arabs declared ethnic war and you whine their rights during the war were harmed ? Ill give you the same chance I gave Alexa to prove Arab rights were harmed before they started the war on Dec 1947 - go ahead source something.

 

No mention of a "Jewish state" and the rights of the indigenes were to be protected.

 

I'm afraid the Zionists made the racial war in the lead-up to the declaration of the "Jewish state"

 

The Arabs started the war before there was a Jewish state, they did so right after 181 was voted Nov 1947....

 

Your fears are misplaced, the Arabs made a racial war in the build up to the declaration of the Jewish state.

 

With who? themselves?
Invasion is invasion. Zionists invaded with the intent of creating a separate state. That was the triggering act of aggression. All that follows is reaction to that and that alone.

 

There were hostilities prior to 1947, that's undisputed. Who started what is more difficult to discern in the fray, and certainly some of the acts by the Arabs were horrid, but the Zionist invasion is without doubt the kernel at the very heart of this.

I liken it to blaming the Native Americans for attacking the settlor wagons. I mean, they shouldn't have done that but saying they caused the violence is a bit beyond the pale.

 

With the Jews...
Jews didnt "invade" they bought land as you know and lived here legally, when the Arabs started the war they expanded after defeating them.

 

Jews were there legally, they didnt invade their own land.

The native Americans were not part of the civilized world and had no land ownership laws, the Arabs and Ottomans did and so your rant is again misplaced.

 

Part 1

It may be true that in Haifa the Jews and Arabs got on well. That was much the same situation in Hebron before the 29 riots/massacre.

However I do not accept your touting that Arabs were the people telling the people to leave.

Wali Khaildi said that the Haganah were broadcasting for them to leave as soon as they got the word the Brits would not intervene, 19th April and that this was reported in the Palestine Post which became the Jerusalem Post. This is confirmed by Benny Morris

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...DAA#v=onepage&q=Bevin Haifa Stockwell&f=false

The spin that there were arab calls for people to leave has now been completely rebuffed. Even Morris says this, even in the article you put in from him to the Irish times.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/israel-and-the-palestinians-1.896017

Now as to the other issues. There is no reason to disbelieve that the people in Haifa had good relations, nor is it necessarily true that the Mayor and others knew of Plan Dalet. Some of the things in the Khalidi link are confirmed by Morris

and by Pappe

http://zochrot.org/en/article/56362

Pappe by the way gives 2,000 remaining not 5,000. Obviously the people were terrified, dead, injured or running for their lives and had been given good reason to be so and to think they must leave. Personally the way the Zionists went about it does suggest that is what they wanted. If I were a civilian there then regardless of whether I had previously thought the town had good relations, which may be why it was so poorly defended, I would take that my live and the lives of those I love were at risk and I would not trust people who had, as it says above in the market place and as above

These are not people I would be putting my life into the hands of.

So what with the way they were treating the Arabs and their broadcasts in Arabic for them to leave and so on, it is no surprise all but 2,000 left - maybe they were too injured to leave

If the intent was not ethnic cleansing, we would not expect this

followed shortly by

http://zochrot.org/en/article/56362
​

 

Part 2

so even the 2,000 who remained lost their homes. At the same time this does illustrate how the people of Haifa in general were not up to this. This is similar to the position of the Palestinians. Very few of them joined a fighting unit and in that Safwat letter Gilos posted part of, Safwat mentions that some of the Palestinian Arabs want to fight other Arabs rather than the Jews. Among the general people it looks like the situation was very different than among leaders. I have read more than once someone saying that when the New Historians first came out, people said that is what we old timers have known all along, though of course what was taught in school was different.


​

The link is to copies of British Archives. Now if that is what you think of archives then clearly to spend time with you is to waste time...but you always like to blame the messenger.

ha ha...and how on earth could this be any problem to people capable of making the desert bloom again....or was that just the super rich fertile land I read you also got. I don't know how accurate what you said there. I have read 80% of the country was owned by the Arabs....but I am not going to go chasing looking into that. The British archives suggest Israel was offered more in the hope that it would stop their terrorism not just in Israel but throughout the world and that it might also hold off for a little time the expansion they knew Israel was going to get up to.

No it was due to the demands of the Zionists and their terrorism as well as the Zionists stopping offers of immigration to other places and so projecting a State for the Jews as the only hope they had of somewhere to live - regardless of the reality that when Jews were first polled in a displaced person's camp about where they wanted to go only 16% wanted to go to Palestine. It took a fair bit of work to get them to change their minds. There was also as Lilienthel states and sources in What Price Israel a fair bit of blackmail and bribery going on when there was a sudden halt for a day in proceedings before the vote. I think at the time he was working in the US State Department all of whom were against the 2 State business, believing that Israel would carry on expanding all the time saying it was for security, there would never be peace there and the US would lose all credence with the Arabs.

