Who Are The Palestinians?

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, your source is close.

International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."

​

Read more: Articles The Jihad Lawyer
So we can put Oslo and other agreements that Arafat was duped into signing to bed, shall we? When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid.

(REFERENCES)

• • 
    "Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8)." SOURCE: Occupation and international humanitarian law: questions and answers ICRC
  Part I. General Provisions

• 
  Art. 8. Protected persons may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.

• 
  Section III. Occupied territories
  
  Art. 47. Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

(COMMENT)

What your source (Articles The Jihad Lawyer) interprets the Geneva Convention to say, and what it actually says --- are two different things; as you can see. And again, it depends on whether you want to accept the concept that the Israelis are an "Occupation Power" or a "Colonial Power." If you argue the case that Israel is a "Colonial Power" then the GC IV does not apply. But if the Israeli is a "Occupation Power" --- THEN --- the prohibition is very specific (GCIV Article 47). It does not say: "agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void."

It is not that I see them as inapplicable as much as universally violated. Israel wants the fruits of occupation while it thumbs its nose at the restrictions and obligations. Although it still fits the definition of an occupation, its actions, depending on time and place, better fit colonization and invasion.

(COMMENT)

Actually, Israel argues, like you, that the GCIV doesn't really apply, except by Security Council Mandate; "Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention," Security Council Resolution 446.

Regardless of which definition you use, it is still illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force. All of "Israel's land" has been acquired at the point of a gun.

(COMMENT)

Yes, reading this carefully, this is an application of:

Palestine National Charter of 1968

Article 1. Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the greater Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.​

This is a concept that dates back to Israeli Independence over a half century ago, in which the right of self-determination was exercised pursuant to the UN "Steps Preparatory to Independence." Prior to May '48, it was a Civil War. After May '48, it was an invasion by Arab Armies attempting to use force to interrupt the implementation of the Partition Plan and subvert the will of the UN.

Now, in terms of the territory and the sovereignty, this is something that the Palestinians have consistently said is a "violation of international law." Yet in over half a century, they have never availed themselves to the recognized dispute resolution processes.

The Law is quite clear:

• 
  "Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States." A/RES/25/2625

Not once did the Palestinians attempt peaceful means to resolve the issues. The policy is:

• There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

Most Respectfully,
R

What is the "dispute" and what is the recognized dispute resolution processes?

The dispute is about Israel occupying palestine, the dispute resolution process is the one laid down in the UN resolutions. These say an end to all violence beligerence and terrorism and negotiations to a peace and mutual borders

 

[aris2chat]

Coyote >>What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled". This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.<<

>>Bull. I used perfectly good sources to show that there was a deliberate and well orchestrated attempt to force Palestinians out by the Israeli's and it was not simply because they were "hostile" - the source I used based it on government documents. You seem to label sources that disagree with you "misinformation propaganda" and in turn use your own questionable sources.<<

What sources? Did I mention you by name? I was explaining how the majority of palestinians were not force at Israeli gun point to leave the country. There are tales and a pinch of truth that there were cases where palestinians felt or were forced to move out of their homes or off the land they occupied, but that is not the majority or even 100% of every single case.
If one person's home is confiscated by the state because of criminal activity, that does not suggest the state will confiscate every home/apartment of every criminal, even misnomers, or result in all the occupants being forced to not just leave the premisses but to leave the country?
You, and others, implied that all palestinians were force to leave. they were not. Why did so many leave even before the attack on Israel? Why did so many leave even though their village was not directly involved in any fighting? Why were the arabs telling palestinians to leave well before the first shots?
Israel pleaded for the leaving or told to leave to become part of Israel and help build a strong nation where all faiths co-existed.

No. I did not. What I've said - repeatedly, is that it is not true that they all or mostly left voluntarily at the urging of their leaders and the other Arab countries which is what keeps getting implied by the Pro-Israeli contingent. Yes - I agree with you - that, like refugees today many left in fear of the fighting and for a variety of reasons. But a substantial number were driven out by the Israeli's themselves in a deliberate plan and this keeps getting ignored or it's claimed that they were removed because they were violent.

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Opening of archives

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]

"In the past two decades, following the powerful reverberations (concerning the cause of the Nakba) triggered by the publication of books written by those dubbed the “New Historians,” the Israeli archives revoked access to much of the explosive material. Archived Israeli documents that reported the expulsion of Palestinians, massacres or rapes perpetrated by Israeli soldiers, along with other events considered embarrassing by the establishment, were reclassified as “top secret.”[7]
​

As with most conflicts in the region, and around the world, if you hear the sound of fighting or see people preparing for a fight, people will seek safety while it is still safe to get out of the way. Most of the refugees from syria were not escorted to the border at gun point and force to leave the country. People that expect to be unable to move freely, get their children to schools, be able to work or that want to prevent their family being collateral damage sent their family away till it is safe to return. They were not force to leave or thrown out by the establish government.
Some move out of town, some move across the country, some leave the country. They make that choice. That is not the same as forced out of their homes or out of the country by the hostiles. Mostly they leave out a precaution. When someone bust down your down and say they are taking your home at gun point and threaten to kill you if you are not out in the nest ten minutes or begin to kill your family while you and the rest escape, that is being forced out.

We moved to avoid the fighting, many times both across the country and out of the country. We the except of being directly targeted outside of my home or one incident at our front door, we were not forced to leave. We often stayed and just took shelter in the basements with the rocket being fired at our neighbors fell short. The apartment that we owned down stairs was for a time occupied. We still have property that have palestinian squatters living in by the shore. We were not there at the time. Most of the places in that neighborhood were taken.

Seeking safety is your choice. Being force out is different. I valued my safety and that of my child over trying to stay. My parents and brother remained for a few more years and left more so my brother could continue his education that out of any direct threat. The threat was having to travel through a zone with heavy fighting to get to his school. We were lucky to have a blanket of protection because of my father and god father. We also had for former soldier that served my father and later become a UN guard to act as drive our drive. When bullets are flying no one checks your ID before firing on you.

Most refugees leave out a fear of the future and expected threat, not because they were directly forced to leave. You leave because it is or expected to be too difficult to remain and carry on any normality of life. Palestinians exodus was not part of some planned genocide of arabs to e carried out by jews. They were scared into leaving by their fellow arab and the propaganda that they would be killed, raped or otherwise abuse by the jews if they stayed. They left before any combat or direct threat. They chose to leave.

I agree. But you can't keep denying that the Israeli's themselves had a hand in forcing many of them out through a delliberate campaign and claiming they were all scared into leaving by their fellow arabs.

Around ten villages have made the claim, or it was claimed on their behalf, of less than a thousand people in each. I'm lazy at this moment so lets double that and say 20,000 out of more than 800,000, perhaps. We are not talking about 100,000 or even 400,000 of the refugees.
If you check most of those villages had less than 300-400 people.
It was not a policy to force palestinians out of their villages or force them to leave to other countries.
Of those villages where residents were forced to leave, not all left the country. Some were moved to other locations within Israel. Only those villages that harbored terrorist or engaged and aided attacks on Israelis were among those "forced" to leave.
I've listened to so many stories and while trying to help them I had to do research. Too often their stories did not prove to be correct or only had a few small truths and far too much exaggeration.
If I was to help process their cases I could not just take their word as absolute. The longer I was with them the less credible their stories were and I little of no facts on which to turn over to the next level.
Palestinians from Israel moved to the WB or G and those in G and the WB moved to other countries. It was one set of palestinians displacing another. When Israel ended up with control of the WB and G palestinians from there left for jordan and egypt rather than accept Israeli authority. Refugees from Jordan moved to Lebanon and Tunisia. Refugees from Lebanon went to Tunisia, Iraq or Kuwait, etc.
By no stretch of the imagination were most palestinians kicked out by Israel.

Again, they left because they made the choice to, not because they were forced. The nakba was in phases over a period of wars, it was not one quick mass exodus, though most did leave before at the start of the 48 war on Israel.
Too many lies.

 

[aris2chat]

Coyote >>What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled". This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.<<

>>Bull. I used perfectly good sources to show that there was a deliberate and well orchestrated attempt to force Palestinians out by the Israeli's and it was not simply because they were "hostile" - the source I used based it on government documents. You seem to label sources that disagree with you "misinformation propaganda" and in turn use your own questionable sources.<<

What sources? Did I mention you by name? I was explaining how the majority of palestinians were not force at Israeli gun point to leave the country. There are tales and a pinch of truth that there were cases where palestinians felt or were forced to move out of their homes or off the land they occupied, but that is not the majority or even 100% of every single case.
If one person's home is confiscated by the state because of criminal activity, that does not suggest the state will confiscate every home/apartment of every criminal, even misnomers, or result in all the occupants being forced to not just leave the premisses but to leave the country?
You, and others, implied that all palestinians were force to leave. they were not. Why did so many leave even before the attack on Israel? Why did so many leave even though their village was not directly involved in any fighting? Why were the arabs telling palestinians to leave well before the first shots?
Israel pleaded for the leaving or told to leave to become part of Israel and help build a strong nation where all faiths co-existed.

No. I did not. What I've said - repeatedly, is that it is not true that they all or mostly left voluntarily at the urging of their leaders and the other Arab countries which is what keeps getting implied by the Pro-Israeli contingent. Yes - I agree with you - that, like refugees today many left in fear of the fighting and for a variety of reasons. But a substantial number were driven out by the Israeli's themselves in a deliberate plan and this keeps getting ignored or it's claimed that they were removed because they were violent.

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Opening of archives

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]

"In the past two decades, following the powerful reverberations (concerning the cause of the Nakba) triggered by the publication of books written by those dubbed the “New Historians,” the Israeli archives revoked access to much of the explosive material. Archived Israeli documents that reported the expulsion of Palestinians, massacres or rapes perpetrated by Israeli soldiers, along with other events considered embarrassing by the establishment, were reclassified as “top secret.”[7]
​

As with most conflicts in the region, and around the world, if you hear the sound of fighting or see people preparing for a fight, people will seek safety while it is still safe to get out of the way. Most of the refugees from syria were not escorted to the border at gun point and force to leave the country. People that expect to be unable to move freely, get their children to schools, be able to work or that want to prevent their family being collateral damage sent their family away till it is safe to return. They were not force to leave or thrown out by the establish government.
Some move out of town, some move across the country, some leave the country. They make that choice. That is not the same as forced out of their homes or out of the country by the hostiles. Mostly they leave out a precaution. When someone bust down your down and say they are taking your home at gun point and threaten to kill you if you are not out in the nest ten minutes or begin to kill your family while you and the rest escape, that is being forced out.

We moved to avoid the fighting, many times both across the country and out of the country. We the except of being directly targeted outside of my home or one incident at our front door, we were not forced to leave. We often stayed and just took shelter in the basements with the rocket being fired at our neighbors fell short. The apartment that we owned down stairs was for a time occupied. We still have property that have palestinian squatters living in by the shore. We were not there at the time. Most of the places in that neighborhood were taken.

Seeking safety is your choice. Being force out is different. I valued my safety and that of my child over trying to stay. My parents and brother remained for a few more years and left more so my brother could continue his education that out of any direct threat. The threat was having to travel through a zone with heavy fighting to get to his school. We were lucky to have a blanket of protection because of my father and god father. We also had for former soldier that served my father and later become a UN guard to act as drive our drive. When bullets are flying no one checks your ID before firing on you.

Most refugees leave out a fear of the future and expected threat, not because they were directly forced to leave. You leave because it is or expected to be too difficult to remain and carry on any normality of life. Palestinians exodus was not part of some planned genocide of arabs to e carried out by jews. They were scared into leaving by their fellow arab and the propaganda that they would be killed, raped or otherwise abuse by the jews if they stayed. They left before any combat or direct threat. They chose to leave.

I agree. But you can't keep denying that the Israeli's themselves had a hand in forcing many of them out through a delliberate campaign and claiming they were all scared into leaving by their fellow arabs.

Only #6 applies to force being used to kick arabs/palestinians out of Israel. Combat with villages in the beginning did not mean the whole family or ever the whole village had to leave. Only those directly involved in hostilities. Most of the fighters were not even arab/palestinians. They were fighters from other arab states that invaded Israel. Most arab/palestinians would have been untouched since they were not actually shooting at Israelis or killing civilians.
Whispers and scare tactics by arabs made the palestinians run, not the Israelis. In some cases the Israelis took advantage and did not counter the lies. If people want to believe the worst and are so filled with hate, why would Israel encourage them to stay. They should be asked to remain so they can be terrorists? It would eventually have led to them in jail or shown the door. Yes, it was easier to let the refugees believe a lie at some point. If they did not want to stay why should Israel force them. The could direct their attention to not being killed by other armies invading Israel. Would that not have been as bad? Considering how out numbered the Israelis were, the could not afford to keeping people in that did not want to stay.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote >>What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled". This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.<<

>>Bull. I used perfectly good sources to show that there was a deliberate and well orchestrated attempt to force Palestinians out by the Israeli's and it was not simply because they were "hostile" - the source I used based it on government documents. You seem to label sources that disagree with you "misinformation propaganda" and in turn use your own questionable sources.<<

What sources? Did I mention you by name? I was explaining how the majority of palestinians were not force at Israeli gun point to leave the country. There are tales and a pinch of truth that there were cases where palestinians felt or were forced to move out of their homes or off the land they occupied, but that is not the majority or even 100% of every single case.
If one person's home is confiscated by the state because of criminal activity, that does not suggest the state will confiscate every home/apartment of every criminal, even misnomers, or result in all the occupants being forced to not just leave the premisses but to leave the country?
You, and others, implied that all palestinians were force to leave. they were not. Why did so many leave even before the attack on Israel? Why did so many leave even though their village was not directly involved in any fighting? Why were the arabs telling palestinians to leave well before the first shots?
Israel pleaded for the leaving or told to leave to become part of Israel and help build a strong nation where all faiths co-existed.

