Consider The Facts

[Phoenall]

Yep. And its ironic in the extreme that the exchange of populations which happened during or after many many conflicts prior to 1948 but which, uniquely, did not happen in Israel is the source of the current accusations of ethnic cleansing and genocide against Israel.

Ironic, indeed. There was once a million Jews living in Arab lands, descendants of those who lived there before Islam . Today there are just a few thousand.

Despite this, these antisemites such as those in this thread try to claim it was actually Jews who engaged in some sort of ethnic clensing.

unreal!

The Jews should push for their right to return like the Palestinians are.

Why don't I heart of that happening?

Because there is no actual legal concept, it is a fantasy put about by land grabbing islamonazi propagandists

 

[MJB12741]

I don't think the Palestinians are all that radical nor have they been much involved in extremist religious activity. In fact, in polls - they strongly oppose such groups as ISIS. Their violence has been mainly directed towards Israel for the purpose of getting a state.

I entirely disagree. If their purpose was "getting a State" they would have had one a dozen times over by now. They could have had it for the asking yesterday. They can still have it for the asking tomorrow. And I'm sorry, but in my world preventing a religious group from visiting and praying on their own holy site so that you can have exclusive use of it IS radical extremist activity. The more so when it is backed up by stabbing hundreds of innocent Israeli citizens.

This isn't about peace and getting a State. If it was, they would be acting like good neighbors.

I think it IS about getting a state - it's the terms of it that are at issue. Religion plays a part, primarily because religion is not logical or rational and those religious sites are highly emotional. I don't happen to agree with the intolerance, but I don't see the Palestinian violence as a part of Islamic extremism. It's directed at Israel. I do think that there is a movement that is attempting to make it seem as if it is and I think the purpose is to further demonize and descredit the Palestinian cause.

If as you seem to believe the Palestinian cause is to gain a Palestinian state, where do you propose it should be established?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

If as you seem to believe the Palestinian cause is to gain a Palestinian state, where do you propose it should be established?

Please allow this visual guide to help. Such location has been highlighted for you for ease of recognition, and it appears in Orange.

Of course, the statement that the so-called Palestinians have only been wanting a state is a blatant lie. They could have had a state at just about any time since 1949, but preferred their agenda of killing Jews over any actual desire for a state. Heck, Arafat walked away from a state for only receiving 96% of his demands instead of 100%, so it is pretty obvious that there has never been any intention of negotiating in good faith.

 

[MJB12741]

If as you seem to believe the Palestinian cause is to gain a Palestinian state, where do you propose it should be established?

Please allow this visual guide to help. Such location has been highlighted for you for ease of recognition, and it appears in Orange.

Of course, the statement that the so-called Palestinians have only been wanting a state is a blatant lie. They could have had a state at just about any time since 1949, but preferred their agenda of killing Jews over any actual desire for a state. Heck, Arafat walked away from a state for only receiving 96% of his demands instead of 100%, so it is pretty obvious that there has never been any intention of negotiating in good faith.

That is well documented. However I for one am strongly in favor of a Palestinian State with self determination so the Pali's won't have Israel to suck off of to provide for them any longer. The problem is where to put it as no surrounding Arab country will grant the Palestinians a return back to the native homelands.

 

[Boston1]

Stick them out in the Sinai and be done with it.

Fact is thats where most of them are from in the first place anyway

 

[Coyote]

Yes, they can go back more than 1400 years - they can precede Islam because they weren't Muslim at the time but converted - Christianity, Islam - whatever.

Muslims were a majority from the Islamic conquest until Zionist immigration boosted the Jewish numbers.

Origins of Palestinians and Jews in Palestine/Israel
Origins of Palestinians and Jews in Palestine/Israel

Apart from when the Crusaders invaded and conquered the land, they then kicked out the arab muslims aqfter they had held sovereignty for just 22 years. They never had any control of Palestine ever again, in fact the Ottomans refused them any control at all because they were so inept and incapable being nomadic farm workers

What are you going on about? The OTTOMAN's WERE Muslim.

But not arab muslims, the same as Presbyterians are not Catholics.

That makes no sense. Presbyterians and Catholics are two different denominations of Christianity. "Arab muslim" is not a denomination of Islam.

Why do you think it is that Iranian muslims are fighting against Saudi muslims. You do realise that the Ottomans are looked down on by the rest of the M.E muslims because they are Persians and seen as second class citizens. It is all down to the age old Sunni/Shi'ite battles and differences that have been waging since the death of mo'mad.

