Israel bans use of word "Nakba" in textbooks

[FireGarden]

Stating that there was 'no comprehensive policy' and then indicating that the 'idea of transfer was in the air' and that Ben Gurion 'projected' this message/idea of transfer is contradictory. Perhaps you could explain how this isn't contradictory?

As I said before:
I don't see how it's contradictory.
There is no explicit order signed by Ben Gurion, but there are orders signed by other people. Including Carmel and Rabin. There is a meeting with Ben Gurion where, according to Rabin, he makes clear his wish with a gesture -- not by signing anything. That's not a contradiction.

There is no "orderly comprehensive policy", but expulsions are ordered. The latter can happen without a detailed policy. So again, no contradiction.


What about it?

You asked where you made a claim, I pointed out where you made the claim.

And? If there was a complete cessation for any form of peace negotiations, you would have a point that there is a lack of responsibility taken.

That doesn't follow the conversation at all. Do you think the Naqba was justified? -- and, no, the Naqba is not the same as the foundation of Israel.

[bigjelmapro]

As I said before:
I don't see how it's contradictory.
There is no explicit order signed by Ben Gurion, but there are orders signed by other people. Including Carmel and Rabin. There is a meeting with Ben Gurion where, according to Rabin, he makes clear his wish with a gesture -- not by signing anything. That's not a contradiction.

Then fine. If you don't think that stating that there wasn't a orderly comprehensive policy and then stating that there was one, just simply not signed, ordered and delivered by Ben Gurion, then you can continue to swim stubbornly against the tide of logic to your hearts content.


You asked where you made a claim, I pointed out where you made the claim.

You pointed to a post where a number of claims were made. You asked for one specific explanation to a claim made, I gave the quote, you once again, refuse to acknowledge that I explained the claim made.


That doesn't follow the conversation at all. Do you think the Naqba was justified? -- and, no, the Naqba is not the same as the foundation of Israel.
Doesn't follow how? Your direction? My direction?

Naqba encompasses the interpretation of the meaning of the term of 'disaster' and 'catastrophe'. This term has been linked to both the founding of Israel and the displacement of Arabs (not of all during the conflict). If it just meant the latter, then you would have a point. But it doesn't and it hasn't be used as such in Arab history books. Perhaps you could point out some Arab history books where it does solely mean the displacement of Arabs during the wars of '48 and '67.

Whether the naqba was justified is a preposterous question to ask, if we are solely using your misplaced definition of what the naqba entails. A loaded question....

[FireGarden]

Then fine. If you don't think that stating that there wasn't a orderly comprehensive policy and then stating that there was one, just simply not signed, ordered and delivered by Ben Gurion, then you can continue to swim stubbornly against the tide of logic to your hearts content.

Except I didn't say "there wasn't a orderly comprehensive policy and then stating that there was one".

You seem to be ignoring adjectives when reaching your conclusion. I say there is no 20,000 ton bullfrog. And I say there is a bullfrog. Is that also a contradiction?

The fact is orders were given. Some of them signed -- but not by Ben Gurion. Where these orders given illegally? It does not seem so. Did they follow a comprehensive blueprint? It does not seem so. Where they entirely seperate "great minds think alike/fools seldom differ" type coincidences? It does not seem so.

You pointed to a post where a number of claims were made. You asked for one specific explanation to a claim made, I gave the quote, you once again, refuse to acknowledge that I explained the claim made.

You haven't explained the claim made.
In post 489 you criticise Morris for coming up with premises that aren't backed by evidence. One of those premises being that the Israeli government barred the return of refugees. Now you say letting refugees go back would be a compromise that can't come until the conflict is resolved.

Whether that is right or wrong, it doesn't explain the claim made: Morris coming up with premises not backed by evidence (in this case a claim about refugees barred from returning).

Put simply: What did Morris get wrong in this instance? Did the Ben Gurion government encourage the return of refugees? Were they ambivalent regarding the return of refugees?

Perhaps you can provide the particular quote of Morris which you say is unsupported by evidence.

[bigjelmapro]

Except I didn't say "there wasn't a orderly comprehensive policy and then stating that there was one".
...
The fact is orders were given. Some of them signed -- but not by Ben Gurion. Where these orders given illegally? It does not seem so. Did they follow a comprehensive blueprint? It does not seem so. Where they entirely seperate "great minds think alike/fools seldom differ" type coincidences? It does not seem so.

You missed the mark again. Morris states there wasn't a comphrehensive policy but more than eludes to there actually being one, albeit not formal (not being formal since he can't find a formal piece of evidence from Ben Gurion that there was said policy). He makes a counter-claim within the same paragraph. Enough with the allegories and strawman fallacies. Its getting quite bothersome and counter-productive.


