Irondome Defunding

[Bill the Cat]

and yet they did. From the 30s until they were absorbed as part of the IDF. No wonder the IDF so easily commits atrocities - they were formed partly from a vile terrorist group.

They were not in any way part of the foundation of Israel. They acted on their own accord to terrorize the British - the ones who wanted to establish the Nation of Israel in the first place. And when they were assumed into the IDF, they were forbidden from terrorist activities. And when they continued, it was in contradiction to the government of Israel and they were expelled from the IDF.

That tried to ally with Germany Italy and Japan against Britain. IIRC nothing ever came of it as they continued their zionist terrorism. Ironic, ain't it?

In opposition to the orders of the government. Facts hurt, don't they?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So you are denying the prior events I cited occurred? Or that they weren't an act of war?

I am not denying events but I am pointing out that neither side was guiltless. The timeline you provided in your earlier reply begins with the feyadeen attacks on Israel in 1955 but fails to mention Israel’s Gaza raid. Shlaim notes in Israel and Palestine :Reappraisals, Revisions Refutations that:

“Morris agrees with Ya’ari that the Gaza raid marked a watershed in Egypt’s relations with the Palestinian fedayeen or ‘self-sacrificers’. Before the raid, Egyptian policy, with some minor exceptions, had been to oppose and restrict infiltration: after the raid, while continuing to oppose private initiatives, the Egyptian authorities organised fedayeen units within the regular army and employed them as an official instrument of warfare against Israel. Morris is more critical than Ya’ari of the Egyptian authorities, especially for sending fedayeen squads into Israel in 1954 to gather military intelligence or commit acts of sabotage, but both men recognise that Israel’s policy of reprisals played a major part in escalating the border war with Egypt. [see pp 185, 186]

Furthermore despite Israel’s denial of any cross border infiltration into the West Bank or Gaza between 1949 and 1956 [any such movement being a violation of the armistice agreements] the memoirs of various Israeli soldiers of this period attest otherwise and note that the IDF routinely mounted training sorties and patrols across the armistice lines. Har-Zion described one such training sortie north of the Jerusalem corridor in his memoirs Pirkei Yoman and Mordechai Gur, who between 194951 commanded a Nahal company, recalls in Peluga Dalet to routine crossborder patrols. After he became commander of a paratroop battalion Gur continued to regularly send his men across the border on training patrols. [see Benny Morris, Israel’s Border Wars, 1949-1956: Arab Infiltration, Israeli Retaliation, and the Countdown to the Suez War, Clarendon Press, 1993. P. 240].

And as also noted by Shlaim [ibid] Morris comes to the conclusion that “infiltration into Israel was a direct consequence of the displacement and dispossession of over 700,000 Palestinians in the course of the Palestine War, and that the motives behind it were largely economic and social rather than political. Many of the infiltrators were Palestinian refugees whose reasons for crossing the border included looking for relatives, returning to their homes, recovering possessions, tending their fields, harvesting and, occasionally, exacting revenge. Some of the infiltrators were thieves and smugglers; some were involved in the hashish convoys; others were nomadic Bedouins, more accustomed to grazing rights than to state borders. There were acts of terror and politically motivated raids, such as those organised by the ex-Mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, and financed by Saudi Arabia, but they did not amount to very much. In the period 1949-56 as a whole, 90 per cent or more of all infiltrations, in Morris’s estimate, were motivated by economic and social concerns." [p.85-86]

Morris re-emphasises his points in The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948. 2^nd Edition. Eds Eugene L Rogan & Avi Shlaim, 2007. CUP. “Above all, let me reiterate, the refugee problem was caused by attacks by Jewish forces on Arab villages and towns and by the inhabitants’ fear of such attacks, compounded by expulsions, atrocities, and rumors of atrocities – and by the crucial Israeli Cabinet decision in June 1948 to bar a refugee return.” [p.38]

It was meant to show the absurdity of your claim. The International Community granted Israel their land.

The actual history is not quite as straightforward as that.

They provide the context you asked for. If you don't want context, don't ask.

I am merely pointing out that your link and its citations all lean to justifying and/or excusing Israel’s behaviour. If I cited Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, or any Palestinian group I suspect you would contend that I was citing sources with a bias.

A well reasoned one too. Again, not my problem that you don't like others' opinion here.

That is unsurprising because it confirms your own views I wonder if you have accepted the myth concerning the foundation of the state of Israel

He has accused them of genocide, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing, has he not?