No. I did not. What I've said - repeatedly, is that it is not true that they all or mostly left voluntarily at the urging of their leaders and the other Arab countries which is what keeps getting implied by the Pro-Israeli contingent. Yes - I agree with you - that, like refugees today many left in fear of the fighting and for a variety of reasons. But a substantial number were driven out by the Israeli's themselves in a deliberate plan and this keeps getting ignored or it's claimed that they were removed because they were violent.

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Opening of archives

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]

"In the past two decades, following the powerful reverberations (concerning the cause of the Nakba) triggered by the publication of books written by those dubbed the “New Historians,” the Israeli archives revoked access to much of the explosive material. Archived Israeli documents that reported the expulsion of Palestinians, massacres or rapes perpetrated by Israeli soldiers, along with other events considered embarrassing by the establishment, were reclassified as “top secret.”[7]
​

As with most conflicts in the region, and around the world, if you hear the sound of fighting or see people preparing for a fight, people will seek safety while it is still safe to get out of the way. Most of the refugees from syria were not escorted to the border at gun point and force to leave the country. People that expect to be unable to move freely, get their children to schools, be able to work or that want to prevent their family being collateral damage sent their family away till it is safe to return. They were not force to leave or thrown out by the establish government.
Some move out of town, some move across the country, some leave the country. They make that choice. That is not the same as forced out of their homes or out of the country by the hostiles. Mostly they leave out a precaution. When someone bust down your down and say they are taking your home at gun point and threaten to kill you if you are not out in the nest ten minutes or begin to kill your family while you and the rest escape, that is being forced out.

We moved to avoid the fighting, many times both across the country and out of the country. We the except of being directly targeted outside of my home or one incident at our front door, we were not forced to leave. We often stayed and just took shelter in the basements with the rocket being fired at our neighbors fell short. The apartment that we owned down stairs was for a time occupied. We still have property that have palestinian squatters living in by the shore. We were not there at the time. Most of the places in that neighborhood were taken.

Seeking safety is your choice. Being force out is different. I valued my safety and that of my child over trying to stay. My parents and brother remained for a few more years and left more so my brother could continue his education that out of any direct threat. The threat was having to travel through a zone with heavy fighting to get to his school. We were lucky to have a blanket of protection because of my father and god father. We also had for former soldier that served my father and later become a UN guard to act as drive our drive. When bullets are flying no one checks your ID before firing on you.

Most refugees leave out a fear of the future and expected threat, not because they were directly forced to leave. You leave because it is or expected to be too difficult to remain and carry on any normality of life. Palestinians exodus was not part of some planned genocide of arabs to e carried out by jews. They were scared into leaving by their fellow arab and the propaganda that they would be killed, raped or otherwise abuse by the jews if they stayed. They left before any combat or direct threat. They chose to leave.

I agree. But you can't keep denying that the Israeli's themselves had a hand in forcing many of them out through a delliberate campaign and claiming they were all scared into leaving by their fellow arabs.

Only #6 applies to force being used to kick arabs/palestinians out of Israel. Combat with villages in the beginning did not mean the whole family or ever the whole village had to leave. Only those directly involved in hostilities. Most of the fighters were not even arab/palestinians. They were fighters from other arab states that invaded Israel. Most arab/palestinians would have been untouched since they were not actually shooting at Israelis or killing civilians.
Whispers and scare tactics by arabs made the palestinians run, not the Israelis. In some cases the Israelis took advantage and did not counter the lies. If people want to believe the worst and are so filled with hate, why would Israel encourage them to stay. They should be asked to remain so they can be terrorists? It would eventually have led to them in jail or shown the door. Yes, it was easier to let the refugees believe a lie at some point. If they did not want to stay why should Israel force them. The could direct their attention to not being killed by other armies invading Israel. Would that not have been as bad? Considering how out numbered the Israelis were, the could not afford to keeping people in that did not want to stay.

#1, 2, and 3 appear to as well.

This article makes some interesting points it's information isn't dependent on the Arab or Palestinian version of events: The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

This research activity was originally stimulated by two separate sets of events. First, the opening of Israeli archives, both state and private, covering the period in question. Here it is worth noting that the historians appear to have ignored almost entirely both the archives of the Arab countries (not that these are notable for their accessibility) and oral history potential among Palestinians themselves, where considerable work has been done by other historians. As the Palestinian historian, Nur Masalha, rightly says: “History and historiography ought not necessarily be written, exclusively or mainly, by the victors (7)"...

...In the opening pages of “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem”, Benny Morris offers the outlines of an overall answer: using a map that shows the 369 Arab towns and villages in Israel (within its 1949 borders), he lists, area by area, the reasons for the departure of the local population (9). In 45 cases he admits that he does not know. The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force. In 90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighbouring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumours circulated by the Jewish army - particularly after the 9 April 1948 massacre of 250 inhabitants of Deir Yassin, where the news of the killings swept the country like wildfire.


By contrast, he found only six cases of departures at the instigation of local Arab authorities. “There is no evidence to show that the Arab states and the AHC wanted a mass exodus or issued blanket orders or appeals to the Palestinians to flee their homes (though in certain areas the inhabitants of specific villages were ordered by Arab commanders or the AHC to leave, mainly for strategic reasons).” ("The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", p. 129). On the contrary, anyone who fled was actually threatened with “severe punishment”. As for the broadcasts by Arab radio stations allegedly calling on people to flee, a detailed listening to recordings of their programmes of that period shows that the claims were invented for pure propaganda.

In “1948 and After” Benny Morris examines the first phase of the exodus and produces a detailed analysis of a source that he considers basically reliable: a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..​

It goes on to note more in the next exodus:

In short, as Morris puts it, this report “undermines the traditional official Israeli ’explanation’ of a mass flight ordered or ’invited’ by the Arab leadership”. Neither, as he points out, “does [the report] uphold the traditional Arab explanation of the exodus - that the Jews, with premeditation and in a centralised fashion, had systematically waged a campaign aimed at the wholesale expulsion of the native Palestinian population.” However, he says that “the circumstances of the second half of the exodus” - which he estimates as having involved between 300,000 and 400,000 people - “are a different story.”

One example of this second phase was the expulsion of Arabs living in Lydda (present-day Lod) and Ramleh. On 12 July 1948, within the framework of Operation Dani, a skirmish with Jordanian armoured forces served as a pretext for a violent backlash, with 250 killed, some of whom were unarmed prisoners. This was followed by a forced evacuation characterised by summary executions and looting and involving upwards of 70,000 Palestinian civilians - almost 10% of the total exodus of 1947- 49. Similar scenarios were enacted, as Morris shows, in central Galilee, Upper Galilee and the northern Negev, as well as in the post-war expulsion of the Palestinians of Al Majdal (Ashkelon). Most of these operations (with the exception of the latter) were marked by atrocities - a fact which led Aharon Zisling, the minister of agriculture, to tell the Israeli cabinet on 17 November 1948: “I couldn’t sleep all night. I felt that things that were going on were hurting my soul, the soul of my family and all of us here (...) Now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken (10).”

The Israeli government of the time pursued a policy of non- compromise, in order to prevent the return of the refugees “at any price” (as Ben Gurion himself put it), despite the fact that the UN General Assembly had been calling for this since 11 December 1948. Their villages were either destroyed or occupied by Jewish immigrants, and their lands were shared out between the surrounding kibbutzim. The law on “abandoned properties” - which was designed to make possible the seizure of any land belonging to persons who were “absent” - “legalised” this project of general confiscation as of December 1948. Almost 400 Arab villages were thus either wiped off the map or Judaised, as were most of the Arab quarters in mixed towns. According to a report drawn up in 1952, Israel had thus succeeded in expropriating 73,000 rooms in abandoned houses, 7,800 shops, workshops and warehouses, 5 million Palestinian pounds in bank accounts, and - most important of all - 300,000 hectares of land (11).
​

 

[aris2chat]

Coyote >>What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled". This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.<<

>>Bull. I used perfectly good sources to show that there was a deliberate and well orchestrated attempt to force Palestinians out by the Israeli's and it was not simply because they were "hostile" - the source I used based it on government documents. You seem to label sources that disagree with you "misinformation propaganda" and in turn use your own questionable sources.<<

What sources? Did I mention you by name? I was explaining how the majority of palestinians were not force at Israeli gun point to leave the country. There are tales and a pinch of truth that there were cases where palestinians felt or were forced to move out of their homes or off the land they occupied, but that is not the majority or even 100% of every single case.
If one person's home is confiscated by the state because of criminal activity, that does not suggest the state will confiscate every home/apartment of every criminal, even misnomers, or result in all the occupants being forced to not just leave the premisses but to leave the country?
You, and others, implied that all palestinians were force to leave. they were not. Why did so many leave even before the attack on Israel? Why did so many leave even though their village was not directly involved in any fighting? Why were the arabs telling palestinians to leave well before the first shots?
Israel pleaded for the leaving or told to leave to become part of Israel and help build a strong nation where all faiths co-existed.

No. I did not. What I've said - repeatedly, is that it is not true that they all or mostly left voluntarily at the urging of their leaders and the other Arab countries which is what keeps getting implied by the Pro-Israeli contingent. Yes - I agree with you - that, like refugees today many left in fear of the fighting and for a variety of reasons. But a substantial number were driven out by the Israeli's themselves in a deliberate plan and this keeps getting ignored or it's claimed that they were removed because they were violent.

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Opening of archives

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]

"In the past two decades, following the powerful reverberations (concerning the cause of the Nakba) triggered by the publication of books written by those dubbed the “New Historians,” the Israeli archives revoked access to much of the explosive material. Archived Israeli documents that reported the expulsion of Palestinians, massacres or rapes perpetrated by Israeli soldiers, along with other events considered embarrassing by the establishment, were reclassified as “top secret.”[7]
​

As with most conflicts in the region, and around the world, if you hear the sound of fighting or see people preparing for a fight, people will seek safety while it is still safe to get out of the way. Most of the refugees from syria were not escorted to the border at gun point and force to leave the country. People that expect to be unable to move freely, get their children to schools, be able to work or that want to prevent their family being collateral damage sent their family away till it is safe to return. They were not force to leave or thrown out by the establish government.
Some move out of town, some move across the country, some leave the country. They make that choice. That is not the same as forced out of their homes or out of the country by the hostiles. Mostly they leave out a precaution. When someone bust down your down and say they are taking your home at gun point and threaten to kill you if you are not out in the nest ten minutes or begin to kill your family while you and the rest escape, that is being forced out.

We moved to avoid the fighting, many times both across the country and out of the country. We the except of being directly targeted outside of my home or one incident at our front door, we were not forced to leave. We often stayed and just took shelter in the basements with the rocket being fired at our neighbors fell short. The apartment that we owned down stairs was for a time occupied. We still have property that have palestinian squatters living in by the shore. We were not there at the time. Most of the places in that neighborhood were taken.

Seeking safety is your choice. Being force out is different. I valued my safety and that of my child over trying to stay. My parents and brother remained for a few more years and left more so my brother could continue his education that out of any direct threat. The threat was having to travel through a zone with heavy fighting to get to his school. We were lucky to have a blanket of protection because of my father and god father. We also had for former soldier that served my father and later become a UN guard to act as drive our drive. When bullets are flying no one checks your ID before firing on you.

Most refugees leave out a fear of the future and expected threat, not because they were directly forced to leave. You leave because it is or expected to be too difficult to remain and carry on any normality of life. Palestinians exodus was not part of some planned genocide of arabs to e carried out by jews. They were scared into leaving by their fellow arab and the propaganda that they would be killed, raped or otherwise abuse by the jews if they stayed. They left before any combat or direct threat. They chose to leave.

I agree. But you can't keep denying that the Israeli's themselves had a hand in forcing many of them out through a delliberate campaign and claiming they were all scared into leaving by their fellow arabs.