You haven't explained the claim made.
In post 489...One of those premises being that the Israeli government barred the return of refugees. Now you say letting refugees go back would be a compromise that can't come until the conflict is resolved.

The prior is Morris's misrepresentation (see link below), the latter is my take on the refugee issue. There's a distinction. Its not a case of semantics.


Perhaps you can provide the particular quote of Morris which you say is unsupported by evidence.
Take your pick: Benny Morris and the Reign of Error (http://www.meforum.org/466/benny-morris-and-the-reign-of-error)

Or do you want me to somehow make a fresh approach and personally find these errors that Morris has made? Sounds to me that since I didn't find these errors myself, then the arguments against Morris are somehow not relevant.

[FireGarden]

You missed the mark again. Morris states there wasn't a comphrehensive policy but more than eludes to there actually being one, albeit not formal (not being formal since he can't find a formal piece of evidence from Ben Gurion that there was said policy). He makes a counter-claim within the same paragraph. Enough with the allegories and strawman fallacies. Its getting quite bothersome and counter-productive.

No what happened is: Morris stated there wasn't a 20,000 ton bullfrog but more than eluded to there actually being one -- albeit not a 20,000 ton one.

Still doesn't sound like a contradiction.

[bigjelmapro]

Still going on with that one?

[FireGarden]

You want to see the order itself? Why don't you go look in the IDF archives? Are they available on the internet?

I'll see what I can muster. I got reserve duty coming up this month. Could take advantage of that.

Or are you going to name someone who checked and didn't find the order? That's the evidence you need. It's unreasonable to ask me to go check myself and provide you with a photocopy.

Karsh. Then again, I'll check myself. Mishmar hasharon, Tel Aviv. I'll check there. Doubtful you will.

Did you find anything in the archives?
Did you find where Karsh says he didn't find the orders signed by Carmel which Morris says are in the archive?

[Praktik]

Nail - head

Honestly, Israel trying to stop the use of this word is covering up recent history. The Palestinians who were displaced called it nakba. Why not make reference in history that the Palestinians were upset and called it nakba?

Why don't they want to? Because it's inconvenient. It would be as if we scrubbed US History books of all references to how we mistreated the Native Americans when we founded this place.
There is discord and tension in Israel's founding and they shouldn't shy away from it. Israelis shouldn't have to call it nakba, but making it policy to eradicate that word from their text books is pretty damned Orwellian if you ask me.

Very ungood.

I think Americans should stop calling the "Trail of Tears" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_tears) the ummm.. Trail of Tears... just stirs up too much Native American resentment.

I suggest "Trail of Liberty" or "Trail of Rainbows" instead. I think that will foster more understanding dontcha think?

[FireGarden]

From a different thread, regarding this one:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=186316&page=7

Go back to that thread and re-read. My position was pretty clear in that thread. There was no evidence beyond that of haganah field commanders, as in the army which isn't the government last time I checked, responding to the thread of an entrenched enemy. This was the same conclusions in the threads in question and I did not deny this. You, however, went one step further in implicating the Israeli government at the highest levels (with terms from Morris like 'atmosphere') devoid of any direct evidence.

So are you calling Rabin a liar, then?

Lastly, in the last detraction of this thread, Israel was at war with the Arab league and the towns that were cleared (or whatever keyword you want to use here) had paramilitary and foreign military units in them fighting the haganah. The logical step here was to create a buffer zone, which the haganah commanders did. Arabs that were displaced during this war were not displaced more than a dozen or so kilometers and not with the intention to 'ethnically cleanse' an entire people out of the country but to remove a threat, both real and potential.

This wasn't the case in a number, I dare say the majority, of Arab countries with their respective Jewish populations.

Jews are allowed to return to Syria and Morocco. They have always been allowed to return. At one point... They weren't allowed to leave. Do you see how different to 'expelled' such a thing is?

And btw, Benny Morris and Ian Pappe is not much of a spectrum. ;)

They indicate a huge political spectrum: Morris approves of the expulsions, Pappe does not. But, heck, I explained that it was a political spectrum I was referring to in the other thread. Not a spectrum of historians. Historians from ultra-zionist to anti-zionist agree that Arabs were expelled by Israel. That is quite a spectrum.

Anyway, if you want to discuss that, I'd prefer to do it in the other thread. In fact, I'm going to cut and paste this there.



You might want to reconsider this post:


So Gelber, Shapira, Rabin and Morris say that Yigal Allon lied when he told the New York Times it was an exodus rather than an expulsion. They all say the Arabs were expelled.

Further, the order is recorded. Issued at 13:30 hours on July 12: "1. The inhabitants of Lydda must be expelled quickly without attention to age. They should be directed towards Beit Nabala. Yiftah [Brigade HQ] must determined the method and inform Dani HQ and 8th Brigade HQ."