With some justification, as has Illan Pappe and other Israeli historians who have been severely critical. The present situation in Israel has some of the hallmarks of an apartheid state, and the wall that Israel has built for itself has a distinct whiff of the ghetto mentality. As to the genocide charge, I do not hold with some of the language that has been employed but [as Illan Pappe notes] “Ethnic cleansing is not genocide, but it does carry with it atrocious acts of mass killing and butchering. Thousands of Palestinians were killed ruthlessly and savagely by Israeli troops of all backgrounds, ranks and ages. None of these Israelis was ever tried for war crimes, in spite of the overwhelming evidence. [...]The Armenians learned this in the case of their genocide: in 1915, the Ottoman government embarked on a systematic decimation of the Armenian people. An estimated one million perished by 1918, but no individual or group of individuals has been brought to trial” [see Pappe The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, 2006, One World Oxford. chapter 1]

Morris also makes the point in The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948. 2^nd Edition. Eds Eugene L Rogan & Avi Shlaim, 2007. CUP. “Above all, let me reiterate, the refugee problem was caused by attacks by Jewish forces on Arab villages and towns and by the inhabitants’ fear of such attacks, compounded by expulsions, atrocities, and rumors of atrocities – and by the crucial Israeli Cabinet decision in June 1948 to bar a refugee return.” [p.38]

Peaceful? No. Necessities of a defensive war? Pretty much, yeah. The Arabs never accepted the Jewish nation's existence, and many still don't.

]The terrorist activities to which I was alluding occurred during the Mandate. Examples being, the King David Hotel which was bombed in 1946. Lord Moyne who was assassinated in 1944, the same year Irgun bombed various government offices and police stations in Jerusalem, Haifa, Jaffa, and Tel Aviv; and Lehi murdered two British constables and one Jewish police officer.

The Egyptians tried every trick in the book to destroy the Jewish state. Israel has been defending itself since day

You really have accepted much of the official history, haven't you?

A document released in 2015 excerpted the diary of Nehemiah Argov, Ben-Gurion’s military secretary. On October 18, 1954, he wrote, “We set up a unit…that could have been a terror unit and a commando unit behind enemy lines, in the deepest heart of enemy [territory], and who knows what crucial and decisive missions those guys could have fulfilled during an emergency.” Argov said Lavon made a mistake by having the operatives “attack some British objectives to create the impression that the Muslim Brotherhood [was responsible].” Lavon was responsible for that.

Is there anything apart from the diary entry?

Mistakes are made in war. Some BAD.

The only problem with your statement being that the USA was not at war.

"apartheid", "ethnic cleansing"... you tell me...

Valid criticisms given the history of Israel since 1948 and the earlier attitudes of some of those who would later go on to become its leading statesmen.

[Gondwanaland]

Yeah it really is. The article I cited earlier shows just how easy it is. The problem is that almost NONE want it.



No it isn't. The PA is in charge of that land and they are the ones who authorize land use.

False. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2...pen-air-prison

Apart from that, Palestinians are barred from entering or using land (even if it’s theirs) within the so-called Area C – a territory outlined in the Oslo Accords where most illegal Israeli settlements are located and which constitutes about 61 percent of the West Bank.






For example, 270 of the entire 291 hectares that belong to the Palestinian village of Wadi Fukin near Bethlehem are designated as Area C. Palestinians who live there rely almost entirely on agriculture for their livelihood and struggle on a daily basis to access their lands. In fact, they have to get an Israeli permit to go work their land.

Plenty more in the link about Israel's iron fist in the area.

You mean took back.

No, I mean stole. As in, took what was not theirs.

Neither are actually happening, so your histrionics aren't worth the pixels they are displayed on.

Oh so now you are denying the occupation of Palestine by Israel as well? So you're a straight up loon.

Horse crap. I showed the 3 major components of Apartheid and explained how Israel was doing none of those. You hand waved them away and tried to use 2 communists who distort what is going on in Israel because they are anti-Zionist communists..

No, you explained no such thing.

Another hand wave. BDS is anti-Semitic and fails the 3 D's for anti-Semitism pretty blatantly.




Someone is ignorant of the 3 D's test...

Yawn.

[Gondwanaland]

They were not in any way part of the foundation of Israel.

Horse crap. They were vital to the foundation of Israel. Without them and their terrorism, Britain would likely have never considered it.