You're mixing up ethnic divisions with religious divisions.

You really should look at the history of islam and see why the Ottomans did not give the arab muslims sovereignty over any of their lands, and they had to wait until 1923 and the LoN before they could claim any of their lands.

What does this have to do with anything? Muslims were a majority for many years.

So you don't know that islam is built on tiers and at the top is the arab or true muslim. Then you have the Persian muslim who follows another branch of islam. Or if you prefer sunni and Shi'ite muslims, that even they will tell you are not the same religion. Then you have the Kurds who are third class muslims, and killed by both Sunni and Shi'ite sects. It is the same with Catholics and Protestants, both Christian sects that are far from being compatible. Which is why they are still at war with each other. The most obvious difference is birth control that is illegal in Catholic nations, but legal in protestant ones.


Are you 100% sure of this as the many links from the pro Jew side show that the arab muslims were in the minority for all but 22 years since the Roman conquest. They never held any sovereignty or any legal title to the land from 1099 till the present day. Even the Ottomans refused to allow them to be the owners and kept them under a feudal system until the surrender of the land in 1919. Your whole argument was based around the Jews being recent arrivals from Europe until the evidence showed the majority came from the surrounding lands, now you are using residency of muslims that is unproven as your reason to stop the Jews from having a NATIONal home.

Actually you don't have a clue what my argument is - and I don't have a clue what yours is. I'm using demographics - population statistics - sovereignty has nothing to do with being a majority demographic or not.

 

[Coyote]

Stick them out in the Sinai and be done with it.

Fact is thats where most of them are from in the first place anyway

No. It isn't.

 

[Boston1]

Stick them out in the Sinai and be done with it.

Fact is thats where most of them are from in the first place anyway

No. It isn't.

Of course it is. The early Arabs were largely a nomadic herding people of the Arabian peninsula and what is now the Sinai area. Although the Egyptians were constantly throwing them out.

 

[Coyote]

All Media

Unlike mathamatics "historical truth" is often controlled by the side that controls the narrative.

One example. The accepted "truth" according to official Israeli history is that the Arabs told the pal's to flee during the war. Yet documents that were finally released relatively recently indicated that some fled at the urging of the arabs, others fled out of fear of war, and many were expelled by Israeli military. So which is truth?

Arabs did not tell Palestinians to flee, they told fellow Arabs to flee. The "Palestinian" identity had not yet been invented. Similarly, Arabs fled voluntarily because of the war started by Arabs and other Arabs who were actively engaged in hostile actions they initiated were expelled. All these things are true.

What is not true is your attempt to create some sort of separate identity retroactively.

Arabs initiated a war and Arabs left for a variety of reasons. Soon thereafter, Arabs expelled a greater Jewish population from Arab lands despite the fact these populations predated the Arabs and despite the fact they were not engaged in hostilities.

Truth is not subject to your particular agenda despite the many times you claim it is malleable. Truth is what actually happened, and since this thread was initiated in order to get to the truth, your notion that the truth is as slippery as you want it to be is antithetical to its stated purpose.

The Palestinians did not all flee voluntarily: Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is one of those truths. Do you deny it? I notice you ignore it while focusing on the Jewish expulsion (also a truth).

Articles: The Expulsion Libel: 1948 Arab
All Media
Arab sources on the 1948 exodus - Israel & Judaism Studies

From pro-Israeli sources...and who has controlled the historical narrative on this exodus? Israel, until the 80's, kept this material secret. Israeli government archives indicated a different story.

In the 1980s Israel and United Kingdom opened up part of their archives for investigation by historians. This favored a more critical and factual analysis of the 1948 events. As a result more detailed and comprehensive description of the Palestinian exodus was published, notably Morris' The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.[5] Morris distinguishes four waves of refugees, the second, third and fourth of them coinciding with Israeli military offensives, when Arab Palestinians fled the fighting, were frightened away, or were expelled.


A document produced by the Israeli Defence Forces Intelligence Service entitled "The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948" was dated 30 June 1948 and became widely known around 1985.

The document details 11 factors which caused the exodus, and lists them "in order of importance":

1. Direct, hostile Jewish [ Haganah/IDF ] operations against Arab settlements.
2. The effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations against nearby [Arab] settlements... (... especially the fall of large neighbouring centers).
3. Operation of [Jewish] dissidents [ Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]
4. Orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs [irregulars].
5. Jewish whispering operations [psychological warfare], aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants.
6. Ultimate expulsion orders [by Jewish forces]
7. Fear of Jewish [retaliatory] response [following] major Arab attack on Jews.
8. The appearance of gangs [irregular Arab forces] and non-local fighters in the vicinity of a village.
9. Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences [mainly near the borders].
10. Isolated Arab villages in purely [predominantly] Jewish areas.
11. Various local factors and general fear of the future.[6]

 

[Coyote]

Stick them out in the Sinai and be done with it.

