How Nazi Propaganda and the Muslim Brotherhood Led to the 1948 Israel-Arab War

[aranthus]

"Although the UN plan for partitioning Palestine into Jewish and Arab states was opposed by the vast majority of Arab leaders, most were long unwilling to go to war to prevent it from happening. What pushed the states to war, argues Matthias Kuenzel, was the persistent lobbying of the Muslim Brotherhood, its ability to shape popular Arab opinion with the help of Nazi-sponsored anti-Semitic propaganda, and its support for Grand Mufti Amin Haj al-Husseini—a former collaborator with the Nazis who rejected any compromise with the Jews:"

http://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/2016/04/how-nazi-propaganda-and-the-muslim-brotherhood-led-to-the-1948-israel-arab-war/

[MariaThinks]

1. kick

[Little Tich]

2. Revisionist BS.

I took a quick peek to see what's on offer on the Mosaic Magazine website, and my general feeling is that it promotes a neo-con and pro-Israel POW and that most of its material is borrowed from other sites. While the OP is easily one of the worst articles on offer, they're all (the ones I read) examples of bad argumentation.

I think it's telling that the poor Dr. Matthias Küntzel conveniently forgot to mention the fact that Jewish pre-state militias were very busy expelling Palestinians wherever they could: "By 1 May 1948, two weeks before the Israeli Declaration of Independence, nearly 175,000 Palestinians (approximately 25%) had already fled." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus#December_1947_.E2.80.93_March_1948) He's either completely clueless about the circumstances around the civil war in Palestine or intellectually dishonest.

[aranthus]

3. Except he's talking about what happened in 1947 that led to 1948.

Had the Palestinians not been led by neo-nazis and pro-nazis there would not have been a civil war, and there would not have been any refugees. Further you are misrepresenting the Wikipedia article. It says that there were refugees. It doesn't say that Jewish militias were expelling Palestinians wherever they could. That's your false spin. By ignoring the historical context, you are the one who's being intellectually dishonest.

[Little Tich]

36. Please read the Wikipedia article again.

The only authorised expulsion at this time took place at Qisarya, south of Haifa, where Palestinian Arabs were evicted and their houses destroyed on 19–20 February 1948. In attacks that were not authorised in advance, several communities were expelled by the Haganah and several others were chased away by the Irgun.

According to Ilan Pappé, the Zionists organised a campaign of threats, consisting of the distribution of threatening leaflets, "violent reconnaissance" and, after the arrival of mortars, the shelling of Arab villages and neighborhoods.Pappé also notes that the Haganah shifted its policy from retaliation to offensive initiatives.

During the "long seminar," a meeting of Ben-Gurion with his chief advisors in January 1948, the main point was that it was desirable to "transfer" as many Arabs as possible out of Jewish territory, and the discussion focussed mainly on the implementation. The experience gained in a number of attacks in February 1948, notably those on Qisarya and Sa'sa', was used in the development of a plan detailing how enemy population centers should be handled. According to Pappé, plan Dalet was the master plan for the expulsion of the Palestinians.

-----

Overall, Morris concludes that during this period the "Arab evacuees from the towns and villages left largely because of Jewish—Haganah, IZL or LHI—attacks or fear of impending attack" but that only "an extremely small, almost insignificant number of the refugees during this early period left because of Haganah or IZL or LHI expulsion orders or forceful 'advice' to that effect.", In this sense, Glazer quotes the testimony of Count Bernadotte, the UN mediator in Palestine, who reported that "the exodus of the Palestinian Arabs resulted from panic created by fighting in their communities, by rumours concerning real or alleged acts of terrorism, or expulsion. Almost the whole of the Arab population fled or was expelled from the area under Jewish occupation."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus#December_1947_.E2.80.93_March_1948

If you have any real evidence for a nazi link to the war(s) in Palestine 1947-1948, please show me. I'm reluctant to accept the word of a neo-con pseudo-historian with no evidence whatsoever. I'm sure you believe there's such a link, but you can't convince me with such flimsy proof.

