PM adviser's letter to 'New York Times'

[shira]

Dear Sasha,
I received your email requesting that Prime Minister Netanyahu submit an op-ed to the New York Times. Unfortunately, we must respectfully decline. On matters relating to Israel, the op-ed page of the “paper of record” has failed to heed the late Senator Moynihan's admonition that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but that no one is entitled to their own facts.

A case in point was your decision last May to publish the following bit of historical revision by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas:

It is important to note that the last time the question of Palestinian statehood took center stage at the General Assembly, the question posed to the international community was whether our homeland should be partitioned into two states. In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative. Shortly thereafter, Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued.

This paragraph effectively turns on its head an event within living memory in which the Palestinians rejected the UN partition plan accepted by the Jews and then joined five Arab states in launching a war to annihilate the embryonic Jewish state. It should not have made it past the most rudimentary fact-checking.

<snip>

So with all due respect to your prestigious paper, you will forgive us for declining your offer. We wouldn't want to be seen as "Bibiwashing" the op-ed page of the New York Times.

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=249724

[Little Tich]

1. The quote by Mahmoud Abbas is a correct description of actual events.

Actually, all of the facts in his Op-ed are true. Maybe he should have mention the frictions that existed between Jews and Arabs in the Mandate for Palestine for balance, but there are no lies or distortions in his piece:

<b>The Long Overdue Palestinian State</b>
By Mahmoud Abbas
Source: The New York Times

Ramallah, West Bank

SIXTY-THREE years ago, a 13-year-old Palestinian boy was forced to leave his home in the Galilean city of Safed and flee with his family to Syria. He took up shelter in a canvas tent provided to all the arriving refugees. Though he and his family wished for decades to return to their home and homeland, they were denied that most basic of human rights. That child’s story, like that of so many other Palestinians, is mine.

This month, however, as we commemorate another year of our expulsion — which we call the nakba, or catastrophe — the Palestinian people have cause for hope: this September, at the United Nations General Assembly, we will request international recognition of the State of Palestine on the 1967 border and that our state be admitted as a full member of the United Nations.

Many are questioning what value there is to such recognition while the Israeli occupation continues. Others have accused us of imperiling the peace process. We believe, however, that there is tremendous value for all Palestinians — those living in the homeland, in exile and under occupation.

It is important to note that the last time the question of Palestinian statehood took center stage at the General Assembly, the question posed to the international community was whether our homeland should be partitioned into two states. In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative. Shortly thereafter, Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued. Indeed, it was the descendants of these expelled Palestinians who were shot and wounded by Israeli forces on Sunday as they tried to symbolically exercise their right to return to their families’ homes.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/opinion/17abbas.html

[shira]

2. Abbas' very first paragraph in that NYT piece was a lie...

He claimed his family was forcibly expelled when he was 13. Two years earlier, he admitted on video that wasn't the story...

Another Tack: Self-exiled by guilt
Those little neglected news stories that rarely make front-page headlines and never receive airtime are often the most telling of all. It's through them that deliberately suppressed fundamental truths occasionally surface. It's there that big lies are sometimes, albeit inadvertently, exposed. Scant attention was paid last week to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's revelations on Al-Palestinia TV. Abbas talked about his youth in Safed, from whence he routinely claims his family was forcibly driven out by Israeli troops in 1948. Abbas revels in his supposed refugee status. It's his stock-in-trade on the Arab scene and the international arena. The pitiable pose of an aggrieved victim confers ostensible moral authority upon his cause. This pose, moreover, becomes a basic Arab tenet - the crucial claim for justifying terror against Israel and for refusing to relinquish the so-called "right of return" by refugees to what are described as homes robbed from them by violent interloping Jewish conquistadores. Biased world opinion willingly and gladly falls for the Palestinian freedom-fighter fable. But foolhardy carelessness - or trust that nobody listens to intra-Arab discourse - occasionally pulls off the painstakingly fabricated mask. That's what happened to Abbas (a.k.a. Abu-Mazen) on July 6. Fatah's cofounder reminisced at length about his Safed origins and haphazardly let the truth slip out. "Until the nakba" (calamity in Arabic - the loaded synonym for Israeli independence), he recounted, his family "was well-off in Safed." When Abbas was 13, "we left on foot at night to the Jordan River... Eventually we settled in Damascus... My father had money, and he spent his money methodically. After a year, when the money ran out, we began to work. "People were motivated to run away... They feared retribution from Zionist terrorist organizations - particularly from the Safed ones. Those of us from Safed especially feared that the Jews harbored old desires to avenge what happened during the 1929 uprising. This was in the memory of our families and parents... They realized the balance of forces was shifting and therefore the whole town was abandoned on the basis of this rationale - saving our lives and our belongings." SO HERE it is from the mouth of the PA's head honcho himself. He and no other verifies that nobody expelled Safed's Arabs. Their exile was voluntary, propelled by their extreme consciousness of guilt and expectation that Jews would be ruled by the same blood-feud conventions that prevail in Arab culture. Unrealistically they anticipated that Jews would do to them precisely what the Arabs had done to Safed's Jews. If that was their premise, they indeed had cause to panic.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=149036

Here's the video clip of Abbas...
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2212.htm

Here's the transcript...
http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/2212.htm

[Little Tich]

3. Mahmoud Abbas doesn't claim that he was forcibly expelled,

he claims he “was forced to leave his home in the Galilean city of Safed, and flee with his family to Syria.” This account can be verified by several sources:

“He left as a refugee for Syria in 1948 and worked as an elementary teacher.” (First paragraph)
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Abbas.html

“He was born in Saffed, Palestine (now in Israel), but his family fled during the 1948–49 Arab-Israeli conflict and lived in Syria.”
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0930463.html

“His own childhood was shaken in 1948 when under British mandate, his family left their town of Safed, in what is now northern Israel.” (4th paragraph)
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/category/mahmoud-abbas/

“He and his family fled to Syria during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.” (under heading “Biography”, 1st paragraph)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Abbas

Now this canard of Mahmoud Abbas being forcibly expelled is only mentioned by sources that are unreliable right-wing:

“The second, clearer impression that it was the Zionist army that "forced" Abbas's family to leave Safed.” (2nd paragraph)
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/was-mahmoud-abbass-family-expelled-from-palestine/238999/

“Fourth, the Arab population fled of its own free will, mailny our of fear of reprisal for the massacre it carried out on the Jewish population in 1929” (Under the heading “Narratitis”, 1st paragraph. Scroll down.)
http://theolivebranch.myfastforum.org/archive/ny-times-op-ed-by-mahmoud-abbas-and-my-response__o_t__t_1220.html

“Abbas claimed that he and his family were forced out of their home in the Galilean city of Safed and fled to Syria” (Sol Stern's 2nd comment)
http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2011/09/13/sol-stern-author-of-a-century-of-palestinian-rejectionism-and-jew-hatred-interveiwed-by-jamie-glazov/

“He and no other verifies that nobody expelled Safed's Arabs.” (Somewhere in the middle. This is the article that is referred to in the post above.)
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=149036

the source for all this seems to be an article by Jeffrey Goldberg (The first of my right-wing links) whch is linked to back and forth until it's difficult to actually understand that it's the original and only source. I had a problem finding other sources, but I managed to at least find two sources that may or may not be inspired by Goldberg's article. I see all this as a clear case of ipse dixit where the only source is the one referring to itself.