Fact is thats where most of them are from in the first place anyway

No. It isn't.

Of course it is. The early Arabs were largely a nomadic herding people of the Arabian peninsula and what is now the Sinai area. Although the Egyptians were constantly throwing them out.

Those early Arabs are the Beduoins of today. The Palestinians are a mix of peoples, including indiginous.

 

[Coyote]

Stick them out in the Sinai and be done with it.

Fact is thats where most of them are from in the first place anyway

No. It isn't.

Of course it is. The early Arabs were largely a nomadic herding people of the Arabian peninsula and what is now the Sinai area. Although the Egyptians were constantly throwing them out.

The Palestinians are not all Arab.

 

[Boston1]

The Original Arab invasion is what first brought Arab Muslim colonists to Judea. Although its doubtful a significant number really remained in Jerusalem.

Demographic history of Jerusalem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although I don't often put much stock in WIKI

Stragglers trickled into judea over the centuries

The second Arab invasion occurred in the early 20th century

see
Redirect Notice

And were a mixture of Arab peoples from both Europe and the more traditional Arab areas.

There is no indication that these people were ever indigenous to the Canaan valley area.

Its really a no brainer. The Arab Muslims of the mandate area are immigrants, the majority of which settled there in the early 20th century

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Stick them out in the Sinai and be done with it.

Fact is thats where most of them are from in the first place anyway

No. It isn't.

Of course it is. The early Arabs were largely a nomadic herding people of the Arabian peninsula and what is now the Sinai area. Although the Egyptians were constantly throwing them out.

The Palestinians are not all Arab.

That's the first time I heard anyone say that. They identify themselves as Arabs. The first paragraph in the PLO Charter says that they're part of the larger Arab Nation.
Are you talking about the fact that the Philistines, of long ago, were originally a sea-faring people from Greece? Then you might want to do some DNA testing.

 

[MJB12741]

Stick them out in the Sinai and be done with it.

Fact is thats where most of them are from in the first place anyway

No. It isn't.

Of course it is. The early Arabs were largely a nomadic herding people of the Arabian peninsula and what is now the Sinai area. Although the Egyptians were constantly throwing them out.

The Palestinians are not all Arab.

That's the first time I heard anyone say that. They identify themselves as Arabs. The first paragraph in the PLO Charter says that they're part of the larger Arab Nation.
Are you talking about the fact that the Philistines, of long ago, were originally a sea-faring people from Greece? Then you might want to do some DNA testing.

Also the indigenous Jewish Palestinians were not Arabs. The claim that Israel is stealing, or occupying Palestinian land is absurd unless they are claiming Israel is stealing its own native land.

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/7/palestinians.pdf

 

[Boston1]

Stick them out in the Sinai and be done with it.

Fact is thats where most of them are from in the first place anyway

No. It isn't.

Of course it is. The early Arabs were largely a nomadic herding people of the Arabian peninsula and what is now the Sinai area. Although the Egyptians were constantly throwing them out.

The Palestinians are not all Arab.

That's the first time I heard anyone say that. They identify themselves as Arabs. The first paragraph in the PLO Charter says that they're part of the larger Arab Nation.
Are you talking about the fact that the Philistines, of long ago, were originally a sea-faring people from Greece? Then you might want to do some DNA testing.

forget the DNA testing. The main take away from DNA is that we are all 99% chimpanzee. Beyond that one might pick whatever markers one wants and it will 99% of the time only show something else we might all have in near perfect similarity with a chimp.

The DNA evidence is so easily manipulated that its virtually impossible to distinguish honest research from dishonest.

Always read the critiques of any paper you are considering when evaluating a given interpretation of DNA evidence.

