Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

Despite efforts to erase it, the Nakba's memory is more present than ever in Israel

The Israeli Right has been waging a war on history in recent years, using extreme measures to remove evidence of the Nakba from the national discourse. It failed.

A Palestinian photographer stands during a minute of silence commemorating the Nakba at a ceremony held by Palestinian and Israeli students at the entrance to Tel Aviv University. Right-wing activists protesting the ceremony and policemen are seen in the background. May 13, 2013 (photo: Yotam Ronen / Activestills)

Yedioth Hakibbutz is the weekly magazine of the United Kibbutz Movement. It is delivered every week to hundreds of Kibbutzim as part of the weekend edition of Yedioth Ahronoth, the best selling paper in Israel. Even at a time of diminishing political influence – there is not a single representative of the United Kibbutz Movement in the current Knesset – the Kibbutzim remain both a symbol and a stronghold of conservative Zionism, and the mainstream tone of Yedioth suits them well.

Three months ago, there was an unusual story on the cover of Yedioth Hakibbutz. The front page read: “We expelled, blew up and killed.” Inside the magazine was a three-page interview with Kibbutz Degania member Yerachmiel Kahanovich, a former fighter in the Palmach (the Jewish underground that preceded the IDF), in which Kahanovic confessed to his part in the expulsion and murder of Palestinians during the war of 1948.

Several months earlier, Kahanovich was interviewed as part of a project by Zochrot (“remembering”), a non-profit that deals with the Nakba from an Israeli perspective (an English translation of his testimony can be found here), and his testimony drew the attention of Yedioth reporters. Zochrot exists mostly in the margins of the Israeli discourse. Getting such a follow-up in the Kibbutz magazine was unique but not unheard of: in October 2012 the same paper ran a story on a Nakba tour book published by Zochrot.

Kahanovich’s testimony touched on one of the most awful events of 1948 – the intentional murder of Palestinian civilians who sought refuge from the fighting inside the Dahamsh Mosque in Lod. He also confessed that he had been ordered to shoot each Palestinian who tried to escape the procession of refugees marching out of the region. At time he sounded regretful – but he also felt that, “we had no choice.”

Q: Did you let the [Palestinians] residents get away?

YK: At first, yes. The intention was to expel them, these were the orders of the bosses, Yigal Alon and Yitzhak Sadeh. Sometimes we had to shot one or two, and then the rest got the message and left on their own. You need to understand: if you didn’t destroy the Arab’s home, he will always want to come back. When there is no home, no village, there is nowhere to return.

Q: Do you remember the battle for Lod and Ramleh?

YK: I don’t like to remember this so much… we shot shells into a mosque where many people were hiding. There was no choice.

Q: We shot?

YK: I shot with the PIAT [anti-tank weapon]. It has an enormous shock wave.

Q: And what were the results?

YK: Not pretty. They were all scattered on the walls.

Q: How many?

YK: I don’t know. Many. I didn’t count. I opened the door, saw what I saw, and closed [it].

Q: What did you feel?

YK: What can you feel after a thing like that? But if we didn’t do it, we might have been fighting to this very day. Then I stood with the Browning [machine gun] over the creek through which the remaining residents escaped. Anyone who strayed off track, got a shot.

Q: From you as well?

YK: From me too. I felt really bad but I was a good marksman, and there were times when they only asked me to fire a single bullet. At the village next to Ramleh, two shots were enough. In 45 minutes the village was empty. They got the message.

The Lod-Ramleh region was one of places where a massive, intentional expulsion of the Palestinian population took place. Controversies surround the departure of Palestinians from other areas; whether they were forced to leave or whether they escaped on their own. It’s not that important. The Israeli decision not to allow refugees to return to their homes – sometimes as early as two weeks after they fled or were forced to leave – is what made them refugees. Later came the confiscation of the entirety of “unclaimed” Palestinian property, which leaves no doubt about what happened in 1948. Intentional or not, this was ethnic cleansing.

***

Cover of Yedioth Hakibbutz featuring a story with a former Palmach fighter who confessed to his part in killing Palestinians during the 1948 war

Another Kibbutz story: a few years ago, some “internal refugees” (Palestinians who were displaced during the war but ended up within Israeli borders; they weren’t allowed to go back to their homes, but they did become Israeli citizens) planned a weekend trip to the hill where their village once stood. The news somehow reached members of a nearby Kibbutz – one of the pillars of the Kibbutzim movement and a Meretz stronghold – who were immediately alarmed. The Kibbutz email list came to life, with members suggesting that they form a counter-delegation and capture the hill before the Palestinians arrive. Others demonstrated a more hospitable approach. I don’t know how the story ended. I heard it from one of the Kibbutz’s members, a guy my age who has since left the country.

The tiniest symbolic action or gesture relating to the Nakba can unleash disproportionate panic among Jews, since the Nakba is not just the ghost of the Zionist project – it’s a very real and political problem. Both Israelis and Palestinians understand this. An Israeli-Palestinian leader once told me that he would not support building Nakba museums. “You put monuments when the story is over,” he said. “We are not there.”

In recent years, a trend of Nakba-denial has emerged in Jewish-Israeli political circles, a sort of conservative counter attack to the post-Zionism of the 1990s. Im Tirzu, a conservative group whose claim to fame was a campaign against the New Israel Fund, which included anti-semitic images, a couple of years ago published a propaganda booklet titled “Nakba-Bullshit” (it rhymes in Hebrew) which repeats many of the Israeli talking points on the refugee issue: from “there is no such thing as a Palestinian people” to “they fled of their own will” to “Jews from Arab countries also became refugees.” Activists from Im Tirzu urged students to avoid classes that mention the Nakba, distributed the booklet at university gates and staged counter-protests against memorial ceremonies on Nakba Day.

At the same time, the Israeli government initiated the Nakba law, authorizing the finance minister to withdraw funds from organizations commemorating the Nakba. One in every five Israelis is a Palestinian, and the law basically means that their public institutions are not allowed to deal with their own history. A petition against the law was rejected by the Supreme Court, demonstrating how threatened Israelis feel – that even the institution which is considered, and certainly considers itself the guardian of civil liberties, was ready to put such a limit on free speech. Since 2009 Palestinian schools have not been allowed to discuss or even use the term Nakba as part of their curriculum.

***

All these acts had a strange effect: while dealing with the ethnic cleansing of 1948 is still considered a “confrontational” and even “subversive” act, the term Nakba itself has become part of the mainstream discourse. The Arabic word “Nakba” (“disaster”) has been used to describe the Palestinian catastrophe as early as 1948, but I never heard the word until the nineties. Now I seem to hear it every other day.

Naturally, it’s not just in Israel. Google has a cute tool which allows you to see the number of times a term is used in the books in its databases. I searched the four common ways the word Nakba is spelled, “Nakba,” “Naqba,” “naqba” and “nakba” (the tool is case sensitive) and the same pattern emerged each time: a tiny surge in the mid-seventies and a skyrocketing rise at the end of the nineties.

Compare this, for example , to the word “Israel,” which is mentioned more frequently but its peak seems to have been in the eighties (the correlation of all those graphs with historical events is an interesting story in its own).

The Microsoft Word 2010 spellcheck software I use has yet to recognize the Nakba.

***

Last year, cops besieged activists who tried to distribute leaflets about the Nakba on Independence Day. This year’s events seem less tense. As I write this text, an outraged report on Israeli public radio opens the evening news broadcast with:

It happened today: at the entrance to Tel Aviv University some people marked the Nakba day and nobody did anything about it.

In fact, there was a small Im Tirzu vigil against the Nakba Day ceremony at Tel Aviv University, but except for some insults shouted into the air, the ceremony went on without interruption. Here is a video of the event:

The editor of Yedioth Hakibbutz told me that the interview with Yerachmiel Kahanovich went viral on Facebook but that at the same time, it hardly generated any hostile responses from kibbutz members. She sounded slightly disappointed.

A strange, bitter recognition of the Nakba seems to have settled in to the mainstream, incomplete yet undeniable. Israelis are beginning to acknowledge the past, although we are far from addressing its present consequences or its possible political implementation. However, one thing is clear: the war against history has failed. The Nakba will not be forgotten – not by Palestinians, nor by us.

