Is censored really defending itself in 2020?

[José]

Aside for the curious: in case you're wondering "censored" refers to an expression that was deemed "inflamatory" by the powers that be.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

One of the unshakeable certainties shared by almost everybody, not only in western countries, but the entire non-arab, non-muslim world is the idea that Palestinians are the aggressors in the present phase of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (that extends from the first months-the second half of 1948 to 2020).

The narrative that presents palestinians as aggressors is represented by an iconic image familiar to all, even to people with the most cursory knowledge about the conflict, that shows the chronological sequence of events:

Palestinian militants launch a volley of rockets.​

After a few minutes, hours, days or weeks comes the inevitable israeli retaliation​

This narrative that presents palestinians as a community, a state or a quasi-state committing unprovoked violence against a neighboring state for the last 70 years is practically an article of faith in countries and regions as diverse as America, China, Africa, Latin America, etc...

Depending on how you count generations, you already have two or three generations raised on this undisputable fact. The social confirmation of the palestinian aggression comes from multiple sources.

The entire mass media, politicians and even the ordinary people that surrounds us like the leaf-blower guy who annoys you every week, everybody confirms the fact that palestinians launch unprovoked attacks against their neighbor.

For the past 70 years almost the whole world was bombarded by a massive propaganda campaign echoed by virtually all media accusing the palestinians of aggression (even muslim majority countries like Malaysia jump on the bandwagon as you can see below):

Israel Retaliates for Suicide Blast​

Israel Retaliates for Suicide Blast

Israel retaliates after Hamas launches at least 200 rockets into Israeli territory​

Israel retaliates after Hamas launches at least 200 rockets into Israeli territory

Israel strikes militant sites in Gaza after rockets fired at Tel Aviv​

Israel strikes Gaza after rocket fire

Israeli Tanks Shell Hamas Position in Gaza in Retaliation for Rocket Launch​

Israeli tanks shell Hamas position in Gaza in retaliation for rocket launch

Israel retaliates against Gaza rockets​

Israel retaliates against Gaza rockets | The Malaysian Insight

This same narrative is incessantly repeated by an endless stream of american presidents and british prime ministers and just about any non-arab political leader around the world etc...

"Israel's got a right to defend herself; Israel must not
feel constrained in terms of defending the homeland."​

Bush Reaffirms That Israel Has Right to Defend Homeland
By David Stout​

We are committed to Israel's right to live in peace with all its
neighbors, within secure and recognized borders, free from terrorism.
​

On the 1st Anniversary of the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty Remarks, March 23, 1980.

"The United States is prepared to supply military equipment necessary to support
the efforts of friendly governments, like Israel's, to defend the safety of their people." ​

(Speech to the World Zionist Organization)

The combined effect of the portrayal of Palestinians as the aggressive, belligerant part by the world's most important political leaders, echoed by the global media is the transformation of this idea into a dogma, an article of faith whose veracity is not even open for discussion.

You can have an idea of the near unanimity that 7 decades of continuous repetition of this 'Palestinians attack Israel' mantra has generated in the minds of the average western, asian, african and latin-american citizen by a small sample of quotes by some of the members of the US Message Board:

The idea that the Arab Palestinians had a "defensive position"
of any sort, is nonsense. They were not defending anything.

Israel has NO reason to attack Palestinians other than
to defend Israel from further attacks or to retaliate.

TOASTMAN​

The Palestinians have not been able to to stop aggressive attacks on Israel's civilian populace. ... much of their military actions against the Palestinians have been in response to these attacks which no other state would be expected to tolerate.

NO state can tolerate attacks on its civilians, NO state should
be expected to. Why would you expect Israel to tolerate it?

Agree. So why the hell did they continue lobbing rockets
into civilian areas? Come on - these are civilians.​

You didn't answer her question. Deflection. What kind
of "defense" is lobbing rockets into civilian areas?

Indeed, the Palestinians commit acts of war constantly.
Hamas and Fatah have entire infrastructures dedicated to promoting acts of war.

Indeed, why are you surprised when Israel responds?​

HOLLIE​

It's interesting to note that the unanimous opinion expressed above is 100% based on the headlines and reports presented by the global media and the statements given by politicians and 0% based on serious, impartial historic research.

You can bet your soul that Coyote, FY436, RoccoR, toastman, Hollie either don't know or pretend to ignore the historical genesis of Palestinian "attacks" on Israel.

They don't know or pretend not to know anything about the historical context of the "attacks":

1 what caused them,

2 when they started,

3 who perpetrated them,

4 the nature of the attacks (rocks, firearms, bombs, etc...)

Their ignorance (when it's indeed a case of ignorance and not of bad faith) is absolutely understandable.

You can't reasonably expect millions of american, chinese and indian citizens to be experts on the history of Palestine.

And besides, why should they even bother to study a subject upon which there is such a massive unanimity?

Dozens of american, african, latin american and chinese presidents, dozens of Canadian, Indian and Japanese prime ministers cannot be all wrong.

Dozens of the most prestigious TV networks, newspapers and journalists (CBS, ABC, BBC, The Times of London, LA Times, The NY Times, Cronkite, Rather, Jennings, etc...) cannot be lying.

But we have a solitary voice stubbornly denying the official narrative accepted by almost the entire world that portrays palestinans as the aggressors:

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from Israeli aggression.