You might also read the account of the march and ask yourself if it was forced or not.

And there's also an order for Ramle: "you must take [over responsibility] for the defence of the town, the transfer of prisoners [to PoW camps] and the emptying of the town of its inhabitants."

which uses this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_from_Lydda_and_Ramla#Orders_issued

[bigjelmapro]

Did you find anything in the archives?
Did you find where Karsh says he didn't find the orders signed by Carmel which Morris says are in the archive?
Nope. Didn't go. Haven't found them on the internet either. Have you?

[bigjelmapro]

From a different thread, regarding this one:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=186316&page=7
So are you calling Rabin a liar, then?

What was Rabin in '48? The conclusions were the same as they were months ago in this thread. No comprehensive policy of expulsion existed in Israel.

How many threads you going to spam this drivel on?


Jews are allowed to return to Syria and Morocco. They have always been allowed to return. At one point... They weren't allowed to leave. Do you see how different to 'expelled' such a thing is?

This present tense? Find it peculiar that you are still using restrictions imposed against the Jewish community, ie Syria, as a defense, when the law to prevent Jews from leaving was predominantly in place to prevent them from emigrating to Israel, not as a means to defend Syria's millenia old Jewish community. Additionally, the majority of Syria's Jewish population left years before Israel's independence war. So again, relevance.

In the case of Morocco, I have never disagreed that this country treated its Jewish citizens well compared to the other Arab countries. Again, why you bring up this country compared to the other almost 2 dozen Arab countries part of the Arab league as a defense, is beyond me.

As linked earlier: Why Jews Fled the Arab Countries (http://www.meforum.org/263/why-jews-fled-the-arab-countries)

And additionally:

The Forgotten Narrative: Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries (https://secured4.catom.com/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=5&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=625&PID=861&IID=1020&TTL=The_Forgotten_Narrative:_Jewish_Refugees_from_ Arab_Countries)

...
Expulsion as the Goal
The Arab statements in the UN General Assembly and the New York Times reports prove that the intention to expel these Jewish populations preceded the establishment of Israel and the plight of the Palestinian refugees. At the end of the war for Israel's independence, early in February 1949, Britain's ambassador to Transjordan Sir Alec Kirkbride was present at an exchange between the abovementioned Iraqi Prime Minister Sa'id and his Jordanian counterpart, Samir El-Rifa'i, regarding the fate of the Iraqi Jews. The former leader was planning mass killings of his Jewish countrymen to induce them to flee via Jordan. According to Kirkbride, Sa'id "came out with the astounding proposition that a convoy of Iraqi Jews should be brought over in army lorries escorted by armored cars, taken to the Jordanian-Israeli frontier and forced to cross the line." Sa'id spelled out his strategy:

Quite apart from the certainty that the Israelis would not consent to receive the deportations in that manner, the passage of the Jews through Jordan would almost certainly have touched off serious trouble amongst the very disgruntled Arab refugees who were crowded into the country. Either the Iraqi Jews would have been massacred or their guards would have to shoot other Arabs to protect the lives of their charges.
...
In a few years, Jewish communities that had existed in the Middle East for more than 2,500 years were brutally expelled or had to run for their lives. The statements made in the UN were harbingers of what became a total collapse of these Jews' security. Following the Partition Resolution of November 1947, and in some countries even earlier during World War II, Middle Eastern Jews were the targets of official and popular incitement, state-legislated discrimination, and pogroms - again, all this before the massive flight of the Arabs from Palestine.

Is it right for me to assume that your intention here is to state that there was a policy of Arab expulsion by the Israeli government and not one by the Arab league nations?

If not, please clarify.


They indicate a huge political spectrum: Morris approves of the expulsions, Pappe does not. But, heck, I explained that it was a political spectrum I was referring to in the other thread. Not a spectrum of historians. Historians from ultra-zionist to anti-zionist agree that Arabs were expelled by Israel. That is quite a spectrum.

Anyway, if you want to discuss that, I'd prefer to do it in the other thread. In fact, I'm going to cut and paste this there.

Morris didn't necessarily approve of expulsions, but in the context of the war, he agreed with the move as a necessary move of certain villages/towns that were hotspots of the Arab military and paramilitary.

Pappe and Morris, both deemed 'new historians', still aren't a giant political spectrum. You really think Morris is an 'ultra-zionist'?

[FireGarden]

Nope. Didn't go. Haven't found them on the internet either. Have you?

No, I haven't.
Like I said before: I won't look through the IDF archives myself. I also won't be double checking the work of NIST regarding 911. Neither will I run double blind trials on any medicine. You see I trust institutions to do jobs like that.

It's your claim that Morris has got it wrong about the expulsion orders -- either misquoting or whatever. Why can't you find a scholar who makes the same claim. Morris' books are used in Israeli universities. If they were wrong on that point, you'd think that someone would have said so and proved it.

