The OLDER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

[Sixties Fan]

As General Assembly Resolution 212 (III) of November 19, 1948 phrased it, there developed, as a result of the war of aggression the Arabs launched against Israel in violation of several Security Council resolutions, like S/801 of May 29, 1948, for example, demanding a cessation of hostilities and seeking to solve:

“the problem of the relief of Palestine refugees of all communities.”

Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine. Palestine, of course, included all the territory west of the Jordan River. And the terms “Judea” and “Samaria” were used at that time (“The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea”) to describe portions of all that territory of Palestine, as in Part Two of the 1947 Partition Plan. A later UN resolution included in its list of Jewish holy places some sites that today too many would refer to as some never-never-land called the “West Bank”, a term created in April 1950 when one bank of the Jordan River was called “Western” and extended for dozens of kilometers, up and down mountains, too.

There were thousands of Jews who were expelled or forced to flee hostilities as a result of the 1948 Arab aggression. The Old City of Jerusalem, neighborhoods like Nahalat Shimon and Shimon HaTzadik, moshavim (towns) in its environs like Atarot and Neveh Yaakov, kibbutzim in Gush Etzion and one at the Dead Sea, and other communities.

They too became Palestine refugees and for some three years, UNRWA actually did provide elements of humanitarian care but halted its work when Israel indicated that it would take care of its own. Of course, UNRWA could have ignored that move by Israel. Or, it could declare today that Jews wishing to move back to Hebron will receive funds and assistance for their Jewish “right of return.” On the other hand, did UNRWA press the host Arab countries of Arab refugees from Mandatory Palestine to follow Israel’s example? Did it say something like “see what the Jews do? Why not you?” Or did it exclude Jews from influencing their treatment of Arabs?

(full article online)

UNRWA is Jew-exclusive

 

[Sixties Fan]

As David Shayne notes,


according to Dr. Levinovsky, some 97 Jewish villages were attacked and damaged: 11 of these were destroyed entirely, 6 were conquered and lost – until after the 1967 Six Day War, when those conquered were re-established...Fully one quarter of Jerusalem’s Jews fled, mostly to the relative safety of the coastal plain.
Jerusalem's Jewish population numbered 100,000 in 1948.

I stand corrected.

But I correct the record: as a result of the Arab terror ethnic cleansing campaign of 1920-1947, the true number of Jews who became refugees during the Mandate era, even if UNRWA limits the term "refugee" to the 1946-1948 period, is several thousands more, as we need include those who were driven out of Hebron, Gaza, Shchem, Jenin, Jericho, Tul Karem and Jerusalem.

The exodus from the Old City began in 1920, increased after Nov. 1921, after August 1929 and then during 1936-39 all due to Arab rioting and terror.
We know the British forced Jews out too.
At the beginning of the 20th century, 20,000 Jews lived in the Old City. In 1948, 1700 were left.
Thousands of Jaffa's Jews were forced out due to most of the same circumstances (in 1936, 10,000 Jews still lived in Jaffa. In 1920, 8740 Jews lived in Jaffa, by the British count, and that number increased until 1929.

Hundreds of Jews from Hebron.

(full article online)

My Right Word: Jewish Palestine Refugees - I Am Corrected

 

[P F Tinmore]

As General Assembly Resolution 212 (III) of November 19, 1948 phrased it, there developed, as a result of the war of aggression the Arabs launched against Israel in violation of several Security Council resolutions, like S/801 of May 29, 1948, for example, demanding a cessation of hostilities and seeking to solve:

“the problem of the relief of Palestine refugees of all communities.”

Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine. Palestine, of course, included all the territory west of the Jordan River. And the terms “Judea” and “Samaria” were used at that time (“The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea”) to describe portions of all that territory of Palestine, as in Part Two of the 1947 Partition Plan. A later UN resolution included in its list of Jewish holy places some sites that today too many would refer to as some never-never-land called the “West Bank”, a term created in April 1950 when one bank of the Jordan River was called “Western” and extended for dozens of kilometers, up and down mountains, too.