Israel always has to "defend itself" from the people it is attacking.

Everything, including armed struggle, is legitimate self defense.

BTW, Rocco, what people, besides the Palestinians, have no right to defend themselves?

Someone who has the gall to defy such a universal consensus cannot be taken seriously. Most people liken Tinmore's outrageous statement that Israel is the aggressor to those mentally disturbed caricatural prophets of the end of times that roam big cities like NY, LA and Miami:

He also reminds people of that crazy, outspoken uncle that embarrasses everybody at family gatherings. Nothing but a contrarian.

Tinmore is definitely a minority of one but as Gandhi said "even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth".

But ask yourself this:

What really motivates an American president or Japanese Prime Minister to accuse Palestinians of aggression against Israel?

The real history of Israel-Palestine or the special US-Israel relationship?

The historical facts that occurred in Palestine in 1948-2020 or the diplomatic and economic ties between Japan and Israel?

No matter how much credibility Reagan's, Thatcher's, Kennedy's statements may apparently have... No matter how authoritative and respectable the NYT's, LA Times' headlines and articles may be on the surface...

They have the ability to extract the historical context, to decontextualize the news and present something that bears little resemblance to reality.

Politicians' statements and newspapers' articles will never be substitutes for serious historic research.

So let's try to find out the truth about the rocket "attacks" and the israeli "retaliation" not in presidential speeches and newspapers' headlines but in serious historiography.

Our journey has only just begun.

 

[Hossfly]

I believe in a head for an eye.

 

[Hollie]

Aside for the curious: in case you're wondering "censored" refers to an expression that was deemed "inflamatory" by the powers that be.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

One of the unshakeable certainties shared by almost everybody, not only in western countries, but the entire non-arab, non-muslim world is the idea that Palestinians are the aggressors in the present phase of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (that extends from the first months-the second half of 1948 to 2020).

The narrative that presents palestinians as aggressors is represented by an iconic image familiar to all, even to people with the most cursory knowledge about the conflict, that shows the chronological sequence of events:

Palestinian militants launch a volley of rockets.​

After a few minutes, hours, days or weeks comes the inevitable israeli retaliation​

This narrative that presents palestinians as a community, a state or a quasi-state committing unprovoked violence against a neighboring state for the last 70 years is practically an article of faith in countries and regions as diverse as America, China, Africa, Latin America, etc...

Depending on how you count generations, you already have two or three generations raised on this undisputable fact. The social confirmation of the palestinian aggression comes from multiple sources.

The entire mass media, politicians and even the ordinary people that surrounds us like the leaf-blower guy who annoys you every week, everybody confirms the fact that palestinians launch unprovoked attacks against their neighbor.

For the past 70 years almost the whole world was bombarded by a massive propaganda campaign echoed by virtually all media accusing the palestinians of aggression (even muslim majority countries like Malaysia jump on the bandwagon as you can see below):

Israel Retaliates for Suicide Blast​

Israel Retaliates for Suicide Blast

Israel retaliates after Hamas launches at least 200 rockets into Israeli territory​

Israel retaliates after Hamas launches at least 200 rockets into Israeli territory

Israel strikes militant sites in Gaza after rockets fired at Tel Aviv​

Israel strikes Gaza after rocket fire

Israeli Tanks Shell Hamas Position in Gaza in Retaliation for Rocket Launch​

Israeli tanks shell Hamas position in Gaza in retaliation for rocket launch

Israel retaliates against Gaza rockets​

Israel retaliates against Gaza rockets | The Malaysian Insight

This same narrative is incessantly repeated by an endless stream of american presidents and british prime ministers and just about any non-arab political leader around the world etc...

"Israel's got a right to defend herself; Israel must not
feel constrained in terms of defending the homeland."​

Bush Reaffirms That Israel Has Right to Defend Homeland
By David Stout​

We are committed to Israel's right to live in peace with all its
neighbors, within secure and recognized borders, free from terrorism.
​

On the 1st Anniversary of the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty Remarks, March 23, 1980.

"The United States is prepared to supply military equipment necessary to support
the efforts of friendly governments, like Israel's, to defend the safety of their people." ​

(Speech to the World Zionist Organization)

The combined effect of the portrayal of Palestinians as the aggressive, belligerant part by the world's most important political leaders, echoed by the global media is the transformation of this idea into a dogma, an article of faith whose veracity is not even open for discussion.

You can have an idea of the near unanimity that 7 decades of continuous repetition of this 'Palestinians attack Israel' mantra has generated in the minds of the average western, asian, african and latin-american citizen by a small sample of quotes by some of the members of the US Message Board:

The idea that the Arab Palestinians had a "defensive position"
of any sort, is nonsense. They were not defending anything.

Israel has NO reason to attack Palestinians other than
to defend Israel from further attacks or to retaliate.

TOASTMAN​

The Palestinians have not been able to to stop aggressive attacks on Israel's civilian populace. ... much of their military actions against the Palestinians have been in response to these attacks which no other state would be expected to tolerate.

NO state can tolerate attacks on its civilians, NO state should
be expected to. Why would you expect Israel to tolerate it?

Agree. So why the hell did they continue lobbing rockets
into civilian areas? Come on - these are civilians.​

You didn't answer her question. Deflection. What kind
of "defense" is lobbing rockets into civilian areas?