[shira]

4. He lied about being forced to leave his home. n/t

[Little Tich]

9. He was forced to leave his home, the circumstances were such that

the family of Mahmoud Abbas feared for their safety if they stayed in areas where the pre-state militias had control. Remember, there was a civil war going on, and it's common that civilians try to leave a war zone. Making a distinction between being forced or not being forced to leave their homes implies a distinction between fleeing rightfully or not that I'm not prepared to make.

There is a wikipedia article on the matter that covers the circumstances during the time which the family of Mahmoud Abbas fled (or was forced to flee...). The article implies a greater and earlier involvement of foreign armies in the early phases of the war than I knew about. It still shows that the Arab population had good and legitimate reasons to leave the area. The article is correct from what I can see at a glance, and the information about the arab refugees can be adequately gained from reading the synopsis.

There is another wikipedia article that I'm not currently prepared to endorse as a source: “1948 Palestinian exodus” (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus ), for it contains claims by revisionists like Ephraim Karsh, and it's also tagged as being potentially unreliable.

---

1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine
Source: Wikipedia (edit for clarity)

The 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine lasted from 30 November 1947, the date of the United Nations vote in favour of the termination of the British Mandate for Palestine and the UN Partition Plan, to the termination of the British Mandate itself on 14 May 1948.

This period constitutes the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war, during which the Jewish and Arab communities of Palestine clashed, while the British, who had the obligation to maintain order, organised their withdrawal and intervened only on an occasional basis.

The next phase of the conflict was the 1948 Arab-Israeli War which began on 15 May 1948, on the termination of the British Mandate for Palestine and the creation of the State of Israel, when the conflict in Palestine became an outright war between the new State of Israel and its Arab neighbours.

Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine

[shira]

11. Two years earlier, Abbas very clearly said his family believed there'd be payback...

...for the Hebron, Safed, etc... massacres of 1929. They were wrong. They could have stayed just like the other Arabs who later became Israeli citizens after 1948. Their 'hunch' about Jewish payback was wrong. They weren't forced to leave all their possessions behind like Jews fleeing Arab countries. The Jewish militias of the time weren't forcing them out either.

[Little Tich]

28. Good riposte.

Most arabs left, but some didn't, and now they and their descendants are citizens of Israel. We may differ in opinion about the exact circumstances, but apparently it's not perfectly black and white.

As for the Jewish refugees, I just don't know enough about them to be able to make any comments.

[oberliner]

5. He did omit some important info with a "shortly thereafter"

Leaving out what happened in the interim is something of a lie of omission.

That being said, I think everyone on all sides of this conflict does that sort of thing all the time.

[shira]

7. His description of what happened in 1948 is nothing but lying propaganda...

Imagine reports from 70 years ago... that war suddenly "broke out" and the USA started bombing Japan and Germany.

[vminfla]

8. Arafat was Egyptian

Didn't stop him from becoming a "refugee". Yes, Abbas rewrote history. He follows a long tradition of playing fast and loose with the facts.

[Little Tich]

10. In a sense, most negative comments about Mahmoud Abbas are actually

about the issue of the Palestinian refugees. By depicting Mahmoud Abbas as a liar about his refugee origins, somehow all of the Palestinian refugees are liars about their origins.

The problem with that, is that the refugee issue is well documented, the allegations that the pre-state militias were trying more or less successfully to get rid of Arabs in the Jewish and to be claimed as Jewish areas of the Palestine Mandate are true, and can be backed up by massive documentation. These acts of ethnic cleansing are in my opinion the biggest sin ever committed by the leaders of the Jewish State, bigger than the settlements and the occupation. By denying that the Palestinian have rights in the area that once was the Palestine mandate, the conflict is only perpetuated.

I'm not pro-Palestinian per se, it's where I stand ethically that makes me sometimes support them. I cannot be counted as being on their side at all times, however.

[vminfla]

12. Let's not forget that 7 arab nations encouraged the arab population to leave

Arab nations convinced the local populace to abandon their home whilst they "drive the jews from sea to sea". Those arabs that stayed now live amongst the most progressive nation in the Middle East. Those arabs that thought they were going to get free bounty, are now 4th or 5th generation "refugees". Which, by definition is unheard of. The UN does not recognize 2nd generation refugees with the exception of the arab population in gaza.

This video may help you. Lots of good information:

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1134490

[Little Tich]

30. Quo vadis, Israel?

[Shaktimaan]

44. This video is not super accurate.

The idea that Arab countries told the Palestinians to leave to make room for them to clear away the Jews has been fairly well debunked at this point. No evidence supporting it exists as was researched by Benny Morris. Most of the Arabs DID leave on their own. But it was because they were afraid of the war, which is perfectly reasonable, not because they were waiting for the Jews to be driven into the sea so the Arabs could steal their houses and farms as promised by other Arab states.

There are a ton of legit problems regarding UNRWA and the Palestinian refugees.This just isn't one of them. It's merely old school Israeli propaganda.

[Shaktimaan]

43. Let's look at exactly what he wrote though.

Shortly thereafter, Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued.

This plainly implies that following the UN vote the Jews expelled Arabs for the purpose of locking in a Jewish majority for the future state of Israel. There are serious problems with that supposition. First of all, the Jews ALREADY had a Jewish majority in the areas slated to become Israel. Next, the civil war began when the Palestinian Arabs rejected the UN's resolution and initiated the war themselves. For the first half of that civil war the Jews of the Yishuv took a defensive position. The Jews were not expelling anyone whatsoever. It was only at the halfway point that a change in strategy allowed Jewish militias to take offensive action, initially to break the siege on Jerusalem, which is when Deir Yassin occurred. (The most influential and best remembered massacre/expulsion.)

Point being the Jews fought that war out of necessity, not in order to ethnically cleanse Israeli land to be as the OP says.

Evidence to support this can be seen in Israel's demographics today, 20% are Arab/non-Jewish. No surrounding Arab state can say the same about Jews. Prior to the war the Jewish militias all operated via the concept of "havlaga" or "restraint." By the time just prior to the war there were groups who began actively retaliating against Arab attacks, committing violent retribution, but before then the militias were firmly committed to defensive acts only. Only fringe groups like Irgun and Stern Gang opposed this ideology and the main militia groups actively opposed THEM, sinking their arms shipments among other acts like arresting them during the "hunting season." Also, immediately following the War in 49 Israel offered to allow 100,000 Arabs to return in exchange for peace, demonstrating that peace was more important than maintaining an extreme demographic advantage.