Its a fact ;--)

 

[aris2chat]

>>
Demographer U.O. Schmelz's analysis of the Ottoman registration data for 1905 populations of Jerusalem and Hebron kazas (Ottoman districts), by place of birth, showed that of those Arab Palestinians born outside their localities of residence, approximately half represented intra-Palestine movement—from areas of low-level economic activity to areas of higher-level activity—while the other half represented Arab immigration into Palestine itself, 43 percent originating in Asia, 39 percent in Africa, and 20 percent in Turkey.[18] Schmelz conjectured:

The above-average population growth of the Arab villages around the city of Jerusalem, with its Jewish majority, continued until the end of the mandatory period. This must have been due—as elsewhere in Palestine under similar conditions—to in-migrants attracted by economic opportunities, and to the beneficial effects of improved health services in reducing mortality—just as happened in other parts of Palestine around cities with a large Jewish population sector.[19]​

While Schmelz restricted his research of the 1905 Palestinian census to the official Ottoman registrations and used these registrations with only minor critical comment, he did acknowledge that "stable population models assume the absence of external migrations, a condition which was obviously not met by all the subpopulations" that Schmelz enumerated.[20]
Like U.O. Schmelz, Roberto Bachi expressed some reservation about the virtual non-existence of data and discussion concerning migration into and within Palestine. He writes:

Between 1800 and 1914, the Muslim population had a yearly average increase in the order of magnitude of roughly 6-7 per thousand. This can be compared to the very crude estimate of about 4 per thousand for the "less developed countries" of the world (in Asia, Africa, and Latin America) between 1800 and 1910. It is possible that part of the growth of the Muslim population was due to immigration.[21]​

Although Bachi did not pursue the linkage between undocumented immigration into Palestine and the 6 (or 7) to 4 per thousand differential in growth rates between Palestine and the other less developed countries (LDCs), the idea that at least one-third of Palestine's population growth may be attributed to immigration is—using Bachi's own growth rate differentials—not an entirely unreasonable one.
Lacking verifiable evidence did not prevent Bachi from stating the obvious concerning internal migration within Palestine:

The great economic development of the coastal plains—largely due to Jewish immigration—was accompanied both in 1922-1931 and in 1931-1944 by a much stronger increase of the Muslim and Christian populations in this region than that registered in other regions. This was probably due to two reasons: stronger decrease in mortality of the non-Jewish population in the neighborhood of Jewish areas and internal migration toward the more developed zones.[22]<<

>>It is not surprising then that the British census data produce an Arab Palestinian population growth for 1922-31 that turns out to be generated by natural increase and legal migrations alone. Applying a 2.5 per annum growth rate[30] to a population stock of 589,177 for 1922 generates a 1931 population estimate of 735,799 or 97.6 percent of the 753,822 recorded in the 1931 census.<<

>>Applying the 2.5 per annum natural rate of population growth to the 1922 Arab Palestinian population generates an expected population size for 1931 of 398,498 or 64,790 less than the actual population recorded in the British census. By imputation, this unaccounted population increase must have been either illegal immigration not accounted for in the British census and/or registered Arab Palestinians moving from outside the Jewish-identified sub-districts to those sub-districts so identified. This 1922-31 Arab migration into the Jewish sub-districts represented 11.8 percent of the total 1931 Arab population residing in those sub-districts and as much as 36.8 percent of its 1922-31 growth.<<

​

 

[P F Tinmore]

>>
Demographer U.O. Schmelz's analysis of the Ottoman registration data for 1905 populations of Jerusalem and Hebron kazas (Ottoman districts), by place of birth, showed that of those Arab Palestinians born outside their localities of residence, approximately half represented intra-Palestine movement—from areas of low-level economic activity to areas of higher-level activity—while the other half represented Arab immigration into Palestine itself, 43 percent originating in Asia, 39 percent in Africa, and 20 percent in Turkey.[18] Schmelz conjectured:

The above-average population growth of the Arab villages around the city of Jerusalem, with its Jewish majority, continued until the end of the mandatory period. This must have been due—as elsewhere in Palestine under similar conditions—to in-migrants attracted by economic opportunities, and to the beneficial effects of improved health services in reducing mortality—just as happened in other parts of Palestine around cities with a large Jewish population sector.[19]​

While Schmelz restricted his research of the 1905 Palestinian census to the official Ottoman registrations and used these registrations with only minor critical comment, he did acknowledge that "stable population models assume the absence of external migrations, a condition which was obviously not met by all the subpopulations" that Schmelz enumerated.[20]
Like U.O. Schmelz, Roberto Bachi expressed some reservation about the virtual non-existence of data and discussion concerning migration into and within Palestine. He writes:

Between 1800 and 1914, the Muslim population had a yearly average increase in the order of magnitude of roughly 6-7 per thousand. This can be compared to the very crude estimate of about 4 per thousand for the "less developed countries" of the world (in Asia, Africa, and Latin America) between 1800 and 1910. It is possible that part of the growth of the Muslim population was due to immigration.[21]​