[aranthus]

43. Perhaps you should re-read it with an eye to the thread topic.

The original post is about how the war started in 1947. Kuenzal is offering a theory as to why the Palestinians started the war. How can what happened in 1948 be at all relevant to how the war started months before? It can't, can it? Now go back and read the Wikipedia article. All of the instances of expulsions occurred in 1948, well after the war started. They have nothing to do with why the Palestinians chose war rather than compromise. So the entire article is irrelevant to the point.

As to your attempt to divert by claiming mass expulsions, it's telling that you rely on Pappe, who at the least has issues with credibility, and ignore Morris, who just as clearly does not have the problems Pappe has. As an example, when Pappe claims that "plan Dalet was the master plan for the expulsion of the Palestinians," he's either clueless as an historian, or else he's a bald faced liar. Morris, on the other hand, shows how the expulsion claim is totally overblown.

I suggest that you read some real history on the subject rather than the pap from Pappe. Morris is good on the issues. Also try, "Elusive Victory," by Trevor DuPuy. He's an American military historian with no axe to grind. He has a very good discussion of Plan Dalet.

[Little Tich]

60. Perhaps I'm reading the article differently.

The article deals with the supposed causes for the civil war in Palestine just as much as it deals with the war between Israel and the Arab states:

The Aftershock of the Nazi War against the Jews, 1947–48: Could War in the Middle East Have Been Prevented?
Source: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, by Dr. Matthias Küntzel, March 31, 2016
(snip)

Conclusion
This article has shown that the impact of antisemitism and the role of al-Husseini linked the Nazi war against the Jews with that of 1947/48. Therefore, Hillel Cohen is correct in claiming that “there can be little doubt that the Mufti’s inflexible position and refusal to accept any partition proposal were the major reasons for the outbreak of war in 1948.“74 However, the Mufti might have ended his career in 1945, had the Western powers not allowed him to escape justice and had the Arabs not protected him out of opportunism. The cowardice of important figures paved the way for one of the most fateful turning points in twentieth-century history: the war of the Arab armies against the fledgling state of Israel.

This war was not inevitable. It happened because Nazi antisemitic anti-Zionist propaganda continued to dominate the political culture of the Arab world after the defeat of Germany, thus preventing any viable challenge to the antisemitic policies of the Mufti and the Muslim Brotherhood. Therefore, the war of 1947/48 appears as an aftershock of the Nazi war against the Jews. The Middle East has never recovered from this watershed. To this day, Palestinian leaders continue to refuse to recognize the Jewish state. At present, Bernard Lewis’ question, “What went wrong?” recurs more persistently than ever before. To answer this question, one cannot overlook the impact of the Nazi’s antisemitic propaganda and the inability of the key Arab actors to distance themselves from it.

Read more: http://jcpa.org/article/aftershock-nazi-war-jews-1947-1948-could-war-middle-east-prevented/

I actually want to bury this revisionist turd ASAP, so I'll just give a last comment on it: This recent neocon smear that the the Palestinians and Arabs were all nazis doesn't add up. This is new information, and if it was true, it would've been discovered by Benny Morris and the other new Israeli historians already - but they don't make this connection at all.

I'll stick with the new Israeli historians, they're serious scholars and don't just make things up, like Dr. Matthias Küntzel does.

[aranthus]

61. Which article?

If you are reading the Wikipedia article as saying that expulsions were a factor in the Palestinians starting the war, then you are certainly misreading it. It doesn't say that at all, and the authors would be lying fools if they did. The war started in 1947. Expulsions (what there were of them) started in 1948. They couldn't possibly be a reason for the war. It's a complete diversion from what happened.

Kuenzel, on the other hand is talking about what happened in 1947, and what later happened in 1948. See the first line of his conclusion that you cited above, where he specifically mentions 1947/48. But there is no 48 without 47.

So far, all you have done is state that you don't like his theory. And you have offered no evidence that he's wrong about 1947, except to point out what happened in 1948, which is entirely irrelevant. You are simply denying history without evidence.