There is surely dishonesty via omission occurring here. By ignoring such key factors as the Arab rejection of partition, Arab initiation of the war, Arab ethnic cleansing and discrimination against Jewish civilians that far precede AND follow these events. By saying "War and further expulsions ensued" he implies that the expulsions were committed by Jews and not Arabs.

the allegations that the pre-state militias were trying more or less successfully to get rid of Arabs in the Jewish and to be claimed as Jewish areas of the Palestine Mandate are true, and can be backed up by massive documentation.

Really? Just about everything I've read suggests that examples of outright expulsion were comparatively limited and usually had military justifications. Certainly the vast majority of Arab refugees fled of their own accord during one of the four waves of the Nakba. One wave (or two, I forget) preceded even Deir Yassin, making expulsion an unlikely reason. What events of EC are you referring to?

[Little Tich]

45. It's true that there was a 55% Jewish majority in the areas that were accorded to the Jewish state.

However, it's not accurate to say that the Palestinian Arabs were the sole instigators of hostilities, for both sides were already conducting tit-for-tat low level warfare, which gradually escalated into full war.

And yes, the pre-state militias were cheerfully ignoring the partition plan, their goals were very explicit: take as much land as possible from the Arab areas, and expel the Arab population. This was no secret, in fact people like Joseph Weitz, Yigal Allon, Yitzhak Rabin, and David Ben-Gurion talked more or less openly about it. I'm not going to let the accusations that the pre-state militias were deliberately performing ethnic cleansing stand without backing, so here I provide some articles from Wikipedia that back up my claims:

(Btw, there is a trolled article called “1948 Palestinian exodus”, which is unreliable. ( Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus ) Don't read it.)

---

1948 and After (Book by Benny Morris)
Source Wikipedia

(snip)
The new historiography: Israel and its pastIn the first chapter, Morris outlines his refutation of the single-cause thesis to the Palestinian exodus. On p. 31, he writes: "In refuting Teveth´s single-cause ("Arab orders&quot explanation of the exodus up to 15 May, I pointed out that there is simply no evidence to support it, and that the single document Teveth is able to cite, the Haganah report of 24 April, refers explicitly to "rumours" and to an order to "several localities" (rather than a blanket order to "the Arabs of Palestine&quot . Moreover, neither these "rumours" nor the purported order were referred to again in any subsequent Haganah intelligence report (which surely would have been the case had these "rumours" been confirmed and had an actual order been picked up). The fact is that the opposite occurred: Haganah intelligence and Western diplomatic missions in the Middle East at the time, around 5–6 May 1948, picked up, recorded and quoted from Arab orders and appeals (by King Abdullah I, Arab Liberation Army Commander Fawzi Qawuqji, and Damascus Radio) to the Arabs of Palestine to stay put in their homes or, if already in exile, to return to Palestine. Not evidence of "Arab orders" to flee but of orders to stay put during those crucial pre-invasion weeks. It flies in the face of the chronology, which there is no getting around. There was an almost universal one-to-one correspondence between Jewish attacks in specific localities and on specific towns and Arab flight from these localities and towns;

Tiberias was attacked by the Golani Brigade on 17 April; its Arab population evacuated on 18 April.
Arab Haifa was attacked and defeated on 21–22 April; most of its 70,000 Arab inhabitants, evacuated the city over 22 April -1 May.
Jaffa was assaulted by the Irgun Zva´i Leumi on 25–27 April; the bulk of its 70,000-80,000 population fled the city between 25 April and 13 May.
Safad was attacked and conquered by the Palmah on 9–10 May; its Arab population of 10,000 fled the city on 10 May.
Eastern Galilee was conquered by Palmah units between 2 May and 25 May; the villages in the area decamped during that period. And so on."
(p.32): "What this means is that Haganah / Irgun /IDF attack was usually the principal and final precipitant of Arab flight....[].. For if the Arab order/orders had been issued on 10 April, why did the inhabitants of Haifa wait a fortnight, and those of Safad or Eastern Galilee a month or more to depart? And it the order was issued, say, on 25 April, why did the inhabitants of Tiberias depart three days before; or those of Safad wait a further fortnight before leaving?"
(snip)

Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_and_After

---

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus
Source: Wikipedia
(edit for clarity)

(Snip)
Opening of archives
In the 1980s Israel and United-Kingdom opened up part of their archives for investigation by historians. This favored a more critical and factual analysis of the 1948 events. As a result more detailed and comprehensive description of the Palestinian exodus was published, notably Morris’ The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.

Morris distinguishes four waves of refugees, the second, third and fourth of them coinciding with Israeli military offensives, when Arab Palestinians fled the fights or were expelled. The initial Israeli position has been replaced by a new version : the exodus was caused by neither Israeli nor Arab policies, but rather was a by-product of the 1948 Palestine War.

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

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

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

(snip)

Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus

---

Plan Dalet
Source: Wikipedia
(edit for clarity)

Plan Dalet, or Plan D, (Hebrew: &#1514;&#1493;&#1499;&#1504;&#1497;&#1514; &#1491;'&#8206;, Tokhnit dalet) was a plan worked out by the Haganah, a Jewish paramilitary group and the forerunner of the Israel Defense Forces, in Palestine in autumn 1947 to spring 1948. Its purpose is much debated. The plan was a set of guidelines the stated purpose of which was to take control of the territory of the Jewish State and to defend its borders and people, including the Jewish population outside of the borders, in expectation of an invasion by regular Arab armies. "Plan Dalet" called for the conquest and securing of Arab towns and villages inside the area alloted to the Jewish state and along its borders. In case of resistance, the population of conquered villages was to be expelled outside the borders of the Jewish state. If no resistance was met, the residents could stay put, under military rule. According to the academic Ilan Pappe, its purpose was to conquer as much of Palestine and to expel as many Palestinians as possible. though according to middle eastern historian Benny Morris there was no such intent.

Read More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet

---

1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine
source: Wikipedia

The 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine lasted from 30 November 1947, the date of the United Nations vote in favour of the termination of the British Mandate for Palestine and the UN Partition Plan,[3] to the termination of the British Mandate itself on 14 May 1948.

This period constitutes the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war, during which the Jewish and Arab communities of Palestine clashed, while the British, who had the obligation to maintain order,[4][5] organised their withdrawal and intervened only on an occasional basis.

The next phase of the conflict was the 1948 Arab-Israeli War which began on 15 May 1948, on the termination of the British Mandate for Palestine and the creation of the State of Israel, when the conflict in Palestine became an outright war between the new State of Israel and its Arab neighbours.