Only #6 applies to force being used to kick arabs/palestinians out of Israel. Combat with villages in the beginning did not mean the whole family or ever the whole village had to leave. Only those directly involved in hostilities. Most of the fighters were not even arab/palestinians. They were fighters from other arab states that invaded Israel. Most arab/palestinians would have been untouched since they were not actually shooting at Israelis or killing civilians.
Whispers and scare tactics by arabs made the palestinians run, not the Israelis. In some cases the Israelis took advantage and did not counter the lies. If people want to believe the worst and are so filled with hate, why would Israel encourage them to stay. They should be asked to remain so they can be terrorists? It would eventually have led to them in jail or shown the door. Yes, it was easier to let the refugees believe a lie at some point. If they did not want to stay why should Israel force them. The could direct their attention to not being killed by other armies invading Israel. Would that not have been as bad? Considering how out numbered the Israelis were, the could not afford to keeping people in that did not want to stay.

#1, 2, and 3 appear to as well.

This article makes some interesting points it's information isn't dependent on the Arab or Palestinian version of events: The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

This research activity was originally stimulated by two separate sets of events. First, the opening of Israeli archives, both state and private, covering the period in question. Here it is worth noting that the historians appear to have ignored almost entirely both the archives of the Arab countries (not that these are notable for their accessibility) and oral history potential among Palestinians themselves, where considerable work has been done by other historians. As the Palestinian historian, Nur Masalha, rightly says: “History and historiography ought not necessarily be written, exclusively or mainly, by the victors (7)"...

...In the opening pages of “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem”, Benny Morris offers the outlines of an overall answer: using a map that shows the 369 Arab towns and villages in Israel (within its 1949 borders), he lists, area by area, the reasons for the departure of the local population (9). In 45 cases he admits that he does not know. The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force. In 90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighbouring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumours circulated by the Jewish army - particularly after the 9 April 1948 massacre of 250 inhabitants of Deir Yassin, where the news of the killings swept the country like wildfire.


By contrast, he found only six cases of departures at the instigation of local Arab authorities. “There is no evidence to show that the Arab states and the AHC wanted a mass exodus or issued blanket orders or appeals to the Palestinians to flee their homes (though in certain areas the inhabitants of specific villages were ordered by Arab commanders or the AHC to leave, mainly for strategic reasons).” ("The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", p. 129). On the contrary, anyone who fled was actually threatened with “severe punishment”. As for the broadcasts by Arab radio stations allegedly calling on people to flee, a detailed listening to recordings of their programmes of that period shows that the claims were invented for pure propaganda.

In “1948 and After” Benny Morris examines the first phase of the exodus and produces a detailed analysis of a source that he considers basically reliable: a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..​

It goes on to note more in the next exodus:

In short, as Morris puts it, this report “undermines the traditional official Israeli ’explanation’ of a mass flight ordered or ’invited’ by the Arab leadership”. Neither, as he points out, “does [the report] uphold the traditional Arab explanation of the exodus - that the Jews, with premeditation and in a centralised fashion, had systematically waged a campaign aimed at the wholesale expulsion of the native Palestinian population.” However, he says that “the circumstances of the second half of the exodus” - which he estimates as having involved between 300,000 and 400,000 people - “are a different story.”

One example of this second phase was the expulsion of Arabs living in Lydda (present-day Lod) and Ramleh. On 12 July 1948, within the framework of Operation Dani, a skirmish with Jordanian armoured forces served as a pretext for a violent backlash, with 250 killed, some of whom were unarmed prisoners. This was followed by a forced evacuation characterised by summary executions and looting and involving upwards of 70,000 Palestinian civilians - almost 10% of the total exodus of 1947- 49. Similar scenarios were enacted, as Morris shows, in central Galilee, Upper Galilee and the northern Negev, as well as in the post-war expulsion of the Palestinians of Al Majdal (Ashkelon). Most of these operations (with the exception of the latter) were marked by atrocities - a fact which led Aharon Zisling, the minister of agriculture, to tell the Israeli cabinet on 17 November 1948: “I couldn’t sleep all night. I felt that things that were going on were hurting my soul, the soul of my family and all of us here (...) Now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken (10).”

The Israeli government of the time pursued a policy of non- compromise, in order to prevent the return of the refugees “at any price” (as Ben Gurion himself put it), despite the fact that the UN General Assembly had been calling for this since 11 December 1948. Their villages were either destroyed or occupied by Jewish immigrants, and their lands were shared out between the surrounding kibbutzim. The law on “abandoned properties” - which was designed to make possible the seizure of any land belonging to persons who were “absent” - “legalised” this project of general confiscation as of December 1948. Almost 400 Arab villages were thus either wiped off the map or Judaised, as were most of the Arab quarters in mixed towns. According to a report drawn up in 1952, Israel had thus succeeded in expropriating 73,000 rooms in abandoned houses, 7,800 shops, workshops and warehouses, 5 million Palestinian pounds in bank accounts, and - most important of all - 300,000 hectares of land (11).
​

>>The exodus was divided into two broadly equal waves: one before and one after the decisive turning-point of the declaration of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948 and the intervention of the armies of the neighboring Arab states on the following day. One can agree that the flight of thousands of well-to-do Palestinians during the first few weeks following the adoption of the UN partition plan - particularly from Haifa and Jaffa - was essentially voluntary. The question is what was the truth of the departures that happened subsequently?
.....................and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force.
...........90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighboring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumors circulated by the Jewish army<< also from mondediplo

>>
“One million Palestinians were expelled by Israel from 1947–49.”

FACT
The Palestinians left their homes in 1947–49 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders’ calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle.

Many Arabs claim that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Palestinians became refugees in 1947–49. The last census taken by the British in 1945 found approximately 1.2 million permanent Arab residents in all of Palestine. A 1949 census conducted by the government of Israel counted 160,000 Arabs living in the new state after the war. In 1947, a total of 809,100 Arabs lived in the same area.1 This meant no more than 650,000 Palestinian Arabs could have become refugees. A report by the UN Mediator on Palestine arrived at an even lower refugee figure—472,000.<<Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations, General Assembly Official Records: Third Session, Supplement No. 11 (A/648), Paris, 1948, p. 47 and Supplement No. 11A (A/689 and A/689/Add.1, p. 5; and “Conclusions from Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine,” (September 16, 1948), U.N. doc. A/648 (part 1, p. 29; part 2, p. 23; part 3, p. 11), (September 18, 1948).

BBC NEWS Middle East Jordan s refugees long to return

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Let the truth be known to all.

Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine

Palestinians are the Israeli version of American Indians. And just as the Indians got the finger and no one cares, so to with the Palestinians. And just like the Indians, can conform and be Israeli, or resist and stay Palestinians and go extinct in a couple centuries.

 

[MJB12741]

Let the truth be known to all.

Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine

Palestinians are the Israeli version of American Indians. And just as the Indians got the finger and no one cares, so to with the Palestinians. And just like the Indians, can conform and be Israeli, or resist and stay Palestinians and go extinct in a couple centuries.

And just how will the Palestinians "go extinct" in a couple of centuries if they resist & stay Palestinians when their numbers have grown rapidly, especially since 1948?

 

[theliq]

Let the truth be known to all.

Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine

Palestinians are the Israeli version of American Indians. And just as the Indians got the finger and no one cares, so to with the Palestinians. And just like the Indians, can conform and be Israeli, or resist and stay Palestinians and go extinct in a couple centuries.

You know nothing.....back to your reservation we call the USA.....don't call us thanks,you just didn't make it

 

[theliq]

Coyote >>What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled". This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.<<

>>Bull. I used perfectly good sources to show that there was a deliberate and well orchestrated attempt to force Palestinians out by the Israeli's and it was not simply because they were "hostile" - the source I used based it on government documents. You seem to label sources that disagree with you "misinformation propaganda" and in turn use your own questionable sources.<<

What sources? Did I mention you by name? I was explaining how the majority of palestinians were not force at Israeli gun point to leave the country. There are tales and a pinch of truth that there were cases where palestinians felt or were forced to move out of their homes or off the land they occupied, but that is not the majority or even 100% of every single case.
If one person's home is confiscated by the state because of criminal activity, that does not suggest the state will confiscate every home/apartment of every criminal, even misnomers, or result in all the occupants being forced to not just leave the premisses but to leave the country?
You, and others, implied that all palestinians were force to leave. they were not. Why did so many leave even before the attack on Israel? Why did so many leave even though their village was not directly involved in any fighting? Why were the arabs telling palestinians to leave well before the first shots?
Israel pleaded for the leaving or told to leave to become part of Israel and help build a strong nation where all faiths co-existed.

No. I did not. What I've said - repeatedly, is that it is not true that they all or mostly left voluntarily at the urging of their leaders and the other Arab countries which is what keeps getting implied by the Pro-Israeli contingent. Yes - I agree with you - that, like refugees today many left in fear of the fighting and for a variety of reasons. But a substantial number were driven out by the Israeli's themselves in a deliberate plan and this keeps getting ignored or it's claimed that they were removed because they were violent.

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Opening of archives

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]

"In the past two decades, following the powerful reverberations (concerning the cause of the Nakba) triggered by the publication of books written by those dubbed the “New Historians,” the Israeli archives revoked access to much of the explosive material. Archived Israeli documents that reported the expulsion of Palestinians, massacres or rapes perpetrated by Israeli soldiers, along with other events considered embarrassing by the establishment, were reclassified as “top secret.”[7]
​

As with most conflicts in the region, and around the world, if you hear the sound of fighting or see people preparing for a fight, people will seek safety while it is still safe to get out of the way. Most of the refugees from syria were not escorted to the border at gun point and force to leave the country. People that expect to be unable to move freely, get their children to schools, be able to work or that want to prevent their family being collateral damage sent their family away till it is safe to return. They were not force to leave or thrown out by the establish government.
Some move out of town, some move across the country, some leave the country. They make that choice. That is not the same as forced out of their homes or out of the country by the hostiles. Mostly they leave out a precaution. When someone bust down your down and say they are taking your home at gun point and threaten to kill you if you are not out in the nest ten minutes or begin to kill your family while you and the rest escape, that is being forced out.

We moved to avoid the fighting, many times both across the country and out of the country. We the except of being directly targeted outside of my home or one incident at our front door, we were not forced to leave. We often stayed and just took shelter in the basements with the rocket being fired at our neighbors fell short. The apartment that we owned down stairs was for a time occupied. We still have property that have palestinian squatters living in by the shore. We were not there at the time. Most of the places in that neighborhood were taken.

Seeking safety is your choice. Being force out is different. I valued my safety and that of my child over trying to stay. My parents and brother remained for a few more years and left more so my brother could continue his education that out of any direct threat. The threat was having to travel through a zone with heavy fighting to get to his school. We were lucky to have a blanket of protection because of my father and god father. We also had for former soldier that served my father and later become a UN guard to act as drive our drive. When bullets are flying no one checks your ID before firing on you.

Most refugees leave out a fear of the future and expected threat, not because they were directly forced to leave. You leave because it is or expected to be too difficult to remain and carry on any normality of life. Palestinians exodus was not part of some planned genocide of arabs to e carried out by jews. They were scared into leaving by their fellow arab and the propaganda that they would be killed, raped or otherwise abuse by the jews if they stayed. They left before any combat or direct threat. They chose to leave.

I agree. But you can't keep denying that the Israeli's themselves had a hand in forcing many of them out through a delliberate campaign and claiming they were all scared into leaving by their fellow arabs.

Only #6 applies to force being used to kick arabs/palestinians out of Israel. Combat with villages in the beginning did not mean the whole family or ever the whole village had to leave. Only those directly involved in hostilities. Most of the fighters were not even arab/palestinians. They were fighters from other arab states that invaded Israel. Most arab/palestinians would have been untouched since they were not actually shooting at Israelis or killing civilians.
Whispers and scare tactics by arabs made the palestinians run, not the Israelis. In some cases the Israelis took advantage and did not counter the lies. If people want to believe the worst and are so filled with hate, why would Israel encourage them to stay. They should be asked to remain so they can be terrorists? It would eventually have led to them in jail or shown the door. Yes, it was easier to let the refugees believe a lie at some point. If they did not want to stay why should Israel force them. The could direct their attention to not being killed by other armies invading Israel. Would that not have been as bad? Considering how out numbered the Israelis were, the could not afford to keeping people in that did not want to stay.

#1, 2, and 3 appear to as well.

This article makes some interesting points it's information isn't dependent on the Arab or Palestinian version of events: The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

This research activity was originally stimulated by two separate sets of events. First, the opening of Israeli archives, both state and private, covering the period in question. Here it is worth noting that the historians appear to have ignored almost entirely both the archives of the Arab countries (not that these are notable for their accessibility) and oral history potential among Palestinians themselves, where considerable work has been done by other historians. As the Palestinian historian, Nur Masalha, rightly says: “History and historiography ought not necessarily be written, exclusively or mainly, by the victors (7)"...