[shira]

7. Funny. One of your favorite, most trusted historians is a revisionist: Ilan Pappe

Remember this conversation?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134112806#post1

Pappe admits he doesn't deal in facts, but in ideology. He's near the top of the list when it comes to revisionists on I/P.

You still maintain he's a reliable historian?

If so, you cannot distinguish between facts & fiction.

[Ken Burch]

31. Pappe may be a "revisionist", but he's not a Revisionist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_Zionism

(In Israel, they are called the New Historians, to avoid that particular bit of confusion).

[shira]

32. He's a hack & fraud with zero credibility. He has admitted he doesn't deal in facts. n/t

[Little Tich]

37. I think your interpretation is incorrect.

Pappe is a serious historian and he discusses the problem of there never being one single historical truth. History is only a way to interpret what was once current events, and while some interpretations are better, there's never a single best one.

[shira]

39. Pappe admits he's driven by ideology rather than facts. He's a propagandist....

Pappe is on record promoting blatant misinformation (the Tantura massacre myth).

That you have the audacity to call out others for being into historical revisionism is nothing short of comical.

It would be best for you to acknowledge you're wrong about Pappe and move on, rather than digging in even deeper.

[Little Tich]

41. The Tantura massacre "myth"?

It's simply unknown whether it happened or not simply because the massgraves where the bodies of the victims of the alleged massacre are supposed to be haven't been investigated. The written and oral testimonies are conflicting, and there's no way to determine exactly what happened without any forensic evidence.

This is what Wikipedia has to say, and I think it reflects correctly what we don't know about the alleged Tantura massacre:

The historian Ilan Pappé supports Katz and his thesis, and has challenged the Israeli veterans to take him to court, claiming he has evidence that the massacre occurred. In his 2001 article in the Journal of Palestine Studies, Pappé defended the use of oral history with reference to the USA. He pointed out that that history was obtained by Katz, not only from Palestinian villagers, but also from Israeli soldiers. Pappé provided new evidence that had come to light after Katz had presented his thesis, in one case quoting (with reference to the IDF source file) "from a document from the Alexandroni Brigade to IDF headquarters in June notes: 'We have tended to the mass grave, and everything is in order'”, and in another, published testimonies by eyewitnesses who had been located in Syria. He also related the background to Katz's original signed repudiation of his thesis.

In 2004, Israeli historian Benny Morris reviewed the Tantura controversy. He suggests that, while controversy remains as to whether a ‘massacre’ actually occurred, there is no doubt that war crimes were committed by the Jewish forces (Haganah) and that the village was forcibly cleansed of its Arab inhabitants. Morris underlines the fact that in interviews conducted by himself and by the whistle-blower Amil Gilat, all refugees confirmed that a massacre had taken place, while all IDF veterans denied it. Regarding the latter, Morris describes what he calls “troubling hints”, such as a diary by an Alexandroni soldier, Tulik Makovsky, in which he wrote “… that our boys know the craft of murder quite well, especially boys whose relatives the Arabs had murdered... or those harmed by Hitler [they are the same fascists]. They took their private revenge, and avenged our comrades who had died at their hands, against the snipers”. Morris defended the value of oral testimony and tradition. He additionally pointed out issues with the scoring of the second version of Katz’s thesis in that the two referees who gave anomalously low scores had been co-authors of an IDF book in which it was argued that ”… the Israeli Army had carried out only a ‘partial expulsion’ of the populations of the Arab towns of Lydda and Ramlah and dismissed the charge that the troops had massacred Lydda townspeople, some of them inside a mosque, on July 12, 1948”, whereas IDF records from the IDF archive show that a full-scale expulsion had been carried out and that Yiftah Brigade troops killed some 250 townspeople.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantura#Subsequent_related_developments

[shira]

42. Pappe claims a massacre took place there. He's a liar, now isn't he? n/;t

[Ken Burch]

52. Not according to the link.

And Benny Morris, who takes your side on the issues here, essentially agrees with Pappe and Katz on this.