Read More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine#The_first_wave_of_Palestinian_refugees
(This article is an excellent primer to the whole background of the war)

[Shaktimaan]

50. This basically supports what I said.

First of all, regarding the civil war we are talking about a significant escalation from the tit-for-tat violence that preceded it. As I stated earlier, the Yishuv was very much on the defensive for the first half of the (first) war, while Arab militants lay siege to Jerusalem, completely cutting off supply routes. Recall that Israel agreed to the Partition and it was the Arab rejection and initial violent attacks against Jewish civilians that cemented the war's initiation. Before this any offensive Jewish violence was primarily limited to small fringe groups like the stern gang or Irgun, (with the Palmach participating in one early attack, AFTER the war had begun.) This was not a war the Yishuv sought. They were strongly affected by the weapons embargo while the Arab Liberation Forces were supplied by the Arab League.

As I said, it wasn't until the second half of the war, when Plan Dalet was completed and a shipmen of Czech arms became available that the Yishuv went on the offensive. Prior to Dalet's implementation though, the Jews were losing ground. This was when the first wave left, though since it's believed that this wave primarily consisted of Arabs with the means and desire to avoid war entirely I'm not sure it plays a significant role in determining the general causes of the Nakba. This is a group that would have split no matter what, until the fighting died down.

The expulsions you list took place during this second half.

After Deir Yassin Arab groups hyped the death toll and events, accusing the Jews of horrific mutilations and rapes and so on in the hopes of spurring the Arab populace to action against them. The opposite happened, and people began to flee. This was a fortunate accident for the Yishuv, sure, but it was not ethnic cleansing by design. I agree with Benny Morris here,

...from it [the report] emerges a very definite impression that the depopulation of the villages and towns was an unexpected outcome of operations the purpose of which was wholly or primarily the conquest of military positions and strategic sites in the course of a life-and-death struggle. Jewish military operations indeed accounted for 70 percent of the Arab exodus; but the depopulation of the villages in most cases was an incidental, if favourably regarded, side-effect of these operations, not their aim.
.....
But for an understanding of the Palestinian exodus until 1 June, one must, according to IDF Intelligence Branch, reach mainly for the vast middle ground between preplanned, outright IDF expulsion and Arab-engineered, Machiavellian flight. There, amid the frightening, threatening boom of guns, the loss of confidence in Arab might, the flight of relatives and friends, the abandonment of nearby towns , and a general, vast fear of the uncharted future, one will find the bulk of the pre-June Palestinian refugees."

The idea that transfer was planned by Ben-Gurion, Rabin, etc, is obviously something that's been debated to no end among historians. We won't solve the issue here. At best there is conflicting evidence and the evidence that does support an active transfer policy is primarily circumstantial... far from "massively documented."

But when we look at this series of events it is important to bear in mind the framework that they occurred in, as well as the prevailing attitudes of the day. Transfer was not considered the crime it is now until just after that time. For example, the Peel Plan had included the necessity of transfer. And this was all occurring during a civil war that the Yishuv was fighting to ensure its very survival... we can't ignore the fact that the battle lines were drawn exactly to meet ethnic lines. Point being, we can't compare the decisions made during the war to what may have occurred in the event war was avoided.

I believe my earlier points still stand... In the end Israel is the only state that retained a mixed population. And Israel offered to bring a significant amount of refugees back in exchange for peace.

Oh, and as far as I know, the narrative that Palestinians evacuated on orders from Arab leaders has been entirely debunked and doesn't account for more than a few percent of the refugee population at most. I never meant to imply that I supported that claim.

-----

Back to my original point though... returning to the OP's original claim, it was supposedly Jewish expulsion of Palestinians that preceded the war. Which is what I took issue with. As he wrote it, the UN voted for partition, then the Jews began expelling Arabs. The other Arab nations stepped in to prevent this. Then there was a big war. This pretty clearly provides a false narrative with dishonest causes-and-effects compared to the historical reality. Namely, that the UN approved partition. The Arabs rejected it and instigated the civil war. The PLA fought the war for keeps, laying brutal siege to Jerusalem, (both sides lost 1% of their population in this war.) And only after the first few months did the Yishuv turn the tide and begin an aggressive offensive that created most of the refugees. THEN, when the PLA was losing the other Arab nations stepped in.

[shira]

51. Shakti, many Palestinians did evacuate on orders from Arab leaders...

Mahmoud Abbas, of all people, wrote...

"The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe, as if we were condemned to change places with them: they moved out of their ghettos and we occupied similar ones."

Abu Mazen
Falastin a-Thaura, March 1976

========

Much more evidence here...
http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=1102

This hasn't been thoroughly debunked at all.

[Little Tich]

52. First of all, I must apologize for my tardy response, these are busy days.

I think it’s wrong to say that the Jewish pre-state militias were on the defensive under any time of the war. Although they didn’t succeed in their objectives at all times, the areas which were accorded to the Jewish State were never (?) entered by hostile forces. In fact, one of the participants in the war, the Jordanian army were explicitly forbidden to enter those areas. In the beginning of the war, before the declaration of Israel in May 15, the Haganah was busy convincing Palestinians to leave their homes, eg Tiberias on 17 April, Haifa on 21-22 April, Jaffa on 25-27 (Attacked by Irgun), Safed on 9-10 May, Eastern Galilee 2-25 May. These attacks were not only in areas that were accorded to the Jewish state, but also those of the Arab one. Actually, Arabs had been convinced to leave Jewish areas by various means since 1947, which was completely against the partition plan. Remember those radio broadcasts?

In a way, the Partition Plan was already obsolete almost as soon as it was adopted. Arabs were forced to leave their homes beginning in late 1947, and Plan Dalet was was sent to the Haganah in March 1948 to be executed, but was already being planned as soon as the Partition plan was adopted. In fact, the idea that the Arabs must leave the Jewish State was very old, at least beginning with Theodor Herzl in the early 1900’s. I think it’s useless to discuss the Partition plan other than a historical oddity, for it was never adhered to, nobody ever intended to, and it was and still is completely unfeasible.

As for who started the whole mess, there is no evidence that either side started attacking before the other. It was a mutual escalation, and Jews were attacked by Arabs in some areas, and Arabs were attacked by Jews in other areas. I think Mahmoud Abbas is correct in stating that he was forced to flee, and that Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs shortly after the adoption of the Partition Plan. As a narrative of what happened to the Palestinian refugees it’s adequate. It may lack enough balance to qualify as a correct description of events, because it omits the civil war that was in the making and the general hostility between the two sides.

I wouldn’t want to touch the Peel proposal with a 10’ pole, for it was written in a time where the British empire was playing games with its colonies without regard to the wishes of the inhabitants. According to the plan, the northern coast and the Galilee would be emptied of over 200 000 Arabs. As counterweight about 1000 Jews were to be transferred out of Arab areas. It was in tune with some of the more unsavoury ideas of the extreme nationalistic ideologies about the nature of the National State that were in vogue at the time. And no, I’m not talking about the delusions of a certain Austrian corporal, I’m talking about the extreme nationalism in general that was around at the time in Europe. Besides, the Peel proposal was deemed as unfeasible, and the ‘Jews’ (I don’t remember who represented them) were firmly against.