Nakba

Palestinian refugees in 1948 (photo: wikimedia, Israeli copyrights expired)

Related:
Why Jews need to talk about the Nakba: A personal journey
Pretending away the Nakba only perpetuates the conflict
PHOTOS: Palestinians commemorate Nakba Day with rallies and protests
Report: Forced displacement on both sides of the Green Line
Remembering the Nakba, understanding this is a shared land
The Palestinian Nakba: Are Israelis starting to get it?

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • COMMENTS

    1. rsgengland

      Was the report on the radio outraged, or is that just the authors take?
      The Nakhba is not ignored by all, as it coincides with the start of “Ethnic Cleansing of the Jews from the Arab/Muslim lands.
      The Arabs [they only became Palestinians as a group later] flight had a lot to do with the Deir Yassin story and the way the Arab leadership exaggerated, distorted and manipulated the events there.
      Deir Yassin, coupled with the poor leadership of the Arab Higher Committee and various other leaders, the early exit of the Arab Notables and Civic Leaders and the general level of fear and uncertainty that always exists in war, was a major cause of the Arabs flight.
      There has been a population transfer of +/- a million Jews from the Arab/Muslim lands due to Antisemitism, +/-600000 Arabs due to war.
      The Arabs/Palestinians can celebrate their Nakhba, and we Jews will remember our Nakhba.
      It will only serve a purpose when the both sets of refugee issues are sorted.
      It may even lead to peace.

      Reply to Comment
      • Shahid

        The solution to Palestinian refugee issue is that they be allowed to return back to Palestine(i.e. Gaza+WB+’Israel’).

        The solution to Jewish refugee issue is that they be allowed to return to Arab land and its well documented that many if not most Jews left Arab countries because of Mossad Sabotage activities. I am sure that they will be welcomed in Morocc,Tunisia,Egypt and when the security situation improves,in Iraq too.
        Peace will be restored as soon as Zionist evil is dead and the Jews and Muslims are allowed to live their normal lives as they did before Balfour declaration.

        What say?

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          >The solution to Palestinian refugee issue is that they be allowed to return back to Palestine(i.e. Gaza+WB+’Israel’).

          ‘Israel’. Right.

          >The solution to Jewish refugee issue is that they be allowed to return to Arab land and its well documented that many if not most Jews left Arab countries because of Mossad Sabotage activities.

          Pallywood lies.

          >I am sure that they will be welcomed in Morocc,Tunisia,Egypt and when the security situation improves,in Iraq too.

          You’ll have hard time finding enough idiots who would want to live it failed Arab states.

          >Peace will be restored as soon as Zionist evil is dead

          Translating from “Arab Nationalist” language to English:

          Peace will be restored as soon as Jews drop the idea of having homeland.

          >and the Jews and Muslims are allowed to live their normal lives as they did before Balfour declaration.

          Lovely approach. Jews are allowed to live as Arabs’ underdogs in failed states, and it is normal, while Arabs can’t live under Jewish rule and it is not normal.

          >What say?
          I’d say that you are a bloody racist nationalist and because of people like you there is no hope for the peace in this region.

          Reply to Comment
          • Shahid

            See who’s talking :D
            A racist Israeli Nationalist!!!!

            Speaking as if 60-70 years of European/American/Russian Zionist presence in the region brought any peace!!!
            Anyways,we have hope. You may be militarily powerful at the moment with all those sophisticated toys gifted to you by your slaves in the West, but somewhere deep down,people know that its the Palestinians who will have the last laugh. And the proof for that is their continuous presence in Gaza+WB+Occupied Palestine since the Catastrophe.
            One day the Wall will come down(nothing stays for ever) and the arrogance of zionists like you will bite the dust.All your seemingly intelligent(knee-jerk) comments may give a good read,but I am glad that things are looking bright for a One State inshaAllah,the only way to bury the Zionists arrogance :)
            Enjoy the western generosity(oops free services) for now!!

            Reply to Comment
        • rsgengland

          Why would the Jews who lived as a “tolerated minority” in the Arab/Muslim lands after the Islamic conquests, want to return.
          One ex Libyan Jew returned a year ago, and had to be protected to prevent a lynching, before he was able to leave.
          The lot of Jews under Arab/Muslim rule may have been better than in Europe, but it still does not mean it was good.
          At present the old Christian communities of North Africa and the Middle East are shrinking as they immigrate abroad to escape the discrimination and uncertainty that all non Muslims seem to suffer in these areas.

          Reply to Comment
    2. dukium

      Rsgengland, you have no clue of what you are writing about.
      First, The Palestinians are not responsible for the expulsions that happened in other parts of the world. Palestinians and Iraqis and Egyptians are not the same people. I hope that you are aware of it.
      -
      The big majority of the Jews that arrived in Israel from the Arab States were easily absorbed – at least in comparison to other similar cases – because they took the houses of thousand of palestinians that were obliged to leave. Musrara is just an example, but it explains quite well why they were so easily absorbed and why the “madbarot” didn’t last long. If you go in places such as Ein Houd you will find thousands of Palestinian houses still perfectly preserved.
      -
      “The Arabs [they only became Palestinians as a group later]” were Palestinians since many centuries, at least in the sense that they have their own peculiarities. When al din al ramli wrote filastin bialduna in the XVII century is was referring to something concrete. Read Haim Gerber book on this and stop using these childish arguments: you just show your ignorance and your ideologic approach.

      Reply to Comment
      • Danny

        “First, The Palestinians are not responsible for the expulsions that happened in other parts of the world.”

        There is evidence that Israel, through the use of Mossad agents stationed in Arab countries, tried to “persuade” Arab Jews to leave their countries by staging mock pogroms against synagogues and the like. There is at least one well-known Mossad involvement in a mock bombing of a Baghdad synagogue. There may be many more. Ben Gurion needed Arab Jews to emigrate to Israel so they could be used both as cheap labor and convenient canon fodder for the army.

        Reply to Comment
        • Joel

          No evidence. Never happened.All the contemporary evidence shows no Mossad involvement in the flight.Read Moshe Gat on that point.

          Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >Palestinians and Iraqis and Egyptians are not the same people. I hope that you are aware of it.

        There are no “Palestinians”, “Iraqis” or “Egyptians” as people or ethnicities.

        Palestinian Arabs are not the same as Palestinian Samaritans, as Egyptian Arabs are not the same as Egyptian Copts, or Iraqi Arabs are not the same as Iraqi Kurds.

        However, Palestinian Arabs are pretty much the same as Egyptian Arabs, Iraqi Arabs or Saudi Arabs, or at least so Palestinian Charter claims.

        The fact that certain people live in different countries does not make it any less of a people, you know.

        Reply to Comment
        • Leen

          There are not a lot of people who view Arab as an ethnicity. In fact, I’m not sure if Arab is regarded an ethnicity. It is definately a linguist ‘sub group’ though.

          Anyway, it is not true that Egyptians, Iraqis and Palestinians are the same. In fact genetists have concluded that Levant Arabs (Syria, Lebanon, Palestine) differ genetically from Egyptians and North Africans as well as from Iraqis. Culturally and anthropologically, they have different ancestors. Iraqi ancestry is linked from the Indian subcontinent as well as from other parts of Mesopotamia with some groups from Kurds and the Arab tribes of the Gulf. Egyptians are of Nubian, Greek, African, and other ancestry. Palestinians, a long with Syrians, are from a mixed ancestry line ranging from Assyrians, Phoenicians, Greeks, Israelites, Canaanites and other ancient ethnics.

          Finally, Semites in the Fertile crescent (which by the way include Jews) were found to be closely related genetically to non-Semitic speaking Near Easterners (such as Iranians, Anatolians, and Caucasians) than to other Semitic-speakers (such as Gulf Arabs, Ethiopian Semites, and North African Arabs). Which pretty much means that Palestinian Arabs/Egyptian Arabs/Iraqi Arabs are fundementally different ethnic and genetically wise.

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >There are not a lot of people who view Arab as an ethnicity. In fact, I’m not sure if Arab is regarded an ethnicity. It is definately a linguist ‘sub group’ though.

            Me, personally, I wouldn’t give a flying duck.