[Israeli]

53. The Israeli taboo... 55 years on

In recent weeks, the case of Teddy Katz, Israeli research student at Haifa University , has once more surfaced in the news. Katz' academic research provided evidence of a 1948 massacre in the Palestinian village of Tantura , in the northern coastal region, by the Israeli Alexandroni Brigade. Despite the academic rigor of his thesis, senior academics at Haifa University decided that even the demanded "revised" version of his thesis would be disqualified. The Katz case would never have attracted so much attention to the massacre in Tantura if it was not for the lengths that the Israelis authorities have gone to suppress the research. Professors who have supported Katz, notably Dr. Ilan Pappe, have seen their jobs threatened over the issue of challenging mainstream Israeli myths of 1948. "In the present atmosphere of fear and conformity in the Israeli academic community it is very easy to elicit even a dozen negative reports of any work, especially by students, which are critical of Zionism or Israel " writes Pappe. The Katz case has demonstrated the level of denial, and taboo nature of discussing the Nakba (1948 war) within Israeli society.

Source : http://www.zochrot.org/en/press/51034

[Ken Burch]

4. Another "All Palestinians are responsible for the shit the Grand Mufti did" thread.

When has anything positive come of that argument?

[King_David]

5. The grand Mufti really did that shit, it's not a story, its history...

[Ken Burch]

6. Yes he did what he did...but that simply means HE was a bastard.

It doesn't mean Palestinians are collectively responsible for what the Grand Mufti did. He was imposed by the British Mandate in his position. And he's been dead since 1973, for God's sakes. 80% of the current Palestinian population wasn't even born in 1973.

The deeds of the Grand Mufti don't justify everything that's been done to the Palestinians.

[King_David]

9. So this should be surpressed because you've decided the motive for posting it ?

WTF are YOU to decide the motive for posting and taking it upon yourself to be the protector of Palestinians people's reputations?
Delusions of grandeur?

[Ken Burch]

14. It is historically important, but it needs to be acknoweledged

That nothing the Mufti did or said justifies what's been happening to Palestinians-and that it especially doesn't justify the continuing West Bank Occupation and settlement expansions.

[King_David]

17. So you think you should whitewash it ?

LOL

[Ken Burch]

18. No, not whitewash it, but place the blame where it belongs:

On the Grand Mufti himself. Not on the Palestinians of today, most of whom weren't born.

It's enough to call the man and those around him in HIS DAY out.

No one born after Al-Husseini's death is responsible for his crimes, any more than any Israeli born after the death of Baruch Goldstein could be fairly held responsible for what he did to those innocent people in that mosque.

The Palestinians are not the successors to the Third Reich.

And BOTH side in the I/P conflict share responsibility for its continuation. Any moral superiority ever held by the Israeli side was forfeited after the entrenchment of the West Bank Occupation, the creation of the illegal settlements, the invasion of Lebanon and the abetting of the massacre at Sabra and Shatila. Both sides have done serious wrong in this.

[King_David]

21. Your duty here is to protect the reputation of the Palestinian people's?

LOL


Sabra and Shatilla - doesn't need whitewashing- the guilty party was Lebanese Christians, they did the actual cold blooded murderous killing.

[Ken Burch]

23. No, to stand against collective punishment of those living today

for things that happened before their births.

Is that such a terrible thing?

[villager]

27. The problem in the Mideast is that *everyone* has both historical, and refreshed, excuses

...to continue their own particular atrocities.

I say this as a Jew who supports Israel's right to exist, btw. (And who thinks that Likud may be the greatest danger that Israel actually faces.)

And like you say, Ken, unless and until someone allows the past to be consigned to the past, the murders, the "refreshed and renewed" excuses for the next round of wars, atrocities, killings, terror strikes, et al, will just continue...

On top of this, once climate change kicks in in earnest, the whole goddamn region is going to run out of water fast.

What then?

[Ken Burch]

30. What then, indeed?

Thank you for what may be the most thoughtful post I've ever seen in the I/P group.

[villager]

35. Thanks, Ken. I've given up hope, actually, that either side will stop "Otherizing" their "enemies."

Too much is invested in stoking the hate.