There were thousands of Jews who were expelled or forced to flee hostilities as a result of the 1948 Arab aggression. The Old City of Jerusalem, neighborhoods like Nahalat Shimon and Shimon HaTzadik, moshavim (towns) in its environs like Atarot and Neveh Yaakov, kibbutzim in Gush Etzion and one at the Dead Sea, and other communities.

They too became Palestine refugees and for some three years, UNRWA actually did provide elements of humanitarian care but halted its work when Israel indicated that it would take care of its own. Of course, UNRWA could have ignored that move by Israel. Or, it could declare today that Jews wishing to move back to Hebron will receive funds and assistance for their Jewish “right of return.” On the other hand, did UNRWA press the host Arab countries of Arab refugees from Mandatory Palestine to follow Israel’s example? Did it say something like “see what the Jews do? Why not you?” Or did it exclude Jews from influencing their treatment of Arabs?

(full article online)

UNRWA is Jew-exclusive

Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine.

Why would they be called refugees of Palestine if there was no Palestine?

 

[Sixties Fan]

As General Assembly Resolution 212 (III) of November 19, 1948 phrased it, there developed, as a result of the war of aggression the Arabs launched against Israel in violation of several Security Council resolutions, like S/801 of May 29, 1948, for example, demanding a cessation of hostilities and seeking to solve:

“the problem of the relief of Palestine refugees of all communities.”

Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine. Palestine, of course, included all the territory west of the Jordan River. And the terms “Judea” and “Samaria” were used at that time (“The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea”) to describe portions of all that territory of Palestine, as in Part Two of the 1947 Partition Plan. A later UN resolution included in its list of Jewish holy places some sites that today too many would refer to as some never-never-land called the “West Bank”, a term created in April 1950 when one bank of the Jordan River was called “Western” and extended for dozens of kilometers, up and down mountains, too.

There were thousands of Jews who were expelled or forced to flee hostilities as a result of the 1948 Arab aggression. The Old City of Jerusalem, neighborhoods like Nahalat Shimon and Shimon HaTzadik, moshavim (towns) in its environs like Atarot and Neveh Yaakov, kibbutzim in Gush Etzion and one at the Dead Sea, and other communities.

They too became Palestine refugees and for some three years, UNRWA actually did provide elements of humanitarian care but halted its work when Israel indicated that it would take care of its own. Of course, UNRWA could have ignored that move by Israel. Or, it could declare today that Jews wishing to move back to Hebron will receive funds and assistance for their Jewish “right of return.” On the other hand, did UNRWA press the host Arab countries of Arab refugees from Mandatory Palestine to follow Israel’s example? Did it say something like “see what the Jews do? Why not you?” Or did it exclude Jews from influencing their treatment of Arabs?

(full article online)

UNRWA is Jew-exclusive

Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine.

Why would they be called refugees of Palestine if there was no Palestine?

"The Mandate of Palestine", Oh Gracious Fool who likes to think he is fooling everyone.

 

[P F Tinmore]

As General Assembly Resolution 212 (III) of November 19, 1948 phrased it, there developed, as a result of the war of aggression the Arabs launched against Israel in violation of several Security Council resolutions, like S/801 of May 29, 1948, for example, demanding a cessation of hostilities and seeking to solve:

“the problem of the relief of Palestine refugees of all communities.”

Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine. Palestine, of course, included all the territory west of the Jordan River. And the terms “Judea” and “Samaria” were used at that time (“The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea”) to describe portions of all that territory of Palestine, as in Part Two of the 1947 Partition Plan. A later UN resolution included in its list of Jewish holy places some sites that today too many would refer to as some never-never-land called the “West Bank”, a term created in April 1950 when one bank of the Jordan River was called “Western” and extended for dozens of kilometers, up and down mountains, too.