Although Bachi did not pursue the linkage between undocumented immigration into Palestine and the 6 (or 7) to 4 per thousand differential in growth rates between Palestine and the other less developed countries (LDCs), the idea that at least one-third of Palestine's population growth may be attributed to immigration is—using Bachi's own growth rate differentials—not an entirely unreasonable one.
Lacking verifiable evidence did not prevent Bachi from stating the obvious concerning internal migration within Palestine:

The great economic development of the coastal plains—largely due to Jewish immigration—was accompanied both in 1922-1931 and in 1931-1944 by a much stronger increase of the Muslim and Christian populations in this region than that registered in other regions. This was probably due to two reasons: stronger decrease in mortality of the non-Jewish population in the neighborhood of Jewish areas and internal migration toward the more developed zones.[22]<<

>>It is not surprising then that the British census data produce an Arab Palestinian population growth for 1922-31 that turns out to be generated by natural increase and legal migrations alone. Applying a 2.5 per annum growth rate[30] to a population stock of 589,177 for 1922 generates a 1931 population estimate of 735,799 or 97.6 percent of the 753,822 recorded in the 1931 census.<<

>>Applying the 2.5 per annum natural rate of population growth to the 1922 Arab Palestinian population generates an expected population size for 1931 of 398,498 or 64,790 less than the actual population recorded in the British census. By imputation, this unaccounted population increase must have been either illegal immigration not accounted for in the British census and/or registered Arab Palestinians moving from outside the Jewish-identified sub-districts to those sub-districts so identified. This 1922-31 Arab migration into the Jewish sub-districts represented 11.8 percent of the total 1931 Arab population residing in those sub-districts and as much as 36.8 percent of its 1922-31 growth.<<

​

Schmelz conjectured:
The above-average population growth of the Arab villages around the city of Jerusalem, with its Jewish majority, continued until the end of the mandatory period. This must have been due—as elsewhere in Palestine under similar conditions—to in-migrants attracted by economic opportunities, and to the beneficial effects of improved health services in reducing mortality—just as happened in other parts of Palestine around cities with a large Jewish population sector.​

Migration from rural to urban centers was common throughout the world particularly those areas that were experiencing industrialization. This was happening in Palestine but it had little to do with the Jews.

The Jewish colonists had a society that was kept as separate from the Palestinian society as possible. Very little of the colonial economy trickled into the native population.

 

[Phoenall]

Apart from when the Crusaders invaded and conquered the land, they then kicked out the arab muslims aqfter they had held sovereignty for just 22 years. They never had any control of Palestine ever again, in fact the Ottomans refused them any control at all because they were so inept and incapable being nomadic farm workers

What are you going on about? The OTTOMAN's WERE Muslim.

But not arab muslims, the same as Presbyterians are not Catholics.

That makes no sense. Presbyterians and Catholics are two different denominations of Christianity. "Arab muslim" is not a denomination of Islam.

Why do you think it is that Iranian muslims are fighting against Saudi muslims. You do realise that the Ottomans are looked down on by the rest of the M.E muslims because they are Persians and seen as second class citizens. It is all down to the age old Sunni/Shi'ite battles and differences that have been waging since the death of mo'mad.

You're mixing up ethnic divisions with religious divisions.

You really should look at the history of islam and see why the Ottomans did not give the arab muslims sovereignty over any of their lands, and they had to wait until 1923 and the LoN before they could claim any of their lands.

What does this have to do with anything? Muslims were a majority for many years.

So you don't know that islam is built on tiers and at the top is the arab or true muslim. Then you have the Persian muslim who follows another branch of islam. Or if you prefer sunni and Shi'ite muslims, that even they will tell you are not the same religion. Then you have the Kurds who are third class muslims, and killed by both Sunni and Shi'ite sects. It is the same with Catholics and Protestants, both Christian sects that are far from being compatible. Which is why they are still at war with each other. The most obvious difference is birth control that is illegal in Catholic nations, but legal in protestant ones.


Are you 100% sure of this as the many links from the pro Jew side show that the arab muslims were in the minority for all but 22 years since the Roman conquest. They never held any sovereignty or any legal title to the land from 1099 till the present day. Even the Ottomans refused to allow them to be the owners and kept them under a feudal system until the surrender of the land in 1919. Your whole argument was based around the Jews being recent arrivals from Europe until the evidence showed the majority came from the surrounding lands, now you are using residency of muslims that is unproven as your reason to stop the Jews from having a NATIONal home.