As with the U.S., it will probably take calamity and collapse before any real change can come...

[shira]

33. Israel is actually beating the water problem, defying drought conditions....

The Secret of Israel's Water Miracle and How It Can Help a Thirsty World
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/science/1.698275

It's too bad Israel's neighbors don't work together with Israel rather than against.
They wouldn't have water issues to worry about either.

That unfortunately summarizes the entire conflict.
Better to fight the Jews than work with them, even if it means hurting your own population.

[villager]

34. And the comments section gets right back to my post.

Hating the "Other" is so much easier than doing anything else.

And while Israel's done some terrific things in terms of water conservation, it's going to be an overly-interesting decade or few ahead for that whole dry region....

[Little Tich]

38. It doesn't apply to Palestinians, apparently:

The economic costs of the Israeli occupation for the occupied Palestinian territory, by the Palestinian Ministry of National Economy in cooperation with the Applied Research Institute- Jerusalem (ARIJ), September 2011 (p12)

Half of Palestinian wells have dried up over the last twenty years and effects are particularly severe for the generally more vulnerable population groups living in Area C. PCBS (2009a) reported that in 2008, 325 Palestinian wells were operational in the West Bank, compared to 774 wells in 1967. Area C is the area where Palestinians should have access to most water sources in the West Bank. However any Palestinian attempt to access new water sources or to connect new areas is inevitably curbed by the restrictions imposed by Israel in Area C. Current project approval rules require a second approval by the Civil Administration if projects touch on Area C, which is the case for almost all wells, water conveyance and wastewater treatment and reuse infrastructure (World Bank, 2009). A number of projects have been approved by the Joint Water Committee, for which detailed planning permission has then not been granted by the Israeli Civil Administration. As a consequence of these policies by 2007 the Palestinian population had access to only about one quarter of the ration of their Israeli counterparts: West Bank Palestinians had about 123 litre per capita per day (lpcd) – a number which has since further declined - and Israelis about 544 lpcd (World Bank, 2009).

http://www.un.org/depts/dpa/qpal/docs/2012Cairo/p2%20jad%20isaac%20e.pdf

[aranthus]

46. No doubt it is a problem, but THE problem?

The history of the the War of Independence informs each side's understanding of the present problem Unfortunately, the two sides have mutually exclusive understandings of history. The trick is to learn from history, and not be controlled by it.

[Scootaloo]

54. Your memory is bad, and I'm tired of re-explaining to you

Just search "scootaloo Mufti" and re-read the... eight/ Nine? times I've educated you, Dave

[King_David]

56. Obviously wasn't convincing or credible

But you can't whitewash history I am afraid.

[bemildred]

8. +1. nt

[aranthus]

44. Not at all.

Blaming all Palestinians for the Mufti would be like blaming all Germans for Hitler. Oh wait, we did that for years. In fact, we went out of our way to de-Nazify Germany after the war, which is why we don't blame modern Germans for Hitler. Because not only weren't they there, they have long renounced Nazi ideology.

The truth is that neither Hitler, nor the Mufti did what they did on their own. The Mufti had followers, supporters, and an army (arguably two armies, but the chain of command is complicated). If Palestinians want to claim that they have been a nation for thousands of years (which they do), then they are accountable as a nation for their actions in the 47-49 war, just as other nations are accountable for the actions of their leaders and their military. What's more, the Palestinians have never rejected the ideology and positions of the Mufti. Instead, they have embraced them. Seventy years down the road, and Palestinians are still arguing that the Jews are only a religion so they shouldn't have a state at all. Seventy years down the road, and the Palestinians are still looking for ways that they can reverse the defeat in the war they started, so they can eliminate Israel. Don't you think that the Palestinians should be held responsible for the things that they did, and the things that they are still doing?