They acted on their own accord to terrorize the British - the ones who wanted to establish the Nation of Israel in the first place. And when they were assumed into the IDF, they were forbidden from terrorist activities. And when they continued, it was in contradiction to the government of Israel and they were expelled from the IDF.

The IDF literally absorbed terrorists upon formation. There's no getting around that.

In opposition to the orders of the government. Facts hurt, don't they?

Er, no, there were no such 'orders of the government'.

[Bill the Cat]

I am not denying events but I am pointing out that neither side was guiltless.

But you basically blamed Israel for starting the war.

Really? Israel made the first offensive move

The timeline you provided in your earlier reply begins with the feyadeen attacks on Israel in 1955 but fails to mention Israel’s Gaza raid. Shlaim notes in Israel and Palestine :Reappraisals, Revisions Refutations that:

“Morris agrees with Ya’ari that the Gaza raid marked a watershed in Egypt’s relations with the Palestinian fedayeen or ‘self-sacrificers’. Before the raid, Egyptian policy, with some minor exceptions, had been to oppose and restrict infiltration: after the raid, while continuing to oppose private initiatives, the Egyptian authorities organised fedayeen units within the regular army and employed them as an official instrument of warfare against Israel. Morris is more critical than Ya’ari of the Egyptian authorities, especially for sending fedayeen squads into Israel in 1954 to gather military intelligence or commit acts of sabotage, but both men recognise that Israel’s policy of reprisals played a major part in escalating the border war with Egypt. [see pp 185, 186]

Furthermore despite Israel’s denial of any cross border infiltration into the West Bank or Gaza between 1949 and 1956 [any such movement being a violation of the armistice agreements] the memoirs of various Israeli soldiers of this period attest otherwise and note that the IDF routinely mounted training sorties and patrols across the armistice lines. Har-Zion described one such training sortie north of the Jerusalem corridor in his memoirs Pirkei Yoman and Mordechai Gur, who between 194951 commanded a Nahal company, recalls in Peluga Dalet to routine crossborder patrols. After he became commander of a paratroop battalion Gur continued to regularly send his men across the border on training patrols. [see Benny Morris, Israel’s Border Wars, 1949-1956: Arab Infiltration, Israeli Retaliation, and the Countdown to the Suez War, Clarendon Press, 1993. P. 240].

And as also noted by Shlaim [ibid] Morris comes to the conclusion that “infiltration into Israel was a direct consequence of the displacement and dispossession of over 700,000 Palestinians in the course of the Palestine War, and that the motives behind it were largely economic and social rather than political. Many of the infiltrators were Palestinian refugees whose reasons for crossing the border included looking for relatives, returning to their homes, recovering possessions, tending their fields, harvesting and, occasionally, exacting revenge. Some of the infiltrators were thieves and smugglers; some were involved in the hashish convoys; others were nomadic Bedouins, more accustomed to grazing rights than to state borders. There were acts of terror and politically motivated raids, such as those organised by the ex-Mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, and financed by Saudi Arabia, but they did not amount to very much. In the period 1949-56 as a whole, 90 per cent or more of all infiltrations, in Morris’s estimate, were motivated by economic and social concerns." [p.85-86]

Morris re-emphasises his points in The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948. 2^nd Edition. Eds Eugene L Rogan & Avi Shlaim, 2007. CUP. “Above all, let me reiterate, the refugee problem was caused by attacks by Jewish forces on Arab villages and towns and by the inhabitants’ fear of such attacks, compounded by expulsions, atrocities, and rumors of atrocities – and by the crucial Israeli Cabinet decision in June 1948 to bar a refugee return.” [p.38]

As Jordan’s King Hussein admitted before the United Nations General Assembly shortly after the war, "Today’s war is not a new war but part of the old war," which he said would continue until Arab demands were met (Associated Press, Lighting Out of Israel, 156).

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Egypt blockaded the Suez Canal and the Straits of Tiran to shipping destined for Israel. These restrictions not only harmed the nascent Jewish state, but were considered a violation of the 1949 armistice resolution signed by Egypt and Israel, the Constantinople Convention of 1888, Security Council Resolution 95, and, in the words of historian Howard Sachar, "international legal precedents for gulfs and bays flanked by the territories of more than one littoral state" (A History of Israel, 456).

Assigning "who started it" is foolish. As you said, both sides were to blame.

The actual history is not quite as straightforward as that.