Indeed, the Palestinians commit acts of war constantly.
Hamas and Fatah have entire infrastructures dedicated to promoting acts of war.

Indeed, why are you surprised when Israel responds?​

HOLLIE​

It's interesting to note that the unanimous opinion expressed above is 100% based on the headlines and reports presented by the global media and the statements given by politicians and 0% based on serious, impartial historic research.

You can bet your soul that Coyote, FY436, RoccoR, toastman, Hollie either don't know or pretend to ignore the historical genesis of Palestinian "attacks" on Israel.

They don't know or pretend not to know anything about the historical context of the "attacks":

1 what caused them,

2 when they started,

3 who perpetrated them,

4 the nature of the attacks (rocks, firearms, bombs, etc...)

Their ignorance (when it's indeed a case of ignorance and not of bad faith) is absolutely understandable.

You can't reasonably expect millions of american, chinese and indian citizens to be experts on the history of Palestine.

And besides, why should they even bother to study a subject upon which there is such a massive unanimity?

Dozens of american, african, latin american and chinese presidents, dozens of Canadian, Indian and Japanese prime ministers cannot be all wrong.

Dozens of the most prestigious TV networks, newspapers and journalists (CBS, ABC, BBC, The Times of London, LA Times, The NY Times, Cronkite, Rather, Jennings, etc...) cannot be lying.

But we have a solitary voice stubbornly denying the official narrative accepted by almost the entire world that portrays palestinans as the aggressors:

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from Israeli aggression.

Israel always has to "defend itself" from the people it is attacking.

Everything, including armed struggle, is legitimate self defense.

BTW, Rocco, what people, besides the Palestinians, have no right to defend themselves?

Someone who has the gall to defy such a universal consensus cannot be taken seriously. Most people liken Tinmore's outrageous statement that Israel is the aggressor to those mentally disturbed caricatural prophets of the end of times that roam big cities like NY, LA and Miami:

He also reminds people of that crazy, outspoken uncle that embarrasses everybody at family gatherings. Nothing but a contrarian.

Tinmore is definitely a minority of one but as Gandhi said "even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth".

But ask yourself this:

What really motivates an American president or Japanese Prime Minister to accuse Palestinians of aggression against Israel?

The real history of Israel-Palestine or the special US-Israel relationship?

The historical facts that occurred in Palestine in 1948-2020 or the diplomatic and economic ties between Japan and Israel?

No matter how much credibility Reagan's, Thatcher's, Kennedy's statements may apparently have... No matter how authoritative and respectable the NYT's, LA Times' headlines and articles may be on the surface...

They have the ability to extract the historical context, to decontextualize the news and present something that bears little resemblance to reality.

Politicians' statements and newspapers' articles will never be substitutes for serious historic research.

So let's try to find out the truth about the rocket "attacks" and the israeli "retaliation" not in presidential speeches and newspapers' headlines but in serious historiography.

Our journey has only just begun.

Indeed. Each journey begins with a single act of gee-had. It’s all fun and gee-had until someone loses an eye.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: What will it take for peace?
⁜→ José, et al,

A very illuminating posting. I loved the pictures. I really like to think of myself in that posture, more than a decade ago (wow, how time flys).

The idea that the Arab Palestinians had a "defensive position"
of any sort, is nonsense. They were not defending anything.

(COMMENT)

I do believe I made this comment, and stand by this comment. It certainly sounds like something I would say. The Arab Palestinians had not real sovereignty of any sort in the time before the Oslo Accords. So they did not defend Arab Palestinian territory.

And today, the most they could defend is Area "A;" but then again, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) agreed that "Israel will continue to carry the responsibility for defending (the Palestinians of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) against external threats, as well as the responsibility for overall security of Israelis for the purpose of safeguarding their internal security and public order." That defense pact was established over a quarter-century ago and is just as true today as it was when the ink was still wet.

When the Arab Palestinians claim the right of self-defense and talk about invaders, I would like to remind you that by agreement with the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, the responsibility rests with the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). If the PLO (Mahmoud Abbas) believes that the West Bank or Gaza Strip is being invaded advise the Joint Israeli-Palestinian Liaison Committee immediately.

Israel has NO reason to attack Palestinians other than
to defend Israel from further attacks or to retaliate.

(COMMENT)

I'm not at all sure I said exactly that, but the sentiment is clear.

Anytime protected persons (the Arab Palestinians) commit an offense intended to harm the Occupying Power (the State of Israel), they become a criminal and are apprehended (if possible) and prosecuted IAW Geneve Convention. This includes damage to the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power.

BTW, Rocco, what people, besides the Palestinians, have no right to defend themselves?

(COMMENT)

All people have the "Right of Self-Defense."

IF the Israelis have Sovereign Territory and some other entity threatens that Sovereignty -
THEN Israel hold the "Right of Self-Defense" in the protection and security of that Sovereignty.

IF the Arab Palestinians have no Sovereignty -
THEN the Arab Palestinians are on the "Offense" and NOT the "Defense."​

However you want to characterize the way in which the Israelis acquired control of the West Bank or Gaza Strip, it is over and done with. Israel has made peace with both the Jordanians and the Egyptians.