As for the sources, I think they mostly support what I’ve said before as well as the above. I would like to say that even though Benny Morris is an excellent historian, I’m more inclined to be agree with Ilan Pappe, who I think is more spot on.

I’m running out of time, so I’ve got to stop here. I will probably be busy these next few days, so any replies won’t happen instantaneously.

[Shaktimaan]

53. No worries.

Take your time responding we're all busy with the holidays. (I got a soda stream!)

Regarding our discussion. I think we are mixing narratives here a bit. I want to be clear about the exact dates and events I'm discussing. You mentioned things like Jordan's invasion and stuff from the 1948 war. The events of 47-49 can be broken up into two distinct wars; what Abbas was talking about and what I am referring to are exclusively the events of the initial civil war, from December 1947 to May 1948 (at which point Israel declared independence and the International war began.)

That first war itself can be broken up into two distinct sections, for the first three months and change the Arabs were basically winning and the Jews were playing a defensive position. When we talk about the beginning of the war we should be talking about those first three months. In March Plan Dalet was approved and put into action in April, turning the tide of the war. And of course by May the Palestinian Arab forces were basically decimated. By the time the other Arab states got involved the war for the Palestinians was already over.

I think it’s wrong to say that the Jewish pre-state militias were on the defensive under any time of the war.

I think that's totally untrue. The initial Arab strategy was one of siege. The citizens of Jerusalem (100,000 people!) were entirely cut off and had few supplies along with the inhabitants of all of the northern kibbutzes and communities and the southern Negev outposts. The Yishuv wasted tons of manpower in vain attempts to open up a route to resupply them. By March they had lost hundreds of fighters and just about all of their armored vehicles trying to do so. At that point they only had arms enough for one person out of every three conscripts. It was at this point that a new strategy was developed with a focus on freeing those outposts and forming an unbroken line of Jewish territories to form a united front around Jerusalem. But before then? Forget about it... they were losing the war in every sense.

In fact, the idea that the Arabs must leave the Jewish State was very old, at least beginning with Theodor Herzl in the early 1900’s. I think it’s useless to discuss the Partition plan other than a historical oddity, for it was never adhered to, nobody ever intended to, and it was and still is completely unfeasible.

Arab transfer was certainly argued about within the Yishuv with leaders like Jabotinsky unapologetically backing it from the start. But it was never embraced as a policy. That fact is crucial. We can't criticize the Yishuv for debating every possibly strategy nor play games of "what if?" The fact remains that while it was discussed it was never put into action.

Partition IS important in the sense that the Yishuv DID agree to it. They were willing to compromise and if our debate is about the events of that time we have to look at the fact that one side was at least willing to NEGOTIATE WRT sharing the land while the other outright rejected any possibility involving shared sovereignty. Thus it was not just that "The UN approved this plan and then the Zionists began expelling Arabs." Arab rejectionism was a critical step that lead to subsequent events. Quotes from Arabs to the UN included phrases like "we'll fight to the last man standing." and "No Jewish state will be established, over our dead bodies, etc."

http://books.google.com/books?id=CcrG6DpRrD0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn 781841763729&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3C34Tsq5OYL10gGwxaWoAg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page 8

As for who started the whole mess, there is no evidence that either side started attacking before the other. It was a mutual escalation, and Jews were attacked by Arabs in some areas, and Arabs were attacked by Jews in other areas.

OK, I'm blown away here. How can you really think this? There is clear and overwhelming evidence as to who initiated the violence which began in 1920 with Arab riots and the killing of Jewish natives. It happened again in 1921 and significantly in 1929 with the massacres and ethnic cleansing of all the Jews in Hebron. There was no offensive Jewish action taken until after the start of the Great Arab uprising from 36-39 and even that was just from fringe groups that were opposed by the Yishuv itself.

Regarding the civil war, the Arab reaction to the UN's vote was protests and nationwide strikes versus Jewish celebrations. The very first attacks were on November 30th with snipers and militia groups attacking Jewish buses containing civilians. There were Jewish retaliations against this soon after, sure. But (and this is key), the very first organized attack of the war was December 10 on a convoy killing 10. Organized attacks against villages took place on January 10 and 14th against Kibbutzim Kfar-Szold and Kfar-Etzion, which were repelled but still took a toll in casualties. (By April both sides had lost around 1000 fighters but the Yishuv had half the manpower as the Arabs to begin with.)

http://books.google.com/books?id=CcrG6DpRrD0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn 781841763729&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3C34Tsq5OYL10gGwxaWoAg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

(page 34-end)

I think Mahmoud Abbas is correct in stating that he was forced to flee, and that Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs shortly after the adoption of the Partition Plan. As a narrative of what happened to the Palestinian refugees it’s adequate.

How so? By the end of the civil war only 20-25% of the refugees had left. Abbas' statement bears very little relation to actual events in terms of cause and effect. Zionist forces did NOT expel Arabs shortly after the UN's vote on Partition. Some Arabs LEFT soon after the fighting began, but there were certainly no expulsions. And Arab states did NOT intervene to prevent a Palestinian exodus. In making statements like these, dishonesty via omitting historical details is really as significant as promoting false or misleading facts.

As for the sources, I think they mostly support what I’ve said before as well as the above. I would like to say that even though Benny Morris is an excellent historian, I’m more inclined to be agree with Ilan Pappe, who I think is more spot on.

Why? Questions such as the true motivation behind Plan Dalet have been debated by people more educated than either of us without definitive conclusions being arrived at. Pappe is considered a revisionist historian and is considered controversial at best. I'm not diminishing his work here, but how can you make a judgement supporting his narrative as more accurate? Pappe, after all, inhabits the leftmost fringe of historical narratives without bringing significant/new data to the table. For example, look at the appendix starting page 319 here.

http://books.google.com/books?id=UcSUgrDsD_sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn 781845190750&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DS34Ts_9OKr10gHp79StAg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

I feel that you haven't addressed my other points, namely that Israel is still the ONLY state that retained a mixed population. And also offered to bring a significant amount of refugees back in exchange for peace.

[Little Tich]

56. I agree that it's better to concentrate on the earlier stages of hostilities in The Palestine

Mandate, because Mahmoud Abbas is clearly referring to them in his speech. His speech goes against the usual, and slightly incorrect version of historic events that puts the blame for initiating hostilities squarely on the Arabs, and depicts the first part of the war as a defensive one, and later on as a Jewish victory against overwhelming numbers.

The truth is very complex and there is the problem of it being a civil war with the meddling of outside forces as well. I don't think it's possible to exonerate either side. In a way, I think the victors have written their own, cozy version of history that justify all their actions, leaving all the faults with the losers.