Indeed. Arabs have been trying to eject Jews from the Middle East for longer than the Balfour Declaration. Who is the aggressor will always depend on who is telling the story.

I am merely pointing out that your link and its citations all lean to justifying and/or excusing Israel’s behaviour. If I cited Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, or any Palestinian group I suspect you would contend that I was citing sources with a bias.

Not what I was talking about. The link gave the statements from Levy with footnotes to where they came from. They do not justify anything except the context of Levy's words.

That is unsurprising because it confirms your own views I wonder if you have accepted the myth concerning the foundation of the state of Israel

Myth? Israel isn't really a nation???

With some justification, as has Illan Pappe and other Israeli historians who have been severely critical. The present situation in Israel has some of the hallmarks of an apartheid state, and the wall that Israel has built for itself has a distinct whiff of the ghetto mentality. As to the genocide charge, I do not hold with some of the language that has been employed but [as Illan Pappe notes] “Ethnic cleansing is not genocide, but it does carry with it atrocious acts of mass killing and butchering. Thousands of Palestinians were killed ruthlessly and savagely by Israeli troops of all backgrounds, ranks and ages. None of these Israelis was ever tried for war crimes, in spite of the overwhelming evidence. [...]The Armenians learned this in the case of their genocide: in 1915, the Ottoman government embarked on a systematic decimation of the Armenian people. An estimated one million perished by 1918, but no individual or group of individuals has been brought to trial” [see Pappe The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, 2006, One World Oxford. chapter 1]

Morris also makes the point in The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948. 2^nd Edition. Eds Eugene L Rogan & Avi Shlaim, 2007. CUP. “Above all, let me reiterate, the refugee problem was caused by attacks by Jewish forces on Arab villages and towns and by the inhabitants’ fear of such attacks, compounded by expulsions, atrocities, and rumors of atrocities – and by the crucial Israeli Cabinet decision in June 1948 to bar a refugee return.” [p.38]

That's like grabbing a book in the middle and ignoring all of the prior set-up. This is an ages old conflict that neither side can be said to have "started it".

]The terrorist activities to which I was alluding occurred during the Mandate. Examples being, the King David Hotel which was bombed in 1946. Lord Moyne who was assassinated in 1944, the same year Irgun bombed various government offices and police stations in Jerusalem, Haifa, Jaffa, and Tel Aviv; and Lehi murdered two British constables and one Jewish police officer.

Again, Lehi, Irgun, and other militant groups were independent militias.

You really have accepted much of the official history, haven't you?

I accept the basics. I'm not foolish enough to think the early Jews were saints or that the Palestinians were simple farmers minding their own business. But when one side's leadership's sole declared intent is the entire annihilation of the other nation at any cost, I think we can see who the "good guys" really are.

Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad declared on May 20, 1967: "I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."

Is there anything apart from the diary entry?

Are you doubting its veracity?

The only problem with your statement being that the USA was not at war.

Israel was, and the US ship was near where other warring ships were supposed to be and doing things to support the Israeli war effort.

Valid criticisms given the history of Israel since 1948 and the earlier attitudes of some of those who would later go on to become its leading statesmen.

Not valid criticisms. It severely minimizes the atrocities of the PA against Israeli and Palestinian civilians.

[Bill the Cat]

False. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2...pen-air-prison

Plenty more in the link about Israel's iron fist in the area.

Al Jazeera? And you chide ME for posting pro-Israel sites...

No, I mean stole. As in, took what was not theirs.

It belonged to them for thousands of years before the Muslims stole it first.

Oh so now you are denying the occupation of Palestine by Israel as well? So you're a straight up loon.

No. I am saying it was a legal defensive conquest according to International Law. It's no more an occupation than the US is an occupation of Native American lands.

No, you explained no such thing.

Yes I did. Never pegged you for a liar either...

Yawn.

You're one of those white guys who likes to tell Blacks what is racist and what isn't, aren't you?

[Bill the Cat]

Horse crap. They were vital to the foundation of Israel. Without them and their terrorism, Britain would likely have never considered it.

Utterly false. The Balfour Declaration precedes their organizing by decades.

The IDF literally absorbed terrorists upon formation. There's no getting around that.

And the US Army absorbed Colonial terrorist cells upon formation. And set about declaring rules for further engagement. Same basic process.

Er, no, there were no such 'orders of the government'.

Ben-Gurion ordered them to cease terrorist activities like arms smuggling. They disobeyed. They were dismissed from the IDF.