There were thousands of Jews who were expelled or forced to flee hostilities as a result of the 1948 Arab aggression. The Old City of Jerusalem, neighborhoods like Nahalat Shimon and Shimon HaTzadik, moshavim (towns) in its environs like Atarot and Neveh Yaakov, kibbutzim in Gush Etzion and one at the Dead Sea, and other communities.

They too became Palestine refugees and for some three years, UNRWA actually did provide elements of humanitarian care but halted its work when Israel indicated that it would take care of its own. Of course, UNRWA could have ignored that move by Israel. Or, it could declare today that Jews wishing to move back to Hebron will receive funds and assistance for their Jewish “right of return.” On the other hand, did UNRWA press the host Arab countries of Arab refugees from Mandatory Palestine to follow Israel’s example? Did it say something like “see what the Jews do? Why not you?” Or did it exclude Jews from influencing their treatment of Arabs?

(full article online)

UNRWA is Jew-exclusive

Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine.

Why would they be called refugees of Palestine if there was no Palestine?

"The Mandate of Palestine", Oh Gracious Fool who likes to think he is fooling everyone.

There was no mandate in November 19, 1948.

 

[Sixties Fan]

As General Assembly Resolution 212 (III) of November 19, 1948 phrased it, there developed, as a result of the war of aggression the Arabs launched against Israel in violation of several Security Council resolutions, like S/801 of May 29, 1948, for example, demanding a cessation of hostilities and seeking to solve:

“the problem of the relief of Palestine refugees of all communities.”

Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine. Palestine, of course, included all the territory west of the Jordan River. And the terms “Judea” and “Samaria” were used at that time (“The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea”) to describe portions of all that territory of Palestine, as in Part Two of the 1947 Partition Plan. A later UN resolution included in its list of Jewish holy places some sites that today too many would refer to as some never-never-land called the “West Bank”, a term created in April 1950 when one bank of the Jordan River was called “Western” and extended for dozens of kilometers, up and down mountains, too.

There were thousands of Jews who were expelled or forced to flee hostilities as a result of the 1948 Arab aggression. The Old City of Jerusalem, neighborhoods like Nahalat Shimon and Shimon HaTzadik, moshavim (towns) in its environs like Atarot and Neveh Yaakov, kibbutzim in Gush Etzion and one at the Dead Sea, and other communities.

They too became Palestine refugees and for some three years, UNRWA actually did provide elements of humanitarian care but halted its work when Israel indicated that it would take care of its own. Of course, UNRWA could have ignored that move by Israel. Or, it could declare today that Jews wishing to move back to Hebron will receive funds and assistance for their Jewish “right of return.” On the other hand, did UNRWA press the host Arab countries of Arab refugees from Mandatory Palestine to follow Israel’s example? Did it say something like “see what the Jews do? Why not you?” Or did it exclude Jews from influencing their treatment of Arabs?

(full article online)

UNRWA is Jew-exclusive

Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine.

Why would they be called refugees of Palestine if there was no Palestine?

"The Mandate of Palestine", Oh Gracious Fool who likes to think he is fooling everyone.

There was no mandate in November 19, 1948.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, et al,

Leave it to our friend "P F Tinmore" to focus on the trivia. In November 1948, the territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine was divided into two regions: 1) there was territory under the control of Israel, and 2) there was territory under the control of the Arab League.

As General Assembly Resolution 212 (III) of November 19, 1948 phrased it, there developed, as a result of the war of aggression the Arabs launched against Israel in violation of several Security Council resolutions, like S/801 of May 29, 1948, for example, demanding a cessation of hostilities and seeking to solve:

“the problem of the relief of Palestine refugees of all communities.”

Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine. Palestine, of course, included all the territory west of the Jordan River. And the terms “Judea” and “Samaria” were used at that time (“The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea”) to describe portions of all that territory of Palestine, as in Part Two of the 1947 Partition Plan. A later UN resolution included in its list of Jewish holy places some sites that today too many would refer to as some never-never-land called the “West Bank”, a term created in April 1950 when one bank of the Jordan River was called “Western” and extended for dozens of kilometers, up and down mountains, too.