For understanding the events in the Palestine Mandate late 1947 to early 1948, how hostilities escalated due to actions from both sides, how the events affected the Arab population and how some of them so early on became refugees, I would like to recommend two books by Ilan Pappe on the subject:

A history of modern Palestine by Ilan Pappe
( Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0521683157/ref=rdr_ext_tmb )

The ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe
(Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005KR0M5Q/ref=rdr_kindle_ext_tmb )

There is a passage in A history of modern Palestine that sums up my position nicely, it's not in the preview, but I'll quote it anyway. It relates to events directly after 29 nov 1947:

“The next day brought the first outburst of intra-communal violence,activated by hot-headed youths on both sides. It was less spontaneous than it seemed to outside observers. A month earlier, Israel Gallili, the chief of staff of the military force, had ordered the concentration of troops in the north and south of Palestine. These forces were ready to respond by force to angry and violent demonstrations, and were attacked by the shabab, the local Arab youth.

A slow deterioration into a widespread civil war in the next few months generated second thoughts in the UN, and in Washington, about the desirability, indeed the feasability, of the partition plan. But it was too late for a large number of Palestinians, evicted from their houses after their leaders lost the early battles with the Jewish forces. Twelve days after the adoption of the UN resolution the expulsion of Palestinians began. A month later, the first Palestinian village was wiped out by Jewish retaliation to a Palestinian attack on convoys and Jewish settlements. This action was transformed into an ethnic cleansing operation in March, which resulted in the loss to Palestine of much of its indigenous population.”

(From “A history of modern Palestine” by Ilan Pappe, p128 under heading “The UNSCOP days”, unknown edition.)

In a way, the books by Ilan Pappe and the wikipedia articles I previously provided are enough to prove most of the things I said, apart from my comments on the Peel proposition. You seem to have a different view of how things happened, especially whose fault the war was. I'd rather go with my version, I don't think you are backed up enough when it comes to sources.

The Wikipedia articles I used:
1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine
1948 and After: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_and_After
Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus
Plan Dalet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet

You are using books by Ephraim Karsh and Gelber to prove certain positions. This puts me in a dilemma, for I consider Ephraim Karsh to be a poor scholar to put it mildly, and I wouldn’t take his word at face value. About the supposed quote of Jamal al-Husaini, I really can't find any of his quotes outside of certain circles.

Actually, I have a link to a discussion between Ephraim Karsh and Ilan Pappe, which I enjoyed very much and was in fact what endeared me to Ilan Pappe. I enjoyed watching Ephraim karsh too, but for different reasons.

Ephraim Karsh vs Ilan Pappe:

The other guy, Yoav Gelber I don’t know much about, but I googled him, and found out that he’s supposedly a vocal critic of post-zionism and Ilan Pappe. I found a link to his position on post-zionism, but I was only able to get the gist of it, for he’s very confusing. The book he wrote (Palestine 1948: War, Escape And The Emergence Of The Palestinian Refugee Problem) seems to me like an attempt at putting the blame everywhere else but with the zionists. Maybe it's just hard to read.

Link to piece by Yoav Gelber on post-zionism: http://zioncon.blogspot.com/2007/07/yoav-gelber-disease-of-post-zionism.html

From what I understand, the pre-state militias didn’t lose any ground awarded to the Jewish state in the war. Jerusalem and Betlehem were never to be part of the Jewish nor the Arab state, it was supposed to be a corpus separatum. The area was fought over, but belonged to neither side according to the partition plan.

There is no evidence of pre-state militias or their leadership ever doubting that they would win the war, except for the fear of losing their gains in the end, where the leaders of the newly proclaimed state of Israel signed armistices that gave Israel peace and everything inside the green line.

As for the hostilities in 1947, things were so bad that Palestinians in areas with Jewish majority felt threatened and were forced to flee. These Palestinians were not involved in hostilities against Jews (at least I don’t think so), and it’s an unrefutable fact that Palestinians left Jewish areas in 1947. There is nothing that suggest that they left willingly and were therefore given refugee status. Their abandoned property somehow later ended up being owned by the Jewish National Fund.

The idea that Israel should be evaluated in the sense that it’s the only one with a mixed population is an artificial position of which the premises are difficult to agree to. There’s so much else to it that makes it impossible for me to address that issue easily.

As for any proposals that allowed Palestinians back home, they were not implemented, and I think it’s fruitless to discuss unimplemented proposals as if they have more than a passing interest as curious facts. This includes the Peel proposal, the Partition Plan, as well as any proposal that was to let Palestinians back home, but actually never happened and still left them to be refugees.

The idea of transfer is old and was very prevalent among the Zionist leadership, and I think it's a safe bet to say that they all endorsed in one way or the other, and that these ideas were clearly realized in various activities that made at least half of the Palestinians in the Palestine Mandate into refugees. In fact, I don't know of any zionist leader at the time who didn't endorse the idea, at least in part, of tranferring Arabs out of a Jewish state.

I think I have exhausted the issue, and proven my point, which is that the open letter was wrong in accusing Mahmoud Abbas of falsifying history in his OP-ed. What Mahmoud Abbas wrote was correct in context. Zionist forces did expel Arabs shortly after the Partition plan was adopted, and it was in the goal of ensuring a decisive Jewish majority.

As for all the other events of the war, they are not really part of the issue here, and I’m for my part wrapping up the discussion about them in this particular thread. There will be plenty of opportunities to discuss them in the future.

You may reply if you want, I will read your reply carefully, but I will not continue this thread.

Cheers.

[Shaktimaan]

58. I am very confused.

It seems that our key disagreements stem from a few issues... which side initiated hostilities, what caused the Palestinians to leave, particularly the first wave between november of 47 and May of 48, and what the intent of the Yishuv regarding Arab transfer was.

With the exception of Ilan Pappe the vast majority of resources you cite support my understanding of events. I cited Ephraim Karsh and Gelber because their books were available for quoting online. But other historians and journalists like Wasserman, Morris, Friedman, Schlomo Ben-Ami and many cited in the links you provided offer significant backing for my argument. And they don't seem to offer any evidence that reinforces your narrative.

Specifically, while transfer was discussed there exists NO evidence that a policy of ethnic cleansing had been instituted at any point. At most one could describe an "atmosphere of transfer" and point to circumstantial evidence. Aside from a few remarks (unconnected to any larger speech or policy outline) and some accusations of the existence of a comprehensive plan by Arab historians there isn't any evidence whatsoever that transfer was organized, ordered or even a goal. Moreover, evidence does exist demonstrating the opposite as shown by Avi Shlaim, Benny Morris, Yoav Gelber and Henry Laurens in the Wiki article "Causes of the 1948 Palestinian..."