[Gondwanaland]

Al Jazeera? And you chide ME for posting pro-Israel sites...

I mean, you posted straight up zionist propaganda. So what's the problem with me using a middle-eastern news source? You have no ground to stand on.

It belonged to them for thousands of years before the Muslims stole it first.

Ah and now we get to the heart of things. You're an extreme zionist who thinks that someone having land thousands of years ago entitles them to it now.

I was hoping you'd lift the veil there and show those true colors.

Now, when will you be giving up your land and donating it to your local Native American/Indigenous tribe?

No. I am saying it was a legal defensive conquest according to International Law. It's no more an occupation than the US is an occupation of Native American lands.

Last I checked the US does not have hard or roaming checkpoints in Native American lands where they have to show their papers to get past and travel through their lands..... So, no, it is far more of an occupation.

There was nothing legal about it.

Yes I did. Never pegged you for a liar either...




You're one of those white guys who likes to tell Blacks what is racist and what isn't, aren't you?

Ah, so now You're going to break forum rules like H_A and start calling me a liar, eh?

No, I'm Indian bud.

[Bill the Cat]

I mean, you posted straight up zionist propaganda. So what's the problem with me using a middle-eastern news source? You have no ground to stand on.

So you dismissed my source based solely on your claim of bias, which gave me license to dismiss yours on the same ground. Isn't the genetic fallacy fun?

Ah and now we get to the heart of things. You're an extreme zionist who thinks that someone having land thousands of years ago entitles them to it now.

Nope. Just pointing out the facts. And the fact is the United Nations recognized Israel as a distinct nation in 1948. Therefore they are a distinct nation and are entitled to their sovereignty and national protection. And at no point since has the UN revoked that recognition. And as far as the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights, Israel legally annexed those territories in a defensive war, which was not and is not illegal according to the United Nations.

I was hoping you'd lift the veil there and show those true colors.

Take your whining up with the UN. They made the rules of international conflict.

Now, when will you be giving up your land and donating it to your local Native American/Indigenous tribe?

I'm part Native American.

Last I checked the US does not have hard or roaming checkpoints in Native American lands where they have to show their papers to get past and travel through their lands..... So, no, it is far more of an occupation.

Last I checked, the Native reservations aren't regularly lobbing rockets at neighboring cities, strapping nail filled bombs to themselves and blowing up packed nightclubs, or using hospitals, schools, and children as human shields while firing those rockets, etc...

There was nothing legal about it.

Israel took control of the West Bank as a result of a defensive war. The language of "occupation" has allowed Palestinian spokesmen to obfuscate this history. By repeatedly pointing to "occupation," they manage to reverse the causality of the conflict, especially in front of Western audiences. Thus, the current territorial dispute is allegedly the result of an Israeli decision "to occupy," rather than a result of a war imposed on Israel by a coalition of Arab states in 1967. Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title."
- Occupied Territories" to "Disputed Territories" by Dore Gold, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, January 16, 2002.

Ah, so now You're going to break forum rules like H_A and start calling me a liar, eh?

As Aslan said... "Don't cite the dark magic to me, witch.... I was there when it was written"

Source: https://theologyweb.com/campus/help#theologywebfaq/theologywebdecorum/lying

We consider a lie to be a poster knowingly and willfully making a statement they know to be untrue. If you call someone a liar you need to substantiate it. In order to substantiate an accusation of lying, it must be shown that the poster in question is stating something they know to be untrue. Opinions or facts that are in dispute should never be referred to as lies. Someone's faith or beliefs should also never be referred to as lying. We will not allow repeated accusations of lying. We will moderate any tossing out the term "liar" - and similar charges - when it is used in place of a response or as a mere insult to denigrate the other person, as judged by the moderators. We will also not allow repeated posts calling someone a liar, accusing them of lying, or claiming their post is a lie. If you wish to challenge the truth of someone's statement, then do so ONLY ONCE in the thread, and substantiate your claim IN THE SAME POST. Further discussion of the matter will only be allowed in the Padded Room.

© Copyright Original Source

I substantiated my claim. I didn't repeat the accusation. Therefore, I didn't break the rule.

No, I'm Indian bud.

Then why are you acting like someone who gets to tell another race what is racist against them?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

But you basically blamed Israel for starting the war.

Israel was the first to launch a pre-emptive air strike on its adversary. That escalated the situation from blockades, raids [and at least one serious encounter with Jordanian troops] into a full scale war.