As to what good will come of this. The truth is important for its own sake. Not only that, it sets the parameters of peoples' understanding of the present. It also tells us a lot about the other side when they reject the truth for no more reason than that they don't like it. It focuses attention on the real problem. Something has to change within the Palestinian nation, or else Israel will have to take unilateral action that the Palestinians really won't like. Because if the Palestinians don't learn to really accept the right of existence of the Jewish state, then the Israelis would be crazy to allow the Palestinians to have a state from which they could continue the war against the Jews. It does no one any good to hide one's head in the sand and pretend that isn't the case.

[Ken Burch]

45. The Palestinians DID accept Israel's right to exist. In 1994.

The recognition issue has been put to rest.

And the Palestinian position is not based on antisemitism. Saying it is implies that they'd be just fine with anybody else treating them the way they've been treated since 1967.

In truth, things have to change equally in BOTH nations...it's not as simple as "Israel virtuous, Palestine evil", much as you'd like it to be.

[aranthus]

47. If that were true, then they wouldn't keep pushing for Right of Return.

And the war didn't start in 1967. It started in 1947. That's the point of the original post. To explain why the Palestinians started the war in 1947. It wasn't because of what would happen twenty years later. And as I have already pointed out, not only have Palestinians not rejected the Mufti's positions, they have embraced them. Suggesting that the current conflict is about 1967 is like saying World War II was about Hiroshima and the fire bombing of Dresden. It's complete horse manure.

[Ken Burch]

48. The fear(soon realized) of mass dispossession and exile were one of the major reasons

Palestinians were unable to reconcile themselves to Israel before 1967.

Was it ever reasonable to expect Palestinians to treat the dispossession of 700,000 to 800,000 of their countrymen as if it were no big deal?

Anybody anywhere is going be embittered to be put through something like that.

I wouldn't have use the tactics Palestinians used in response to that situation, but at the same time the Israeli side pretty much lost any claim to innocent victim status in this exchange when the dispossessions happened.

This is why Right of Return has to be addressed in some form.

I'd suggest a formula like this

1)Permanent physical return for the elders of '48. Not many of them left, and they're too old to do any harm to anyone.

2)Conditional physical return for those willing to commit to personally accepting Israel's existence in its current form, or the option of accepting compensation, acknowledgment of suffering, and apologies for the suffering having been inflicted(this would also be offered to the indigenous Jewish population of the West Bank who were expelled by the Jordanian government in 1948. Political .representation on the model of French-style "overseas department" deputies in the Palestinian Assembly.

3)For the rest, no physical return(other than visits)but a combination of compensation, acknowledgment and apology as listed in option #2.

The most crucial thing to getting Palestinians to move on about this, I think is to acknowledge that, even if they chose bad tactics, they did and do have legitimate grievances about this and that, as Palestinians need to acknowledge that Israelis sometimes suffered undeservedly in this situation, Palestinians have as well. All the Israelis have offered is compensation, with no admission that any real harm was ever inflicted and no acknowledgement that a significant number of Palestinians were noncombatants who were simply trying to go about their lives as best they could.

It is not helpful to collectively equate Palestinians with the Nazis, or hold them, even today, collectively responsible for the deeds and views of the Mufti.

Both sides are responsible, and BOTH sides have to change and grow and listen to each other.

That's mainly what I am saying.

That's why, while I agree that the Grand Mufti(the only Palestinian Mufti who ever had "Grand" in his title-it was added by the British for some reason)was a total bastard, you can't hold what he did and said against every Palestinian unto his tenth generation.

At some point, there needs to be a restart in all of this, and some recognition of common humanity.

[aranthus]

50. HORSE HOCKEY!

No one reading the history of those times could believe that the Palestinians feared that they would be forcibly evicted In a war. If that were true then the last thing they would do is start a war. This is why knowing the truth is so important. That' why the original post is so important. The truth is that the people most responsible for the refugees are the Palestians themselves. Of course the Palestinians don't like that, and won't accept it, but the rest of us have a responsibility to speak the truth nonetheless. No war. No refugees. Your fantasy land solution will not work.

[Ken Burch]

51. I've said nothing personally abusive to you.

And I support Israelis being able to live in peace within the lands they had pre-1967(which, in a peaceful region, would be all the lands Israel would need).