...In the opening pages of “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem”, Benny Morris offers the outlines of an overall answer: using a map that shows the 369 Arab towns and villages in Israel (within its 1949 borders), he lists, area by area, the reasons for the departure of the local population (9). In 45 cases he admits that he does not know. The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force. In 90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighbouring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumours circulated by the Jewish army - particularly after the 9 April 1948 massacre of 250 inhabitants of Deir Yassin, where the news of the killings swept the country like wildfire.


By contrast, he found only six cases of departures at the instigation of local Arab authorities. “There is no evidence to show that the Arab states and the AHC wanted a mass exodus or issued blanket orders or appeals to the Palestinians to flee their homes (though in certain areas the inhabitants of specific villages were ordered by Arab commanders or the AHC to leave, mainly for strategic reasons).” ("The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", p. 129). On the contrary, anyone who fled was actually threatened with “severe punishment”. As for the broadcasts by Arab radio stations allegedly calling on people to flee, a detailed listening to recordings of their programmes of that period shows that the claims were invented for pure propaganda.

In “1948 and After” Benny Morris examines the first phase of the exodus and produces a detailed analysis of a source that he considers basically reliable: a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..​

It goes on to note more in the next exodus:

In short, as Morris puts it, this report “undermines the traditional official Israeli ’explanation’ of a mass flight ordered or ’invited’ by the Arab leadership”. Neither, as he points out, “does [the report] uphold the traditional Arab explanation of the exodus - that the Jews, with premeditation and in a centralised fashion, had systematically waged a campaign aimed at the wholesale expulsion of the native Palestinian population.” However, he says that “the circumstances of the second half of the exodus” - which he estimates as having involved between 300,000 and 400,000 people - “are a different story.”

One example of this second phase was the expulsion of Arabs living in Lydda (present-day Lod) and Ramleh. On 12 July 1948, within the framework of Operation Dani, a skirmish with Jordanian armoured forces served as a pretext for a violent backlash, with 250 killed, some of whom were unarmed prisoners. This was followed by a forced evacuation characterised by summary executions and looting and involving upwards of 70,000 Palestinian civilians - almost 10% of the total exodus of 1947- 49. Similar scenarios were enacted, as Morris shows, in central Galilee, Upper Galilee and the northern Negev, as well as in the post-war expulsion of the Palestinians of Al Majdal (Ashkelon). Most of these operations (with the exception of the latter) were marked by atrocities - a fact which led Aharon Zisling, the minister of agriculture, to tell the Israeli cabinet on 17 November 1948: “I couldn’t sleep all night. I felt that things that were going on were hurting my soul, the soul of my family and all of us here (...) Now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken (10).”

The Israeli government of the time pursued a policy of non- compromise, in order to prevent the return of the refugees “at any price” (as Ben Gurion himself put it), despite the fact that the UN General Assembly had been calling for this since 11 December 1948. Their villages were either destroyed or occupied by Jewish immigrants, and their lands were shared out between the surrounding kibbutzim. The law on “abandoned properties” - which was designed to make possible the seizure of any land belonging to persons who were “absent” - “legalised” this project of general confiscation as of December 1948. Almost 400 Arab villages were thus either wiped off the map or Judaised, as were most of the Arab quarters in mixed towns. According to a report drawn up in 1952, Israel had thus succeeded in expropriating 73,000 rooms in abandoned houses, 7,800 shops, workshops and warehouses, 5 million Palestinian pounds in bank accounts, and - most important of all - 300,000 hectares of land (11).
​

>>The exodus was divided into two broadly equal waves: one before and one after the decisive turning-point of the declaration of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948 and the intervention of the armies of the neighboring Arab states on the following day. One can agree that the flight of thousands of well-to-do Palestinians during the first few weeks following the adoption of the UN partition plan - particularly from Haifa and Jaffa - was essentially voluntary. The question is what was the truth of the departures that happened subsequently?
.....................and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force.
...........90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighboring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumors circulated by the Jewish army<< also from mondediplo

>>
“One million Palestinians were expelled by Israel from 1947–49.”

FACT
The Palestinians left their homes in 1947–49 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders’ calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle.

Many Arabs claim that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Palestinians became refugees in 1947–49. The last census taken by the British in 1945 found approximately 1.2 million permanent Arab residents in all of Palestine. A 1949 census conducted by the government of Israel counted 160,000 Arabs living in the new state after the war. In 1947, a total of 809,100 Arabs lived in the same area.1 This meant no more than 650,000 Palestinian Arabs could have become refugees. A report by the UN Mediator on Palestine arrived at an even lower refugee figure—472,000.<<Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations, General Assembly Official Records: Third Session, Supplement No. 11 (A/648), Paris, 1948, p. 47 and Supplement No. 11A (A/689 and A/689/Add.1, p. 5; and “Conclusions from Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine,” (September 16, 1948), U.N. doc. A/648 (part 1, p. 29; part 2, p. 23; part 3, p. 11), (September 18, 1948).

BBC NEWS Middle East Jordan s refugees long to return

The MAJORITY OF PALESTINIANS WERE FORCIBLY REMOVED FOR THEIR OWN LAND.....not a few.......and their towns and villages were then razed to the ground......always though you were bright ...............but DUH now comes to mind.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, your source is close.

International law considers agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution."

​

Read more: Articles The Jihad Lawyer
So we can put Oslo and other agreements that Arafat was duped into signing to bed, shall we? When Hamas refuses to recognize previous agreements it is because they are invalid.

(REFERENCES)

• • 
    "Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8)." SOURCE: Occupation and international humanitarian law: questions and answers ICRC
  Part I. General Provisions

• 
  Art. 8. Protected persons may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article, if such there be.

• 
  Section III. Occupied territories
  
  Art. 47. Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

(COMMENT)

What your source (Articles The Jihad Lawyer) interprets the Geneva Convention to say, and what it actually says --- are two different things; as you can see. And again, it depends on whether you want to accept the concept that the Israelis are an "Occupation Power" or a "Colonial Power." If you argue the case that Israel is a "Colonial Power" then the GC IV does not apply. But if the Israeli is a "Occupation Power" --- THEN --- the prohibition is very specific (GCIV Article 47). It does not say: "agreements between a military occupier and the occupied to be null and void."

It is not that I see them as inapplicable as much as universally violated. Israel wants the fruits of occupation while it thumbs its nose at the restrictions and obligations. Although it still fits the definition of an occupation, its actions, depending on time and place, better fit colonization and invasion.

(COMMENT)

Actually, Israel argues, like you, that the GCIV doesn't really apply, except by Security Council Mandate; "Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention," Security Council Resolution 446.

Regardless of which definition you use, it is still illegal to acquire land through the threat or use of force. All of "Israel's land" has been acquired at the point of a gun.

(COMMENT)

Yes, reading this carefully, this is an application of:

Palestine National Charter of 1968

Article 1. Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the greater Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.​

This is a concept that dates back to Israeli Independence over a half century ago, in which the right of self-determination was exercised pursuant to the UN "Steps Preparatory to Independence." Prior to May '48, it was a Civil War. After May '48, it was an invasion by Arab Armies attempting to use force to interrupt the implementation of the Partition Plan and subvert the will of the UN.

Now, in terms of the territory and the sovereignty, this is something that the Palestinians have consistently said is a "violation of international law." Yet in over half a century, they have never availed themselves to the recognized dispute resolution processes.

The Law is quite clear:

• 
  "Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States." A/RES/25/2625

Not once did the Palestinians attempt peaceful means to resolve the issues. The policy is:

• There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

Most Respectfully,
R

What is the "dispute" and what is the recognized dispute resolution processes?

The dispute is about Israel occupying palestine, the dispute resolution process is the one laid down in the UN resolutions. These say an end to all violence beligerence and terrorism and negotiations to a peace and mutual borders

What UN resolution references the occupation?

 

[Mindful]

Let the truth be known to all.

Who Are The Palestinians What And Where Is Palestine

Palestinians are the Israeli version of American Indians. And just as the Indians got the finger and no one cares, so to with the Palestinians. And just like the Indians, can conform and be Israeli, or resist and stay Palestinians and go extinct in a couple centuries.

Are you implying the Palestinians are not Arabs? What happened to them during Jordanian occupation?

And not to forget, that the Jews of the region were also Palestinians, prior to the state of Israel.

As for the analogy to the Indians( American?)..........maybe another time.

 

[Mindful]

Inventing the 8220 Palestinian people 8221 8230 the biggest scam to ever hit the world

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right of self-determination" falls within a special category of conceptual understandings. When I was in college, they had a very complex definition for it; but in this case, I like the "wikipedia" description the best. It is a case that of "indeterminacy."

Indeterminacy
Indeterminacy, in philosophy, can refer both to common scientific and mathematical concepts of uncertainty and their implications
and to another kind of indeterminacy deriving from the nature of definition or meaning. It is related to deconstructionism and to
Nietzsche's criticism of the Kantian noumenon.​

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_(philosophy)​

(QUESTION)

Under what theory would the "right of self-determination" not apply equally to Israel?

Good post, thanks.

"...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."
And then there is:

No definition of peoples is offered,..​

Well they do, kind of. Look at the definition of people.

Person is singular.
People is plural.
Peoples is a plural plural.
A people is a singular plural.

A people is a group of people who have common characteristics. Peoples can be defined by geographical location. The French are a people. The British are a people. The Palestinians are a people. All of these are within defined territories and are naturals for self determination within a country or state.

Then there are people who have other defining characteristics, like race, color, or religion. These are distributed throughout the world and do not lend themselves suitable for statehood. In fact segregation according to these characteristics is viewed as undesirable in the civilized world.

As they say:

"...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."​

You asked. That is my answer.​

(COMMENT)

The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle;" in quantum mechanics holding that increasing the accuracy of measurement of one observable quantity increases the uncertainty [(energy and position) and (momentum within a quantum system) cannot both be accurately measured simultaneously)]. In the case of the "right of self-determination" the "right" of the Jewish People and the "right" of the Arab People cannot both be evaluated simultaneously without causing some injury to one or the other (it is indeterminate). Thus any argument made --- which is based --- on the "right of self-determination" for either side is inconclusive. The "rights" cancel each other out because they cannot be applied individually without prejudice to the other.

One can argue that "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state;" one can also say that that neither of the purposes precludes the establishment of "an ethnically distinct people with a state" as a possible outcome. This would be especially possible since the intent, at the very outset, was to establish a National Homeland and that these national aspirations (goals in common) were recognized by the Arab and Jewish Leadership at the outset (Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919). Both sides understood that the "racial kindship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine."

Most Respectfully,
R

"The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like..."​

The hidden beauty is that you can smokescreen the issues with verbosity.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

One can argue that there is a certain indeterminacy to the issue, or one can argue that --- one side or the other --- has more of a "right to self-determination." In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the indeterminate position is neutral position; a case of "equal rights."

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right of self-determination" falls within a special category of conceptual understandings. When I was in college, they had a very complex definition for it; but in this case, I like the "wikipedia" description the best. It is a case that of "indeterminacy."

Indeterminacy
Indeterminacy, in philosophy, can refer both to common scientific and mathematical concepts of uncertainty and their implications
and to another kind of indeterminacy deriving from the nature of definition or meaning. It is related to deconstructionism and to
Nietzsche's criticism of the Kantian noumenon.​

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_(philosophy)​

(QUESTION)

Under what theory would the "right of self-determination" not apply equally to Israel?

Good post, thanks.

"...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."
And then there is:

No definition of peoples is offered,..​

Well they do, kind of. Look at the definition of people.

Person is singular.
People is plural.
Peoples is a plural plural.
A people is a singular plural.

A people is a group of people who have common characteristics. Peoples can be defined by geographical location. The French are a people. The British are a people. The Palestinians are a people. All of these are within defined territories and are naturals for self determination within a country or state.

Then there are people who have other defining characteristics, like race, color, or religion. These are distributed throughout the world and do not lend themselves suitable for statehood. In fact segregation according to these characteristics is viewed as undesirable in the civilized world.

As they say:

"...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."​

You asked. That is my answer.​

(COMMENT)

The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle;" in quantum mechanics holding that increasing the accuracy of measurement of one observable quantity increases the uncertainty [(energy and position) and (momentum within a quantum system) cannot both be accurately measured simultaneously)]. In the case of the "right of self-determination" the "right" of the Jewish People and the "right" of the Arab People cannot both be evaluated simultaneously without causing some injury to one or the other (it is indeterminate). Thus any argument made --- which is based --- on the "right of self-determination" for either side is inconclusive. The "rights" cancel each other out because they cannot be applied individually without prejudice to the other.

One can argue that "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state;" one can also say that that neither of the purposes precludes the establishment of "an ethnically distinct people with a state" as a possible outcome. This would be especially possible since the intent, at the very outset, was to establish a National Homeland and that these national aspirations (goals in common) were recognized by the Arab and Jewish Leadership at the outset (Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919). Both sides understood that the "racial kindship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine."

Most Respectfully,
R

"The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like..."​

The hidden beauty is that you can smokescreen the issues with verbosity.