Any Palestinian evacuations in 1947 were said to be due to fear of the impending war and reprisal attacks that were occurring. No one seems to have said that it was due to Jewish expulsions and/or ethnic cleansing at that time. Gelber describes the exodus before July 1948 as being initially mainly due to the inability of the Palestinian social structure to withstand a state of war The quote from Pappe you provided supports the claim that Arabs initiated the violence, These forces were ready to respond by force to angry and violent demonstrations, and were attacked by the shabab, the local Arab youth. as does Morris in your link, According to Benny Morris, much of the fighting in the first months of the war took place in and on the edges of the main towns, and was initiated by the Arabs. It included Arab snipers firing at Jewish houses, pedestrians, and traffic, as well as planting bombs and mines along urban and rural paths and roads.[10] Morris also says that by the end of March 1948, the Yishuv had suffered about a thousand dead. But even Pappe stated that the first Arab town demolition resulted from Arab attacks on Jewish convoys, as opposed to being initiated as part of a greater transfer plan, and that ethnic cleansing did not begin until later on. A month later, the first Palestinian village was wiped out by Jewish retaliation to a Palestinian attack on convoys and Jewish settlements. This action was transformed into an ethnic cleansing operation in March, which resulted in the loss to Palestine of much of its indigenous population.

No one seems to think that the Civil war was instigated by anyone other than the Arabs. After all, they rejected Partition and responded with strikes and protests. Up until then the first massacres and any ethnic cleansing had been committed by them. The initial attacks in 47 are documented and aren't under dispute. And all of your sources support this.

While the ultimate motives behind Plan Dalet will continue to be debated, the events prior to Dalet's April initiation didn't have any basis in an overall strategy of Arab transfer. Certainly no evidence exists supporting that view nor does there seem to be anyone purporting it, including Pappe.

Pappe himself is a real fringe revisionist. I don't think his work is very well respected. For instance, Another of the "new" Israeli historians, Benny Morris, writing about Pappé's book, A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples,[27] in The New Republic magazine, calls Pappé's book "truly appalling." He says it subjugates history to political ideology, and "contains errors of a quantity and a quality that are not found in serious historiography." [28] Morris has said that there is "a correct, 'true' narrative and a distorted, mendacious narrative."

So I don't get it. Nothing you've shown me supports your narrative. If anything it all speaks to mine. With the exception of Pappe, who offers no evidence of his beliefs whatsoever. Just the beliefs themselves, presented as facts.

You may reply if you want, I will read your reply carefully, but I will not continue this thread.

Suit yourself. You may enjoy this interview though.

http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm

[shira]

6. Ethan Bronner and facts too good to check.

Leave it to the New York Times to simply take the word of any Palestinian who tells a tale of woe that puts Israel in a bad light; apparently such stories are simply too good to check. This time the occasion was the release of 550 Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, the second group of prisoners released as part of the deal freeing the abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

more...
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=2169

[bemildred]

13. That paragraph appears to be a statement of facts.

Each sentence is a true statement? The UN did debate the future of the mandate in 1947, it did vote for two-state partition, Israel did then declare itself independent and sovereign (though it has never specified exactly over what), there were "zionist forces" busy trying to move Palestinians out of the way, a process then already well along in a war already well begun pursuant to a conflict 100 years old. You can quibble about "ensure a Jewish majority", though that was certainly the objective, as it still is. Arab armies did intervene, and the conflict has indeed continued ever since.

Bibi is lying when he says Israel accepted the partition plan, it never has agreed to it in any form, and it will never accept the idea that it's sovereignty comes from the UN.

[shira]

14. It's lying by omission...

That paragraph makes it appear that Zionist forces just decided to ethnically cleanse Palestinians after the Arabs rejected the Partition Plan. The glaring omission - the elephant in the room - is that the Arabs not only rejected the plan but went to war against the Jews.

It's like saying the Germans put Jews in camps during WW2, where they were clothed and fed. That's a statement of facts too. Just as it's factual to say the USA sent its armies all around the world during WW2 where they killed millions of people.

[bemildred]

15. One does not lie by omission, one misleads by omission.

The Zionist forces were actively working to move Palestinians. That's not in dispute. One can even come up with good military arguments for it (see below). Abbas says nothing about "ethnic cleansing", though the facts fit, Bibi is just indicating the fears that he wants to fend off. The problem was not that there were refugees created in a war, that's even a good thing, fewer dead people that way, the problem is that they were NOT ALLOWED TO RETURN TO THEIR HOMES, and that is what makes it look like "ethnic cleansing" was intended too, and that is why there are now bazillions of them ringing Israel on all sides. It was not somebody elses home they were not allowed to return to, and that issue will not go away untili it is properly resolved.

But really, the whole Zionist project, a democratic Jewish state, demands a Jewish majority, and that demands that the non-Jews be somehow diminished, and the Jews somehow enhanced, that some sort of demographic changes be accomplished, a dubious object for any democratic government, and a process based in efforts which still continue.

[shira]

17. So you don't see any misleading by omission in that paragraph? n/t

[bemildred]

18. No, zippo, nothing.

It is not a complete history of events, it certainly does not present the GOI POV, but that is not Abbas' job, it is the opposite of Abbas job, and as I said below , that's Bibi's job, so if the message is not getting out there, it's Bibi's fault, not Abbas'. It is sort of ridiculous to expect Abbas to make Bibi's argument for him, even if it was a good argument.

[shira]

19. Fascinating. I'm assuming the pro-Palestinian contingent here agrees...

...with you.

IMO that explains a lot about our differences on I/P.

[bemildred]

20. A safe bet. nt

[shira]

22. Now I'm curious...

If someone were to say that during WW2 Germans kept Jews in camps where they were clothed and fed - and said nothing else on the matter - how would you view such a statement?

[Ruby the Liberal]

23. Were it me, I would double check my URL to make sure

I didn't somehow end up at Stormfront.

[bemildred]

24. We are not supposed to do Nazi comparisons and analogies here I thought?

And that is a false hypothetical too, nobody relevant to this thread has said anything of the sort. The only people I know of living in camps in large numbers these days are Palestinians, and I don't know of anybody at all that is trying to say they are treated well in those camps, not even you.

Are you trying to compare Abbas to Nazis? Or is it the host nations for the refugees you want to compare to Nazis? If it's so bad to compare Israel to Nazis, why is it cool to compare Israel's neighbors, refugee host nations, or Palestinian leaders to Nazis?

As I said, Abbas job is to argue the Palestinians point of view, which is what he did, and he is under no moral or ethical obligation to figure out what Bibi's argument ought to be and present it, that is Bibi's job.

[shira]

26. That was an example of someone intending to mislead by omission...

Here are other examples....

Rightwingers argue immigrants take jobs away from the native population, except they don't tend to mention the jobs are low paying and difficult to fill by the native population.

A child argues that the dog raced through a room and broke a lamp, which is true. But the child didn't mention she was chasing the dog and driving it nuts when that happened.

A car salesman says that a car has been serviced regularly but doesn't mention that the car failed the last test.

The stories about Israel harvesting Palestinian organs is a good example. Reports did not include that organs were taken from Jews as well.

As to camps - now that you mention it - would it be honest to state that due to Israeli administration in the territories, living conditions for Palestinians improved WRT health, economy, and education? And to just leave it at that?

=================

Are these truths or lies in your opinion? Do you see anything wrong or dishonest with any of the above?