I have no knowledge at all of anyone suggesting anything like all of Palestine which I imagine you are including Transjordan. I do not believe this ever happened. The Balfour Declaration spoke of a Jewish Home in Palestine, that is within. Of course the Brits had already promised to the Arabs to get them to fight the Ottoman's - never trust Imperialists.

No they did not. The British Archives when released on this indicated they had little clue what they were doing except that they were antisemetic and believed that Jews ruled the world and so promising something in Palestine would get the Jews to bring the US into WW1 and win it for us. Many British and American Jews saw Zionism as antisemitism.

Lilienthal in What Price Israel talks about how the Zionists of the time denied even wanting State and how the word going around was that it was going to be a Jewish Cultural Home which most likely would have been well received

Mid East Web had an excellent article where they spoke about how both American and British Jews insisted the word State was not put on the Balfour Declaration.

Well then it is Gilos not me you are criticising.

Oh dear, that letter again. Not much depth there but thanks for putting it in earlier for to allow me to point out that Morris himself is honest that there were no Arab calls for the Palestinians to leave, indeed there were the opposite.

I did not leave any material by Suarez. I did however leave a couple of copies of British Archives which he has photocopied. I will leave them again as you clearly did not read them believing them instead to be material by Saurez.

Resolution 181 was the capitulation to Zionist terrorism (1947)

US & British officials knew that the promised Palestinian state would not be (1947-4

Of course he has put in an introduction. You can completely ignore that. He has included the Archives for you to read.

 

We need to separate Zionists from Jews generally and in person. Each Jewish person, I assume, bought the land for themselves. Whether they had an individual intent to create a Jewish state is neither here nor there.

However, the Zionist political establishment were intending on creating a Jewish state. They supported individual Arabs selling their lands to individual Jewish immigrants. The Arab nationalist movement opposed that Jewish state, so they opposed individual Arabs selling their lands to individual Jewish immigrants.

The conflict in the Levant is the clash between these two political movements, of which the Zionists were the aggressor party.

At the individual level, at least in those early stages, the transfers of land were just business ...

 

Not really, they didnt buy houses in existing Arab towns but barren land to build settelments there and most of those were done by some Zionist org. from donations of other Jews, Jews that did live with Arabs like in Jerusalem, Hebron or Tveria lived there before Zionism,

Im not sure they intended on a Jewish state, for all they knew the Ottoman and then the Brits would rule there forever, my grandpa didnt think it would become an indipendant state, but even if so - what's wrong with that ? investments and development of land were and still are common in our world, I dont understand your judgment of guilt based on who disturbed your peacful afternoon nap.

 

The land was acquired from Arabs though. Many of whom were illiterate and famined, after poor crop seasons. So they money was welcomed (presumably) by the Arab individuals affected and the following investment welcomed by the British government.

I don't think they made it a secret. Hertzl's The Jewish Sate (Der Judenstaat) was published in 1897.
The problem with the intent to create the Jewish state was that the land was already inhabited, so it directly conflicted with the political intent of the Arab indigenous nationalists.

 

Lets have a link for this.

 

That's also partly true, some was bought directly from the ottomans and had no residents and some like citrus plantations were bought from Arab land owners - if they were poor and hungry and had to sell means nothing, poor ppl sell their houses today as well and I suppose you dont call the buyers "invaders".

He spoke of a sort of an autonomy for Jews not really an indipendant state, the Arab populated areas were not discussed as a target of ethnic cleansing he did say that the European money would be welcomed to the Arabs meaning he did see a cooperation between the two, I find extremly hard to belive he could have foreseen Israel as it is today or everything that happened since Jews immigrated in great numbers.

The fact the Arabs had their own national goals did not cancel the rights the Jews had at the time of the mandate and like it or not but the mandate was the law, I understand the Arab hostility and the war they started but given the forces that played at the time - the existant Jewish settlement, the European antisemaism, Holocaust and the fact ppl relocated all over the world during WW1 - made it a fact on the ground, it was no longer a question of moral just like a Sudani refugee hand paddeling across the mediterranean will not bother filling in forms for orderly asylum.

 

What is this about? I have no knowledge of this? Please link.

 

I gave it to you at a diffrent thread "UN spends 4 times more..." post 147, here it is -

 

Link. This is not public knowledge you know.

 

The neighbours of Palestine moved, on my own recollection, as soon as it was proposed by a bribed UN to make Palestine a Nazi colony. Pity they didn't unify their armies better!

 

Them peace-loving Arabs

 

The last three posts of yours, all claim ignorance. You don't know very much, do you?

 

better than you who know absolutely nothing. Difference between us Dutch is that when I don't know, I learn. You just stay ignorant.

 

I have wisdom coming out of my old, hairy, bony ass, alexa. I can engage you on any number of subjects, providing they're of interest to me. Which does not happen very often