Actually you don't have a clue what my argument is - and I don't have a clue what yours is. I'm using demographics - population statistics - sovereignty has nothing to do with being a majority demographic or not.

Being a majority does not give you automatic rights to be the lands rulers, which is why the Ottomans ruled and not the arab muslims. They were not allowed to rule by the lands sovereign owners, and were kept down by brute force, so how can any one with an iota of intelligence say that the arab muslims has ownership of Palestine prior to 1988. The evidence from Islamic sources show that the Jews were the majority population in the sanjak of Jerusalem, showing the arab muslims had no claims on demographics either. And still you ignore the truth because it supports the Jews rights. If the Ottomans or the LoN had granted the arab muslims the whole of Palestine under the mandate of 1923 then you would be screeching about international law supporting their claim, and the Jews should be ran off the land. But seeing as the international law was in the Jews favour you ignore it or deny it exists. You just cant stand to see the Jews come out on top can you, and just have to find some way to attack them for your ednablers.

 

[Phoenall]

Stick them out in the Sinai and be done with it.

Fact is thats where most of them are from in the first place anyway

No. It isn't.

If they are arab then they come from the Arabian peninsular, making them immigrants and not indigenous. The Jews having settled in Judea and Samaria some 4000 to 5000 years ago, about the same time the arabs settled in arabia, are indigenous to the area.

 

[Phoenall]

All Media

Unlike mathamatics "historical truth" is often controlled by the side that controls the narrative.

One example. The accepted "truth" according to official Israeli history is that the Arabs told the pal's to flee during the war. Yet documents that were finally released relatively recently indicated that some fled at the urging of the arabs, others fled out of fear of war, and many were expelled by Israeli military. So which is truth?

Arabs did not tell Palestinians to flee, they told fellow Arabs to flee. The "Palestinian" identity had not yet been invented. Similarly, Arabs fled voluntarily because of the war started by Arabs and other Arabs who were actively engaged in hostile actions they initiated were expelled. All these things are true.

What is not true is your attempt to create some sort of separate identity retroactively.

Arabs initiated a war and Arabs left for a variety of reasons. Soon thereafter, Arabs expelled a greater Jewish population from Arab lands despite the fact these populations predated the Arabs and despite the fact they were not engaged in hostilities.

Truth is not subject to your particular agenda despite the many times you claim it is malleable. Truth is what actually happened, and since this thread was initiated in order to get to the truth, your notion that the truth is as slippery as you want it to be is antithetical to its stated purpose.

The Palestinians did not all flee voluntarily: Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is one of those truths. Do you deny it? I notice you ignore it while focusing on the Jewish expulsion (also a truth).

Articles: The Expulsion Libel: 1948 Arab
All Media
Arab sources on the 1948 exodus - Israel & Judaism Studies

From pro-Israeli sources...and who has controlled the historical narrative on this exodus? Israel, until the 80's, kept this material secret. Israeli government archives indicated a different story.

In the 1980s Israel and United Kingdom opened up part of their archives for investigation by historians. This favored a more critical and factual analysis of the 1948 events. As a result more detailed and comprehensive description of the Palestinian exodus was published, notably Morris' The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.[5] Morris distinguishes four waves of refugees, the second, third and fourth of them coinciding with Israeli military offensives, when Arab Palestinians fled the fighting, were frightened away, or were expelled.


A document produced by the Israeli Defence Forces Intelligence Service entitled "The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947 – 1/6/1948" was dated 30 June 1948 and became widely known around 1985.

The document details 11 factors which caused the exodus, and lists them "in order of importance":

1. Direct, hostile Jewish [ Haganah/IDF ] operations against Arab settlements.
2. The effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations against nearby [Arab] settlements... (... especially the fall of large neighbouring centers).
3. Operation of [Jewish] dissidents [ Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]
4. Orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs [irregulars].
5. Jewish whispering operations [psychological warfare], aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants.
6. Ultimate expulsion orders [by Jewish forces]
7. Fear of Jewish [retaliatory] response [following] major Arab attack on Jews.
8. The appearance of gangs [irregular Arab forces] and non-local fighters in the vicinity of a village.
9. Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences [mainly near the borders].
10. Isolated Arab villages in purely [predominantly] Jewish areas.
11. Various local factors and general fear of the future.[6]

From an islamonazi source you mean, as the author is a supporter of Palestine and a detractor of Israel