The Arab Palestinians have the "Right to Self-Defense." The questions are:

What are Arab Palestinians defending?
What sovereignty (1) do Arab Palestinians have? (Some territorial integrity they have sole power or authority.)
What sovereignty (2) was taken from Arab Palestinians? (Some territorial integrity they had sole power or authority but that the Israelis had taken from them.)
​

It cannot be either the West Bank - including Jerusalem - and the Gaza Strip...

The West Bank and Jerusalem were acquired by the Israelis from the Jordanians.
The Gaza Strip was acquired from the Egyptian Military Governorship.​

I ask this because I have not found an Arab Palestinian yet, who can answer: What are they fighting for in the defense role?


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[José]

Originally posted by RoccoR
A very illuminating posting. I loved the pictures. I really like to think of myself in that posture, more than a decade ago (wow, how time flys).

I'm so glad you liked it, Rocco.

The Board almost nailed me to a cross upside down like Saint Peter just because I invented this alternative way to quote posters... Now I'm alternating between the two styles so they don't get too annoyed like this guy here

To tell you the truth the OP haven't even started in earnest (I haven't written the other parts yet).

The first post was just a general exposition of the issue:

The fact that most of the world agrees with you (Palestinians are the agressors).

This is what I'm gonna do next:

So let's try to find out the truth about the rocket "attacks" and the israeli "retaliation" not in presidential speeches and newspapers' headlines but in serious historiography.

Our journey has only just begun.

 

[rylah]

Aside for the curious: in case you're wondering "censored" refers to an expression that was deemed "inflamatory" by the powers that be.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

One of the unshakeable certainties shared by almost everybody, not only in western countries, but the entire non-arab, non-muslim world is the idea that Palestinians are the aggressors in the present phase of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (that extends from the first months-the second half of 1948 to 2020).

The narrative that presents palestinians as aggressors is represented by an iconic image familiar to all, even to people with the most cursory knowledge about the conflict, that shows the chronological sequence of events:

Palestinian militants launch a volley of rockets.​

After a few minutes, hours, days or weeks comes the inevitable israeli retaliation​

This narrative that presents palestinians as a community, a state or a quasi-state committing unprovoked violence against a neighboring state for the last 70 years is practically an article of faith in countries and regions as diverse as America, China, Africa, Latin America, etc...

Depending on how you count generations, you already have two or three generations raised on this undisputable fact. The social confirmation of the palestinian aggression comes from multiple sources.

The entire mass media, politicians and even the ordinary people that surrounds us like the leaf-blower guy who annoys you every week, everybody confirms the fact that palestinians launch unprovoked attacks against their neighbor.

For the past 70 years almost the whole world was bombarded by a massive propaganda campaign echoed by virtually all media accusing the palestinians of aggression (even muslim majority countries like Malaysia jump on the bandwagon as you can see below):

Israel Retaliates for Suicide Blast​

Israel Retaliates for Suicide Blast

Israel retaliates after Hamas launches at least 200 rockets into Israeli territory​

Israel retaliates after Hamas launches at least 200 rockets into Israeli territory

Israel strikes militant sites in Gaza after rockets fired at Tel Aviv​

Israel strikes Gaza after rocket fire

Israeli Tanks Shell Hamas Position in Gaza in Retaliation for Rocket Launch​

Israeli tanks shell Hamas position in Gaza in retaliation for rocket launch

Israel retaliates against Gaza rockets​

Israel retaliates against Gaza rockets | The Malaysian Insight

This same narrative is incessantly repeated by an endless stream of american presidents and british prime ministers and just about any non-arab political leader around the world etc...

"Israel's got a right to defend herself; Israel must not
feel constrained in terms of defending the homeland."​

Bush Reaffirms That Israel Has Right to Defend Homeland
By David Stout​

We are committed to Israel's right to live in peace with all its
neighbors, within secure and recognized borders, free from terrorism.
​

On the 1st Anniversary of the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty Remarks, March 23, 1980.

"The United States is prepared to supply military equipment necessary to support
the efforts of friendly governments, like Israel's, to defend the safety of their people." ​

(Speech to the World Zionist Organization)

The combined effect of the portrayal of Palestinians as the aggressive, belligerant part by the world's most important political leaders, echoed by the global media is the transformation of this idea into a dogma, an article of faith whose veracity is not even open for discussion.

You can have an idea of the near unanimity that 7 decades of continuous repetition of this 'Palestinians attack Israel' mantra has generated in the minds of the average western, asian, african and latin-american citizen by a small sample of quotes by some of the members of the US Message Board:

The idea that the Arab Palestinians had a "defensive position"
of any sort, is nonsense. They were not defending anything.

Israel has NO reason to attack Palestinians other than
to defend Israel from further attacks or to retaliate.

TOASTMAN​

The Palestinians have not been able to to stop aggressive attacks on Israel's civilian populace. ... much of their military actions against the Palestinians have been in response to these attacks which no other state would be expected to tolerate.

NO state can tolerate attacks on its civilians, NO state should
be expected to. Why would you expect Israel to tolerate it?

Agree. So why the hell did they continue lobbing rockets
into civilian areas? Come on - these are civilians.​

You didn't answer her question. Deflection. What kind
of "defense" is lobbing rockets into civilian areas?

Indeed, the Palestinians commit acts of war constantly.
Hamas and Fatah have entire infrastructures dedicated to promoting acts of war.