What was Rabin in '48? The conclusions were the same as they were months ago in this thread. No comprehensive policy of expulsion existed in Israel.

No comprehensive policy, but a policy nonetheless -- as proved by the expulsion orders and the testimony of people like Rabin.

How many threads you going to spam this drivel on?

If it's drivel, then refute it.

This present tense? Find it peculiar that you are still using restrictions imposed against the Jewish community, ie Syria, as a defense, when the law to prevent Jews from leaving was predominantly in place to prevent them from emigrating to Israel, not as a means to defend Syria's millenia old Jewish community. Additionally, the majority of Syria's Jewish population left years before Israel's independence war. So again, relevance.

The relevence is that they weren't expelled and that they can return.

In the case of Morocco, I have never disagreed that this country treated its Jewish citizens well compared to the other Arab countries. Again, why you bring up this country compared to the other almost 2 dozen Arab countries part of the Arab league as a defense, is beyond me.

Have you seen the numbers of Jews who were in Morocco as compared to the others? Morocco isn't insignificant in the topic.

As linked earlier: Why Jews Fled the Arab Countries (http://www.meforum.org/263/why-jews-fled-the-arab-countries)

And additionally:

The Forgotten Narrative: Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries (https://secured4.catom.com/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=5&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=625&PID=861&IID=1020&TTL=The_Forgotten_Narrative:_Jewish_Refugees_from_ Arab_Countries)

Is it right for me to assume that your intention here is to state that there was a policy of Arab expulsion by the Israeli government and not one by the Arab league nations?

If not, please clarify.

I've already agreed that there were expulsions -- both in this thread and the other. So how you get the above idea, I don't know. What I do claim is that not all the Jews who left were expelled. And you agree -- as you stated above regarding Morocco: "In the case of Morocco, I have never disagreed that this country treated its Jewish citizens well compared to the other Arab countries."

I also state that the law forbidding Jews from leaving was itself unjust.

Morris didn't necessarily approve of expulsions, but in the context of the war, he agreed with the move as a necessary move of certain villages/towns that were hotspots of the Arab military and paramilitary.

Pappe and Morris, both deemed 'new historians', still aren't a giant political spectrum. You really think Morris is an 'ultra-zionist'?

Morris approved of the expulsions in question. That he may not approve of expulsions in general is really beside the point.

Haaretz doesn't seem to host this interview anymore, but it was copied around the web a few times. I think I've linked to it a couple of times. Here is part one at the Jewish Journal:
http://www.jewishjournal.com/world/article/q_a_with_benny_morris_20040130/

BM: Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish State would not have arisen here.

AS: For decades you have been researching the dark side of Zionism. You are an expert on the atrocities of 1948. In the end, do you in effect justify all this? Are you an advocate of the transfer of 1948?

BM: There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands.

[...] BM: There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide -- the annihilation of your people -- I prefer ethnic cleansing.

there was a part 2 to the interview. You can find it quoted onthe web, including at wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris

I quoted it back in post 424:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4962478&postcount=424

But I do not identify with Ben-Gurion. I think he made a serious historical mistake in 1948. Even though he understood the demographic issue and the need to establish a Jewish state without a large Arab minority, he got cold feet during the war. In the end, he faltered.

[...] If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations.

Maybe that will help you understand what Morris means by 'no comprehensive policy' but a policy nonetheless.

Ilan Pappe calls it ethnic cleansing but is not in favour of it. Ilan Pappe is in favour of a one state solution:
http://toibillboard.info/Transcript_eng.htm

Do you still deny there is a big difference between them?

[bigjelmapro]

No, I haven't.
Like I said before: I won't look through the IDF archives myself. I also won't be double checking the work of NIST regarding 911. Neither will I run double blind trials on any medicine. You see I trust institutions to do jobs like that.

Since when is Morris an institution? I find it interesting that you put aviation and medical specialists on par with historians. ;) Risky.


It's your claim that Morris has got it wrong about the expulsion orders -- either misquoting or whatever. Why can't you find a scholar who makes the same claim. Morris' books are used in Israeli universities. If they were wrong on that point, you'd think that someone would have said so and proved it.

No comprehensive policy, 'in the air bit' is what he's wrong with. Its a position that doesn't require evidence since he's not making the claim that there was a comprehensive policy, but makes an assumption that there possibly was one. I just disagree with him.


No comprehensive policy, but a policy nonetheless -- as proved by the expulsion orders and the testimony of people like Rabin.

At what point did it become a policy rather than a tactic used during the 1948 war to target specific villages/towns that harbored foreign military and locally trained paramilitary units? Rabins account of 'garesh otam' referred to Ramle from what I've read. Again, how you draw a policy from this, is beyond me.