            However, since the modus operandi of PA/PLA/Hamas and others is based on an assumption that the only Palestinians are Palestinian Arabs and said Arabs are part of greater Arab People (not Arab culture or Arab linguist group), I see no other way but to follow the same logic.

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            If you don’t, then why are you investing so much time to spread ignorance and misinformation?

            Even the Arab charter doesn’t recognize that Arabs are an ethnic group, so how does Hamas/PLO/et al do?

            By the way, in the provisional Palestinian constitution and PLO charter, there is no mention of Palestinian Arabs being ethnically Arabs.

            Furthermore, it doesn’t actually matter what Hamas/PLO think because facts are facts, and the facts are Palestinian Arabs are genetically and ethnically different from Egyptian/Iraqi/Gulf Arabs. If you use Hamas as a historical source, then I do really feel sorry for you.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            If you don’t, then why are you investing so much time to spread ignorance and misinformation?

            It does not matter what are the genes of any singular Palestinian Arab or Iraqi Kurd. Sufficient is that certain people think of themselves as a part of something.

            >Even the Arab charter doesn’t recognize that Arabs are an ethnic group, so how does Hamas/PLO/et al do?

            By the way, in the provisional Palestinian constitution and PLO charter, there is no mention of Palestinian Arabs being ethnically Arabs.

            If you don’t, then why are you investing so much time to spread ignorance and misinformation?

            Even the Arab charter doesn’t recognize that Arabs are an ethnic group, so how does Hamas/PLO/et al do?

            >By the way, in the provisional Palestinian constitution and PLO charter, there is no mention of Palestinian Arabs being ethnically Arabs.

            Is that so?

            We, the Palestinian Arab people, dictate and declare this Palestinian National Charter and swear to realize it.

            Article 1. Palestine is an Arab homeland bound by strong Arab national ties to the rest of the Arab Countries and which together form the great Arab homeland.

            Article 2: Palestine, with its boundaries at the time of the British Mandate, is a indivisible territorial unit.

            Article 3: The Palestinian Arab people has the legitimate right to its homeland and isan inseparable part of the Arab Nation. It shares the sufferings and aspirations of the Arab Nation and its struggle for freedom, sovereignty, progress and unity.

            Article 4: The people of Palestine determine its destiny when it completes the liberation of its homeland in accordance with its own wishes and free will and choice.

            Article 5: The Palestinian personality is a permanent and genuine characteristic that does not disappear. It is transferred from fathers to sons.

            Article 6: The Palestinians are those Arab citizens who were living normally in Palestine up to 1947, whether they remained or were expelled. Every child who was born to a Palestinian Arab father after this date, whether in Palestine or outside, is a Palestinian.

            >Furthermore, it doesn’t actually matter what Hamas/PLO think because facts are facts, and the facts are Palestinian Arabs are genetically and ethnically different from Egyptian/Iraqi/Gulf Arabs. If you use Hamas as a historical source, then I do really feel sorry for you.

            The fact is that Hamas rules Gaza strip, which means that at least part of Palestinian Arabs think like Hamas does.

            I suggest you’d feel sorry for the population of Gaza which is ruled by the group they see as a historical source.

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            ‘It does not matter what are the genes of any singular Palestinian Arab or Iraqi Kurd. Sufficient is that certain people think of themselves as a part of something.’
            That does not answer my question though. I’ve already pointed out that Arabs are a linguistic group. You were talking about ethnicity, so was I.
            \Is that so?
            We, the Palestinian Arab people, dictate and declare this Palestinian National Charter and swear to realize it.
            Article 1. Palestine is an Arab homeland bound by strong Arab national ties to the rest of the Arab Countries and which together form the great Arab homeland.
            Article 2: Palestine, with its boundaries at the time of the British Mandate, is a indivisible territorial unit.
            Article 3: The Palestinian Arab people has the legitimate right to its homeland and isan inseparable part of the Arab Nation. It shares the sufferings and aspirations of the Arab Nation and its struggle for freedom, sovereignty, progress and unity.
            Article 4: The people of Palestine determine its destiny when it completes the liberation of its homeland in accordance with its own wishes and free will and choice.
            Article 5: The Palestinian personality is a permanent and genuine characteristic that does not disappear. It is transferred from fathers to sons.
            Article 6: The Palestinians are those Arab citizens who were living normally in Palestine up to 1947, whether they remained or were expelled. Every child who was born to a Palestinian Arab father after this date, whether in Palestine or outside, is a Palestinian.’
            Again, you don’t seem to realize there is no mention of Palestinians as ethnically Arab. They are linguistically and culturally Arab, but again there is no mention of being ethnically Arabs, as in from the tribes of Arabia.

            The Arab League defines an Arab as a ‘An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic-speaking country, and who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic-speaking peoples’. Do you see an emphasis on linguistics rather than ethnicity? Because, once more, Arabs are ethnically diverse.
            ‘The fact is that Hamas rules Gaza strip, which means that at least part of Palestinian Arabs think like Hamas does.’

            Their election rule has expired, therefore Hamas is acting like a dictatorship. Again, if you go by statistics, less than 20% of the population of Gaza have voted for Hamas.

            But once more, blaming Palestinians for what other Arabs have done to the Jews does not make any sense. The Jewish experience in the Arab world is not uniform, some like Iraq have expelled the Jews, others like Tunisia and Morocco, Jews have a special seat in the government and even the king’s closest advisors were Jewish.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >That does not answer my question though. I’ve already pointed out that Arabs are a linguistic group. You were talking about ethnicity, so was I.

            By the definition of the Arab League, Arabs are more than a mere lingustic group.

            “The Arab League defines an Arab as a ‘An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic-speaking country, and who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic-speaking peoples’”

            >Again, you don’t seem to realize there is no mention of Palestinians as ethnically Arab. They are linguistically and culturally Arab, but again there is no mention of being ethnically Arabs, as in from the tribes of Arabia.

            Is that so?

            “Palestine is an Arab homeland bound by strong Arab national ties to the rest of the Arab Countries and which together form the great Arab homeland.

            The Palestinian Arab people … is an inseparable part of the Arab Nation.

            The Palestinian personality is a permanent and genuine characteristic that does not disappear. It is transferred from fathers to sons.”

            As it follows from these quotations, Palestinian Arabs ARE the part of “Arab nationality” which could as well mean “Arab ethnicity”. I’ll have to look into Arabic words with meaning of “nation”, “nationality” and “ethincity”

            >Do you see an emphasis on linguistics rather than ethnicity? Because, once more, Arabs are ethnically diverse.

            What I do see is emphasis on “sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic-speaking peoples.”

            Speaking Arabic is not enought to be an Arab – one also have to think like rest of Arabs do.

            >Their election rule has expired, therefore Hamas is acting like a dictatorship. Again, if you go by statistics, less than 20% of the population of Gaza have voted for Hamas.

            I’m sorry, but it is beyond me, how a group which was supported by only 20% of population had managed to win elections, fight off a coup and remain in power for so long.

            >But once more, blaming Palestinians for what other Arabs have done to the Jews does not make any sense.

            Actually, it would make some sense to blame other Arabs for what Jews have done to Palestinain Arabs. Ex. if not for promise of support and call for arms for other Arab state, Palestinians would have had refrained from bellerigence towards Jews, meaning the Nakba would not become existential necessity for the Jewish state.

            Reply to Comment
      • rsgengland

        The vast majority of Jews from Arab/Muslim lands were settled in ma’abarot tent camps situated all over Israel, which were later developed into development towns.
        The hatred spread by the likes of Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Husseini and others, was partly responsible for the wave of Antisemitism that swept the Middle East and North Africa, that resulted in the Ethnic Cleansing of the Jews from the Arab/Muslim lands.
        Before the creation of the State of Israel, the Arabs of Palestine refused to be called Palestinians, saying that they were part of the Arab nation, and many wanted to be a Southern Province of Syria.