As Jordan’s King Hussein admitted before the United Nations General Assembly shortly after the war, "Today’s war is not a new war but part of the old war," which he said would continue until Arab demands were met (Associated Press, Lighting Out of Israel, 156).

I do think you need to find something a little more “in depth” than this site http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/causes.asp It is giving you very little detailed information on this very complex historical issue

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Egypt blockaded the Suez Canal and the Straits of Tiran to shipping destined for Israel.

Not in the 1940s.

These restrictions not only harmed the nascent Jewish state, but were considered a violation of the 1949 armistice resolution signed by Egypt and Israel, the Constantinople Convention of 1888, Security Council Resolution 95, and, in the words of historian Howard Sachar, "international legal precedents for gulfs and bays flanked by the territories of more than one littoral state" (A History of Israel, 456).

Oh please do read up on Israel’s actions prior to 1967. As has been noted by various memoirs from Israeli military, Israel also ignored the armistice. It also engaged in illegal raids and black ops. Not to mention rolling up to destroy the homes of villagers it deemed a principal staging ground for terrorists as it did in November 1966 in the village of al-Samu. The Jordanian Hittin Infantry Brigade was en route to Yata another Hebron village and was caught in an Israeli ambush. What Israel had assumed would be a “swift and surgical strike” devolved into a pitched battle which led to the death of the Israeli battalion commander Col. Yoav Shaham.

The result of that fiasco left Israel’s leaders stunned and America somewhat annoyed at what it regarded as Israel’s recklessness and its willingness to undermine the only Arab leader with whom it a modus vivendi. An Arab leader who was pro-West and moderate and struggling against other Arab radicals.

Assigning "who started it" is foolish. As you said, both sides were to blame.

Israel escalated the violence. They could have arranged a meeting via the UN and discussed it all around a table. The earlier al-Samu incident led to unanimous UN censure condemning Israel for its violation of the UN Charter and the General Armistice Agreement between itself and Jordan

Indeed. Arabs have been trying to eject Jews from the Middle East for longer than the Balfour Declaration.

Once again that is an overstatement and a generalisation. By the 1850s there were some 10,000 emigré Jews living in Palestine. From 1882 to 1903 following Russian pogroms a further 25,000 more moved to Palestine. Villages, schools and even a later city [Tel Aviv] were created.

During WW1 the Turkish government– given that this area was under Turkish suzerainty - did regard the Jews with hostility [you might be advised not to regard a Turk as an Arab or an Arab as a Turk]!

In an attempt to quell both Jewish and Arab national sentiments several Arab leaders were hanged, and eighteen thousand Jews were expelled or fled from Palestine to Alexandria in Egypt. In addition, Jews known to have been active in Zionist circles, including Arthur Ruppin, were expelled from the country.

In the first decades of the twentieth century and during WW1 British Imperialism in the Middle East was [to put it politely] "complicated". In 1915 the British had promised the Sharif of Mecca that it would support an independent Arab kingdom under his rule in return for help in fighting the Turks and the Sharif [as it transpired rather naively] assumed that the promise included Palestine. A year later in 1916 the British and French secretly carved up the region between them in the Sykes-Picot agreement. In 1917 the British issued the Balfour Declaration.

The British effectively promised all things to everyone and of course could not [nor indeed ever had any intention of] actually delivering on those promises. Unsurprisingly this perfidy left Britain’s reputation tarnished among both Arabs and Jews for ensuing decades..
The Arab-Israeli conflict effectively developed from the clash of two national movements, Palestinian and Jewish. Here were two separate groups with distinct ethnic communities but only one piece of land. It therefore appears that from the outset, nationalism on both sides, has been at the heart of the conflict.

Not what I was talking about. The link gave the statements from Levy with footnotes to where they came from. They do not justify anything except the context of Levy's words.

And I find the preponderance of CAMERA interesting. I would also note that the occupied territories are not part of Israel therefore the same laws do not apply.

Myth? Israel isn't really a nation???

The myth of the David Israel and the Goliath Arabs.

That's like grabbing a book in the middle and ignoring all of the prior set-up. This is an ages old conflict that neither side can be said to have "started it".

Looking at the history this conflict dates back certainly to the first decades of the twentieth century.

Again, Lehi, Irgun, and other militant groups were independent militias.