There were thousands of Jews who were expelled or forced to flee hostilities as a result of the 1948 Arab aggression. The Old City of Jerusalem, neighborhoods like Nahalat Shimon and Shimon HaTzadik, moshavim (towns) in its environs like Atarot and Neveh Yaakov, kibbutzim in Gush Etzion and one at the Dead Sea, and other communities.

They too became Palestine refugees and for some three years, UNRWA actually did provide elements of humanitarian care but halted its work when Israel indicated that it would take care of its own. Of course, UNRWA could have ignored that move by Israel. Or, it could declare today that Jews wishing to move back to Hebron will receive funds and assistance for their Jewish “right of return.” On the other hand, did UNRWA press the host Arab countries of Arab refugees from Mandatory Palestine to follow Israel’s example? Did it say something like “see what the Jews do? Why not you?” Or did it exclude Jews from influencing their treatment of Arabs?

(full article online)

UNRWA is Jew-exclusive

Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine.

Why would they be called refugees of Palestine if there was no Palestine?

"The Mandate of Palestine", Oh Gracious Fool who likes to think he is fooling everyone.

There was no mandate in November 19, 1948.

(COMMENT)

Technically you are correct. In that November, it was:

• Article 77 UN CHARTER •

1 The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed there under by means of trusteeship agreements:
a. territories now held under mandate;
b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.​

Now, what are you meaningfully contributing here? ⇒ "There was no mandate in November 19, 1948." What is the significance of that?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, et al,

Leave it to our friend "P F Tinmore" to focus on the trivia. In November 1948, the territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine was divided into two regions: 1) there was territory under the control of Israel, and 2) there was territory under the control of the Arab League.

As General Assembly Resolution 212 (III) of November 19, 1948 phrased it, there developed, as a result of the war of aggression the Arabs launched against Israel in violation of several Security Council resolutions, like S/801 of May 29, 1948, for example, demanding a cessation of hostilities and seeking to solve:

“the problem of the relief of Palestine refugees of all communities.”

Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine. Palestine, of course, included all the territory west of the Jordan River. And the terms “Judea” and “Samaria” were used at that time (“The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea”) to describe portions of all that territory of Palestine, as in Part Two of the 1947 Partition Plan. A later UN resolution included in its list of Jewish holy places some sites that today too many would refer to as some never-never-land called the “West Bank”, a term created in April 1950 when one bank of the Jordan River was called “Western” and extended for dozens of kilometers, up and down mountains, too.

There were thousands of Jews who were expelled or forced to flee hostilities as a result of the 1948 Arab aggression. The Old City of Jerusalem, neighborhoods like Nahalat Shimon and Shimon HaTzadik, moshavim (towns) in its environs like Atarot and Neveh Yaakov, kibbutzim in Gush Etzion and one at the Dead Sea, and other communities.

They too became Palestine refugees and for some three years, UNRWA actually did provide elements of humanitarian care but halted its work when Israel indicated that it would take care of its own. Of course, UNRWA could have ignored that move by Israel. Or, it could declare today that Jews wishing to move back to Hebron will receive funds and assistance for their Jewish “right of return.” On the other hand, did UNRWA press the host Arab countries of Arab refugees from Mandatory Palestine to follow Israel’s example? Did it say something like “see what the Jews do? Why not you?” Or did it exclude Jews from influencing their treatment of Arabs?

(full article online)

UNRWA is Jew-exclusive

Note: not “Palestinian refugees” but refugees of Palestine.

Why would they be called refugees of Palestine if there was no Palestine?

"The Mandate of Palestine", Oh Gracious Fool who likes to think he is fooling everyone.

There was no mandate in November 19, 1948.

(COMMENT)

Technically you are correct. In that November, it was:

• Article 77 UN CHARTER •

1 The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed there under by means of trusteeship agreements:
a. territories now held under mandate;
b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.​

Now, what are you meaningfully contributing here? ⇒ "There was no mandate in November 19, 1948." What is the significance of that?