Indeed, why are you surprised when Israel responds?​

HOLLIE​

It's interesting to note that the unanimous opinion expressed above is 100% based on the headlines and reports presented by the global media and the statements given by politicians and 0% based on serious, impartial historic research.

You can bet your soul that Coyote, FY436, RoccoR, toastman, Hollie either don't know or pretend to ignore the historical genesis of Palestinian "attacks" on Israel.

They don't know or pretend not to know anything about the historical context of the "attacks":

1 what caused them,

2 when they started,

3 who perpetrated them,

4 the nature of the attacks (rocks, firearms, bombs, etc...)

Their ignorance (when it's indeed a case of ignorance and not of bad faith) is absolutely understandable.

You can't reasonably expect millions of american, chinese and indian citizens to be experts on the history of Palestine.

And besides, why should they even bother to study a subject upon which there is such a massive unanimity?

Dozens of american, african, latin american and chinese presidents, dozens of Canadian, Indian and Japanese prime ministers cannot be all wrong.

Dozens of the most prestigious TV networks, newspapers and journalists (CBS, ABC, BBC, The Times of London, LA Times, The NY Times, Cronkite, Rather, Jennings, etc...) cannot be lying.

But we have a solitary voice stubbornly denying the official narrative accepted by almost the entire world that portrays palestinans as the aggressors:

The Palestinians have the right to defend themselves from Israeli aggression.

Israel always has to "defend itself" from the people it is attacking.

Everything, including armed struggle, is legitimate self defense.

BTW, Rocco, what people, besides the Palestinians, have no right to defend themselves?

Someone who has the gall to defy such a universal consensus cannot be taken seriously. Most people liken Tinmore's outrageous statement that Israel is the aggressor to those mentally disturbed caricatural prophets of the end of times that roam big cities like NY, LA and Miami:

He also reminds people of that crazy, outspoken uncle that embarrasses everybody at family gatherings. Nothing but a contrarian.

Tinmore is definitely a minority of one but as Gandhi said "even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth".

But ask yourself this:

What really motivates an American president or Japanese Prime Minister to accuse Palestinians of aggression against Israel?

The real history of Israel-Palestine or the special US-Israel relationship?

The historical facts that occurred in Palestine in 1948-2020 or the diplomatic and economic ties between Japan and Israel?

No matter how much credibility Reagan's, Thatcher's, Kennedy's statements may apparently have... No matter how authoritative and respectable the NYT's, LA Times' headlines and articles may be on the surface...

They have the ability to extract the historical context, to decontextualize the news and present something that bears little resemblance to reality.

Politicians' statements and newspapers' articles will never be substitutes for serious historic research.

So let's try to find out the truth about the rocket "attacks" and the israeli "retaliation" not in presidential speeches and newspapers' headlines but in serious historiography.

Our journey has only just begun.

The OP is based on false assumptions,
the main of which is "media is biased towards Israel".

Couldn't be further from the truth.

The Arab-Israeli conflict is the most disproportionately covered one,
compared to any other country in the world, and in spite causing much less casualties.

And to say the media or the world is biased towards Israel, is disingenuous, to say the least.
Most of rockets fired at Israel are rarely reported, if at all, and especially if intercepted don't make news.
Let an Israeli throw a stone and he's a criminal, let an Arab and he's a national hero, that's the image.

And in spite much not being reported at all in the western media,
Israelis are not parading their victims for news optics...everyone knows who does this.

 

[rylah]

Originally posted by RoccoR
A very illuminating posting. I loved the pictures. I really like to think of myself in that posture, more than a decade ago (wow, how time flys).

I'm so glad you liked it, Rocco.

The Board almost nailed me to a cross upside down like Saint Peter just because I invented this alternative way to quote posters... Now I'm alternating between the two styles so they don't get too annoyed like this guy here

To tell you the truth the OP haven't even started in earnest (I haven't written the other parts yet).

The first post was just a general exposition of the issue:

The fact that most of the world agrees with you (Palestinians are the agressors).

This is what I'm gonna do next:

So let's try to find out the truth about the rocket "attacks" and the israeli "retaliation" not in presidential speeches and newspapers' headlines but in serious historiography.

Our journey has only just begun.

"Most of the world" - ad populum fallacy.

Want truth in historiography? How about the simple truth that Arab violence against the Jewish community predated 1948, and the organization of Zionism.

So enough dancing around, who was the aggressor?

 

[José]

The historic events that unfolded in Palestine during the first months of 1948 and the following years were exaustively researched by the legendary israeli historian Benny Morris:

His most famous work describes the 1948 armed conflict that involved arab militias-guerrillas, and later arab armies and the zionist "militias" that constituted a real army in all but name and the uprooting of 700,000 palestinian arabs, the vast majority of them illiterate peasants:

But Morris also wrote a kind of sequence to his most important work, the infinitely less known but no less important:

in which he delivers a detailed (and gruesome) survey of the border situation in the immediate aftermath of the 1948 war and the following years.

They are all Morris' children but "The Birth" grew up to be a renowned surgeon while "Border Wars" became a mere janitor in terms of both academic and popular impact.

Weird analogies aside, Israel's Border Wars describes the clash the gave origin to the present palestinian armed struggle, a clash that pitted the IDF, no longer against the arab militias and arab armies of the 1948 war, but against the hundreds of thousands of displaced palestinian peasants trying to resume their normal lives during and after the war (in what became the new state of Israel but what they continued to see as their homeland).