That does not remove the taint that they used terrorist tactics. How did the assassination of Count Bernadotte by the Stern Gang in September 1948 advance the fledgling nation’s cause? Several individuals from these various militia/terrorist groups [take your choice] would go on to have senior positions in future Israeli governments

I accept the basics. I'm not foolish enough to think the early Jews were saints or that the Palestinians were simple farmers minding their own business. But when one side's leadership's sole declared intent is the entire annihilation of the other nation at any cost, I think we can see who the "good guys" really are.

Once again your bias is on display. There are no goodies and baddies in this. The UN resolution of November 1947 was for the partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab and this resolution provided an international charter of legitimacy for the Jewish state. Many Arabs [given that the Arabic world had not been responsible for the barbaric treatment of Jews in Christian Europe] felt that the gifting of part of Palestine to the Jews was illegal. However, a resolution passed by a large majority in the UN cannot be illegal. It may be unjust but injustice and illegality are not the same thing and what may be legal is not necessarily just. Two years later in 1949 Israel concluded an armistice with its Arab neighbours, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon and these remain the only internationally recognised borders Israel has ever had.

Moreover what is often ignored or forgotten [or not known] is that within Israel from its inception was an ideological divide between activists and moderates. The activists were convinced that the Arabs were only interested in Israel’s destruction and only understood the language of force. They believed that neither the UN nor any of the great powers could be relied upon to guarantee Israel its security and the only way for the country to survive was by repeated demonstrations of its military power. Moderates in Israeli government and politics were more sensitive to the feelings of their Arab neighbours and wanted to create a climate that would favour the possibilities of peaceful co-existence in the Middle East. Their fear [historically justified] was that frequent and excessive force would simply inflame Arab hatred and delay any prospect of peace. In the first decades of its existence Israel was torn between these two factions in its politics.

After 1967 Israel had captured the Sinai peninsula from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria and the West Bank from Jordan. The end of that war only intensified the conflict between Israel and its neighbours. Many in the Arab world viewed it as a wilful act of aggression by Israel with a secret agenda of territorial expansion and, unsurprisingly, those Arab states who had lost land wanted it back.

Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad declared on May 20, 1967: "I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."

It is usually forgotten that Israel enjoyed a year and a half of peaceful relations with Syria after the conclusion of the armistice agreement in July 1949 and that the first military clash, in the spring of 1951, was a Syrian response to an Israeli attempt to change the status quo in the border area. Nor is it widely known that in the early 1950s serious, if ultimately unsuccessful, negotiations took place between Israel and Syria in an attempt to resolve peacefully the differences between their two nations.

Again I urge you to do some serious reading on this very complex topic and not rely on somewhat “schoolboyish” websites.

Are you doubting its veracity?

I am asking for a corroborative extraneous cross reference.

Israel was, and the US ship was near where other warring ships were supposed to be and doing things to support the Israeli war effort.

The USS Liberty was doing nothing to “support the Israeli war effort” it was there in its capacity as a spy ship and was operating at the behest of the NSA. .

Not valid criticisms. It severely minimizes the atrocities of the PA against Israeli and Palestinian civilians.

The Palestinians have nothing like the military capability of Israel, and as for Hamas, Israel helped to foster and encourage that organisation in its attempts to undermine and destroy Fatah.

Nor is every Palestinian man, woman, and child a violent Muslim intent on murdering Israelis. Most [like much of the rest of the world] would just like to live in their own homes and raise their families in peace.

The demographics of Israel have also shifted in the past twenty-five years or so with more Jews from the former Eastern bloc moving to Israel and/or holding Israeli passports [including various oligarchs and other assorted gangsters] and many of these new émigrés hold rather extreme nationalist views. This influx of new voters has, unsurprisingly, had an effect on Israeli politics.

I am not condoning some of the behaviours of either side in the last 40 years or so but I do consider the attempt to whitewash and/or excuse Israeli/IDF behaviour on every single occasion remarkably partisan and very hypocritical.

[rogue06]

48unC-H0f3v1181tc35.jpg

[tabibito]

I am not condoning some of the behaviours of either side in the last 40 years or so but I do consider the attempt to whitewash and/or excuse Israeli/IDF behaviour on every single occasion remarkably partisan and very hypocritical.

More accurately

the attempt to whitewash and/or excuse Israeli/IDF/Palestinian behaviour on every single occasion

Partisanship is equally evident in both sides of the debate.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

More accurately

the attempt to whitewash and/or excuse Israeli/IDF/Palestinian behaviour on every single occasion

Partisanship is equally evident in both sides of the debate.