Most Respectfully,
R

Now, what are you meaningfully contributing here? ⇒ "There was no mandate in November 19, 1948." What is the significance of that?

The mandate was gone and it was still Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, et al,

No, you missed the point. And you are trying to tie some significance to the name and the duration that name was valid.

The mandate was gone and it was still Palestine.

(COMMENT)

I have a Chevy Tahoe; here in after called Chevy, parked in the driveway. The Title to the Chevy is in my name. I sell the Chevy to my next door neighbor. It is still called a Chevy; however, the title reflects a completely different owner and address.

Palestine is much the same way. It was a carveout the Allied Powers named Palestine after 500 years of it being called by the name of the Ottoman Empire named the Political Subdivision. For 500 years The Ottoman Empire named the Vilayets (we call today by the regional name Palestine) as the Sanjuks of Acre and Balqa; with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip being in the Independent Sanjak of Jerusalem.

Each time a new Sovereign took possession of the region, something changed. The "Palestine" --- in the time of Augustus Caesar was different from the time of Constantine, which was different from the time of Ṣalaḥ ad-Dīn. And today it is different yet again. And in that timeline, you would be hard pressed to mark on the timeline when the region was self-governing; especially by the Arabs of Palestine (however you define it).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, et al,

No, you missed the point. And you are trying to tie some significance to the name and the duration that name was valid.

The mandate was gone and it was still Palestine.

(COMMENT)

I have a Chevy Tahoe; here in after called Chevy, parked in the driveway. The Title to the Chevy is in my name. I sell the Chevy to my next door neighbor. It is still called a Chevy; however, the title reflects a completely different owner and address.

Palestine is much the same way. It was a carveout the Allied Powers named Palestine after 500 years of it being called by the name of the Ottoman Empire named the Political Subdivision. For 500 years The Ottoman Empire named the Vilayets (we call today by the regional name Palestine) as the Sanjuks of Acre and Balqa; with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip being in the Independent Sanjak of Jerusalem.

Each time a new Sovereign took possession of the region, something changed. The "Palestine" --- in the time of Augustus Caesar was different from the time of Constantine, which was different from the time of Ṣalaḥ ad-Dīn. And today it is different yet again. And in that timeline, you would be hard pressed to mark on the timeline when the region was self-governing; especially by the Arabs of Palestine (however you define it).

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you trying to say that whenever a new flag flies over city hall that everyone moves out an an entire new population moves in?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
※→ P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan, et al,

You just love to redirect the discussion and twist it to your convenience.

Are you trying to say that whenever a new flag flies over city hall that everyone moves out an an entire new population moves in?

(COMMENT)

I did not say anything of the kind. I did not make any comment at all about population migration ("that everyone moves out"). I was referring to the false significance you place on the name.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinians were right to reject partition

Before we can talk about partition, however, we need to talk about those demanding partition. Based on the Israeli narrative, this would be “the Jewish people”. This is a dishonest assertion and is often uncritically accepted by many.

This line of thought conflates the Jewish people with political Zionism, an ideology finding its origins in Europe in the late 1800s. At the time, the Jewish people were largely uninterested in Zionism. As a matter of fact many groups were fiercely anti-Zionist. The attempt to conflate the two is an attempt to give legitimacy to self-professed settlers from Europe, and portray any criticism of the Zionist project as inherently antisemitic.

Yet in the early days, the Zionist movement was astonishingly honest about its existence as a form of colonialism. The founding fathers of Zionism, such as Herzl, Nordau, Ussishkin and Jabotinsky –among others- employed the same colonial tropes and tactics used by Europeans to legitimize their imperialism. Not only was Zionism colonialism in practice, but Zionists openly referred to it as such; for example, Herzl sought counsel from Cecil Rhodes on how best to proceed with the process of colonization, describing Zionism as ‘something colonial’. To drive this point even further, the first Zionist bank established was named the ‘Jewish Colonial Trust’ and the whole endeavor was supported by the ‘Palestine Jewish Colonization Association’ and the ‘Jewish Agency Colonization Department’.