The relevence is that they weren't expelled and that they can return.

When was this practiced? Or is this just another form of doublespeak from Arab street?

'Right of return', as in for everybody, which includes the possibility for Jewish refugees, is the final step in the peace initiatives. There has been an offer and there has been attempts to resolve this very issue (read the latter link I provided), but blocked by the Arab league.


Have you seen the numbers of Jews who were in Morocco as compared to the others? Morocco isn't insignificant in the topic.

I know, which is why I wonder that you keep bringing up Moroccan Jewry.


I've already agreed that there were expulsions -- both in this thread and the other. So how you get the above idea, I don't know. What I do claim is that not all the Jews who left were expelled. And you agree -- as you stated above regarding Morocco: "In the case of Morocco, I have never disagreed that this country treated its Jewish citizens well compared to the other Arab countries."

I never claimed that all Jews were expelled either. What triggered this resurrection of this topic is my mere mention of the word expell/expulsion when the context of why I brought it up didn't have much to do with this topic.

Why I brought this up, as I explained in the other thread, was the different categorization of Jewry in the Arab countries and Arabs in Israel proper and the territories by Parky. In addition to the extent of these two groups of displaced peoples.


I also state that the law forbidding Jews from leaving was itself unjust.

Its unjust sure, but again, I wonder why you keep bringing up a law preventing Jews from leaving (albeit at this point most already fled). To me this reads as stating that Israel supposedly had a policy of expulsion, but hey, Syria and Morocco actually had laws to prevent expulsion. Am I right?


Morris approved of the expulsions in question. That he may not approve of expulsions in general is really beside the point.

Haaretz doesn't seem to host this interview anymore, but it was copied around the web a few times. I think I've linked to it a couple of times. Here is part one at the Jewish Journal:
http://www.jewishjournal.com/world/article/q_a_with_benny_morris_20040130/
...

Yes, I've read this interview before. How does this negate my statement?


Maybe that will help you understand what Morris means by 'no comprehensive policy' but a policy nonetheless.

Still isn't a policy and I get what he means.


Ilan Pappe calls it ethnic cleansing but is not in favour of it. Ilan Pappe is in favour of a one state solution:
http://toibillboard.info/Transcript_eng.htm

Do you still deny there is a big difference between them?
If Pappe would classify it as an expulsion in the context of war (as explained earlier), as Morris did, would he be in favor for it? And really, if you classify something as ethnic cleansing, nobody would touch the argument in reasoning or justification with a ten foot poll, hence the convenient classification.

So do you regard Morris as an 'ultra-zionist' or is this just a play of superlative words to portray the two historians as miles apart?

[FireGarden]

Since when is Morris an institution? I find it interesting that you put aviation and medical specialists on par with historians. ;) Risky.

The institutions in question are the Israeli (and other) universities that use his books. I'm sure that lots of historians have checked his work and that if the orders I've quoted don't exist in the archives, then someone would have noticed by now. If you insist on disagreeing: go to the archives, look for the orders and sell your story to a newspaper.

Until you do that, then I will believe what all those universities believe.

No comprehensive policy, 'in the air bit' is what he's wrong with. Its a position that doesn't require evidence since he's not making the claim that there was a comprehensive policy, but makes an assumption that there possibly was one. I just disagree with him.

You don't just disagree with him: you call him a liar. And you will go on calling him a liar until you accept that the signed expulsion orders he quotes actually exist.

The fact is orders were given. Some of them signed -- but not by Ben Gurion. Where these orders given illegally? It does not seem so. Did they follow a comprehensive blueprint? It does not seem so. Where they entirely seperate "great minds think alike/fools seldom differ" type coincidences? It does not seem so.

So I agree with the 'in the air' bit.

At what point did it become a policy rather than a tactic used during the 1948 war to target specific villages/towns that harbored foreign military and locally trained paramilitary units? Rabins account of 'garesh otam' referred to Ramle from what I've read. Again, how you draw a policy from this, is beyond me.

What do you mean by 'policy rather than tactic'?
Ramle wasn't an isolated case. "Great minds think alike/fools seldom differ" type coincidences? I don't think so.

When was this practiced? Or is this just another form of doublespeak from Arab street?

'Right of return', as in for everybody, which includes the possibility for Jewish refugees, is the final step in the peace initiatives. There has been an offer and there has been attempts to resolve this very issue (read the latter link I provided), but blocked by the Arab league.

Re-read post 130:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4947074&postcount=130

Syrian Jews in America being invited back to Syria:
http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/L/Joshua.M.Landis-1/syriablog/2005/10/jews-of-syria-by-robert-tuttle.htm

Over the past year, [Syrian ambassador to the United States, Imad] Mustapha has been making rounds in South Brooklyn’s Syrian Jewish neighborhoods, introducing himself to members of the community, making friends, and encouraging Syrian Jews to visit their country of origin.