(COMMENT)

Is it a "smokescreen?" Or is it a case in which the Arab-Palestinian claims more of a "right" of some sort than has been endowed upon them? (As it pertains to this particular argument.)

I tried to stay away from the issue of suitability; that is, your claim that some "do not lend themselves suitable for statehood." Clearly, the suitability (and capability) of the Arab Palestinian, both then and now, is a condition subject to an entirely different discussion.

If you rule-out the indeterminate factor intertwined in the distinction between "people" 'vs' "peoples" --- then you are left with the underlying theory behind the "right of self-determination" --- that: "the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order" is somehow recognized. (See Post #563") That would be the people of Israel (one people) and the people of the West Bank and Gaza (one people); or collectively, the "peoples" (the collective). Note: For the sake of your plural distinction: (one people) + (one people) = (one peoples - or - the collective)

The Leaders of the early 20th Century (trained 19th Century thinkers) did not quibble over such distinctions (people 'vs' peoples). If they saw a universal right, then it applied to everyone equally - and was not a matter of distinguishing characteristics (and they saw very few universal rights --- let alone the "contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum"). And most certainly, as the Allied Powers were determining the establishment of a Jewish National Home (in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo), it was quite clear that they held the power to make the determinations and not the indigenous enemy population of lands surrendered to them at the outcome of the war (there was no spectrum of self-determination - they made the determination). The idea of the right to self-determination was not yet a consideration. "In international law, the right of self-determination that became recognized in the post-WWII years were interpreted as the right of all colonial territories to become independent or to adopt any other status they freely chose;" had not yet been established. And the Leaders of the early 20th Century (trained 19th Century thinkers) did not quibble about it - these were not new colonial interests, but "Mandates." And as such, "no right to secession has yet been recognized under international law;" no right to self-determination except what was granted to them by the powers-that-be.

One of the earliest proponents of a right to self-determination was U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. A month after his famous "Fourteen Points" speech to the U.S. Congress in January 1918 (in which the term "self-determination" does not appear), he proclaimed:

"Self-determination" is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril....
​

Despite Wilson's injunction, attempts to turn self-determination from a "mere phrase" into a binding norm did not occur for over 40 years, following the deaths of tens of millions in two major wars. While the Covenant of the League of Nations did indirectly address the principle of self-determination (without using the word) in the system of mandates that it established, identification of the mandates and implementation of the system was wholly dependent on politics, not law. In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination.
SOURCE: Legal Aspects of Self-Determination - Princeton University Encyclopedia of Self-determination​

For the sake of emphasis, let me repeat something here: "In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination." This was the political landscape at the time the decisions were made to establish the "Jewish National Home."

Thus (whether you like the "theory of indeterminism" or not), the Arab-Palestinian "right to self-determination" was NOT extended based on the strongest claim or any inherent right they perceived as being owed to them, but were determined on the basis of the wants and needs of the Allied Powers; that being the establishment of the Jewish National Home (in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo).

I know this interpretation sounds hard and harsh (maybe even unfair), but that was the characteristics of the times.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

Coyote >>What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled". This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.<<

>>Bull. I used perfectly good sources to show that there was a deliberate and well orchestrated attempt to force Palestinians out by the Israeli's and it was not simply because they were "hostile" - the source I used based it on government documents. You seem to label sources that disagree with you "misinformation propaganda" and in turn use your own questionable sources.<<

What sources? Did I mention you by name? I was explaining how the majority of palestinians were not force at Israeli gun point to leave the country. There are tales and a pinch of truth that there were cases where palestinians felt or were forced to move out of their homes or off the land they occupied, but that is not the majority or even 100% of every single case.
If one person's home is confiscated by the state because of criminal activity, that does not suggest the state will confiscate every home/apartment of every criminal, even misnomers, or result in all the occupants being forced to not just leave the premisses but to leave the country?
You, and others, implied that all palestinians were force to leave. they were not. Why did so many leave even before the attack on Israel? Why did so many leave even though their village was not directly involved in any fighting? Why were the arabs telling palestinians to leave well before the first shots?
Israel pleaded for the leaving or told to leave to become part of Israel and help build a strong nation where all faiths co-existed.

No. I did not. What I've said - repeatedly, is that it is not true that they all or mostly left voluntarily at the urging of their leaders and the other Arab countries which is what keeps getting implied by the Pro-Israeli contingent. Yes - I agree with you - that, like refugees today many left in fear of the fighting and for a variety of reasons. But a substantial number were driven out by the Israeli's themselves in a deliberate plan and this keeps getting ignored or it's claimed that they were removed because they were violent.

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Opening of archives

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]

"In the past two decades, following the powerful reverberations (concerning the cause of the Nakba) triggered by the publication of books written by those dubbed the “New Historians,” the Israeli archives revoked access to much of the explosive material. Archived Israeli documents that reported the expulsion of Palestinians, massacres or rapes perpetrated by Israeli soldiers, along with other events considered embarrassing by the establishment, were reclassified as “top secret.”[7]
​

As with most conflicts in the region, and around the world, if you hear the sound of fighting or see people preparing for a fight, people will seek safety while it is still safe to get out of the way. Most of the refugees from syria were not escorted to the border at gun point and force to leave the country. People that expect to be unable to move freely, get their children to schools, be able to work or that want to prevent their family being collateral damage sent their family away till it is safe to return. They were not force to leave or thrown out by the establish government.
Some move out of town, some move across the country, some leave the country. They make that choice. That is not the same as forced out of their homes or out of the country by the hostiles. Mostly they leave out a precaution. When someone bust down your down and say they are taking your home at gun point and threaten to kill you if you are not out in the nest ten minutes or begin to kill your family while you and the rest escape, that is being forced out.

We moved to avoid the fighting, many times both across the country and out of the country. We the except of being directly targeted outside of my home or one incident at our front door, we were not forced to leave. We often stayed and just took shelter in the basements with the rocket being fired at our neighbors fell short. The apartment that we owned down stairs was for a time occupied. We still have property that have palestinian squatters living in by the shore. We were not there at the time. Most of the places in that neighborhood were taken.

Seeking safety is your choice. Being force out is different. I valued my safety and that of my child over trying to stay. My parents and brother remained for a few more years and left more so my brother could continue his education that out of any direct threat. The threat was having to travel through a zone with heavy fighting to get to his school. We were lucky to have a blanket of protection because of my father and god father. We also had for former soldier that served my father and later become a UN guard to act as drive our drive. When bullets are flying no one checks your ID before firing on you.

Most refugees leave out a fear of the future and expected threat, not because they were directly forced to leave. You leave because it is or expected to be too difficult to remain and carry on any normality of life. Palestinians exodus was not part of some planned genocide of arabs to e carried out by jews. They were scared into leaving by their fellow arab and the propaganda that they would be killed, raped or otherwise abuse by the jews if they stayed. They left before any combat or direct threat. They chose to leave.

I agree. But you can't keep denying that the Israeli's themselves had a hand in forcing many of them out through a delliberate campaign and claiming they were all scared into leaving by their fellow arabs.

Only #6 applies to force being used to kick arabs/palestinians out of Israel. Combat with villages in the beginning did not mean the whole family or ever the whole village had to leave. Only those directly involved in hostilities. Most of the fighters were not even arab/palestinians. They were fighters from other arab states that invaded Israel. Most arab/palestinians would have been untouched since they were not actually shooting at Israelis or killing civilians.
Whispers and scare tactics by arabs made the palestinians run, not the Israelis. In some cases the Israelis took advantage and did not counter the lies. If people want to believe the worst and are so filled with hate, why would Israel encourage them to stay. They should be asked to remain so they can be terrorists? It would eventually have led to them in jail or shown the door. Yes, it was easier to let the refugees believe a lie at some point. If they did not want to stay why should Israel force them. The could direct their attention to not being killed by other armies invading Israel. Would that not have been as bad? Considering how out numbered the Israelis were, the could not afford to keeping people in that did not want to stay.

#1, 2, and 3 appear to as well.

This article makes some interesting points it's information isn't dependent on the Arab or Palestinian version of events: The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

This research activity was originally stimulated by two separate sets of events. First, the opening of Israeli archives, both state and private, covering the period in question. Here it is worth noting that the historians appear to have ignored almost entirely both the archives of the Arab countries (not that these are notable for their accessibility) and oral history potential among Palestinians themselves, where considerable work has been done by other historians. As the Palestinian historian, Nur Masalha, rightly says: “History and historiography ought not necessarily be written, exclusively or mainly, by the victors (7)"...

...In the opening pages of “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem”, Benny Morris offers the outlines of an overall answer: using a map that shows the 369 Arab towns and villages in Israel (within its 1949 borders), he lists, area by area, the reasons for the departure of the local population (9). In 45 cases he admits that he does not know. The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force. In 90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighbouring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumours circulated by the Jewish army - particularly after the 9 April 1948 massacre of 250 inhabitants of Deir Yassin, where the news of the killings swept the country like wildfire.


By contrast, he found only six cases of departures at the instigation of local Arab authorities. “There is no evidence to show that the Arab states and the AHC wanted a mass exodus or issued blanket orders or appeals to the Palestinians to flee their homes (though in certain areas the inhabitants of specific villages were ordered by Arab commanders or the AHC to leave, mainly for strategic reasons).” ("The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", p. 129). On the contrary, anyone who fled was actually threatened with “severe punishment”. As for the broadcasts by Arab radio stations allegedly calling on people to flee, a detailed listening to recordings of their programmes of that period shows that the claims were invented for pure propaganda.

In “1948 and After” Benny Morris examines the first phase of the exodus and produces a detailed analysis of a source that he considers basically reliable: a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..​

It goes on to note more in the next exodus:

In short, as Morris puts it, this report “undermines the traditional official Israeli ’explanation’ of a mass flight ordered or ’invited’ by the Arab leadership”. Neither, as he points out, “does [the report] uphold the traditional Arab explanation of the exodus - that the Jews, with premeditation and in a centralised fashion, had systematically waged a campaign aimed at the wholesale expulsion of the native Palestinian population.” However, he says that “the circumstances of the second half of the exodus” - which he estimates as having involved between 300,000 and 400,000 people - “are a different story.”

One example of this second phase was the expulsion of Arabs living in Lydda (present-day Lod) and Ramleh. On 12 July 1948, within the framework of Operation Dani, a skirmish with Jordanian armoured forces served as a pretext for a violent backlash, with 250 killed, some of whom were unarmed prisoners. This was followed by a forced evacuation characterised by summary executions and looting and involving upwards of 70,000 Palestinian civilians - almost 10% of the total exodus of 1947- 49. Similar scenarios were enacted, as Morris shows, in central Galilee, Upper Galilee and the northern Negev, as well as in the post-war expulsion of the Palestinians of Al Majdal (Ashkelon). Most of these operations (with the exception of the latter) were marked by atrocities - a fact which led Aharon Zisling, the minister of agriculture, to tell the Israeli cabinet on 17 November 1948: “I couldn’t sleep all night. I felt that things that were going on were hurting my soul, the soul of my family and all of us here (...) Now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken (10).”

The Israeli government of the time pursued a policy of non- compromise, in order to prevent the return of the refugees “at any price” (as Ben Gurion himself put it), despite the fact that the UN General Assembly had been calling for this since 11 December 1948. Their villages were either destroyed or occupied by Jewish immigrants, and their lands were shared out between the surrounding kibbutzim. The law on “abandoned properties” - which was designed to make possible the seizure of any land belonging to persons who were “absent” - “legalised” this project of general confiscation as of December 1948. Almost 400 Arab villages were thus either wiped off the map or Judaised, as were most of the Arab quarters in mixed towns. According to a report drawn up in 1952, Israel had thus succeeded in expropriating 73,000 rooms in abandoned houses, 7,800 shops, workshops and warehouses, 5 million Palestinian pounds in bank accounts, and - most important of all - 300,000 hectares of land (11).
​

>>The exodus was divided into two broadly equal waves: one before and one after the decisive turning-point of the declaration of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948 and the intervention of the armies of the neighboring Arab states on the following day. One can agree that the flight of thousands of well-to-do Palestinians during the first few weeks following the adoption of the UN partition plan - particularly from Haifa and Jaffa - was essentially voluntary. The question is what was the truth of the departures that happened subsequently?
.....................and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force.
...........90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighboring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumors circulated by the Jewish army<< also from mondediplo

...The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force

>>
“One million Palestinians were expelled by Israel from 1947–49.”

FACT
The Palestinians left their homes in 1947–49 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders’ calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle.

Agree - they left for a variety of reasons however you repeatedly minimize the effects and efforts of the Israeli factions and militias themselves on promoting this departure. You say thousands more responded to Arab leaders calls to get out of the way yet the historian I quoted, working from archival government documents, states that the number who left for that reason was quite minimal and some of the claims (such as radio programs from Arabs telling them to flee) was nothing more than propaganda from the Israeli's.