At the end of the day it was a group of European settlers claiming an already inhabited land for an exclusivist ethnic state, while planning to ‘spirit the penniless population across the border’ through various means. Modern attempts to retroactively whitewash Zionism, and portray it merely as a movement for self determination, cannot escape these facts.

Palestinians were right to reject partition

 

[rylah]

Palestinians were right to reject partition

Before we can talk about partition, however, we need to talk about those demanding partition. Based on the Israeli narrative, this would be “the Jewish people”. This is a dishonest assertion and is often uncritically accepted by many.

This line of thought conflates the Jewish people with political Zionism, an ideology finding its origins in Europe in the late 1800s. At the time, the Jewish people were largely uninterested in Zionism. As a matter of fact many groups were fiercely anti-Zionist. The attempt to conflate the two is an attempt to give legitimacy to self-professed settlers from Europe, and portray any criticism of the Zionist project as inherently antisemitic.

Yet in the early days, the Zionist movement was astonishingly honest about its existence as a form of colonialism. The founding fathers of Zionism, such as Herzl, Nordau, Ussishkin and Jabotinsky –among others- employed the same colonial tropes and tactics used by Europeans to legitimize their imperialism. Not only was Zionism colonialism in practice, but Zionists openly referred to it as such; for example, Herzl sought counsel from Cecil Rhodes on how best to proceed with the process of colonization, describing Zionism as ‘something colonial’. To drive this point even further, the first Zionist bank established was named the ‘Jewish Colonial Trust’ and the whole endeavor was supported by the ‘Palestine Jewish Colonization Association’ and the ‘Jewish Agency Colonization Department’.

At the end of the day it was a group of European settlers claiming an already inhabited land for an exclusivist ethnic state, while planning to ‘spirit the penniless population across the border’ through various means. Modern attempts to retroactively whitewash Zionism, and portray it merely as a movement for self determination, cannot escape these facts.

Palestinians were right to reject partition

Usual disinfo,
Hertzl wasn't the founding father, neither were Nordau nor Jabotinsky.
The article leaves out the Arab pogroms against Palestinian Jews, that led to the initial organization of international Jewish organization as a mechanism for protection.

The article as well deceivingly goes over the fact that Jews have been living in their land for more than 2000 years non-stop, longer than all invaders along the way. Also Jews call every presence of their community a "settlement", even those who have never left the place during the 2000 years when most of their people were in exile.

Arabs called themselves a RACE back then, they called Jews a race as well, as probably did any other nation referring to another. This was signed into an official agreement. Did it mean 'race' as we understand it does today, after the horrors of WWII? No, and neither any of the other terms You like to pick up from that era. Meanings change.

With that said the Hamas covenant confirms black on white their origins as foreign colonizing invaders of many nations. That makes Israel merely a liberating force, the same as conquistadors of Spain who decolonized the Caliphate and liberated their ancestral lands.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Tinmore is an ignoramous.

 

[NathanCross]

This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.

The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".

I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.

The topic is: The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.

I admit that I, too, drank the "Kool Aid", concerning Israel's supposed fight for survival in 1948, until very recently. While reading Charles Townshend's book, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction (not really an introduction, but simply the name of that series of publications by Oxford University Press), I encountered the perspective that claims it's a myth that Arab nations attacked Israel, when the U.N. recognized its independence in 1948. This argument calls that narrative the "Israel Founding Myth." The argument goes farther: it posits the opposite it true. Israel attacked Palestinian communities within its borders, ethnically cleansing them from the land, in the creation of the new state. What an eye-opener.......

 

[Sixties Fan]

This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.

The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".

I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.

The topic is: The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.