This clash, as Benny himself said, "set patterns of behavior that were to characterize the Arab–Israeli conflict for decades to come."

When American presidents, British prime ministers say "the state of Israel has a right to defend itself" they are referring to the stage of the conflict that started and was defined by the facts presented by Morris in Border Wars.

The basic message of the book is that the mental image that most people have about the conflict:

Palestinians attack Israel, Israel retaliates is based on a grotesque distortion of this post-1948 period described by Morris.

Surprisingly enough (bear in mind I can't say anything about works available only in Hebrew or Arabic) the period immediatelly after the 1948 war is a "black hole" in the historiography of the conflict, comparatively less studied than the war itself and little discussed and understood by people with a mild and even a strong interest in the conflict, despite its fundamental, enormous importance.

So let's make an exploratory journey into the pages of "Israel's Border Wars" and try to find an answer to the question that gave this thread its title:

"Is the Jewish Racial Dictatorship really defending itself in 2020?"

 

[José]

Morris makes an overview of the situation post-1948 war:

Israel's Border Wars​

The Middle East was traumatically transformed in 1948. A Jewish state had emerged in the middle of the Muslim Arab world, and against that world's deepest wishes. The Arab states were humiliatingly defeated, and the people they had, at least in part, intervened to protect, the Palestinians, had been crushed, with some 700,000 driven into exile and another 150,000 left under Israeli rule. A dazed, disunited Arab world rubbed its eyes in appalled disbelief. (Pag. 426)

The 1948 war left in its wake not only a refugee problem but also an infiltration problem. Each year between 1949 and 1956, thousands of Palestinian Arabs illegally crossed the border into Israel from Jordan's West Bank, the Egyptian-controlled Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula, Lebanon, and Syria. In 1952, when the marauding peaked, there had been, according to the IDF, some 16,000 cases of infiltration. Israel police figures show a gradual drop after 1952, to '7.018' in 1953, '4.638' in 1954, '4.351' in 1955. No doubt many infiltrations went completely unnoticed and unrecorded. (Pag. 28)

COMMENT:

First of all notice Morris' clear zionist bias, he calls the act of returning home or trying to make a living in exile "marauding".

Second, if Morris said there was 16.000 episodes of infiltration in 1952 (or any other year, for that matter) you can easily double or triple this figure (30.000-45.000 cases) to get to the real number because as Morris himself say "many infiltrations went completely unnoticed and unrecorded".

 

[José]

Israel's Border Wars
​

Some 600,000 - 760,000 Palestinians - or roughly half the pre-1948 Palestinians - lost their homes and lands in the war, and left the territory that became Israel, turning into refugees. Most of them settled in areas adjacent or close to Israel's borders. Most wanted to return to their homes; many sought to cross the frontier at least to retrieve abandoned goods and crops from the Jews, their usurpers and dispossessers. Almost all were destitute. Inevitably, as with the West Bank border villagers, many turned to infiltration to suplement their livelihood; some infiltrated to resettle in Israel or visit relatives; some, to take revenge. (Pag. 4)
...

But the majority of observers looked to more specific and recent causes. The infiltration problem was, and was immediately understood to be, closely bound up with the refugee problem: many of the infiltrators were refugees, former inhabitants of Arab villages and towns in the areas that had become the Jewish State.

The mass exodus of Arabs from Palestine by summer 1948 had severed some 300,000-400,000 people from their native land, homes, fields, and family members who had been left behind. Many left behind ripening or ripe crops. The summer harvest of 1948 was both the cause and the focus of the first wave of Palestinian infiltration into Israeli-held territory. Large-scale infiltration began in early June 1948 and grew steadily during the weeks of the First Truce (11 June - 8 July), when the front-lines were largely quiet.

Both rural and urban refugees almost immediatelly began to feel the bite of privations, including hunger. And the places in which they initially settled were almost all no more than three or four hours' walk from their abandoned homes, villages, and towns, and some were much nearer.

COMMENT:

Morris correctly qualifies the refugees' attempt to return:

"Large-scale infiltration began in early June 1948..."

Large-scale return began in June because you already had small groups trying to return as early as January 1948.

COMMENT:

It's difficult to understand the dimensions of the 1948 refugee crisis because 700.000 refugees is just a number that does not convey the human tragedy behind it.

In the period of just a few months, more than half a million peasants and hundreds of thousands of poor urban workers lost their lands, their jobs, their livelihood and fled to impoverished parts of Palestine and the surrounding arab countries with little more than the clothes they wore ("Almost all were destitute.")

Extreme poverty and hunger was rampant ("almost immediatelly began to feel the bite of privations, including hunger.")

If those 700.000 displaced people were millionaires, tycoons suffering no hardships, their desire to return to their places of origin, their homeland would still be a fully legitimate right.

But in addition to their attachment to their land what drove those hundreds of thousands of peasants to return to their villages was the more urgent need to avoid death by hunger, it was the fact that they were literally starving in their makeshift tents.

 

[José]

Now comes the most shocking revelation of the entire book.

The initial flow of refugees back to their villages, towns and cities in 1948 was 100% civilian, unarmed and peaceful and for the most part continued to be so in the next 7 years.

Israel's Border Wars​

The vast majority of the infiltrators during the second half of 1948, 1949, and 1950 came unarmed, which would suggest that their purpose was not political-terrorist. (PAG 51).