What matters is achieving reconciliation...not placing blame for past and "winning" in a conflict in which winning doesn't mean anything.

[King_David]

59. Yea but your post was complete nonsense

Fantasy land as Aranthas aptly proved.

[Ken Burch]

67. Both sides are to blame.

Both sides need to change.

Is that so hard to accept?

And the Mufti has been dead since 1973.

[King_David]

68. Yea but your post was utter nonsense

As Aranthus demonstrated very nicely.

[aranthus]

62. Nor have I to you.

But when you claim that the Palestinians started the war that led to their expulsion because they feared a war that would lead to their expulsion, there is no rational response but to call BS. It's a completely silly, ludicrous, and totally false argument.

Reconcilliation is a great idea, but it can't happen based on lies and fantasies. It can't happen simply by having the Israelis admit to everything the Palestinians believe, and do everything to make the Palestinians happy. Especially if my side is right and the only thing that will make them happy is Israel gone.

[Ken Burch]

66. And it isn't even as simple as saying the Palestinians started it.

A poster downthread said there were attacks the other way at the start of it.

And while the Mufti was a bastard and deserves to be perpetually sauteed in whatever Hell is has ended up in, it was NOT all the Palestinians fault and you can't assume that every Palestinian who joined in the fighting(a lot of them didn't)was motivated by bigotry. Some were(as have been a lot on the what became the pro-Israeli side)but a lot were and are driven simply by fear of getting dispossessed as the new state expanded(Ben-Gurion had often talked out of both sides of his mouth on the territorial question, promising some on his right that he would eventually take more). Rank-and-file Palestinians, who never had a say in any of this(the Mufti didn't really care about rank-and-file people of any sort)were naturally scared about what their fate might be in a process in which they had not been allowed to express their wishes.

The Palestinians are not and have never been the successors to the Nazis. It is a territorial issue and they'd have had the same response if any other group of people had showed up from Europe acting like it was THEIR land and nobody else's. Israel's existence is justified(like the existence of the United States)but in both cases much happened in the creation of those states that was unjustified and which needs to be addressed.

And as I've said before, even if you were right that the Palestinian side was driven by nothing at all but bigotry, how is keeping them collectively immiserated, how is perpetuating the Occupation for decades without end, how is taking more and more of their land in the name of what you would have to admit is a completely indefensible West Bank settlement project EVER going to change their attitudes towards Israel and Israelis for the better? You can't crush people into tolerance, and it isn't possible to end this conflict with an absolute Israeli military victory and an unconditional Palestinian surrender(just as it isn't possible to end it with the reverse scenario-Israel isn't ever going to be wiped off the map, no matter what).

Nobody who wasn't born when the Mufti lived is to blame for the Mufti or those who allied themselves with him, and it isn't reasonable to expect the Palestinian side to say "ok, you guys were totally right, we were totally wrong, and nothing we did should ever have happened...so please kick us in the teeth one more time and then leave us with crumbs", which seems to be what you expect them to do.

Both sides are implicated in the suffering. Nobody can claim moral superiority or exclusive victimhood.

[Bohemianwriter]

57. Why shouldn't Palestinians who has their homes stolen...

and lives destroyed have the right to return to their ancestral home, but some family from Brooklyn or Russia has that right to "return" as if any of those have any link to Israel except for religion?

Are you among the people who also labels Native Americns the same way as you label Palestinians?

Are you a racist who supports ethnic cleansing based on ethnicity and religion?

If so, what makes you better than ISIS?

[King_David]

58. Recognition issue has not been put to rest at all

No matter how much you wish it .

Hamas does not recognize Israel or accept Jews or Gays for that matter.... And they account for a sizable part of the Palestinian populace .

Those homophobic Antisemitic Hamas terrorists garner a chunk of Palestinian support.

[leftynyc]

10. Take a minute and think

how many lives could have been saved AND improved if the Palestinians had accepted their state in 1948 instead of being talked into being cannon fodder. They've been whining for a do-over ever since.