I admit that I, too, drank the "Kool Aid", concerning Israel's supposed fight for survival in 1948, until very recently. While reading Charles Townshend's book, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction (not really an introduction, but simply the name of that series of publications by Oxford University Press), I encountered the perspective that claims it's a myth that Arab nations attacked Israel, when the U.N. recognized its independence in 1948. This argument calls that narrative the "Israel Founding Myth." The argument goes farther: it posits the opposite it true. Israel attacked Palestinian communities within its borders, ethnically cleansing them from the land, in the creation of the new state. What an eye-opener.......

Good to see that your knowledge of what happened at the time went from Zilch to Zero.

Your post is very much an "eye opener" about you, whether you are simply a Jew hater, BDS flag holder, or anything which is close to any of it.
These whole paragraph has been used before, or most of it.....and without any evidence to show for it.

Whether you are actually a new poster, or an old one trying to pull the wool over people's eyes on these threads.......

Welcome

 

[Mindful]

This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.

The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".

I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.

The topic is: The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.

I admit that I, too, drank the "Kool Aid", concerning Israel's supposed fight for survival in 1948, until very recently. While reading Charles Townshend's book, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction (not really an introduction, but simply the name of that series of publications by Oxford University Press), I encountered the perspective that claims it's a myth that Arab nations attacked Israel, when the U.N. recognized its independence in 1948. This argument calls that narrative the "Israel Founding Myth." The argument goes farther: it posits the opposite it true. Israel attacked Palestinian communities within its borders, ethnically cleansing them from the land, in the creation of the new state. What an eye-opener.......

Amos Oz was actually living there:

In an interview with Deutsche Welle, he was asked:

You were nine years old when David Ben-Gurion declared Israel's Independence. How do you remember May 14th 1948?

^^ May 14th was a Friday. Jerusalem had already been under Arab siege for two or three months. And the only road which connected Jerusalem to the other Jewish parts of the country was practically controlled by Arabs. From time to time, convoys would supply, would break into the city. But we experienced starvation, lack of water — because the water pumps were blown up by Iraqi troops and Jerusalem had no water — and fear.^^

 

[NathanCross]

This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.

The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".

I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.

The topic is: The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.

I admit that I, too, drank the "Kool Aid", concerning Israel's supposed fight for survival in 1948, until very recently. While reading Charles Townshend's book, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction (not really an introduction, but simply the name of that series of publications by Oxford University Press), I encountered the perspective that claims it's a myth that Arab nations attacked Israel, when the U.N. recognized its independence in 1948. This argument calls that narrative the "Israel Founding Myth." The argument goes farther: it posits the opposite it true. Israel attacked Palestinian communities within its borders, ethnically cleansing them from the land, in the creation of the new state. What an eye-opener.......

Good to see that your knowledge of what happened at the time went from Zilch to Zero.

Your post is very much an "eye opener" about you, whether you are simply a Jew hater, BDS flag holder, or anything which is close to any of it.
These whole paragraph has been used before, or most of it.....and without any evidence to show for it.

Whether you are actually a new poster, or an old one trying to pull the wool over people's eyes on these threads.......

Welcome

I'm just relating what I read. I always believed the opposite. Just another insight.... I'm sure it isn't the whole truth. I tend to favor Israel in its age-old struggle against the Arabs, even though I'm not a Neo-Conservative. My distrust of Islam is rather profound.

 

[Sixties Fan]

This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.

The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".

I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.

The topic is: The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.

I admit that I, too, drank the "Kool Aid", concerning Israel's supposed fight for survival in 1948, until very recently. While reading Charles Townshend's book, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction (not really an introduction, but simply the name of that series of publications by Oxford University Press), I encountered the perspective that claims it's a myth that Arab nations attacked Israel, when the U.N. recognized its independence in 1948. This argument calls that narrative the "Israel Founding Myth." The argument goes farther: it posits the opposite it true. Israel attacked Palestinian communities within its borders, ethnically cleansing them from the land, in the creation of the new state. What an eye-opener.......

Good to see that your knowledge of what happened at the time went from Zilch to Zero.

Your post is very much an "eye opener" about you, whether you are simply a Jew hater, BDS flag holder, or anything which is close to any of it.
These whole paragraph has been used before, or most of it.....and without any evidence to show for it.