[...] A delegation of a dozen Jews of Syrian origin visited Syria in the spring of 2004, accompanied by Mustapha.

[...] When the meeting [with Syrian President] was over, Hasbani said the group asked the president if he would invite them back to Syria.

“He said no,” Mustapha said. “They were surprised. He said to them, ‘I can’t invite you back. I can’t invite Syrians back to Syria. You are always welcome.’”

[...] Few Syrian Jew have returned to Syria permanently, but many say that they would like to visit, if only to see the homes in which they once resided, the Synagogues in which they worshiped or the graves of their ancestors. A small, but growing minority are returning to do business and reestablish old ties.




I never claimed that all Jews were expelled either. What triggered this resurrection of this topic is my mere mention of the word expell/expulsion when the context of why I brought it up didn't have much to do with this topic.

Why I brought this up, as I explained in the other thread, was the different categorization of Jewry in the Arab countries and Arabs in Israel proper and the territories by Parky. In addition to the extent of these two groups of displaced peoples.


Its unjust sure, but again, I wonder why you keep bringing up a law preventing Jews from leaving (albeit at this point most already fled). To me this reads as stating that Israel supposedly had a policy of expulsion, but hey, Syria and Morocco actually had laws to prevent expulsion. Am I right?

I bring it up when people say that Jews were expelled from Arab lands. Especially if the number quoted is the total number of Jews who left Arab countries. (That number probably came from Marc39, or whatever his name was).


Yes, I've read this interview before. How does this negate my statement?

It illustrates Morris' politics, which are very different to Pappe's.

Still isn't a policy and I get what he means.

It's a policy. Just like it's your policy to deny such -- even though you haven't signed it into law.

If Pappe would classify it as an expulsion in the context of war (as explained earlier), as Morris did, would he be in favor for it? And really, if you classify something as ethnic cleansing, nobody would touch the argument in reasoning or justification with a ten foot poll, hence the convenient classification.

Except Morris did touch it: "There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing."

See how different they are?

So do you regard Morris as an 'ultra-zionist' or is this just a play of superlative words to portray the two historians as miles apart?

Would you accept 'very zionist'? How about 'certainly more Zionist than average, but perhaps not the most Zioinist of all Zionists'?

He's a heckload more Zionist than Pappe.

[sarge]

The Israeli Arabs are mourning the creation of the country in which they live, the country that accords them rights and freedoms only dreamed about in the Arab and Muslim worlds, the country whose soldiers give their lives in protecting them, which breeds resentment toward Israel and Jews and incites violence and terrorism. If the Israeli Arabs want to mourn the creation of Israel, let them relocate and take it outside of Israel. If they dared mourn the creation of Jordan or Saudi Arabia, they'd be shot.

Exactly. Kinda like when the American slaves were doing their rable-rousing, instead of just recognizing how much better their life was under the benevolent patronage of their owners. So far as I can tell, a distressingly small number of the slaves reacted with gratitude when Soldiers of the Confederate armies sacrificed their lives to preserve the slaves way of life. Ungrateful, if you ask me. They should have packed up and moved to Liberia.



I'm not so sure that I agree with the OP. If I understand the issue properly from having read the linked article, I can't see much distinction between the persepective of the Israeli Arab and the Native American, and I certianly wouldn't have a problem if an American textbook presented the notion that many American Indians view the creation of the American State as a tragedy.

[Thunder]

'Right of return', as in for everybody, which includes the possibility for Jewish refugees, is the final step in the peace initiatives. There has been an offer and there has been attempts to resolve this very issue (read the latter link I provided), but blocked by the Arab league.

so, you are saying that any Right of Return for Arab refugees to Israel should b contingent upon a right of return for Jewish refugees to the Arab world???

what a **** ing joke. please find ANY Jewish refugees who wish to return to their homes in the Muslim world.

never mind the fact that the Palestinians have nothing to do with the governmental acts of Arab states that expelled Jews, or populations that harassed Jews. Linking the human rights of the Palestinian refugees, to the Jews from the Arab world is a joke and you know it.

[bigjelmapro]

The institutions in question are the Israeli (and other) universities that use his books. I'm sure that lots of historians have checked his work and that if the orders I've quoted don't exist in the archives, then someone would have noticed by now. If you insist on disagreeing: go to the archives, look for the orders and sell your story to a newspaper.

No, I'm questioning Morris and this specific conclusion. I disagree with him and that conclusion. I wouldn't disagree with what's in the archives then or at least what Morris states is in it. Understand the distinction...


Until you do that, then I will believe what all those universities believe.