        Reply to Comment
        • dukium

          “The hatred spread by the likes of Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Husseini and others, was partly responsible for the wave of Antisemitism that swept the Middle East and North Africa, that resulted in the Ethnic Cleansing of the Jews from the Arab/Muslim lands.”:
          lol. First was Zionism and not haj amin that triggered the wave to which u are referring to. Second “the grand mufti of Palestine” was a figure fully created by london and to claim that the Palestinian people bear a collective responsability for what happened in iraq or egypt cause of him is one of the most funny things that i read by an hasbara guy. thank you for sharing.
          .
          “The vast majority of Jews from Arab/Muslim lands were settled in ma’abarot tent camps situated all over Israel, which were later developed into development towns”:
          False the great majority went to live in the houses of the Palestinians, and you can still check this today.

          Reply to Comment
          • Joel

            @Duki

            “False the great majority went to live in the houses of the Palestinians, and you can still check this today.”

            False.
            In urban areas like Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem, Jews did move right into Arab houses.

            In rural areas, most Arab dwellings were razed and the villages leveled so the former owners would not return.

            Jews would build on lands nearby to the razed villages.
            I know so because I live in Israel and visit these sites frequently.

            Reply to Comment
          • dukium

            Joel, that you for confirming what I mentioned. And yes, beside occupying palestinian houses in ein houd, Jaffa, Haifa, Jerusalem and few hundred of other places, it is true in rural areas many Palestinian dwellings were razed and so other new immigrants built their new houses on, or sometimes near, that razed villages.

            Reply to Comment
          • Joel

            @duki

            I’ve done no such thing.
            You said the ‘great majority went to live in the houses’.

            The great majority were settled in the countryside, where the villages had already been razed.

            You said ‘a few hundred of other places’ and I don’t believe ‘hundreds’ of sites remained to be claimed by the Jews. Ein Hod was an exception. It was stone, hilltop village, thus difficult to raze,so Jews just moved into the dwellings.

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            I’m gonna throw out some statistics out there.
            40% of the Jewish population live in East Jerusalem, so maybe not a majority, but a hell of a lot of people do live there.

            Reply to Comment
    3. joel

      Six thousand Jews died during ‘the Nakba’.

      Reply to Comment
    4. David T.

      rsgengland: ” … the early exit of the Arab Notables and Civic Leaders and the general level of fear and uncertainty that always exists in war, was a major cause of the Arabs flight …”

      According to the SHAI report of the Haganah 73% of Arab refugees between December 1947 and June 1948 were caused directly by Jews. What followed this was even higher. Within 7 months Jews destroyed more than 500 villages and emptied 11 urban neighborhoods. They even put Arabs into labor camps and made them live under military law until 1966.

      rsgengland: “The Arabs [they only became Palestinians as a group later] …”

      Kindergarden Hasbara. All citizens of Palestine were Palestinians since 1925. The later definition excludes Jews and their descendants which immigrated since mandate times.

      rsgengland: “There has been a population transfer of +/- a million Jews from the Arab/Muslim lands due to Antisemitism, +/-600000 Arabs due to war.”

      And no Jew left, because he chose to live in Israel right? Oh wait:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries#Within_Israel

      rsgengland: “It will only serve a purpose when the both sets of refugee issues are sorted.”

      I’m sure that you will call for the right for everyone to return to their homeland, because you’re not a racist, correct?

      Reply to Comment
      • The Trespasser

        >I’m sure that you will call for the right for everyone to return to their homeland, because you’re not a racist, correct?

        Palestinian Arabs had denied Jews equal rights on a purely racist basis.

        Over 100 years had passed, nothing has changed, but you are asking that people who deny the Jewish state right to exist (on a racist basis, by the way) would be allowed to receive its citizenship.

        Reply to Comment
        • David T.

          “There are no “Palestinians”, “Iraqis” or “Egyptians” as people or ethnicities.”

          Just another falsehood, because Palestinians and Iraqis became a nation on the same day the treaty of Lausanne came into effect and as respective nationality laws were enacted under mandate. Jews are not a nation in the sense of citizenship. Btw. the right to self determination is a civic right, not an ethnical or however Jews want to define themselves whenever it is suitable to their interests.

          “However, since the modus operandi of PA/PLA/Hamas and others is based on an assumption that the only Palestinians are Palestinian Arabs …”

          Your next falsehood. Jews and their paternal descendents who lived in Palestine before mandate times (having Ottoman citizenship) are automatically Palestinians according to PLO definition.

          “Over 100 years had passed, nothing has changed, but you are asking that people who deny the Jewish state right to exist (on a racist basis, by the way) would be allowed to receive its citizenship.”

          The next falsehood. They don’t deny it on a racist base, but on the base of majority rule. That’s a democracy concept, racist like you and other Apartheid lovers can’t accept if they are amongst the minority and therefore have to have the majority expelled and denationalized for racist Apartheid reasons.

          Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >“There are no “Palestinians”, “Iraqis” or “Egyptians” as people or ethnicities.”

            >Just another falsehood, because Palestinians and Iraqis became a nation…

            Can’t you read? I did not mention “nation” anywhere.

            >Jews are not a nation in the sense of citizenship.

            No. Your point being?

            > the right to self determination is a civic right, not an ethnical or however Jews want to define themselves whenever it is suitable to their interests.

            Apparently you haven’t noticed, but civilian populations consist of different ethnicities, which might have quite different views on the right.

            Ex. if Palestinian Arabs deny Jews – Palestinian and European – equal rights, than said Jews can take whatever measures to have their rights implemented.

            >“However, since the modus operandi of PA/PLA/Hamas and others is based on an assumption that the only Palestinians are Palestinian Arabs …”

            Your next falsehood. Jews and their paternal descendents who lived in Palestine before mandate times (having Ottoman citizenship) are automatically Palestinians according to PLO definition.

            >Article 6: The Palestinians are those Arab citizens who were living normally in Palestine up to 1947, whether they remained or were expelled. Every child who was born to a Palestinian Arab father after this date, whether in Palestine or outside, is a Palestinian.
            http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/pid/12363

            You are about as dumb as I thought you are.

            “Over 100 years had passed, nothing has changed, but you are asking that people who deny the Jewish state right to exist (on a racist basis, by the way) would be allowed to receive its citizenship.”

            >The next falsehood. They don’t deny it on a racist base, but on the base of majority rule.

            That’s a nice one. So if a majority wishes to oppress any minority, it has democratically granted rights to do so.

            >That’s a democracy concept, racist like you and other Apartheid lovers can’t accept if they are amongst the minority and therefore have to have the majority expelled and denationalized for racist Apartheid reasons.

            By your logic, when Palestinian Arabs had majority, they could democratically oppress Jews, but when Jews have majority, they can’t democratically oppress Palestinian Arabs.

            As Judeophobic as it gets.

            Reply to Comment
          • Leen

            Also it is worth mentioning this was written in 1964, the height of Arabism (it has fallen now). I do not think it is in fact relevant nowadays, as the PLO has drafting a constitution which has significantly changed its views on Arabism, and Palestinian citizenship can now pass through the mother/grandmother.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >Also it is worth mentioning this was written in 1964, the height of Arabism (it has fallen now). I do not think it is in fact relevant nowadays, as the PLO has drafting a constitution which has significantly changed its views on Arabism, and Palestinian citizenship can now pass through the mother/grandmother.

            What you are saying is that *some* of Arabs had became less nationalistic and (more) civilized, so Israel have to change policies to relfelct these socio-cultural changes in Arab society. However, these alleged changes – if they do exist indeed, are miniscule and of very little importance to us – Israelis. For instance, important factors – such as denial Jews’right to have a homeland in Palestine – have not changed at all.

            Reply to Comment
          • David T.

            “Can’t you read? I did not mention “nation” anywhere.”

            I know, because it’s the only thing which is actually relevant. The right to self determination is a civic right.

            “No. Your point being?”

            That only Jews who were part of the Palestinian nation (citizens of Palestine) in 1948 had political rights to take part in determinining the future of Palestine by majority ruling. That excludes every Jew who was not a citizen of Palestine, expecially half of the Jews of Palestine in 1948 who hadn’t acquired citizenship by then.

            “Apparently you haven’t noticed, but civilian populations consist of different ethnicities, which might have quite different views on the right.”

            Irrelevant from a legal point of view.

            “Ex. if Palestinian Arabs deny Jews – Palestinian and European – equal rights, than said Jews can take whatever measures to have their rights implemented.”