Many Arabs claim that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Palestinians became refugees in 1947–49. The last census taken by the British in 1945 found approximately 1.2 million permanent Arab residents in all of Palestine. A 1949 census conducted by the government of Israel counted 160,000 Arabs living in the new state after the war. In 1947, a total of 809,100 Arabs lived in the same area.1 This meant no more than 650,000 Palestinian Arabs could have become refugees. A report by the UN Mediator on Palestine arrived at an even lower refugee figure—472,000.<<Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations, General Assembly Official Records: Third Session, Supplement No. 11 (A/648), Paris, 1948, p. 47 and Supplement No. 11A (A/689 and A/689/Add.1, p. 5; and “Conclusions from Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine,” (September 16, 1948), U.N. doc. A/648 (part 1, p. 29; part 2, p. 23; part 3, p. 11), (September 18, 1948).

BBC NEWS Middle East Jordan s refugees long to return

I'm not sure about actual numbers...I will leave any argument there for others. What I am arguing is that Israel had a deliberate policy of forcing out the Palestinians and preventing their return.

 

[aris2chat]

P F Tinmore, et al,

One can argue that there is a certain indeterminacy to the issue, or one can argue that --- one side or the other --- has more of a "right to self-determination." In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the indeterminate position is neutral position; a case of "equal rights."

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right of self-determination" falls within a special category of conceptual understandings. When I was in college, they had a very complex definition for it; but in this case, I like the "wikipedia" description the best. It is a case that of "indeterminacy."

Indeterminacy
Indeterminacy, in philosophy, can refer both to common scientific and mathematical concepts of uncertainty and their implications
and to another kind of indeterminacy deriving from the nature of definition or meaning. It is related to deconstructionism and to
Nietzsche's criticism of the Kantian noumenon.​

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_(philosophy)​

(QUESTION)

Under what theory would the "right of self-determination" not apply equally to Israel?

Good post, thanks.

"...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."
And then there is:

No definition of peoples is offered,..​

Well they do, kind of. Look at the definition of people.

Person is singular.
People is plural.
Peoples is a plural plural.
A people is a singular plural.

A people is a group of people who have common characteristics. Peoples can be defined by geographical location. The French are a people. The British are a people. The Palestinians are a people. All of these are within defined territories and are naturals for self determination within a country or state.

Then there are people who have other defining characteristics, like race, color, or religion. These are distributed throughout the world and do not lend themselves suitable for statehood. In fact segregation according to these characteristics is viewed as undesirable in the civilized world.

As they say:

"...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."​

You asked. That is my answer.​

(COMMENT)

The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle;" in quantum mechanics holding that increasing the accuracy of measurement of one observable quantity increases the uncertainty [(energy and position) and (momentum within a quantum system) cannot both be accurately measured simultaneously)]. In the case of the "right of self-determination" the "right" of the Jewish People and the "right" of the Arab People cannot both be evaluated simultaneously without causing some injury to one or the other (it is indeterminate). Thus any argument made --- which is based --- on the "right of self-determination" for either side is inconclusive. The "rights" cancel each other out because they cannot be applied individually without prejudice to the other.

One can argue that "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state;" one can also say that that neither of the purposes precludes the establishment of "an ethnically distinct people with a state" as a possible outcome. This would be especially possible since the intent, at the very outset, was to establish a National Homeland and that these national aspirations (goals in common) were recognized by the Arab and Jewish Leadership at the outset (Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919). Both sides understood that the "racial kindship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine."

Most Respectfully,
R

"The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like..."​

The hidden beauty is that you can smokescreen the issues with verbosity.

(COMMENT)

Is it a "smokescreen?" Or is it a case in which the Arab-Palestinian claims more of a "right" of some sort than has been endowed upon them? (As it pertains to this particular argument.)

I tried to stay away from the issue of suitability; that is, your claim that some "do not lend themselves suitable for statehood." Clearly, the suitability (and capability) of the Arab Palestinian, both then and now, is a condition subject to an entirely different discussion.

If you rule-out the indeterminate factor intertwined in the distinction between "people" 'vs' "peoples" --- then you are left with the underlying theory behind the "right of self-determination" --- that: "the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order" is somehow recognized. (See Post #563") That would be the people of Israel (one people) and the people of the West Bank and Gaza (one people); or collectively, the "peoples" (the collective). Note: For the sake of your plural distinction: (one people) + (one people) = (one peoples - or - the collective)

The Leaders of the early 20th Century (trained 19th Century thinkers) did not quibble over such distinctions (people 'vs' peoples). If they saw a universal right, then it applied to everyone equally - and was not a matter of distinguishing characteristics (and they saw very few universal rights --- let alone the "contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum"). And most certainly, as the Allied Powers were determining the establishment of a Jewish National Home (in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo), it was quite clear that they held the power to make the determinations and not the indigenous enemy population of lands surrendered to them at the outcome of the war (there was no spectrum of self-determination - they made the determination). The idea of the right to self-determination was not yet a consideration. "In international law, the right of self-determination that became recognized in the post-WWII years were interpreted as the right of all colonial territories to become independent or to adopt any other status they freely chose;" had not yet been established. And the Leaders of the early 20th Century (trained 19th Century thinkers) did not quibble about it - these were not new colonial interests, but "Mandates." And as such, "no right to secession has yet been recognized under international law;" no right to self-determination except what was granted to them by the powers-that-be.

One of the earliest proponents of a right to self-determination was U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. A month after his famous "Fourteen Points" speech to the U.S. Congress in January 1918 (in which the term "self-determination" does not appear), he proclaimed:

"Self-determination" is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril....
​

Despite Wilson's injunction, attempts to turn self-determination from a "mere phrase" into a binding norm did not occur for over 40 years, following the deaths of tens of millions in two major wars. While the Covenant of the League of Nations did indirectly address the principle of self-determination (without using the word) in the system of mandates that it established, identification of the mandates and implementation of the system was wholly dependent on politics, not law. In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination.
SOURCE: Legal Aspects of Self-Determination - Princeton University Encyclopedia of Self-determination​

For the sake of emphasis, let me repeat something here: "In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination." This was the political landscape at the time the decisions were made to establish the "Jewish National Home."

Thus (whether you like the "theory of indeterminism" or not), the Arab-Palestinian "right to self-determination" was NOT extended based on the strongest claim or any inherent right they perceived as being owed to them, but were determined on the basis of the wants and needs of the Allied Powers; that being the establishment of the Jewish National Home (in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo).

I know this interpretation sounds hard and harsh (maybe even unfair), but that was the characteristics of the times.

Most Respectfully,
R

Self determination is not just teen wanting to not be boss or have rules made by a parent. The child has to be skilled enough to support itself, understand budgeting to pay the rent and bill on time and not just go wild with a charge card. It is being responsible enough not to get into legal trouble or get taken by criminals and fair weather friends. It is having a plan for a future (perhaps getting married, kids, buying a home, retirement, etc). It understanding when he is sick, getting medical care, eating right and exercising to stay healthy.
What a child should not do is veg in front of a video came and expect everyone else to give their money support he "right of self determination to do nothing".

Palestinians are at odds internally. They can't handle their own finances. They can't manage their own health care, water, sewage. Can't control it's own people from waging war on Israel. Can't adapt it educational system to teach non-violence and cooperation instead of hate and destruction. It can't provide enough jobs.
Palestinians are more of less playing violent video games and expecting the world to support their violent addiction as well as their personal needs. These games result in very real human death or maimed bodies and can even result in the player's life. Perhaps they should begin with Sims so they can learn what is requires to function in the real world.

Palestinians are not prepared for self determination. They have devoted the last 70+ years to the killing of Israelis and the annihilation of Israel. They have to learn to build a nation, a united government with a potential of growth. They need to shift their mind set from war to peace.

 

[Mindful]

Over 100 Years of Chronic Arab Rejectionism

The history of the Arab-Israeli conflict reveals 24 major junctures when compromise was offered since the 1920s, dating from pre-state, League of Nations Mandate to the present time. Plan after plan, including patently pro-Arab proposals, were put on the table. Since the 1993 Oslo Accords, 15 agreements and memorandums have been signed. This chapter examines those agreements and Arab response or compliance in each case.


“The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.“
Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban

Arab claims that the Israeli “Occupation” prevents peace is nothing more than a red herring. It is not “The Occupation” that Arabs reject; it is Israel's right to exist as a Jewish, sovereign and legitimate political entity.

What prevents achieving peace is Arab rejectionism, which began in the 1880s when the first Jewish immigrants returned to the land of Israel . 1 Since the 1920s, long before the establishment of Israel or the 1967 Six-Day War, Palestinian Arabs have used a combination of diplomatic moves and violence, particularly terrorism 2 against Jewish civilians, effectively rejecting every form of compromise.

At the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the Arab world's refusal to accept a non-Muslim political entity in the Middle East.


Rejectionism - Over 100 Years of Chronic Arab Rejectionism

 

[Coyote]

P F Tinmore, et al,

One can argue that there is a certain indeterminacy to the issue, or one can argue that --- one side or the other --- has more of a "right to self-determination." In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the indeterminate position is neutral position; a case of "equal rights."

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right of self-determination" falls within a special category of conceptual understandings. When I was in college, they had a very complex definition for it; but in this case, I like the "wikipedia" description the best. It is a case that of "indeterminacy."

Indeterminacy
Indeterminacy, in philosophy, can refer both to common scientific and mathematical concepts of uncertainty and their implications
and to another kind of indeterminacy deriving from the nature of definition or meaning. It is related to deconstructionism and to
Nietzsche's criticism of the Kantian noumenon.​

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_(philosophy)​

(QUESTION)

Under what theory would the "right of self-determination" not apply equally to Israel?

Good post, thanks.

"...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."
And then there is:

No definition of peoples is offered,..​

Well they do, kind of. Look at the definition of people.

Person is singular.
People is plural.
Peoples is a plural plural.
A people is a singular plural.

A people is a group of people who have common characteristics. Peoples can be defined by geographical location. The French are a people. The British are a people. The Palestinians are a people. All of these are within defined territories and are naturals for self determination within a country or state.

Then there are people who have other defining characteristics, like race, color, or religion. These are distributed throughout the world and do not lend themselves suitable for statehood. In fact segregation according to these characteristics is viewed as undesirable in the civilized world.

As they say:

"...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."​

You asked. That is my answer.​

(COMMENT)

The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle;" in quantum mechanics holding that increasing the accuracy of measurement of one observable quantity increases the uncertainty [(energy and position) and (momentum within a quantum system) cannot both be accurately measured simultaneously)]. In the case of the "right of self-determination" the "right" of the Jewish People and the "right" of the Arab People cannot both be evaluated simultaneously without causing some injury to one or the other (it is indeterminate). Thus any argument made --- which is based --- on the "right of self-determination" for either side is inconclusive. The "rights" cancel each other out because they cannot be applied individually without prejudice to the other.

One can argue that "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state;" one can also say that that neither of the purposes precludes the establishment of "an ethnically distinct people with a state" as a possible outcome. This would be especially possible since the intent, at the very outset, was to establish a National Homeland and that these national aspirations (goals in common) were recognized by the Arab and Jewish Leadership at the outset (Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919). Both sides understood that the "racial kindship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine."

Most Respectfully,
R

"The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like..."​

The hidden beauty is that you can smokescreen the issues with verbosity.

(COMMENT)

Is it a "smokescreen?" Or is it a case in which the Arab-Palestinian claims more of a "right" of some sort than has been endowed upon them? (As it pertains to this particular argument.)

I tried to stay away from the issue of suitability; that is, your claim that some "do not lend themselves suitable for statehood." Clearly, the suitability (and capability) of the Arab Palestinian, both then and now, is a condition subject to an entirely different discussion.

If you rule-out the indeterminate factor intertwined in the distinction between "people" 'vs' "peoples" --- then you are left with the underlying theory behind the "right of self-determination" --- that: "the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order" is somehow recognized. (See Post #563") That would be the people of Israel (one people) and the people of the West Bank and Gaza (one people); or collectively, the "peoples" (the collective). Note: For the sake of your plural distinction: (one people) + (one people) = (one peoples - or - the collective)

The Leaders of the early 20th Century (trained 19th Century thinkers) did not quibble over such distinctions (people 'vs' peoples). If they saw a universal right, then it applied to everyone equally - and was not a matter of distinguishing characteristics (and they saw very few universal rights --- let alone the "contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum"). And most certainly, as the Allied Powers were determining the establishment of a Jewish National Home (in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo), it was quite clear that they held the power to make the determinations and not the indigenous enemy population of lands surrendered to them at the outcome of the war (there was no spectrum of self-determination - they made the determination). The idea of the right to self-determination was not yet a consideration. "In international law, the right of self-determination that became recognized in the post-WWII years were interpreted as the right of all colonial territories to become independent or to adopt any other status they freely chose;" had not yet been established. And the Leaders of the early 20th Century (trained 19th Century thinkers) did not quibble about it - these were not new colonial interests, but "Mandates." And as such, "no right to secession has yet been recognized under international law;" no right to self-determination except what was granted to them by the powers-that-be.