Rubbish. A portion of a book in a curriculae does not mean that the university who has it listed believes/supports what's within it. Its the responsibility of the university/college to present a wide-variety of sources to let the student decide. Anything less would be indoctrination.


You don't just disagree with him: you call him a liar. And you will go on calling him a liar until you accept that the signed expulsion orders he quotes actually exist.

No, yet again. I don't know what country/society you live in, but when I disagree with someone, I don't call him a flat out liar.

No comprehensive policy, or a policy at all IMO, for Israel. However, for a number of Arab countries before, during and following the 1948 war, including a draft resolution by the Arab league to unify Arab league countries, there was a comprehensive policy, devoid of actual war and hostilities.

We can keep going around till you get your head out of the sand.


The fact is orders were given. Some of them signed -- but not by Ben Gurion. Where these orders given illegally? It does not seem so. Did they follow a comprehensive blueprint? It does not seem so. Where they entirely seperate "great minds think alike/fools seldom differ" type coincidences? It does not seem so.

So I agree with the 'in the air' bit.

No comprehensive policy/blueprint/etc. Was there a handful of towns/villages that were cleared that had intelligence of foreign troops and local paramilitary units? Yes. What do you do with threats during war? You solve it. If this was a policy, why wasn't this applied to the brunt of Arab villages/towns throughout Israel?


What do you mean by 'policy rather than tactic'?
Ramle wasn't an isolated case. "Great minds think alike/fools seldom differ" type coincidences? I don't think so.

So either a comprehensive policy or an isolate case. You can at any point cease with merely dealing with absolutes.


Re-read post 130:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4947074&postcount=130

Syrian Jews in America being invited back to Syria:
http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/L/Joshua.M.Landis-1/syriablog/2005/10/jews-of-syria-by-robert-tuttle.htm

Yeah, its laughable. Answered this in the other thread as well. If Syria has a 'right of return', then Israel surpassed it.


I bring it up when people say that Jews were expelled from Arab lands. Especially if the number quoted is the total number of Jews who left Arab countries. (That number probably came from Marc39, or whatever his name was).

That's awesome. Now you can simply take the easy step of replying to someone specifically rather than sticking everyone in the Marc39 boat.

I never said all Jews were expelled from Arab countries, repeatedly. Get your head out of the gutter.



It illustrates Morris' politics, which are very different to Pappe's.




Except Morris did touch it: "There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing."

See how different they are?

Yes, quite different in presentation and interpretation of events.

Can you finally spot the difference?:
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (http://www.meforum.org/1886/the-ethnic-cleansing-of-palestine)

Ilan Pappé has now seized on what the New Historians started and brought it to new heights by promoting revisionist arguments that place exclusive blame on early Zionists for victimizing Arabs and destroying opportunities for peace and reconciliation....
...
Pappé's thesis is that Israel's founding prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, working with the Zionist leadership in Palestine, made special preparations for ethnic cleansing known as Plan D. This plan envisioned the conquest by the Haganah—the Mandate-era precursor to the Israeli army—of areas occupied by Arabs but allotted by the United Nations to the Jewish state.

Pappe's claims/conclusions are far-fetched, especially when it comes to the nefarious charge of ethnic cleansing and that this was all planned by early Zionists. Morris frames the issue of displacement in the context of war.

See the difference?


Would you accept 'very zionist'? How about 'certainly more Zionist than average, but perhaps not the most Zioinist of all Zionists'?

He's a heckload more Zionist than Pappe.
'Very' is still a superlative. You're sidestepping my question, yet again. Guess this is progress from the anti/ultra skit though... :rolleyes:

[FireGarden]

No, I'm questioning Morris and this specific conclusion. I disagree with him and that conclusion. I wouldn't disagree with what's in the archives then or at least what Morris states is in it. Understand the distinction...

So you agree that the expulsion orders exist. Great.
Now you have to explain how people signed those orders, but didn't get into trouble for doing it without the authority to do it. And, also, why so many people had the same idea.

You also have to address Rabin's account of his meeting with Ben-Gurion.

Rubbish. A portion of a book in a curriculae does not mean that the university who has it listed believes/supports what's within it. Its the responsibility of the university/college to present a wide-variety of sources to let the student decide. Anything less would be indoctrination.

But if the lecturers disagree with large parts of the book, then surely they have written up their criticisms. And, btw, my point was made with reference to the expulsion orders being recorded in the archive. You have just accepted they are.

No comprehensive policy/blueprint/etc. Was there a handful of towns/villages that were cleared that had intelligence of foreign troops and local paramilitary units? Yes. What do you do with threats during war? You solve it. If this was a policy, why wasn't this applied to the brunt of Arab villages/towns throughout Israel?