[bemildred]

27. Once again, Abbas is not supposed to be "fair", and he is not writing academic papers on I/P.

His job is supposed to be representing Palestinian interests and the Palestinian point of view, not Israel's or the Israeli government's or Bibi's, and it is not "lying" for him to do that to the best of his ability.

[shira]

29. Would it be dishonest for journalists or academics if they said what Abbas did...

...in that paragraph?

Abbas is just doing his job while journalists and academics would be dishonest if they did the same thing?

[bemildred]

31. Abbas is not a journalist or academic.

But you hang onto that false hypothetical. very handy when you got nothing else.

I admit he is biased, I say he is supposed to be biased, that's his job, but that's not good enough for you, he's got to support Bibi and Likud and make their talking points for them.

[shira]

32. Not saying he is. My point is that it doesn't matter whether Abbas...

Last edited Wed Dec 21, 2011, 06:10 AM - Edit history (2)

...a journalist, or academic is making those claims. It's dishonest propaganda and they're all liars.

Look, it's fairly obvious you see those examples I provided as dishonest lies. What Abbas did is just as misleading and dishonest. I can't see why you're defending shit like that. Abbas gets to lie openly because..........?

[bemildred]

34. And my point is that it does matter.

And what is obvious is that the examples you presented are false hypotheticals which have nothing whatsoever to do with Abbas.

[aranthus]

42. There's a huge difference between biased and dishonest.

Of course Abbas has no obligation to interpret history as Israel interprets it. But he does have an obligation to be honest about the facts, and his use of the facts. Everyone does. He crossed a lline. And it's a huge part of the Arab Big Lie about I/P. He's deliberately leaving out the crucial fact that disproves the entire Palestinians as innocent victims meme he's trying to sell.

[bemildred]

46. People do not agree about the facts.

I would think that is clear.

If you state the facts as you see them, then you are not being dishonest, regardless of whether everybody else agrees or not. What would be dishonest is to misrepresent your views.

[aranthus]

47. Reasonable people do. Abbas does. He just doesn't say it.

If he really believed that it was the Jews who outright attacked the Palestinians and drove them out for no other reason than to get rid of them, then he would have said that directly. He didn't, because he knows that isn't true. I have asked on several forums including this, on several occaissions, for someone to point out the "Jewish attack" that started the war. No one to my knowledge has ever done so. In contrast, the Arab rioting and attacks on Jewish buses and transport routes in December, 1947, and the initial Palestinian attacks in January, 1948, are well documented. Now, if you want to try arguing that the Palestinians honestly believe in a history that is patently untrue, you might actually have a point. But Abbas isn't one of the masses.

[bemildred]

48. Ah, now you speak for Abbas.

First two sentences you point out that Abbas did not say something or other which you believe he knows is not true. OK. Good for him, he didn't lie about that.

Next two sentences, you say that nobody has proved that Israel started the '48 war, which is not in dispute here, as far as I can see; I was not aware we were arguing about who started that war, or culpability for that war. I am interested in neither, although if it it helps I will say that Israel is not responsible for starting that war. I rather doubt that Abbas cares about it much either at this point, it's not going to buy him much, but I don't claim to speak for him. In any case, I thought we were talking about what Abbas actually said in the selection in the OP, and that is all I am prepared to get dragged into arguing about.

Then you point out that the Arabs attacked the Jews too, and that the violence goes back before the '48 war, also quite true. I view the ''48 war as when the conflict first went "hot", it was hardly the beginning of it, and we sure do not appear to be near the end of it.

[bemildred]

49. Oh yeah, I forgot, people do not agree about what's reasonable either, so that gets you nowhere.

And they will not agree about who is or is not reasonable either, so that line of argument just leads to an infinite descent. It's sort of like explaining the existence to the universe we live in by positing that it was created by an infinite deity, you have just kicked the can down the road. You have explained something which is unlikely in a very large but finite way with something which is even less likely but in an infinite way.

[pelsar]

54. your right he's suppose to represent the Palestinians interest..but by lying...

or the "sin of omission" he is not representing their interests. Us israelis are listening to, and whether he likes it or not if he really is interested in a two state solution he's going to need our help and confidence. By leaving out some of the more basic truths, he is not preparing his people to accept us in that two state solution and he is telling us, he is not interested in us having an confidence in him and the two state solution.

some basic foundation facts should not be ignored, a false narrative such as he represents is going to go nowhere. Perhaps those who believe in Abbas as wanting a two state solution, should actually listen to what he says to his own people?

[bemildred]

55. Why should he listen to you, if you won't listen to him?

The Palestinians do not owe Israel Jack shit. They certainly do not owe it to you to accept that your narrative is the truth and their narrative is a lie.

[pelsar]

57. of course they don't owe us "jack shit"

and we don't owe them "jack shit" either. Its a matter of pragmatism or ideology.....

in 1948 those two choices were on the table an they still are: One group chose pragmatism and developed a working country while the other didn't....and if they are listening to you and others that have the same belief, they won't be getting one soon either.

Ideology or Pragmatism.....the choices and their consequences are very clear and have been through out history.

[vminfla]

21. Much better, Abbas is a wretched deceiver instead of a base liar

Way to sell him.

[bemildred]

25. Whut? nt

[vminfla]

33. You stated that Abbas was deceptive, not a liar

Errors of ommissions are tools used in deceit. Abbas is deceitful instead of the run of the mill liar, which is actually a worse thing. Yet, somehow you highlight the fact that he is deceitful as if it was a virtue.

[bemildred]

35. No, I said leaving stuff out is not lying.

If it is anything at all deserving of criticism, it is misleading. But that would only be the case if the speaker were under some obligation or duty to attempt to be complete, objective or unbiased, none of which applies to Abbas.

Will you admit that his job is to represent Palestinian views and interests? Not to be a spokesperson for Bibi and Likud? Or is even that too much?

[vminfla]

36. Mislead = Deceive

your quote " One does not lie by omission, one misleads by omission."

Pick up any thesaurus in the world, misleading is a synonym for deception.

His job is to be a fair and honest broker in the peace process, not to be deceitful and manipulative....which you confirmed that he is.

[bemildred]

37. "Abbas" != "One".

Pick up any thesaurus in the world, you will see they are nothing like each other.

You are quite confused if you think his job is to be any sort of "broker". Is Bibi supposed to be a fair and honest broker in the Peace Process too? Are we supposed to rely on Bibi to explain the Palestinian point of view?

[bemildred]

16. Mr Abbas is not in any case obligated in any way whatsoever to make Bibi's argument for him.

That is Bibi's job.

[shira]

38. Two competing narratives, Israeli vs. Palestinian. Neither is a lie, correct? n/t

[bemildred]

39. Well I must say it's good to see you adopt a more even handed atitude.

[shira]

40. Okay, that's what I thought. The narrative, therefore, trumps historical fact.

Can't say I see anything really positive about that.

I guess the feeling is that if a group of people really, really want to believe something is true - even if it's not - it's true regardless.

[bemildred]

41. Tsk, I quite agree, you'll never make a good historian thinking that way. nt