... during 1949-56. The evidence suggests that the vast majority were unarmed; the overwhelming majority had infiltrated for economic or social reasons. (Pag. 452)

COMMENT:

Where are the fedayeen, the intifadas, the suicide bombings, the rockets, where is all the Palestinian aggression that according to Coyote and FY436 gave origin to the present phase of the conflict and against which toastman and Hollie said Israel was retaliating?

The Palestinians have not been able to to stop aggressive attacks on Israel's civilian populace.

COYOTE

What kind of "defense" is lobbing rockets into civilian areas?

ForeverYoung436

Israel has NO reason to attack Palestinians other than to defend Israel from further attacks or to retaliate.

toastman

Indeed, why are you surprised when Israel responds?

hollie

The 48 war had already ended.

There was no arab soldier invading Israel.

No ALA guerrilla fighter (Arab Liberation Army).

No Palestinian armed struggle yet...

Just a civilian, mainly peasant population, peaceful, urnarmed, who just wanted to resume their normal lives, tend their crops, raise their livestock...

Their return to their homeland was not accompanied by any aggression against Israel, their return to their villages was nothing Israel had to defend itself from...

The only "crime" they commited was not belonging to the "official" ethnicity of the supremacist state that had just been imposed on them by brute force.

 

[rylah]

Now comes the most shocking revelation of the entire book.

The initial flow of refugees back to their villages, towns and cities in 1948 was 100% civilian, unarmed and peaceful and for the most part continued to be so in the next 7 years.

Israel's Border Wars​

The vast majority of the infiltrators during the second half of 1948, 1949, and 1950 came unarmed, which would suggest that their purpose was not political-terrorist. (PAG 51).

... during 1949-56. The evidence suggests that the vast majority were unarmed; the overwhelming majority had infiltrated for economic or social reasons. (Pag. 452)

COMMENT:

Where are the fedayeen, the intifadas, the suicide bombings, the rockets, where is all the Palestinian aggression that according to Coyote and FY436 gave origin to the present phase of the conflict and against which toastman and Hollie said Israel was retaliating?

The Palestinians have not been able to to stop aggressive attacks on Israel's civilian populace.

COYOTE

What kind of "defense" is lobbing rockets into civilian areas?

ForeverYoung436

Israel has NO reason to attack Palestinians other than to defend Israel from further attacks or to retaliate.

toastman

Indeed, why are you surprised when Israel responds?

hollie

The 48 war had already ended.

There was no arab soldier invading Israel.

No ALA guerrilla fighter (Arab Liberation Army).

No Palestinian armed struggle yet...

Just a civilian, mainly peasant population, peaceful, urnarmed, who just wanted to resume their normal lives, tend their crops, raise their livestock...

Their return to their homeland was not accompanied by any aggression against Israel, their return to their villages was nothing Israel had to defend itself from...

The only "crime" they commited was not belonging to the "official" ethnicity of the supremacist state that had just been imposed on them by brute force.

What a baloney,
"just a civilian, peaceful, unarmed",
and of course your "research" conveniently escapes the 500 Israelis they killed in that period.

Neither have you answered about the period before Zionism and the re-constitution of Israel,
how do those Arab pogroms serve your whole narrative?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ya I mean why would we blame Palestinians, I mean it isn't like they actually do murder women and children and indiscriminately fire hundreds even thousands of rockets mortars and bombs at Israel and it's citizens. The Jews never actually ask the Arabs in the homeland to stay and defend it with them, and of course 5 Arab armies did not order the Arabs out when they tried to crush the new State of Israel.

 

[José]

Originally posted by rylah


What a baloney, "just a civilian, peaceful, unarmed", and of course your "research" conveniently escapes the 500 Israelis they killed in that period.

I repeat to you what I've already said to Rocco:

"Our journey has only just begun."

 

[rylah]

Originally posted by rylah


What a baloney, "just a civilian, peaceful, unarmed", and of course your "research" conveniently escapes the 500 Israelis they killed in that period.

I repeat to you what I've already said to Rocco:

"Our journey has only just begun."

What journey,
where you ignore facts about Arab aggression,
that contradict the pretentious mambo jumbo about being the poor victims of their own deeds?

Better review what's a 'discussion board',
look for a safe space if you want such load of bs go unchallenged.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Now comes the most shocking revelation of the entire book.

The initial flow of refugees back to their villages, towns and cities in 1948 was 100% civilian, unarmed and peaceful and for the most part continued to be so in the next 7 years.

Israel's Border Wars​

The vast majority of the infiltrators during the second half of 1948, 1949, and 1950 came unarmed, which would suggest that their purpose was not political-terrorist. (PAG 51).

... during 1949-56. The evidence suggests that the vast majority were unarmed; the overwhelming majority had infiltrated for economic or social reasons. (Pag. 452)

COMMENT:

Where are the fedayeen, the intifadas, the suicide bombings, the rockets, where is all the Palestinian aggression that according to Coyote and FY436 gave origin to the present phase of the conflict and against which toastman and Hollie said Israel was retaliating?

The Palestinians have not been able to to stop aggressive attacks on Israel's civilian populace.

COYOTE

What kind of "defense" is lobbing rockets into civilian areas?