Undoubtedly there are those who see their side as the goody. That is self evident.

What should be of concern is the evidence that there are those who shout down any criticism of the Israeli state and its policies as anti-Semitism or the actions/words of self-loathing/hating Jews.

In this complex situation both sides have valid grievances and both sides have committed atrocities. However, looking back the behaviours and attitudes of the Israelis [or Jewish insurgents prior to 1948] there was a clear understanding [at least on the part of Ben-Gurion] as to the need to remove the Arabs. This article from May this year with the opening of parts of the Ben Gurion archive is revealing.

https://theworldnews.net/il-news/ben...-move-eastward
Since Ben-Gurion penned the list in 1949, it remained hidden in his diary. Only recently, 72 years after it was composed and 48 years after the death of its author, was it released for publication. The Akevot Institute for Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Research, which has been fighting to declassify documents kept in government archives, is responsible for the development. Akevot requested that the Ben-Gurion Research Institute, which owns the diary, to lift the censorship over broad swaths of the journal, as there is no discernable reason for hiding them from public scrutiny in 2021.

'Things are not right in the Negev. Again, our soldiers (Moroccans) caught two young Arab women, and raped and killed them'

After checking with the Israel State Archives, to which the Ben-Gurion Research Institute is subordinate, the latter acceded to the request and lifted the censorship over some of the documents. In the first phase, parts of the diary covering 1948 through 1953 that had been redacted or blacked out were restored.

Perusing the uncensored version does not reveal any state secrets, but does offer the reader a better understanding of various historical events, not to mention the way the author thought and felt about them.

On September 26, 1948, Ben-Gurion wrote about Arab refugees who fled or were expelled from their homes during Israel’s War of Independence. Ben-Gurion recounts a conversation he had with Yosef Weitz, the director of the Land and Afforestation Department at the Jewish National Fund. The two, it seems, were concerned about these refugees’ attempts to return to their homes in Israel.

Handwritten pages from David Ben-Gurion's diaryCredit: Israel State Archives

“There are cases of refugees from Ramle and Lod who reached Gaza through Ramallah, believing that from Gaza it will be easier to return to Ramle or Lod. What should we do?” says the diary, which does not specify whether it is quoting Weitz or expressing Ben-Gurion’s thoughts.

The answer comes in the second half of the sentence: “We have to ‘pester’ them relentlessly…We need to pester and motivate the refugees in the south to move eastward as well, since they won’t go towards the sea and Egypt won’t let them in,” he wrote of pushing these Palestinians toward Jordan. “Who will take care of this pestering?” wonders Ben-Gurion in his diary, answering: “Shiloah, with the help of Weitz’s committee.”

Reuven Shiloah was a leader in the intelligence community and the first director of Mossad. The committee he refers to is the Transfer Committee, which was established in the midst of the war in order to examine government policies regarding Arab refugees, or, more precisely, ways of encouraging them to leave the country.

On April 2, 1950, Ben-Gurion notes in his diary that “things are not right in the Negev,” detailing the murder and rape of Arab women by Israeli soldiers and reprisals by the Egyptian army. “Again, our soldiers (Moroccans) caught two young Arab women, and raped and killed them. In retaliation, the Egyptians laid a mine and an ambush, killing five people – three soldiers and two civilians.”

Ben-Gurion uses the moniker “a typical Nazi” to refer to Pinchas Rosen, Israel’s first justice minister

That article also reveals that present-day Israeli resentment at having its policies compared to the Nazis did not apply to David Ben Gurion who thought nothing of calling Israel's first justice minister "a typical Nazi" apparently because Rosen was of German descent..

[rogue06]

Undoubtedly there are those who see their side as the goody. That is self evident.

What should be of concern is the evidence that there are those who shout down any criticism of the Israeli state and its policies as anti-Semitism or the actions/words of self-loathing/hating Jews.

What I've always found interesting is how the Israelis are willing to look at the morality of their actions and take steps to mitigate damage whereas the other side expresses no such interest and seems focused on figuring out ways to escalate things. To kill more people.

It is also telling that the Muslims in the region apparently have had enough of the Palestinians and were eager to make peace with Israel (Bahrain, UAE, Sudan, Morocco) with not only not resolving the Palestinian situation but leaving them entirely out of the process.