[King_David]

11. Think even today how advanced they would be

or how quickly advanced they will be if they just accepted that the Jewish State is here to stay and not going anywhere...
Live and let live and everyone can prosper.

[leftynyc]

12. Instead

they elect either thoroughly corrupt (abbas) or terrorists (hamas) as their leaders. While they steal them blind and buy weapons and build tunnels rather than schools and hospitals. And you have the brain dead supporters who blame Israel for all the problems. Then they wonder why they have so little support in the US. It's madness.

[King_David]

13. There's a vocal minority of those here on DU that blame Israel for everything.

Some even think it's acceptable to be an "antiZionist "....
Can you imagine that? And still be a part of the Democratic Party....

[leftynyc]

15. To call them fringe

is being too kind. They're loud, they're obnoxious but given their numbers, they're also irrelevant. Not one elected official has taken up their cause - because their cause includes support for those who support terrorism.

[King_David]

16. Yep

[Ken Burch]

19. It has never been all the Palestinians' fault.

Both sides have done wrong.

[leftynyc]

20. I didn't claim otherwise

But not accepting the state in 1948 was the colossal fuck up of all time as far as I'm concerned and they continue to listen to those who don't give a crap about the Palestinians and continue to tell them, just suffer a little while longer while we figure things out for you. Nobody has let the Palestinians down more than their own leaders have.

[Ken Burch]

22. I don't approve of their tactics, but what they were offered in '48 was too small to be a real state

It wasn't contiguous.

Non-contiguous states can't survive.

[shira]

24. The '47 partition plan was more a state than what the Palestinians are asking for today....

Last edited Tue Apr 5, 2016, 03:56 PM - Edit history (1)

You're giving that Nazi Mufti a reason to not only reject but go on the attack against Jews when he was against ANY deal that granted ANY land to Jews, no matter the size.

[leftynyc]

25. What utter HORSESHIT

It was way more of a state than anything they are likely to get now and way more than they've even asked for since they blew it in 1948. Who do you think you're kidding with this nonsense?

[Scootaloo]

55. Why should anyone accept being mugged?

[yourpaljoey]

26. Please offer a side of BS when you serve up nonsense

My God, such wicked lies.
Have you no shame?

[aranthus]

28. What lies?

Please be specific.

[shira]

29. The OP isn't nonsense or lies. In fact, it's impossible to understand I/P...

...without that kind of basic knowledge of the conflict.

State run Palestinian media shows how the same Jew hating genocidal intent exists to this day and why the conflict persists.

People unaware of this don't know a thing about I/P.

[shira]

40. Israel haters don't like being reminded that their cause is linked to Nazi Jew hatred. n/t

[Tony_FLADEM]

49. The Israel-Arab War started when the Irgun attacked some Arabs

On 12/31/47 there were Arab workers outside an oil refinery. The Irgun lobbed grenades at them hoping to get them to retaliate.

Watch up to 10:17

?t=435

[aranthus]

63. Not true.

The first attacks were by Arabs almost immediately after passage of the Partition Resolution at the end of November. There were back and forth attacks all during December. It is not as if there was peace and then out of nowhere the Haifa refinery attack. Not only is there little evidence that the Irgun was trying to spark a war (they'd have been crazy to try and do that when hardly anyone thought that they would win), but there is no evidence that the Arab militants (such as the Mufti) would have let things resolve peacefully if there were no attacks by the Irgun.

Who made this video? It reeks of propaganda.

[Tony_FLADEM]

64. The Arab Palestinians did not have a military so how were they able to launch attacks?

Tell me on what day and where the first attack took place at the end of November?

The Irgun and other Israeli military groups easily defeated the Arabs so it's not very credible that anyone believed they couldn't win. That video shows the head of the Palestine Police (a Britain) confirming this is what happened.

The Mufti left in 1937 so how was he able to coordinate a battle when he wasn't even there?

[aranthus]

65. Of course they had a military.

The Arab Liberation Army and the Arab Army of Salvatiion. Look up Massacres in Palestine in 1947 on Wikipedia. They are there.