            As Palestinians also “can take whatever measures to have their rights implented”, correct? Right of return, right of citizenship, right to live without ocucupation, …

            “You are about as dumb as I thought you are.”

            Well considering what you call thinking I dont expect a different outcome. Considering you dishonesty So I’m not surprised that you quote from the outdated convenant of 1964 but still don’t quote the next article: “Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine.” Or article 6 from the revised version: “The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.”

            “That’s a nice one. So if a majority wishes to oppress any minority, it has democratically granted rights to do so.”

            At least try to be honest. The issue was not “oppressing a minortity” or the granted right to do so. But a majority has the defesensive right of self determination to maintain the integrity of a population against immigration from foreigners AND to maintain the integrity of the territory against partition or secession.

            “By your logic, when Palestinian Arabs had majority, they could democratically oppress Jews, but when Jews have majority, they can’t democratically oppress Palestinian Arabs.

            As Judeophobic as it gets.”

            No, it’s dishonest as it gets, because I never wrote about a right to oppression. But I can understand where this comes from, since you support the the prototype of a state which majority ruling is based upon not only oppressing the minority but also oppressing the real majority by keeping it expelled and denationalized to maintain the domination of a Jewish minority regime. In other words, plain Apartheid.

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >The right to self determination is a civic right.

            Bullshit.

            “All peoples have the right of self-determination.”
            http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html

            >That only Jews who were part of the Palestinian nation (citizens of Palestine) in 1948

            There was no “Palestinian Nation” in 1948, nor there was a “Palestinian State” which would be able to grant any kind of citizenship.

            >had political rights to take part in determinining the future of Palestine by majority ruling.

            I see. So if majority of Arabs wishes to oppress minority of Jews – they do have such right, politically.

            >That excludes every Jew who was not a citizen of Palestine.

            But it does not exclude every Arab who was not a “citizen” of “Palestine”. Yeah, I know.

            >“Apparently you haven’t noticed, but civilian populations consist of different ethnicities, which might have quite different views on the right.”

            >Irrelevant from a legal point of view.

            Bullshit.

            >As Palestinians also “can take whatever measures to have their rights implented”, correct? Right of return, right of citizenship, right to live without ocucupation, …

            1 – there is no such thing as “right of return” to a specific home or area – only to one’s country. But you are not implying that PA/PLA/Hamas are obliged to provide Palestinian Arab refugees right to enter WB/Gaza, are you?
            2 – I’m unaware that Israel had denied citizenship to any of its population. On the contrary, Palestinian Arabs had refused to accept Israeli citizenship on numerous occasions.
            3 – Occupation is a result of Arabs desire to create Judenfrei Palestine.

            >Considering you dishonesty So I’m not surprised that you quote from the outdated convenant of 1964 but still don’t quote the next article: “Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine.” Or article 6 from the revised version: “The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.”

            You see, Palestinian Arabs have no right whatsoever to define who are “Palestinians” or who have a right to live in “Palestine”.

            >“That’s a nice one. So if a majority wishes to oppress any minority, it has democratically granted rights to do so.”
            >At least try to be honest. The issue was not “oppressing a minortity” or the granted right to do so. But a majority has the defensive right of self determination to maintain the integrity of a population against immigration from foreigners AND to maintain the integrity of the territory against partition or secession.
            What makes you think that majority should have more rights that minority? That is because they are Arabs?

            >“By your logic, when Palestinian Arabs had majority, they could democratically oppress Jews, but when Jews have majority, they can’t democratically oppress Palestinian Arabs.

            >As Judeophobic as it gets.”

            >No, it’s dishonest as it gets, because I never wrote about a right to oppression.
            Oh, but whatever you are writing is of about ZERO concern. You see, sufficient is that Arabs believe that they have an inherent right to oppress Jews.

            >But I can understand where this comes from, since you support the the prototype of a state which majority ruling is based upon not only oppressing the minority but also oppressing the real majority by keeping it expelled and denationalized to maintain the domination of a Jewish minority regime. In other words, plain Apartheid.

            You’ve just made it all up. All I’m asking for is equality. Pity that for most Arabs it is unthinkable.
            p.s. Leftist liars calling for my honestly is one of greatest jokes ever.

            Reply to Comment
          • David T.

            >The right to self determination is a civic right.

            “All peoples have the right of self-determination.”
            http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html

            EVERY citizen of historic Palestine had the right to self determination IN Palestine which means the right to decide the future goverment democratically. Foreigners don’t have any saying in this. Or would you say that Arabs as such have a saying in Israel or Palestine no matter where they live?

            >There was no “Palestinian Nation” in 1948, nor there was a “Palestinian State” which would be able to grant any kind of citizenship.So if majority of Arabs wishes to oppress minority of Jews – they do have such right, politically.But it does not exclude every Arab who was not a “citizen” of “Palestine”. Yeah, I know.1 – there is no such thing as “right of return” to a specific home or area – only to one’s country. But you are not implying that PA/PLA/Hamas are obliged to provide Palestinian Arab refugees right to enter WB/Gaza, are you? 2 – I’m unaware that Israel had denied citizenship to any of its population.3 – Occupation is a result of Arabs desire to create Judenfrei Palestine.You see, Palestinian Arabs have no right whatsoever to define who are “Palestinians” or who have a right to live in “Palestine”. What makes you think that majority should have more rights that minority?Oh, but whatever you are writing is of about ZERO concern. You see, sufficient is that Arabs believe that they have an inherent right to oppress Jews.All I’m asking for is equality.Pity that for most Arabs it is unthinkable.
            p.s. Leftist liars calling for my honestly is one of greatest jokes ever.<
            It actually is one of the greatest jokes ever to ask you to be honest. It's even funnier than your stereotyped views about leftists, libel of Arabs and you asking for equality which is code for keeping Nonjewish refugees expelled and denationalized.

            Reply to Comment
    5. Jan

      Neither the Nakba nor the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian residents of Palestine will ever be forgotten. Jewish Israelis might try to bury history but the truth will always come to the surface.

      As the relative of someone who as a member of the Palmach participated in the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians I will not forget nor will my children or his children, none of whom still live in Israel.

      Jews will not forget the Holocaust and Palestinians will not forget the Nakba.

      Reply to Comment
      • Eric

        “Jews will not forget the Holocaust and Palestinians will not forget the Nakba.”

        Nobody should forget those events…….but i still have a slight feeling that the Holocaust will always get more Attention then the Nakba….

        Reply to Comment
    6. carl

      Thank you Jan for your words

      Reply to Comment
    7. “if we didn’t do it, we might have been fighting to this very day.” : And you are still fighting. One cannot erase the centuries of slavery consequent of the Middle Passage in the US; but one can do something about equality before the law today. Similarly in Israel’s briefer history. You have the necessary constitutional tool in your Declaration of Independence. Ignored or impossible to honor in 48, it can be honored now. Similarly, the US had its Declaration of Independence, ignored as principle until rather recently. Unlike that Declaration, yours is a direct, powerful constitutional tool.

      No one speaks of it.

      Reply to Comment
    8. Kolumn9

      There is a persistent fallacy that keeps reappearing on these pages. This fallacy states that Israelis do not know that there were Arabs here that fled or were pushed out by Jews in 1948. This quite plainly is sheer and utter nonsense. Pretty much everyone knows that these things happened and what really irks the extreme left is that we quite simply don’t care. The Arabs tried to kills us so we pushed them out. So, screaming and yelling about that second part is going to change the mind of pretty much no one when it is an acknowledged historical fact by everyone including the Arabs themselves that the first part is true. It is hilarious that someone somewhere thinks Israelis are going to be apologizing for staying alive.

      Reply to Comment
      • tod

        kolumn that’s why you live in a ideologic bubble. “The Arabs tried to kills us so we pushed them out”: the “arabs” tried to fight against the avodah ivrit logic and the stealing of their land and did much less that any other people would have done in their position. Wake up, you are not unique, also others deserve to have a decent life.
        Please, write once in a while a decent comment: you smell as a racist in every single post that you propose on this site.

        Reply to Comment
        • Kolumn9

          The Arabs tried to fight against the legal buying of land and the legal immigration of Jews to the land of Israel. There was no theft to be had when the Arabs decided to go out and slaughter Jews in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936, etc. Everything was done legally.