If it wasn't a policy, then why were the expulsion orders officially signed? If there was no policy, then why did Rabin tell the story he did of meeting with ben-Gurion where ben-Gurion gestures with his hand? -- to mean 'throw them out'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_from_Lydda_and_Ramla#Rabin.27s_account

According to Rabin's account in 1977, at one point he, Ben-Gurion, and Allon left the room. Allon asked what was to be done with the residents. Rabin said Ben-Gurion waved his hand and said, "garesh otam"—"expel them."[50] In the manuscript of his memoirs in 1979, Rabin wrote that Ben-Gurion "waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!'".[49] "Driving out" is a term with a harsh ring," he wrote. "Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook. The population of Lod did not leave willingly. There was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the 10 to 15 miles to the point where they met up with the legion."[49] An Israeli censorship board composed of five Cabinet members removed this section from Rabin's manuscripts. Peretz Kidron, an Israeli journalist who translated the memoirs into English, passed the censored text to David Shipler of The New York Times, where it was published on 23 October 1979.

I address Yigal Allon's issues, the next part of wiki, in post 491:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4971097&postcount=491


So either a comprehensive policy or an isolate case. You can at any point cease with merely dealing with absolutes.

Ramle wasn't an isolated case. Re-read the thread.

Yeah, its laughable. Answered this in the other thread as well. If Syria has a 'right of return', then Israel surpassed it.

Surpassed it? How? Are palestinians allowed to return?

That's awesome. Now you can simply take the easy step of replying to someone specifically rather than sticking everyone in the Marc39 boat.

I never said all Jews were expelled from Arab countries, repeatedly. Get your head out of the gutter.

I won't accuse you of that, then.

Yes, quite different in presentation and interpretation of events.

Can you finally spot the difference?:
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (http://www.meforum.org/1886/the-ethnic-cleansing-of-palestine)

Pappe's claims/conclusions are far-fetched, especially when it comes to the nefarious charge of ethnic cleansing and that this was all planned by early Zionists. Morris frames the issue of displacement in the context of war.

See the difference?

I see quite a few differences. Do you see their political differences and why it is appropriate to refer to Morris-Pappe as points in a political spectrum? That they have some different views on history just adds to it.

[bigjelmapro]

So you agree that the expulsion orders exist. Great.
Now you have to explain how people signed those orders, but didn't get into trouble for doing it without the authority to do it. And, also, why so many people had the same idea.

I have yet to see this whole signing of orders by people (assuming more than 1). Even during my meluim (reserve duty) seldom did I receive any orders that were signed by anyone. Release orders and such, yes.

So here again I have to agree with something I have personal experience with and have to accept that these supposed expulsion orders existed, signed, ordered and delivered.

You're still fishing for anything beyond a post hoc argument.


You also have to address Rabin's account of his meeting with Ben-Gurion.

I have. Tactical military decision related to a specific town, which ended with the message of 'Drive them out', that somehow got translated into a policy by Morris.

At any point you can address the issue from its proper context instead of bleaching it...

We're still at the same point where this was not a comprehensive policy, was not issued by the government of Israel, and supposedly occurred during the context of war.

All of this is the exact opposite in a number of Arab countries, before, during and after the 1948 war.


But if the lecturers disagree with large parts of the book, then surely they have written up their criticisms. And, btw, my point was made with reference to the expulsion orders being recorded in the archive. You have just accepted they are.

Here we go with the superlatives again. The issue here is how Morris derived anything related to a policy when, as tied in below, the account was based on one town. University curriculae in Israel present the views of Karsh, Schlaim, Pipes, Pappe, Morris, etc.

I'm pretty sure we don't need to get into how Karsh and Morris bump heads and disagree with certain views on regional history. Unless you are claiming that universities support contradictory and/or competing interpretations. :rolleyes:


If it wasn't a policy, then why were the expulsion orders officially signed? If there was no policy, then why did Rabin tell the story he did of meeting with ben-Gurion where ben-Gurion gestures with his hand? -- to mean 'throw them out'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_from_Lydda_and_Ramla#Rabin.27s_account

Again, Rabin's account, was related to 1 town. Hence not a policy. Address the issue in context of war. Signed issue has already been addressed.


Ramle wasn't an isolated case. Re-read the thread.

Rabin's account is. The actions during war still displaced people from both sides, but to apply this supposed policy beyond that of Rabin's account, is, as stated before, a post hoc argument.


Surpassed it? How? Are palestinians allowed to return?

That returned.


I see quite a few differences. Do you see their political differences and why it is appropriate to refer to Morris-Pappe as points in a political spectrum? That they have some different views on history just adds to it.
I see differences sure. Never denied that. Just a bit tiring this game of excessive use of superlatives and the issue of what terms mean what to which historian and in which context.

Do you think Morris and Pappe work on the same definition of Zionism and Ethnic cleansing for instance?