ForeverYoung436

Israel has NO reason to attack Palestinians other than to defend Israel from further attacks or to retaliate.

toastman

Indeed, why are you surprised when Israel responds?

hollie

The 48 war had already ended.

There was no arab soldier invading Israel.

No ALA guerrilla fighter (Arab Liberation Army).

No Palestinian armed struggle yet...

Just a civilian, mainly peasant population, peaceful, urnarmed, who just wanted to resume their normal lives, tend their crops, raise their livestock...

Their return to their homeland was not accompanied by any aggression against Israel, their return to their villages was nothing Israel had to defend itself from...

The only "crime" they commited was not belonging to the "official" ethnicity of the supremacist state that had just been imposed on them by brute force.

If you're going to quote me, then don't do it out of context. First you speak of what happened more than 70 years ago, and then you quote me when I ask why Hamas is lobbing rockets into Israel in the present day, when Israel left Gaza in 2005. And if you tell me it's because of the blockade, then I will say that Israel enacted the blockade in response to the rockets. If you then go on to say that what's happening today cannot be separated from what happened 70 years ago, that is fine, but that's still not what my actual quote was about.

 

[José]

Originally posted by rylah
What journey, where you ignore facts about Arab aggression, that contradict the pretentious mambo jumbo about being the poor victims of their own deeds?

Better review what's a 'discussion board', look for a safe space if you want such load of bs go unchallenged.

Israeli casualties are definitely part of the story, rylah...

No one is denying this... but don't be impatient.

Let Benny Morris tell the whole story in peace, step by step, in chronological order.

 

[José]

Morris also addresses the reaction of the zionist leaders to the spontaneous return of the refugees.

Israel's Border Wars​

From the first, Israel clearly appreciated the hazards mass infiltration posed for the new state. As Israeli intelligence put it in June 1948: 'The infiltration of individual Arabs, ostensibly for reaping and threshing, alone, could in time bring with it the re-establishment [of the refugees] in the villages, something which could seriously endanger many of our achievements during the six months of war.' On 11 June, the day the First Truce started, Yosef Weitz, of the JNF, called Ben-Gurion's aide, Levi Eshkol (then Shkolnik), and asked:

'"What's going to be our position on Arabs who infiltrate back...
They may return in multitudes to their conquered villages,
and we're forbidden to shoot [by the truce]? What the fuck is that??"​

Yosef Weitz​

He [Eshkol] said that this was indeed a poser, and he would bring it before Ben-Gurion this morning.' (Pag. 118)

COMMENT:

Weitz never said: "What the fuck is that??". This was my invention... although it conveniently expresses his (depraved) "indignation". But the rest of the quotation provided by Morris (the part that really matters) is absolutely truthful. Morris even provided the source:

FOOTNOTE 2: Weitz Diary, entry for 11 June 1948.

Notice how both the Israeli intelligence ("The infiltration... could seriously endanger many of our achievements during the... war") and Weitz' diary entry (They may return in multitudes and we're forbidden to shoot?) are tacit, implicit admissions of the ethnic cleasing the Israeli government was busy promoting as those words were being written in 48 (the "achievements" being the emptying of arab villages, i.e, ethnic cleasing).

 

[José]

Although I didn't write it, I dedicate the transcription of the next excerpt of Israel's Border Wars to Coyote who just can't stop romanticizing and glamourizing the state of Israel:

"Israel concluded that those practices discriminated against israeli Arabs and decided this was not the state they wanted to be.

I'm so mesmerized by the democratic character of Israel!!!!

The emotion is so overwhelming!! Let's all faint together now!!

Oooohhhhhhhhhh!!!!"

This is what the "beacon of democracy in the Middle East" has been doing to Palestinians since Ben-Gurion gave the order in 1948.

Not even South Africa under Apartheid during the height of repression implemented the obscene policy described below.

 

[José]

Israel's Border Wars​

Weitz and IDF intelligence were pressing for a clear-cut decision to bar all refugee infiltration into Israel, be it with the aim of permanent resettlement or cultivation and collection of abandoned possessions. There was an instinctive fear that the latter would naturally evolve into the former. Even before the Truce, IDF units had received order to use fire to prevent infiltration and harvesting along and behind the lines. On 16 June the Cabinet, steered by Ben-Gurion and Sharrett, formally decided against the return of the refugees. Orders went out to all front-line units to bar the passage of Arab civilians through the lines, whether those turned back were seeking to resettle or had come on brief foraging expeditions. (Pag. 118)

COMMENT:

The excerpt of Border Wars reproduced above may give you the misleading impression that the decision to murder palestinians peasants was taken in mid-48 after an awful lot of discussion among Israel's political leaders but an informal, de facto policy of shooting palestinians was already in place since much earlier in the year, as Morris himself admits:

"Even before the Truce, IDF units had received order to use fire to prevent infiltration and harvesting along and behind the lines."

And it makes all the sense in the world... at least, as far as the depraved logic of racial dictatorships is concerned...

The jewish forces started attacking palestinian urban centres and villages and scaring the inhabitants into fleeing in December-January.

But what would be the purpose of ordering the Haganah, Irgun and Lehi to promote the de-arabisation of the country just to allow the refugees to return a few weeks or months later?

The ethnic cleasing itself and the policy of shooting to kill any returning refugees were two faces of the same coin, two complementary measures that simply couldn't exist and last without the other.