          The Arabs tried to fight against the ‘avoda ivrit’ logic? What kind of nonsense is that? I don’t hire an Arab because my kibbutz is based on Jewish labor and that means that the Arabs can come to my house and kill my family? Is this the ridiculous logic according to which you justify Arab massacres of Jews?

          Then in 1947 the Arabs rejected partition, and launched a war against the Jews. 6,000+ Jews (1% of the community) died while trying to keep their community alive. Did those 6,000 Jews commit suicide or was somebody actually trying to kill them?

          My comments are perfectly decent. You just don’t like to hear opinions you disagree with. That seems to be a pretty common problem in your ideological bubble. Calling somebody else’s opinions racist is certainly part of the defensive toolbox of people that are incapable of arguing against them logically. Have a wonderful day.

          Reply to Comment
          • Shahid

            So you are saying there was no Balfour declaration that was imposed upon the Arabs in Palestine which meant that Arabs were to be pushed out of their own country to create space for European and American jews who wanted to come and occupy Palestine? You are saying there never was any attempt by Jews to steal Palestine from the natives? You are saying that the theft that began in 1917 is not continuing today in the form of broad daylight land grabs happening in West Bank inspite of that land being declared a Sovereign entity by UN? You are saying that the founders of the illegal entity of Israel didn’t say they intended to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from Palestine so that they could appropriate it for the invading Jews? You are saying that the Arabs were fighting against Jews in the years you mentioned only becoz they wanted to and not because they sensed a grand plan hatched by Zionists in collusion with the Western imperialists to rob Palestine???

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            The Balfour declaration was included in the British mandate of Palestine. The Jews that came under the Turks and under the British came and legally purchased the land. The only people that were ‘forced out’ were those who were illegally squatting on land that wasn’t theirs. That the Arabs resorted to violence and massacre in response to the legal purchases of land is a matter of historical fact. There was a plan to build a home for the Jewish people in Israel. The political arrangements this would involve was pretty flexible up until it was realized in the Zionist movement that the Arabs were hostile to any Jewish communal power in Israel. This was made clear by Arabs coming to massacre Jews in 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1936. In response the Jews created the Shomer and the Hagannah as defensive organizations. The rejection of the wider Arab world was made clear by the invasion of the state of Israel the day after its declaration. So, yes, the Arabs tried to murder us all and we defended ourselves. We lost 6,000 people to these ‘defenseless’ people, but we won and I refuse to apologize for it or give two craps that those that wanted to massacre me have spent the past 65 years angry at being defeated.

            Reply to Comment
          • David T.

            “The Balfour declaration was included in the British mandate of Palestine.”

            By what right could a mandatory promise foreigners the colonialisation of the mandated territory against the will of its population? That was a perversion of the whole mandate system. But it was good for Jews, so it’s good for you, of course.

            “That the Arabs resorted to violence and massacre in response to the legal purchases of land is a matter of historical fact.”

            Oh only in response to that? Let’s read the conclusions from the Palin Report about the riots of 1920:

            “1. That the causes of the alienation and exasperation of the feelings of the population of Palestine are:-

            (a) Disappointment at the non-fulfilment of promises made to them by British propaganda.
            (b) Inability to reconcile the Allies’ declared policy of self-determination with the Balfour Declaration, giving rise to a sense of betrayal and intense anxiety for their future.
            (c) Misapprehension of the true meaning of the Balfour Declaration and forgetfulness of the guarantees determined therein, due to the loose rhetoric of politicians and the exaggerated statements and writings of interested persons, chiefly Zionists.
            (d) Fear of Jewish competition and domination, justified by experience and the apparent control exercised by the Zionists over the Administration.
            (e) Zionist indiscretion and aggression, since the Balfour Declaration aggravating such fears.
            (f) Anti-British and anti-Zionist propaganda working on the population already inflamed by the sources of irritation aforesaid.

            2. That the Zionist Commission and the official Zionists by their impatience, indiscretion and attempts to force the hands of the Administration, are largely responsible for the present crisis.”

            Wouldn’t you say that the violence and massacres were the response to denying Palestine indepence, the reasons for this denial and what was imposed onto them instead of independence? How did Jews react when Britain in 1939 wanted to release Palestine into independence which implied that Jews wouldn’t get an independant state besides terrorism?

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            And I think the current lawfare taking place in the UN and elsewhere against Israel are a gross perversion of the international legal system. But, it works for the Arabs, so I guess it is good for you then, isn’t it?

            The Palin report basically concluded that the Arabs resorted to massacre because they were disappointed with the political process taking place. Wonderful. I too am disappointed with the political process taking place which apparently according to your logic gives me leave to show up at Arab houses and slaughter the inhabitants of those houses at will. I will justify it on the basis of the political platform of Hamas which deems it a good thing to kill me and other Jewish civilians and to institute an Islamic state all over the borders of Israel. Is that your justification for the massacres carried out by Arabs of Jews who were legally purchasing land, backed by an international mandate to create a Jewish Home in Israel? So, either the Arabs are such savages that you deem it reasonable for them to massacre Jews in response to adverse circumstance or you believe that it is justifiable for me to go out and murder as many Arabs I want on the basis of the political platform of Hamas and the support that it clearly has among the Arab population? Which one is it?

            Double standard much there?

            Reply to Comment
          • The Trespasser

            >So you are saying there was no Balfour declaration that was imposed upon the Arabs in Palestine which meant that Arabs were to be pushed out of their own country to create space for European and American jews who wanted to come and occupy Palestine?

            No, there was no declaration which would suggest that Arabs are to be pushed out.

            >You are saying there never was any attempt by Jews to steal Palestine from the natives?

            Oh, so now there was no native Palestinian Jews or Palestinian Samaritans. Right.

            >You are saying that the theft that began in 1917 is not continuing today in the form of broad daylight land grabs happening in West Bank inspite of that land being declared a Sovereign entity by UN?

            In your fantasy world, maybe. While in factual reality no body has legal soveirnty over entie Palestine.

            >You are saying that the founders of the illegal entity of Israel didn’t say they intended to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from Palestine so that they could appropriate it for the invading Jews?

            There was no “Palestinians” in 1947.

            As of cleansing Palestinian Arabs – those who deny peace should be cleansed or exterminated.

            >You are saying that the Arabs were fighting against Jews in the years you mentioned only becoz they wanted to and not because they sensed a grand plan hatched by Zionists in collusion with the Western imperialists to rob Palestine???

            Arabs were killing and oppressing Jews because they’ve sensed that there would be WWII. Wow.
            Supernatural Arabs mwahahahaha.

            Pity that Arabs did not sense that they’d lose the war they started.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shahid

            >No, there was no declaration which would suggest that Arabs are to be pushed out.

            You are wrong since Balfour drew out a plan to divide Arab Palestine so that European invaders could come and settle in places earlier settled in by the Arab Muslims,Christians and Jews

            >Oh, so now there was no native Palestinian Jews or Palestinian Samaritans. Right.

            You know very well that I was talking about European/American invading Jews.

            >In your fantasy world, maybe. While in factual reality no body has legal soveirnty over entie Palestine.

            So by your logic,it gets proved that neither ‘israel’ has sovereignty over any part of Palestine(Gaza+WB+Fully Occupied Palestine) and thus Zionist Outsider jews are forcefully holding onto Palestine after Pushing Palestinians out.

            >There was no “Palestinians” in 1947.

            There was and its a well known fact. Since Israel needs Lies and Manipulations to survive in this world, the lie that Palestine did not exist was invented. British issued Palestinian Passports.

            >As of cleansing Palestinian Arabs – those who deny peace should be cleansed or exterminated.

            Things getting clear here as to who has genocidal and racist mentality.OK,set a trend,when tables will be turned,it will be applied in reverse.Choice is yours.Remember Palestinians are not going anywhere :D And thats the biggest thing that pinches Zionists in their a*ses.

            >Arabs were killing and oppressing Jews because they’ve sensed that there would be WWII. Wow.
            Supernatural Arabs mwahahahaha.