One of the earliest proponents of a right to self-determination was U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. A month after his famous "Fourteen Points" speech to the U.S. Congress in January 1918 (in which the term "self-determination" does not appear), he proclaimed:

"Self-determination" is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril....
​

Despite Wilson's injunction, attempts to turn self-determination from a "mere phrase" into a binding norm did not occur for over 40 years, following the deaths of tens of millions in two major wars. While the Covenant of the League of Nations did indirectly address the principle of self-determination (without using the word) in the system of mandates that it established, identification of the mandates and implementation of the system was wholly dependent on politics, not law. In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination.
SOURCE: Legal Aspects of Self-Determination - Princeton University Encyclopedia of Self-determination​

For the sake of emphasis, let me repeat something here: "In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination." This was the political landscape at the time the decisions were made to establish the "Jewish National Home."

Thus (whether you like the "theory of indeterminism" or not), the Arab-Palestinian "right to self-determination" was NOT extended based on the strongest claim or any inherent right they perceived as being owed to them, but were determined on the basis of the wants and needs of the Allied Powers; that being the establishment of the Jewish National Home (in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo).

I know this interpretation sounds hard and harsh (maybe even unfair), but that was the characteristics of the times.

Most Respectfully,
R

Self determination is not just teen wanting to not be boss or have rules made by a parent. The child has to be skilled enough to support itself, understand budgeting to pay the rent and bill on time and not just go wild with a charge card. It is being responsible enough not to get into legal trouble or get taken by criminals and fair weather friends. It is having a plan for a future (perhaps getting married, kids, buying a home, retirement, etc). It understanding when he is sick, getting medical care, eating right and exercising to stay healthy.
What a child should not do is veg in front of a video came and expect everyone else to give their money support he "right of self determination to do nothing".

Palestinians are at odds internally. They can't handle their own finances. They can't manage their own health care, water, sewage. Can't control it's own people from waging war on Israel. Can't adapt it educational system to teach non-violence and cooperation instead of hate and destruction. It can't provide enough jobs.
Palestinians are more of less playing violent video games and expecting the world to support their violent addiction as well as their personal needs. These games result in very real human death or maimed bodies and can even result in the player's life. Perhaps they should begin with Sims so they can learn what is requires to function in the real world.

Palestinians are not prepared for self determination. They have devoted the last 70+ years to the killing of Israelis and the annihilation of Israel. They have to learn to build a nation, a united government with a potential of growth. They need to shift their mind set from war to peace.

Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination? Has any other people or group been required to some-how "prove themselves" or viewed somehow as "children" incapable of handling it? That was the attitude of many colonial powers towards their subject colonies.

In fact - most seperatist groups end up "proving" themselves and earning their nations through warfare and conflict. Israel itself is one of many examples of this. Some make the successful transition from war to governance while others fail. It's not up to any other powers to make that decision for them.

They have the right to self determination just as does Israel. Give it to them. Give them complete control over their borders, airspace, coast, trade, utilities, treaties. Just like any other nation. Hold them to the same standards as any other nation. If they violate those standards they risk the same penalties, sanctions or military actions against.

Once people are responsible for their own fate and their own nation - THEN is the time to make the transition from fighting to governing.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

Clearly, this is a variation of 21st Century thinking.

Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination? Has any other people or group been required to some-how "prove themselves" or viewed somehow as "children" incapable of handling it? That was the attitude of many colonial powers towards their subject colonies.

In fact - most seperatist groups end up "proving" themselves and earning their nations through warfare and conflict. Israel itself is one of many examples of this. Some make the successful transition from war to governance while others fail. It's not up to any other powers to make that decision for them.

They have the right to self determination just as does Israel. Give it to them. Give them complete control over their borders, airspace, coast, trade, utilities, treaties. Just like any other nation. Hold them to the same standards as any other nation. If they violate those standards they risk the same penalties, sanctions or military actions against.

Once people are responsible for their own fate and their own nation - THEN is the time to make the transition from fighting to governing.

(COMMENT)

First, the "right" to self-determination did not come about automatically. It is an evolutionary process. In as much as the League of Nations, twice, examined the question of "self-determination.

The first body of experts was clear that self-determination had not obtained the status of international law. It observed that although the principle of self-determination of peoples plays an important part in modern political thought, especially since the Great War, it must be pointed out that there is no mention of it in the covenant of the League of Nations. The recognition of this principle in a certain number of international treaties cannot be considered as sufficient to put it upon the same footing as a positive rule of the Law of Nations.[Report of the International Committee of Jurists entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the task of giving an advisory opinion upon the legal aspects of the Aaland Islands question, League of Nations Off. J., Spec. Supp. No. 3 (Oct. 1920)]

The second group of experts reached a similar conclusion as to the scope of self-determination, which it termed "a principle of justice and of liberty, expressed by a vague and general formula which has given rise to the most varied interpretations and differences of opinion." [The Aaland Islands Question, Report presented to the Council of the League by the Commission of Rapporteurs, League of Nations Doc. B.7.21/68/106 (1921)]

Principle Source Work: Princeton Encyclopedia on Self-determination​

What you are expressing is a culmination of the evolutionary process. But in the beginning, "self-determination" was not supported by International Law until much into the decade between 1960 and 1970. In your initial opening question: "Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination?" It was made a "right" by the International Community representing the United Nations. While in 1945, the concept of "self-determination" is mentioned exactly twice in the UN Charter, it in neither case embodies it in law or makes it a "right." The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 217 (III) as the International Bill of Human Rights on 10 December 1948 never mentions "self-determination" as a Human Right. That doesn't happen until 1960 and 1970.

• Chapter I, Article 1, Paragraph 2: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

• Chapter IX, Article 55: With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:

However, decades later, the International Community, in Adopting by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960: the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and later adopting by the General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970: the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, brought the two concepts into customary law.

(HAVING SAID THAT)

The given "right" of "self-determination" has two aspects to it:

• Internal self-determination is the right of the people of a state to govern themselves without outside interference.
• External self-determination is the right of peoples to determine their own political status and to be free of alien domination, including formation of their own independent state. However, independence is not the only possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination.

Your proposal is a viable implementation strategy; albeit a risky implementation for the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[aris2chat]

Coyote >>What you call a "refugee migration" was in part a deliberate driving out by Israeli's of Palestinians who then became "exiled". This was not just a "migration" - it was a deliberate planned effort.<<

>>Bull. I used perfectly good sources to show that there was a deliberate and well orchestrated attempt to force Palestinians out by the Israeli's and it was not simply because they were "hostile" - the source I used based it on government documents. You seem to label sources that disagree with you "misinformation propaganda" and in turn use your own questionable sources.<<

What sources? Did I mention you by name? I was explaining how the majority of palestinians were not force at Israeli gun point to leave the country. There are tales and a pinch of truth that there were cases where palestinians felt or were forced to move out of their homes or off the land they occupied, but that is not the majority or even 100% of every single case.
If one person's home is confiscated by the state because of criminal activity, that does not suggest the state will confiscate every home/apartment of every criminal, even misnomers, or result in all the occupants being forced to not just leave the premisses but to leave the country?
You, and others, implied that all palestinians were force to leave. they were not. Why did so many leave even before the attack on Israel? Why did so many leave even though their village was not directly involved in any fighting? Why were the arabs telling palestinians to leave well before the first shots?
Israel pleaded for the leaving or told to leave to become part of Israel and help build a strong nation where all faiths co-existed.

No. I did not. What I've said - repeatedly, is that it is not true that they all or mostly left voluntarily at the urging of their leaders and the other Arab countries which is what keeps getting implied by the Pro-Israeli contingent. Yes - I agree with you - that, like refugees today many left in fear of the fighting and for a variety of reasons. But a substantial number were driven out by the Israeli's themselves in a deliberate plan and this keeps getting ignored or it's claimed that they were removed because they were violent.

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Opening of archives

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]

"In the past two decades, following the powerful reverberations (concerning the cause of the Nakba) triggered by the publication of books written by those dubbed the “New Historians,” the Israeli archives revoked access to much of the explosive material. Archived Israeli documents that reported the expulsion of Palestinians, massacres or rapes perpetrated by Israeli soldiers, along with other events considered embarrassing by the establishment, were reclassified as “top secret.”[7]
​

As with most conflicts in the region, and around the world, if you hear the sound of fighting or see people preparing for a fight, people will seek safety while it is still safe to get out of the way. Most of the refugees from syria were not escorted to the border at gun point and force to leave the country. People that expect to be unable to move freely, get their children to schools, be able to work or that want to prevent their family being collateral damage sent their family away till it is safe to return. They were not force to leave or thrown out by the establish government.
Some move out of town, some move across the country, some leave the country. They make that choice. That is not the same as forced out of their homes or out of the country by the hostiles. Mostly they leave out a precaution. When someone bust down your down and say they are taking your home at gun point and threaten to kill you if you are not out in the nest ten minutes or begin to kill your family while you and the rest escape, that is being forced out.

We moved to avoid the fighting, many times both across the country and out of the country. We the except of being directly targeted outside of my home or one incident at our front door, we were not forced to leave. We often stayed and just took shelter in the basements with the rocket being fired at our neighbors fell short. The apartment that we owned down stairs was for a time occupied. We still have property that have palestinian squatters living in by the shore. We were not there at the time. Most of the places in that neighborhood were taken.

Seeking safety is your choice. Being force out is different. I valued my safety and that of my child over trying to stay. My parents and brother remained for a few more years and left more so my brother could continue his education that out of any direct threat. The threat was having to travel through a zone with heavy fighting to get to his school. We were lucky to have a blanket of protection because of my father and god father. We also had for former soldier that served my father and later become a UN guard to act as drive our drive. When bullets are flying no one checks your ID before firing on you.

Most refugees leave out a fear of the future and expected threat, not because they were directly forced to leave. You leave because it is or expected to be too difficult to remain and carry on any normality of life. Palestinians exodus was not part of some planned genocide of arabs to e carried out by jews. They were scared into leaving by their fellow arab and the propaganda that they would be killed, raped or otherwise abuse by the jews if they stayed. They left before any combat or direct threat. They chose to leave.

I agree. But you can't keep denying that the Israeli's themselves had a hand in forcing many of them out through a delliberate campaign and claiming they were all scared into leaving by their fellow arabs.

Only #6 applies to force being used to kick arabs/palestinians out of Israel. Combat with villages in the beginning did not mean the whole family or ever the whole village had to leave. Only those directly involved in hostilities. Most of the fighters were not even arab/palestinians. They were fighters from other arab states that invaded Israel. Most arab/palestinians would have been untouched since they were not actually shooting at Israelis or killing civilians.
Whispers and scare tactics by arabs made the palestinians run, not the Israelis. In some cases the Israelis took advantage and did not counter the lies. If people want to believe the worst and are so filled with hate, why would Israel encourage them to stay. They should be asked to remain so they can be terrorists? It would eventually have led to them in jail or shown the door. Yes, it was easier to let the refugees believe a lie at some point. If they did not want to stay why should Israel force them. The could direct their attention to not being killed by other armies invading Israel. Would that not have been as bad? Considering how out numbered the Israelis were, the could not afford to keeping people in that did not want to stay.

#1, 2, and 3 appear to as well.

This article makes some interesting points it's information isn't dependent on the Arab or Palestinian version of events: The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

This research activity was originally stimulated by two separate sets of events. First, the opening of Israeli archives, both state and private, covering the period in question. Here it is worth noting that the historians appear to have ignored almost entirely both the archives of the Arab countries (not that these are notable for their accessibility) and oral history potential among Palestinians themselves, where considerable work has been done by other historians. As the Palestinian historian, Nur Masalha, rightly says: “History and historiography ought not necessarily be written, exclusively or mainly, by the victors (7)"...

...In the opening pages of “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem”, Benny Morris offers the outlines of an overall answer: using a map that shows the 369 Arab towns and villages in Israel (within its 1949 borders), he lists, area by area, the reasons for the departure of the local population (9). In 45 cases he admits that he does not know. The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force. In 90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighbouring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumours circulated by the Jewish army - particularly after the 9 April 1948 massacre of 250 inhabitants of Deir Yassin, where the news of the killings swept the country like wildfire.


By contrast, he found only six cases of departures at the instigation of local Arab authorities. “There is no evidence to show that the Arab states and the AHC wanted a mass exodus or issued blanket orders or appeals to the Palestinians to flee their homes (though in certain areas the inhabitants of specific villages were ordered by Arab commanders or the AHC to leave, mainly for strategic reasons).” ("The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", p. 129). On the contrary, anyone who fled was actually threatened with “severe punishment”. As for the broadcasts by Arab radio stations allegedly calling on people to flee, a detailed listening to recordings of their programmes of that period shows that the claims were invented for pure propaganda.

In “1948 and After” Benny Morris examines the first phase of the exodus and produces a detailed analysis of a source that he considers basically reliable: a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..​

It goes on to note more in the next exodus:

In short, as Morris puts it, this report “undermines the traditional official Israeli ’explanation’ of a mass flight ordered or ’invited’ by the Arab leadership”. Neither, as he points out, “does [the report] uphold the traditional Arab explanation of the exodus - that the Jews, with premeditation and in a centralised fashion, had systematically waged a campaign aimed at the wholesale expulsion of the native Palestinian population.” However, he says that “the circumstances of the second half of the exodus” - which he estimates as having involved between 300,000 and 400,000 people - “are a different story.”

One example of this second phase was the expulsion of Arabs living in Lydda (present-day Lod) and Ramleh. On 12 July 1948, within the framework of Operation Dani, a skirmish with Jordanian armoured forces served as a pretext for a violent backlash, with 250 killed, some of whom were unarmed prisoners. This was followed by a forced evacuation characterised by summary executions and looting and involving upwards of 70,000 Palestinian civilians - almost 10% of the total exodus of 1947- 49. Similar scenarios were enacted, as Morris shows, in central Galilee, Upper Galilee and the northern Negev, as well as in the post-war expulsion of the Palestinians of Al Majdal (Ashkelon). Most of these operations (with the exception of the latter) were marked by atrocities - a fact which led Aharon Zisling, the minister of agriculture, to tell the Israeli cabinet on 17 November 1948: “I couldn’t sleep all night. I felt that things that were going on were hurting my soul, the soul of my family and all of us here (...) Now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken (10).”

The Israeli government of the time pursued a policy of non- compromise, in order to prevent the return of the refugees “at any price” (as Ben Gurion himself put it), despite the fact that the UN General Assembly had been calling for this since 11 December 1948. Their villages were either destroyed or occupied by Jewish immigrants, and their lands were shared out between the surrounding kibbutzim. The law on “abandoned properties” - which was designed to make possible the seizure of any land belonging to persons who were “absent” - “legalised” this project of general confiscation as of December 1948. Almost 400 Arab villages were thus either wiped off the map or Judaised, as were most of the Arab quarters in mixed towns. According to a report drawn up in 1952, Israel had thus succeeded in expropriating 73,000 rooms in abandoned houses, 7,800 shops, workshops and warehouses, 5 million Palestinian pounds in bank accounts, and - most important of all - 300,000 hectares of land (11).
​

>>The exodus was divided into two broadly equal waves: one before and one after the decisive turning-point of the declaration of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948 and the intervention of the armies of the neighboring Arab states on the following day. One can agree that the flight of thousands of well-to-do Palestinians during the first few weeks following the adoption of the UN partition plan - particularly from Haifa and Jaffa - was essentially voluntary. The question is what was the truth of the departures that happened subsequently?
.....................and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force.
...........90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighboring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumors circulated by the Jewish army<< also from mondediplo

...The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force

>>
“One million Palestinians were expelled by Israel from 1947–49.”

FACT
The Palestinians left their homes in 1947–49 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders’ calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle.

Agree - they left for a variety of reasons however you repeatedly minimize the effects and efforts of the Israeli factions and militias themselves on promoting this departure. You say thousands more responded to Arab leaders calls to get out of the way yet the historian I quoted, working from archival government documents, states that the number who left for that reason was quite minimal and some of the claims (such as radio programs from Arabs telling them to flee) was nothing more than propaganda from the Israeli's.

Many Arabs claim that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Palestinians became refugees in 1947–49. The last census taken by the British in 1945 found approximately 1.2 million permanent Arab residents in all of Palestine. A 1949 census conducted by the government of Israel counted 160,000 Arabs living in the new state after the war. In 1947, a total of 809,100 Arabs lived in the same area.1 This meant no more than 650,000 Palestinian Arabs could have become refugees. A report by the UN Mediator on Palestine arrived at an even lower refugee figure—472,000.<<Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine, Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations, General Assembly Official Records: Third Session, Supplement No. 11 (A/648), Paris, 1948, p. 47 and Supplement No. 11A (A/689 and A/689/Add.1, p. 5; and “Conclusions from Progress Report of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine,” (September 16, 1948), U.N. doc. A/648 (part 1, p. 29; part 2, p. 23; part 3, p. 11), (September 18, 1948).

BBC NEWS Middle East Jordan s refugees long to return

I'm not sure about actual numbers...I will leave any argument there for others. What I am arguing is that Israel had a deliberate policy of forcing out the Palestinians and preventing their return.

P F Tinmore, et al,

One can argue that there is a certain indeterminacy to the issue, or one can argue that --- one side or the other --- has more of a "right to self-determination." In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the indeterminate position is neutral position; a case of "equal rights."

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "right of self-determination" falls within a special category of conceptual understandings. When I was in college, they had a very complex definition for it; but in this case, I like the "wikipedia" description the best. It is a case that of "indeterminacy."

Indeterminacy
Indeterminacy, in philosophy, can refer both to common scientific and mathematical concepts of uncertainty and their implications
and to another kind of indeterminacy deriving from the nature of definition or meaning. It is related to deconstructionism and to
Nietzsche's criticism of the Kantian noumenon.​

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_(philosophy)​

Good post, thanks.

"...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."
And then there is:

No definition of peoples is offered,..​

Well they do, kind of. Look at the definition of people.

Person is singular.
People is plural.
Peoples is a plural plural.
A people is a singular plural.

A people is a group of people who have common characteristics. Peoples can be defined by geographical location. The French are a people. The British are a people. The Palestinians are a people. All of these are within defined territories and are naturals for self determination within a country or state.

Then there are people who have other defining characteristics, like race, color, or religion. These are distributed throughout the world and do not lend themselves suitable for statehood. In fact segregation according to these characteristics is viewed as undesirable in the civilized world.

As they say:

"...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state."​

You asked. That is my answer.​

(COMMENT)

The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle;" in quantum mechanics holding that increasing the accuracy of measurement of one observable quantity increases the uncertainty [(energy and position) and (momentum within a quantum system) cannot both be accurately measured simultaneously)]. In the case of the "right of self-determination" the "right" of the Jewish People and the "right" of the Arab People cannot both be evaluated simultaneously without causing some injury to one or the other (it is indeterminate). Thus any argument made --- which is based --- on the "right of self-determination" for either side is inconclusive. The "rights" cancel each other out because they cannot be applied individually without prejudice to the other.

One can argue that "...and neither of the purposes suggests that one of the goals of self-determination is to provide every ethnically distinct people with a state;" one can also say that that neither of the purposes precludes the establishment of "an ethnically distinct people with a state" as a possible outcome. This would be especially possible since the intent, at the very outset, was to establish a National Homeland and that these national aspirations (goals in common) were recognized by the Arab and Jewish Leadership at the outset (Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919). Both sides understood that the "racial kindship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is through the closest possible, collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine."

Most Respectfully,
R

"The hidden beauty of an "indeterminacy" is much like..."​

The hidden beauty is that you can smokescreen the issues with verbosity.

(COMMENT)

Is it a "smokescreen?" Or is it a case in which the Arab-Palestinian claims more of a "right" of some sort than has been endowed upon them? (As it pertains to this particular argument.)

I tried to stay away from the issue of suitability; that is, your claim that some "do not lend themselves suitable for statehood." Clearly, the suitability (and capability) of the Arab Palestinian, both then and now, is a condition subject to an entirely different discussion.

If you rule-out the indeterminate factor intertwined in the distinction between "people" 'vs' "peoples" --- then you are left with the underlying theory behind the "right of self-determination" --- that: "the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order" is somehow recognized. (See Post #563") That would be the people of Israel (one people) and the people of the West Bank and Gaza (one people); or collectively, the "peoples" (the collective). Note: For the sake of your plural distinction: (one people) + (one people) = (one peoples - or - the collective)

The Leaders of the early 20th Century (trained 19th Century thinkers) did not quibble over such distinctions (people 'vs' peoples). If they saw a universal right, then it applied to everyone equally - and was not a matter of distinguishing characteristics (and they saw very few universal rights --- let alone the "contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum"). And most certainly, as the Allied Powers were determining the establishment of a Jewish National Home (in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo), it was quite clear that they held the power to make the determinations and not the indigenous enemy population of lands surrendered to them at the outcome of the war (there was no spectrum of self-determination - they made the determination). The idea of the right to self-determination was not yet a consideration. "In international law, the right of self-determination that became recognized in the post-WWII years were interpreted as the right of all colonial territories to become independent or to adopt any other status they freely chose;" had not yet been established. And the Leaders of the early 20th Century (trained 19th Century thinkers) did not quibble about it - these were not new colonial interests, but "Mandates." And as such, "no right to secession has yet been recognized under international law;" no right to self-determination except what was granted to them by the powers-that-be.

One of the earliest proponents of a right to self-determination was U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. A month after his famous "Fourteen Points" speech to the U.S. Congress in January 1918 (in which the term "self-determination" does not appear), he proclaimed:

"Self-determination" is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril....
​

Despite Wilson's injunction, attempts to turn self-determination from a "mere phrase" into a binding norm did not occur for over 40 years, following the deaths of tens of millions in two major wars. While the Covenant of the League of Nations did indirectly address the principle of self-determination (without using the word) in the system of mandates that it established, identification of the mandates and implementation of the system was wholly dependent on politics, not law. In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination.
SOURCE: Legal Aspects of Self-Determination - Princeton University Encyclopedia of Self-determination​

For the sake of emphasis, let me repeat something here: "In most of the territorial adjustments that followed the end of World War I, winners and losers were determined by the political calculations and perceived needs of the Great Powers rather than on the basis of which groups had the strongest claims to self-determination." This was the political landscape at the time the decisions were made to establish the "Jewish National Home."

Thus (whether you like the "theory of indeterminism" or not), the Arab-Palestinian "right to self-determination" was NOT extended based on the strongest claim or any inherent right they perceived as being owed to them, but were determined on the basis of the wants and needs of the Allied Powers; that being the establishment of the Jewish National Home (in whatever form it would ultimately take - that being undetermined in San Remo).

I know this interpretation sounds hard and harsh (maybe even unfair), but that was the characteristics of the times.

Most Respectfully,
R

Self determination is not just teen wanting to not be boss or have rules made by a parent. The child has to be skilled enough to support itself, understand budgeting to pay the rent and bill on time and not just go wild with a charge card. It is being responsible enough not to get into legal trouble or get taken by criminals and fair weather friends. It is having a plan for a future (perhaps getting married, kids, buying a home, retirement, etc). It understanding when he is sick, getting medical care, eating right and exercising to stay healthy.
What a child should not do is veg in front of a video came and expect everyone else to give their money support he "right of self determination to do nothing".

Palestinians are at odds internally. They can't handle their own finances. They can't manage their own health care, water, sewage. Can't control it's own people from waging war on Israel. Can't adapt it educational system to teach non-violence and cooperation instead of hate and destruction. It can't provide enough jobs.
Palestinians are more of less playing violent video games and expecting the world to support their violent addiction as well as their personal needs. These games result in very real human death or maimed bodies and can even result in the player's life. Perhaps they should begin with Sims so they can learn what is requires to function in the real world.

Palestinians are not prepared for self determination. They have devoted the last 70+ years to the killing of Israelis and the annihilation of Israel. They have to learn to build a nation, a united government with a potential of growth. They need to shift their mind set from war to peace.

Who has the right to determine whether or not a people have the "right" to self-determination? Has any other people or group been required to some-how "prove themselves" or viewed somehow as "children" incapable of handling it? That was the attitude of many colonial powers towards their subject colonies.

In fact - most seperatist groups end up "proving" themselves and earning their nations through warfare and conflict. Israel itself is one of many examples of this. Some make the successful transition from war to governance while others fail. It's not up to any other powers to make that decision for them.

They have the right to self determination just as does Israel. Give it to them. Give them complete control over their borders, airspace, coast, trade, utilities, treaties. Just like any other nation. Hold them to the same standards as any other nation. If they violate those standards they risk the same penalties, sanctions or military actions against.

Once people are responsible for their own fate and their own nation - THEN is the time to make the transition from fighting to governing.

On your premiss any family or group on a ranch could have the right to self determination. Nor can any state decide to succeed and become it's own nation.

There has to be a form of income or barter within the "state" and trade with other nations. Police, laws, some form of court, fire department, monetary system, communication (mail, phone, internet), health system, waste disposal that does not pollute the soil or water of it's neighbor, banking system, education, etc.
Right now a large section of the palestinian population is dependent on other agencies and nations to provide these things.
It is far more than just wanting to be out on your own but being "able" to do so. Palestinians can not manage even the most basis needs without relying on outside sources. If you buy products and services, you have to earn enough to pay. Countries refer to this as balance of trade. You want more going out rather than coming in. Palestinians have no means to support this.
The palestinians have devoted too much into waging war and don't know how or are not ready to devote all their people to peace which would help build the nation they dream of.
Building tunnels and stealing from or attacking other is not a skill set to create a nation. It is a skill set to create criminals.