Whether you are actually a new poster, or an old one trying to pull the wool over people's eyes on these threads.......

Welcome

I'm just relating what I read. I always believed the opposite. Just another insight.... I'm sure it isn't the whole truth. I tend to favor Israel in its age-old struggle against the Arabs, even though I'm not a Neo-Conservative. My distrust of Islam is rather profound.

Reading something and the facts are totally different things.

Should I believe that the US Southern Confederates won the civil war in 1865, if I just happened to read that in a book by someone?

You are using Exactly the same formula used by every BDS member.

"I used to believe Israel was such and such, but NOW......."
"I distrust Islam"
"I am not a Neo-conservative"


Go and do some actual reading and do not come back until you do.

Your first post is beyond clear as to who you are and what you came here to do:

I admit that I, too, drank the "Kool Aid", concerning Israel's supposed fight for survival in 1948, until very recently. While reading Charles Townshend's book, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction (not really an introduction, but simply the name of that series of publications by Oxford University Press), I encountered the perspective that claims it's a myth that Arab nations attacked Israel, when the U.N. recognized its independence in 1948. This argument calls that narrative the "Israel Founding Myth."


Go and have some real drinks for a change.

 

[NathanCross]

This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.

The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".

I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.

The topic is: The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.

I admit that I, too, drank the "Kool Aid", concerning Israel's supposed fight for survival in 1948, until very recently. While reading Charles Townshend's book, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction (not really an introduction, but simply the name of that series of publications by Oxford University Press), I encountered the perspective that claims it's a myth that Arab nations attacked Israel, when the U.N. recognized its independence in 1948. This argument calls that narrative the "Israel Founding Myth." The argument goes farther: it posits the opposite it true. Israel attacked Palestinian communities within its borders, ethnically cleansing them from the land, in the creation of the new state. What an eye-opener.......

Good to see that your knowledge of what happened at the time went from Zilch to Zero.

Your post is very much an "eye opener" about you, whether you are simply a Jew hater, BDS flag holder, or anything which is close to any of it.
These whole paragraph has been used before, or most of it.....and without any evidence to show for it.

Whether you are actually a new poster, or an old one trying to pull the wool over people's eyes on these threads.......

Welcome

I'm just relating what I read. I always believed the opposite. Just another insight.... I'm sure it isn't the whole truth. I tend to favor Israel in its age-old struggle against the Arabs, even though I'm not a Neo-Conservative. My distrust of Islam is rather profound.

Reading something and the facts are totally different things.

Should I believe that the US Southern Confederates won the civil war in 1865, if I just happened to read that in a book by someone?

You are using Exactly the same formula used by every BDS member.

"I used to believe Israel was such and such, but NOW......."
"I distrust Islam"
"I am not a Neo-conservative"


Go and do some actual reading and do not come back until you do.

Your first post is beyond clear as to who you are and what you came here to do:

I admit that I, too, drank the "Kool Aid", concerning Israel's supposed fight for survival in 1948, until very recently. While reading Charles Townshend's book, Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction (not really an introduction, but simply the name of that series of publications by Oxford University Press), I encountered the perspective that claims it's a myth that Arab nations attacked Israel, when the U.N. recognized its independence in 1948. This argument calls that narrative the "Israel Founding Myth."


Go and have some real drinks for a change.

While I appreciate your thoughtful response, I hardly have to remind you that yours is not the last word on this emotionally charged, highly political and controversial issue. When you consider the ruthlessness of Israeli terrorism, directed against the British, leading up to 1948, it should be obvious that the Israelis were certainly capable of mass murder. Yes, I believe there was considerable ethnic-cleansing, along with Arab attacks. Israelis were willing to do whatever it took to consolidate territory and secure their independence. That's understandable. Nonetheless, they must grasp the depth of Palestinian resentment. Moreover, the U.S. should stop underwriting their misadventures, especially settlement-expansions.