            I believe a comment by Davit T. above outlining the results of Pallin committee should shut you up as far as this point is concerned.Accept the fact that Zionist invasion of Palestine is at the core of the issue. And if you say bible say this and that and the land originally belongs to israelis then,let you be reminded that the Jews entered Palestine after murdering thousands of innocent women and children from Canaanites,Jebusites,Aphrodites and 5 other tribes and wrested Palestine from them.Besides there are vivid accounts in the bible how Jews murdered even infants with vengeance(for no reason) just so that they could own Palestine.so STFU.

            “Pity that Arabs did not sense that they’d lose the war they started.”

            World has not yet come to an end my son :)

            Reply to Comment
          • Joel

            Statehood was imposed on Arabs in TransJordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
            Do you want to roll back that history?

            Reply to Comment
          • Shahid

            “Statehood was imposed on Arabs in TransJordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
            Do you want to roll back that history?”

            I will be the happiest person if that happens.Because Nationalism is the ideology that allowed those lands to be colonized and thus paving the way for an alien people(European/American Jews) to come and settle in Palestine.

            How can you expect a Muslim to be unhappy when the chains of Nationalism that are groping Muslim lands are broken. Instead you should be happy at the status quo!!

            Reply to Comment
    9. tod

      They legally bought 6% of the entire land, and at the beginning of the century jews were less then 1/10th of the total population.
      They didn’t go out of the blue to kill jews, as your ideology would like to suggest. They were simply cutted out from a growing percentage of their land, or, quoting hope-simpson report:
      “The result of the purchase of land in Palestine by the Jewish National Fund has been that land has been extraterritorialised. It ceases to be land from which the Arab can gain any advantage either now or at any time in the future.”
      -
      The ‘avoda ivrit’ logic wanted to exclude the local majority, that’s why a movement that comes also with the aim of cutting out from the benefits its native population is a bit problematic.
      -
      in 1907, few months before the first clashes in jaffa broke out, the VII zionist congress created a department for the colonization of palestine and send there arthur ruppin, that, in its own words, wanted: “the creation of a Jewish milieu and of a closed Jewish economy, in which producers, consumers and middlemen shall all be Jewish”.
      Violence comes from there, not from the barbarians that u try to depict in order to keep up the fragile ideology that you always propose to us.
      .
      in 1947, again, no one asked to the pals to reject or accept anything. Quoting avnery:
      No one asked the Arab Palestinians whether to accept or reject anything. If they had been asked, they would probably have rejected partition, since – in their view – it gave a large part of their historical homeland to foreigners. The more so, since the Jews, who at the time constituted a third of the population, were allotted 55% of the territory – and even there the Arabs constituted 40% of the population.
      The governments of the Arab states rejected partition, but they certainly did not represent the Palestinian Arabs, who were at the time still under British rule (as were we).
      As a matter of fact, during the war there was no effective united Palestinian Arab leadership, nor was there anything even remotely resembling a united Palestinian fighting force.”
      -
      Trust me, it is not a matter of having different opinions, it is a matter of denying the rights of the others and trying to push simplicistic narrative born out of an ideologic environment.
      -
      you would deny whatever argument for the sake of your ideology. the only stupid here it’s me that loose time with people like you.

      Reply to Comment
      • Kolumn9

        So, Jews bought 6% of the land, employed Jews to farm it and the Arabs decided to go and massacre Jews. Would you consider this a reasonable approach in your neighborhood where let’s suppose the grocery stores are owned by people “other” than the majority of the residents of the neighborhood? Are you planning to go show up at their house with a mob of like-minded people with guns and knives to demand that they stop ‘cutting out the native population’. No, I think you would consider such a response to be crude, racist and barbarian, but here you choose to use a double standard to accept violence by Arabs against Jews to be legitimate.

        The Palestinian Arabs had representative organizations. They were not unified, but most certainly every single one of them rejected partition and most villages contributed men to the effort to ‘cleanse’ the land of Jews. This attempt to pretend that the Palestinians were somehow defenseless or leaderless is absolute historical revisionism.

        You have basically claimed that Palestinian Arabs are savages incapable of organizing, are blameless in trying to massacre Jews on the basis of economic reasons, and were in 1947 entirely passive and blameless actors. This is why you assign all blame to the Jews. Which one of us has the simplistic narrative?

        Reply to Comment
        • Tod

          “So, Jews bought 6% of the land, employed Jews to farm it and the Arabs decided to go and massacre Jews”: nice attempt. The aggression suffered by the local majority with the extraterritorialisation process was sided by many other forms of violence to which the local people tried to cope more than any other people would have done. Your grocery stores example does not deserve reply.
          I never said that I accept violence, I said that any people has the right to try to fight in order to try to avoid the stealing of its houses, lives, lands. Pals, indeed, did not really fight. That’s their main stain.
          That the Palestinian were leaderless and that the only leaders were mainly imposed but the British is an historical fact, not an opinion.
          “You have basically claimed that Palestinian Arabs are savages incapable of organizing”: toc-toc, go out from the ideologic bubble. They were not savages, they were simply colonized by a european power and mainly european immigrants that did not allow them to develop their own establishment and institutions.
          “This is why you assign all blame to the Jews”: Jews have the right to have their own land in Palestine. But they didn’t and don’t have the right to deny the unjustice suffered by the then local majority and to colonize, still today, their little piece of land remained.
          “Which one of us has the simplistic narrative?”: You, trust me.

          Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            My grocery store example doesn’t deserve a reply because you have none. You wish to grant the Arabs special leave to go out to kill Jews and then are incapable of explaining why the Arabs should have such a right. You don’t ‘accept violence’, you just happen to think it is legitimate to slaughter Jews on the basis of perceived slights which you normally couldn’t justify slaughtering innocent people for, hence your inability to respond to the grocery store example.

            There were 6,000+ Jews that died between 1947-1949, the vast majority during the civil war that took place before the Arab armies arrived. The idea that Palestinians did not fight and did not slaughter Jews is ridiculous. The idea that Arabs had no militias or organizations is historical BS. The British most certainly allowed the Arabs to organize and even encouraged them to do so. Yet, every Arab organizations, militia and group rejected the idea of compromise with the Jews and proceeded to declare total war on the Jews until they were defeated, destroyed, massacred and expelled.

            If Jews have the right to legally own land in Israel, then on what ridiculous basis do you justify the massacres that the Arabs carried out in 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1936? Are you just fundamentally incapable of placing any blame on the Arabs for behavior towards Jewish residents that is normally inexcusable? If Jews had the right to own land, and Arabs according to you legitimately have the capacity to decide to commit massacres against them and to kill, slaughter and expel them wholesale, either you believe that the majority has the right to kill the minority or you believe that the minority has no right to defend itself. Which one is it?

            Reply to Comment
          • tod

            Your “grocery store example doesn’t deserve a reply” simply because it is stupid. If you buy some grocery stores in a neighborhood you would not have any problem. If you try to exploit ottoman land tenure system to buy entire areas trying to extraterritorialize the native majority you can bet that you will have some problems. If then, with your colonial intention (in the sense that you arrive with the purpose of not providing any benefit to the indigenous majority), you are not finally able to buy more then the 6% of the total area and you claim to have the right to take the 58% of the land, you can be sure that you will face some forms of legitimate resistance.
            Again, your grocery store example does not deserve further attention.
            -
            “There were 6,000+ Jews that died between 1947-1949″:
            many more were the Pals killed (and expelled).
            “the vast majority during the civil war that took place before the Arab armies arrived”: yes, perhaps in the Haifa Oil Refinery massacre that took place on 30 December 1947 and in other events like that. Massacres occured from both side, from the native majority as well as from the side of the (mainly) new european immigrants.
            -
            “The idea that Palestinians did not fight and did not slaughter Jews is ridiculous”: a very tiny part of the local palestinian population took part in the 1948 war. Most of the rest of the population didn’t really fight, they just waited external help. I cannot blame them for this, but I am aware that any people in their situation would have bombed half of the planet as a retaliation (think about what would happened in the opposite situation for present day israelis)
            -
            “The British most certainly allowed the Arabs to organize and even encouraged them to do so”:
            False, they encourage them to form bodies in order to have leaders and institutions with whom to work.

            “If Jews have the right to legally own land in Israel, then on what ridiculous basis do you justify the massacres that the Arabs carried out in 1920, 1921, 1929 and 1936? ”
            I reverse your basic question. Why do you think that in the previous 500 years did happen a number cases of mass violence similar to the ones that happened in just 16 years in total (1920-1936)?
            I tell you why using the words of the Jewish virtual library:

            “Hebron had, until this time, been outwardly peaceful, although tension hid below the surface. The Sephardi Jewish community in Hebron had lived quietly with its Arab neighbors for centuries. The Sephardi Jews (Jews who were originally from Spain, North Africa and Arab countries) spoke Arabic and had a cultural connection to their Arab neighbors. In the mid-1800s, Ashkenazi (native European) Jews started moving to Hebron and, in 1925, the Slobodka Yeshiva, officially the Yeshiva of Hevron, Knesset Yisrael-Slobodka, was opened. Yeshiva students lived separately from the Sephardi community, and from the Arab population. Due to this isolation, the Arabs viewed them with suspicion and hatred, and identified them as Zionist immigrants.”
            -
            “If Jews had the right to own land”: right, but if you succeed to buy only the 6% then is hard to pretend the 58% of the total and expect that the local majority accept your imperialist imposition.

            “and Arabs according to you legitimately have the capacity to decide to commit massacres against them and to kill”: never said that, but it fits your ideology, i know.
            -
            the majority has the right to fight the minority if the latter tries to extraterritorialise it from its land and if it still continues to steal land with new settlements in the last piece of land remained at its disposal.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            What bleeping difference does it make if I buy one store or the whole block or half the city? Once I buy it I do with it whatever I want. That is how private property works. You still have no explanation why I as a private owner of the grocery store am obligated to provide any benefit to the people from whom I bought the store.

            ” you are not finally able to buy more then the 6% of the total area and you claim to have the right to take the 58% of the land”

            The claim was the right to not get massacred wholesale while continuing to live on that 6% of the land. This was something that the Arabs rejected and insisted on the whole ‘throw the Jews into the sea’ bit. At the point where the alternative is wholesale massacre any and all actions taken to defend the Jewish population are legitimate.

            “yes, perhaps in the Haifa Oil Refinery massacre that took place on 30 December 1947 and in other events like that.”

            Yes, in fact in many massacres, ambushes and murders on the roads, shelling in the cities, in the markets, etc, etc. It became nearly impossible for trucks to get through to Jewish areas which suggests an effort to starve the Jewish population to death. And this was in no way isolated. Every single road that passed by every single Arab village became dangerous. “a very tiny part of the local palestinian population took part in the 1948 war” my ass.

            “False, they encourage them to form bodies in order to have leaders and institutions with whom to work.”

            Wait, what? So, the British encouraged the Arabs to form political bodies? Didn’t you just admit that the British encouraged the Arabs to organize? How is my statement then even remotely false?

            “I reverse your basic question. Why do you think that in the previous 500 years did happen a number cases of mass violence similar to the ones that happened in just 16 years in total ”

            Are you suggesting that the Arabs had a legitimate reason to massacre Jewish civilians because they exercised restraint for the previous 500 years? That is certainly a fascinating argument. As for the argument that the Jews had lived separately from the Arabs, so slaughtering them seems reasonable.. uhmm.. Whaaaatt?? On the basis fo what crazy understanding of the legitimacy of violence is it justifiable to massacre civilians because they live apart?

            “the majority has the right to fight the minority if the latter tries to extraterritorialise it from its land and if it still continues to steal land with new settlements in the last piece of land remained at its disposal.”

            The majority has no right to decide to genocide the minority which in the case of the Arabs fighting Jews in 1947 was the explicitly stated objective. Whether Jews owned 6% or 2% is pretty irrelevant when the Arabs decided that they wish to kill all of you. It is no longer a property dispute, it is self-defense in the face of someone who EXPLICITLY STATES THEY WISH TO MASSACRE EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU. The interesting thing is that I rarely see anyone actually denying that the Arabs explicitly stated that their desire was to massacre the Jews and expel them wholesale. This is because this part is not actually in any dispute. It is just that some people seem to think this was either “justifiable” or “understandable”, where the difference is between slim and none since you reject the legitimacy of Jews trying to defend themselves in the process. The argument appears to be – I understand the Arabs reason for wishing to kill all the Jews and I don’t think it was legitimate but the Jews really shouldn’t have defended themselves. Seriously?

            Reply to Comment
        • carl

          The Palestinian Arabs… were not unified, but most certainly every single one of them rejected partition and most villages contributed men to the effort to ‘cleanse’ the land of Jews.
          actually the number of pals in the jaish al inqad and the army of the holy war was of few hundreds. the fact that ‘most villages contributed men to the effort’ is a lie. and yes, is somebody would have asked them, “most certainly every single one of them” would have rejected the partition. rightly so from their perspective and from the one of any other people of the world in their position.

          Reply to Comment
    10. Ken Kelso

      The 48 war was the was the result of the Palestinians together with their Arab allies to perform ethnic cleansing and a Nakba on the Jews and their failure to complete it.

      Every single Jew in the parts of the Mandate seized by the Arabs was expelled from their homes. No exceptions. They even dynamited the entire ancient Jewish quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem in an attempt to wipe out the history of Jewish residence there. They also made it illegal for a Jew to live in the areas of the former Mandate that they controlled, including East Jerusalem, West Bank, Gaza and Jordan.

      850,000 Jews were also forced from the Arab countries.

      After the 5 Arab armies attacked Israel in 48,
      Haj Amin Al Husseini stated:
      I declare a holy war, my muslim brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!
      The Arab League Secretary, General Azzam Pasha declared “a holy war. He said, “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.

      Reply to Comment
      • David T.

        “The 48 war was the was the result of the Palestinians together with their Arab allies to perform ethnic cleansing and a Nakba on the Jews and their failure to complete it.”

        Really? Who needed a war to acquire a territory for a state? And who needed to expell others to become a majority in this state? I’m sure you can explain, why Jews began in April 1948 to capture areas and cities outside partition borders and why the Haganah reported that between December 1947 and June 1948 73% of the refugees were created through direct actions by Jews.

        Reply to Comment
        • carl

          The point is another one. The war of aggression started in 1907, with Arthur Ruppin and the the VII Zionist congress. To focus on 1948 is a shortcut needed by the aggressor.

          Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            Oh, it is a war of aggression to legally purchase land according to all the laws under the legal Turkish sovereign of the territory? That is fascinating. I bet when somebody that doesn’t look like you purchases a house in your neighborhood you are the first to gather a mob to burn them because they are opening up a war of aggression against your neighborhood.

            Reply to Comment
          • carl

            Mr Cheater, the problem was not to buy land but instead the attempt to exclude sine die its indigenous population from it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn9

            It is a war of aggression to exclude someone from land that I have purchased? Interesting view of private property you have.

            Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          >Really? Who needed a war to acquire a territory for a state?

          Both sides, as a matter of fact. Arabs wanted Judenfrei land while Jews had to ensure that Arabs can’t come and slaughter them easily.

          >And who needed to expell others to become a majority in this state?

          The need for Jewish state had came only after Arabs had denied any possibility for peaceful coexistance.

          >I’m sure you can explain, why Jews began in April 1948 to capture areas and cities outside partition borders and why the Haganah reported that between December 1947 and June 1948 73% of the refugees were created through direct actions by Jews.

          Yes. Because Arabs declared war.

          Reply to Comment
          • David T.

            >Both sides, as a matter of fact. Arabs wanted Judenfrei land while Jews had to ensure that Arabs can’t come and slaughter them easily.

            The need for Jewish state had came only after Arabs had denied any possibility for peaceful coexistance.Yes. Because Arabs declared war.<

            Oh, so that's your excuse for the expulsion of innocents. After all Plan Daleth states that the unarmed population should be expelled: "armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled."

            And the Arab armies declared that they want to intervene to stop the seperatists from conquering Palestine through war and commiting even more expulsions and massacres.

            I find it quite telling that you justify crimes against innocents by simply claiming that they had to committed to prevent bigger crimes against innocents. What is your attitude towards terrorism?

            Reply to Comment
    11. Click here to load previous comments

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel