Israeli-Arab Wars and Palestinian Population Displacement

I couldn't help but notice that the only Israeli-Palestinian mention was from the 1940s. Seems to be me that the Palestinians have very effectively managed to leverage every non-lethal asset available to deter Israel from simply wiping the Palestinians from the planet, which Israeli could have (and probably should have) done long ago, while gaining significant concessions from the Israelis. While I think the whole "4GW" concept is a bit over-hyped, Hammes gives a decent summary in his book of how the Palestinians have manipulated the information domain to gain the sympathy of much of the world in spite of their frequent use of suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. I don't think the Palestinians will ever gain control of Israel, but simply being in the position that they are in and forcing the restraint of the Israelis is remarkable, in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

...to deter Israel from simply wiping the Palestinians from the planet, which Israeli could have (and probably should have) done long ago...

---

"should have" ? Whooa... I'm still a relative SWJ newcomer, but I think it is pretty clear that we don't generally endorse genocide here. Indeed, where I'm posting from, that veers pretty close to being a violation of section 318 of the Criminal Code .

There's much of interest that one can discuss in the (tragic) Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and its undoubtedly an issue that excites much passion. Calling for the extermination of one side or another, however, is just not acceptable.

Rhetorically, isn't putting a limit on discussion on a topic, no matter how contentious, not evading or eliding the issue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

Rhetorically, isn't putting a limit on discussion on a topic, no matter how contentious, not evading or eliding the issue?

---

Ken, I think there's a big difference between discussing war as an unavoidable instrument of policy--with an implicit but near universal assumption among SWJ posters that they would prefer less violent ways of attaining objectives, and a parallel assumption that most Western policy objectives are generally good ones--and casually suggesting it might be a good idea to slaughter 10 million men, women and children. (Having spent the day with survivors of the Holocaust, Rwanda, and Darfur, I'm particularly mindful of the issue at the moment.)

Simple test: would lightly endorsing "wiping Jews from the face of the planet" be considered acceptable SWJ discussion material too? I certainly hope not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

I couldn't help but notice that the only Israeli-Palestinian mention was from the 1940s. Seems to be me that the Palestinians have very effectively managed to leverage every non-lethal asset available to deter Israel from simply wiping the Palestinians from the planet, which Israeli could have (and probably should have) done long ago, while gaining significant concessions from the Israelis. While I think the whole "4GW" concept is a bit over-hyped, Hammes gives a decent summary in his book of how the Palestinians have manipulated the information domain to gain the sympathy of much of the world in spite of their frequent use of suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. I don't think the Palestinians will ever gain control of Israel, but simply being in the position that they are in and forcing the restraint of the Israelis is remarkable, in my opinion.

---

It is clear from your opinion that it is based on a drive by assessment without any depth. In doing so you at once advocate genocide and then use the word restraint. The Arab-Israeli dispute is complex and simple labels are ill-served.

Ken, Rex is on the mark. A simple blanket statement about wiping a people off the map is too much like Rwanda.

Best

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

Ken, I think there's a big difference between discussing war as an unavoidable instrument of policy--with an implicit but near universal assumption among SWJ posters that they would prefer less violent ways of attaining objectives, and a parallel assumption that most Western policy objectives are generally good ones--and casually suggesting it might be a good idea to slaughter 10 million men, women and children. (Having spent the day with survivors of the Holocaust, Rwanda, and Darfur, I'm particularly mindful of the issue at the moment.)

Simple test: would lightly endorsing "wiping Jews from the face of the planet" be considered acceptable SWJ discussion material too? I certainly hope not.

---

remarks and do not dispute what either of you say. You are certainly entitled to your opinions. While I do not share Schmedlaps opinion, I suggest he is entitled to it as well as to state it (here only with the Board owners tolerance). If it is to be refuted, I merely suggest that the opinion should be challenged and not just labeled as offensive and dismissed as "not acceptable."

That, unfortunately, is to my Scotch Irish genes condescending at best. It is also, I think, somewhat inclined toward hewing to a politically correct approach; an approach that I believe has very adverse impacts on frank and potentially unpleasant discussion of some critical topics that merit open and frank discussion. It is also an approach I'm regrettably too old to follow. :wry:

I can understand the offense caused, particularly to one who has been discussing the topic all day or to one who has been too close to the topic to be comfortable with it and I sincerely regret exacerbating any feelings on the topic. However I submit that most of us are here to learn and to discuss civilly topics that are not in and of them selves civil. For example, any discussion of the incidents either of you mention includes by definition a discussion of genocide.

Genocide may not be acceptable but it unfortunately occurs. It is not a nice topic to be sure but it is discussed and IMO should be. A possible or seeming advocacy or acceptance of the practice would seem to me to merit some discussion and a chance to clarify rather than adopting a dismissive or rejective tone on what seems to be merely an a priori statement.

Most of us are guilty of those on occasion... :o

No intent on my part -- or need to my mind -- to start a subthread; just explaining why I replied as I did and indicating I likely would again do so.

Quote:

---

Genocide may not be acceptable but it unfortunately occurs. It is not a nice topic to be sure but it is discussed and IMO should be. A possible or seeming advocacy or acceptance of the practice would seem to me to merit some discussion and a chance to clarify rather than adopting a dismissive or rejective tone on what seems to be merely an a priori statement.

---

Ken

I can accept that. Genocide for me is an intensely personal subject, I encourage discussion of it and understanding what it really means.

Best

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

Ken
I can accept that. Genocide for me is an intensely personal subject, I encourage discussion of it and understanding what it really means.

---

I do have no problems with discussing genocide--indeed, I teach on the topic every year. As is likely already evident, I have considerable problems with advocating it.

In a very limited, raw policy sense, it would have made sense for Israel to try to force a population transfer out of the West Bank, and particularly the highlands ringing Jerusalem, in the aftermath of '67. That having been said, it would have been disastrous, in that same narrow policy sense, for Israel to have attempted any sort of mass killing of the Palestinians in the same time period, because of Israel's dependence on Western (first French, then American) arms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charter6

In a very limited, raw policy sense, it would have made sense for Israel to try to force a population transfer out of the West Bank, and particularly the highlands ringing Jerusalem, in the aftermath of '67. That having been said, it would have been disastrous, in that same narrow policy sense, for Israel to have attempted any sort of mass killing of the Palestinians in the same time period, because of Israel's dependence on Western (first French, then American) arms.

---

Given that the refugee population that the Israelis purposely ejected in 1948 proceeded to destabilize two surrounding states, radicalized much of the Arab world against Israel and the West, and led directly to the modern international terrorist movement, I wonder exactly what the effect would have been if the Israelis had "finished the job" in 1967 by forcing millions more from their homes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tequila

Given that the refugee population that the Israelis purposely ejected in 1948 proceeded to destabilize two surrounding states, radicalized much of the Arab world against Israel and the West, and led directly to the modern international terrorist movement, I wonder exactly what the effect would have been if the Israelis had "finished the job" in 1967 by forcing millions more from their homes.

---

Probably to have tipped the balance to a PLO victory in Jordan in 1970-71, and inflamed passions to the point that neither the shift of Egyptian policy under Sadat, or the relative realism of Syria under Assad (1970- ) would have taken place....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

Probably to have tipped the balance to a PLO victory in Jordan in 1970-71, and inflamed passions to the point that neither the shift of Egyptian policy under Sadat, or the relative realism of Syria under Assad (1970- ) would have taken place....

---

it boggles the imagination to think what the consequences now would be, if Israel had "finished the job" in 1967. What Rex points out would have been the immediate and short-term consequences of such actions would just have been the beginning of something far worse than exists even today. Beyond a heavy and sustained "War of Attrition" between Egypt and Israel that would not have come to an end around 1970 as it did, what possibly could have resulted might have been a sort of twisted rerun of the Crusader Wars. And those sorts of wars don't end until only one side is left standing, and the losers lose everything.

Just as a clarification, I'm not saying I would have supported an Israeli expulsion of more Palestinians in '67, just that I could see a rational policy basis for them to have done so, while a similar rational justification does not exist for outright genocide. That having been said, I'll continue playing devil's advocate.

Hope I'm not making a nuisance of myself.

--------

All true Tequila, but at the same time it would have removed the demographic time bomb that Israel faces from the table, and would have left Israel with a Jewish majority in a state with relatively defensible borders. Question of whether the positives would have outweighed the negatives. Birthrate will be the weapon of the 21st century, after all.

Rex, I doubt if the numbers we're talking about would have tipped the balance in Jordan. Hussein was willing to use any amount of force, and his Jordanian arab tankers of the 40th and other divisions proved themselves politically reliable enough to do the job, regardless of the unpleasantness of the fight. Amman was a tough nut to crack, but it cracked in the end just the same. An army with the political will to use overwhelming force will win a kinetic fight in urban operations.

I also don't think the shift in Egypt would have been significant if there'd been a more widespread displacement of Palestinians in the West Bank -- the Egyptians were recovering from quite a drubbing, and their own losses would surely have been more prominently in their minds than Palestinian displacement. Syria is a trickier one, I don't know enough about the post-war atmosphere there to say anything intelligent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charter6

Just as a clarification, I'm not saying I would have supported an Israeli expulsion of more Palestinians in '67, just that I could see a rational policy basis for them to have done so, while a similar rational justification does not exist for outright genocide. That having been said, I'll continue playing devil's advocate.

Hope I'm not making a nuisance of myself.

---

You're not making a nuisance of yourself and I certainly didn't take it that you would have favoured any such action.:)

However, given that Jordan as of at least several years ago had a population that was 70% Palestinian, if the entire Palestinian population of the West Bank had been forced into Jordan proper from 1967 in order to avoid a Arab demographic time-bomb within Israel itself, I suspect that the successes of the Jordanian Government in the early 1970's vis-a-vis rebellious Palestiaians may have proved very temporary.

Quote:

---

Rex, I doubt if the numbers we're talking about would have tipped the balance in Jordan. Hussein was willing to use any amount of force, and his Jordanian arab tankers of the 40th and other divisions proved themselves politically reliable enough to do the job, regardless of the unpleasantness of the fight. Amman was a tough nut to crack, but it cracked in the end just the same. An army with the political will to use overwhelming force will win a kinetic fight in urban operations.

---

Actually, it was a close run thing. Despite post-conflict Jordanian military myth-making, the Jordanian 40th Armoured Brigade did quite poorly: when the Syrians/PLA blundered into the Jordanian formations, the latter showed little tactical skill and the Syrian armour eventually inflicted heavier casualties and pushed the Jordanians off the ridges at al-Ramtha.

By the end of the battle on 21 September 1970, Husayn feared that he had lost the war. The Syrians looked like they would break through to Amman, where the Jordanian 4th Mechanized had made only limited headway against the PLO (indeed, much of the capital was still in PLO hands at this time).

The next day was critical: the Jordanians launched massive air attacks against the Syrian/PLA troops. Syrian DM Hafiz al-Assad feared escalation, and refused to commit the much larger Syrian AF, despite orders to do so. It was over the next two days that Syrian intervention was defeated, and the Syrian/PLA troops withdrew. Without Syrian/PLA support, the PLO would eventually lose too, although it wasn't until April 1971 that they lost control of the last Jordanian towns, and they weren't fully defeated until July.

Would al-Assad been able to do this if the Israelis had done a Kosovo or 1948-style ethnic cleansing of the West Bank? I'm doubtful, given political dynamics in the Syrian Ba'th Party at the time.

Moreover, ethnic cleansing would have added over half a million additional bitter refugees to the PLO's potential recruit base, and probably further radicalized Palestinians in the Army (several thousand of which defected in any case).

Had the SAF been committed against the RJAF, Israeli and/or US intervention would likely have followed. The IAF could have taken on the Syrians, but at the cost of further delegitimizing King Husayn. I'm doubtful the regime would have survived.

We'll never know though, will we? :D

Norfolk, I agree with your last comment completely. I think we'd be looking at a very different Jordan today. Where we probably disagree is that I think there is a strong case to be made that the benefits of an annexed and secure West Bank would outweigh the cost of a hostile Jordan.

Rex, I'm aware of the difficulties Jordanian armor had, particularly in Amman. It's one of those textbook cases on using heavy armor in built-up areas. I'm unconvinced that additional refugees would have changed the basic calculus of the situation though. Frankly, in the aftermath of 1967 I think the Arabs would have expected Israel to expel the Palestinians from the West Bank -- the Jordanians did after all expel Jews from East Jerusalem, and Jews were not really welcome in much of the arab world after 1948.

I think the really interesting thing about the Jordanian-Palestinian fight is the effect IAF overflights of PLA columns must have had on Syria's decision-makers, especially with the IAF's performance in 1967 such a recent memory. With regard to what you said, I don't think the IAF had to take on the Syrians, the mere threat of them doing so was enough to convince the Syrians that it wasn't worth committing their rebuilt air force to a fight they must have been sure they couldn't win.

Well, let that be a lesson to me. I wanted to type a quick question asking why the Israeli-Palestinian issue was not included and whether we should consider that a small war or something else.

Regarding the phrase in question, for clarification, it would have been better to state that Israel could have (and, with their nat'l security interests in mind, probably should have) stomped the Palestinian resistance/terrorists/insurgents into submission long ago. Kind of like how I was gloating last week that the Patriots slaughtered every team that they've faced this season, but those teams are all very much alive. In hindsight, neither the wording above nor in the hyperbole in my original post were necessary for the question.

The decades-long ###-for-tat conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, though it experiences lengthy ceasefires in lethal/kinetic terms, seems like a pretty good example of a poorly funded and underequipped force effectively drawing a powerful opponent into a seemingly endless small war. The bulk of the warfare takes place in the information domain and the lethal actions taken by the Palestinians all appear to be timed and located purely for effects in the information and cognitive domains, with no regard to any expectation of militarily defeating the Israelis or of whittling away at their population.

Small war or not a small war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

Well, let that be a lesson to me. I wanted to type a quick question asking why the Israeli-Palestinian issue was not included and whether we should consider that a small war or something else.

---

Thanks for the clarification!

While there are those on both sides who seek "total victory" --that is destruction of Israel (Hamas, PIJ), or the annexation of all of the West Bank (NRP)--the mainstream battle is largely about ending Israel's colonial-type presence in the West Bank (and, previously Gaza). As the polls show, a large majority of both Palestinians and Israelis seek territorial compromise.

In this sense, it looks much like other anti-colonial struggles (which I think we would all consider "small wars" too). These were rarely won militarily, on the battlefield, but rather in the larger diplomatic and political arena. Insurgent action didn't need to defeat the enemy, only sway opinion in the metropole (Algeria) and raise the costs of occupation well above the benefits (South Yemen, Mozambique, Angola, etc).

The difference here is Palestinian violence--when aimed at targets inside the green line (Israel proper)--increases Israeli security concerns and makes it less likely to withdraw from territories occupied in 1967. (Interestingly, when the second intifada was initially aimed largely at the IDF and Israeli settlers, it weakened Israeli support for occupation.. it was when the targets shifted to civilian targets in Tel Aviv, etc. that the real backlash set it.)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/914670.html

Last update - 15:55 19/10/2007

"Israel refuses to open talks with Lebanon over Shaba Farms

By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent

Israel has refused a recommendation by a United Nations ambassador to begin negotiations with Lebanon over the disputed Shaba Farms area. According to the envoy, Geir Pedersen, the United Nations is becoming increasingly convinced that Shaba Farms belongs to Lebanon......."

I guess the UN will have to come up with official condemnation #12,834 for Israel ( I may have exagerated that number by a hundred or so)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tequila

and led directly to the modern international terrorist movement,.

---

I think that is a bit of an overstatement and a simplification. Much of the modern international terrorits movement as you called developed somewhat independently of each other and had roots going back a long way.

I would like to share with you a comment from a Palestinian (well educated in the west and living in Canada.) He pointed out that frankly (this sort of supports Schmedlap awe at the Palestinians manipulation of the situation) nobody wants or likes the Palestinians and they are much better of with the Israelis are occupying them and not Egypt. Egypt would not have put up with them. This is part of what stopped the peace talks in the 90's. Gaza does not want to be part of or deal with Egypt.

With regards to Schmedlap question of whether or not this is a Small War, I would have to say yes and no. This conflict is hard to classify as anything because everybody has a hand in it and no body cares about the Palestinians in reality. Frankly, most Middle Eastern countries want there to be more conflict, it puts stock in their hatred of the Israelies.

Here's my idea for a two state settlement.

1. Give up settlements.
2. Build big walls. (with moat in between filled with pigs bood. LOL. Pershing would approve.)
3. Let them be.
4. Wait for another suicide attack.
5. Go shoot every Hamas leader you can find.
6. Leave
7. Repeat steps 3-6

Negotiations for peace are going to go no where on both sides. Israelies are too paranoid and have to deal with the settlers, and the Palestinians, those in charge, don't want it to get better because they will no longer have a job and the they will start fighting amongst themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam L

Egypt would not have put up with them. This is part of what stopped the peace talks in the 90's. Gaza does not want to be part of or deal with Egypt.

---

Not really--no one really considered Egyptian control over Gaza (or Jordanian control over the West Bank) as part of a possible deal. Instead, the entire thrust of the peace process from the Oslo Agreement in 1993 onwards was Palestinian self-determination in the West Bank and Gaza.

They came very, very close to this in 2000-01, but all three parties (US/Israel/Palestinians) made major errors that scuppered the negotiations and seriously damaged the prospects for peace any time in the immediate future.

Quote:

---

....no body cares about the Palestinians in reality. Frankly, most Middle Eastern countries want there to be more conflict, it puts stock in their hatred of the Israelies.

---

I don't agree--I don't think many ME regimes are served well by the continuation of the conflict. The public salience of the Palestinian question has declined over the years, but it is still an emotive issue as virtually all the polling data (another one here) suggests.

Quote:

---

Palestinians, those in charge, don't want it to get better because they will no longer have a job and the they will start fighting amongst themselves.

---

I don't agree here either--whatever his domestic constraints weaknesses as a leader, I think Abu Mazen very much wants to achieve peace. Indeed, the usual Israeli criticism of is not that he wants conflict, but that he can't deliver implementation of an agreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

I don't agree--I don't think many ME regimes are served well by the continuation of the conflict. The public salience of the Palestinian question has declined over the years, but it is still an emotive issue as virtually all the polling data (another one here) suggests.

---

Yes, people emote on the issue, but its more like a lot of rich northern liberals. They love every "Black" issue and support them, while personally they don't really give a damn or like them and just want the "status" and their own little cause to champion. Also, a lot of Middle Easterners don't like the Palestinians. They do when it comes to politics, but they don't want anything to do with them. As far as the "ME regimes" are concerned, no it doesned serve them well, but they certainly like having the Palestinian issue on their side when it comes to blaming the West for being in the Middle East. Remember these guys will cut off thier nose despite their face, literally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

I don't agree here either--whatever his domestic constraints weaknesses as a leader, I think Abu Mazen very much wants to achieve peace. Indeed, the usual Israeli criticism of is not that he wants conflict, but that he can't deliver implementation of an agreement.

---

First, I wasn't quite saying that about all leaders, but I was about most.
ALso, what about the recent Palestinian vs. Palestinian skirmishes in Gaza and the West Bank. Look at history, almost every group that emerges from years of foreign control almsot immediately runs into civil violence issues. Lets say the Israelis do pull out and leave them alone. This new Palestinian state will still be poor and uneducated. It won't be much better off than its current state nor what it would have developed into if nothing had been taken in '67 or even '48. They are on a piece of land with no significant value, and they lack the education and eperiences the Israelies had (a lot of Europes intelligencia) when they became a country. Look at Eastern Germany and the chaos it is still in, and they were western (sort of) before being occupied.

Adam

Understanding the basics are usually important.
The basics are that only when Israelis settle in Israel do Arabs care anything about it.
Jerusalem is not even mentioned in the Koran. It states “nearest mosque” (there were no mosques in Israel at the time) Which is actually in Medina.

The simple fact is, those who are called “palestinians” today have no right to that land at all.

Israel was deserted at the first part of the 19th century.
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/%7Edhershkowitz/ Photos of pre-Israeli state 19th century

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=79d_1184884637 A little movie.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001137.html Totten

Myth of Palestine:
http://www.allthingsbeautiful.com/al...th_of_pal.html
Which states”
1. Palestine was a British invention after WWI and never existed as an independent state. Most of this "Palestine" is called Jordan today.
2. The small number of people (700,000) occupied the entire Palestine Mandate which included Israel, the West Bank, Golon Heights, Gaza and Jordan today. Most of the Arab populations lived East of the Jordan River.
3. The common usage of the word "Palestinian" refers to people who live in Palestine: Arabs (a "mixed race of Arabic speaking peoples"), Bedouins, Christians, Druze, and Jews.
4. Under Muslim rule the region had been reduced to a barren wasteland. Jews were the only people that produced anything causing resentment from the masses of illiterate and poverty-ridden Arabs. Jews never held any political power until 1948.
5. The British didn't want a Jewish majority in the region. This led in later years to a policy of systematically reduced immigration quotas, and indirectly to the death of millions of Jewish refugees in Europe twenty some years later. The British would illegally partition the region into Jordan, (forbidding Jews from living there) then stripped off the Golon Heights giving that to France and Syria. Calling the remainder "Palestine" then flooding it with outside Arabs.
6. Constant agitation by outside Arabs and others leading to riots and murders of Jews. The British did nothing to stop this. Immigration and travel restrictions were almost universally applied only to Jews, no restriction was placed on Arab immigration to help flood the region with Arabs the British favored. Jews were the only economic success even with all of this going on.
7. Whenever there were Arab riots, Jewish immigration was restricted. This was the beginning of the British Policy of Appeasement, and the success of terrorism. The success of terrorism goes on today and appeasement still fails today. When will they ever learn?
8. All lands acquired by Jews were purchased, not taken according to Arafat's Nazi Uncle in 1937 and the British. Haj Amin al-Husseini was a Nazi war criminal wanted in Yugoslavia and mixed Nazi ideology into Islam. Arafat in fact wasn't even a Palestinian, but was born, raised, and educated in Egypt. According to Forbes, his estate is estimated to be worth over $300 million while he locked his own people into concentration camps.
9. Between 1950 and 1967 when Jordan and Egypt annexed the West Bank and Gaza, they flooded the area with more Arabs. Even today most Arabs in the West Bank, etc. hold Jordanian passports and Jordanian citizenship. After 1967 Jordan/Egypt relinquished claims to the area then started to scream for a second Palestinian state in addition to the first Palestinian State of Jordan. Before that, they claimed Palestine meant land of the Jews.
10. Even with immigration from Russia in the 1990's, the majority of Israelis are descended from Arab, Asian, and African Jews including two-thirds of the 870,000 Arab Jews expelled from surrounding Arab Nazi states. Druze, Bedouins, Christians, and some Arabs sided with the Jews in 1948 and serve in the Israeli Army today. The Israeli military has three Arab generals.
11. Why did the British do this? It's about oil, stupid! Britian didn't give a damn about Arabs or Jews. Just like America today ignores Saudi terrorism it's still about oil.”

And part 2:
http://www.allthingsbeautiful.com/al...th_of_pal.html

Additional:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/palestine.htm

http://www.richardwebster.net/israelpalestine.html

http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/0...t-of-land.html

Hopefully, this helps with understanding the land rights issue.

It certainly helps to understand that such old-school Jabotinskyist tropes are still in fashion among certain types. No doubt some people in Georgia probably still believe the Cherokees left due to the charms of Oklahoma, or perhaps because they foresaw the future glories of Sooner football.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tequila

It certainly helps to understand that such old-school Jabotinskyist tropes are still in fashion among certain types. No doubt some people in Georgia probably still believe the Cherokees left due to the charms of Oklahoma, or perhaps because they foresaw the future glories of Sooner football.

---

Agreed, mate.

Quote:

---

The simple fact is, those who are called “palestinians” today have no right to that land at all.

Israel was deserted at the first part of the 19th century.

---

All those years in grad school wasted. Why didn't my professors let me in on such revelations? :rolleyes:

Tom

Cut and paste jobs from biased web sources never help anything....and that's "understanding the basics." Informed debate and discussion is one thing...and a good thing.

Let's hope we don't see this again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

Cut and paste jobs from biased web sources never help anything....and that's "understanding the basics." Informed debate and discussion is one thing...and a good thing.

Let's hope we don't see this again.

---

I second that.

It was a tad unsettling to come across this.:eek:

Council member Rex Brynen, writing for Chatham House this month:

Past as Prelude: Negotiating the Palestinian Refugee Issue

Quote:

---

Summary points

- The question of Palestinian refugees has long been one of the most difficult issues in dispute in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. With the onset of renewed peace talks following the Annapolis summit of November 2007, it is once again an issue that the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators must address.

- The two sides are in a worse position to resolve the issue than they were during the last rounds of permanent status negotiations in 2000–01. The political weakness of the Israeli and Palestinian governments is compounded by heightened mistrust between the two societies, as well as by a hardening of Israeli public attitudes against even the symbolic return of any refugees to Israeli territory.

- There is now a substantial accumulated body of work on the Palestinian refugee issue to guide and inform negotiators and policy-makers. This includes past official negotiations among the key parties, wider discussions among regional states and the international donor community, unofficial and Track II initiatives and a considerable body of technical analysis.

---

CH offers up another view: Israeli Perspectives on the Palestinian Refugee Issue

Quote:

---

Summary Points

- At the beginning of the Oslo Process the greatest challenge was the question of Palestinian statehood; negotiation of the refugee issue was postponed until the later stages. Over a decade later, Palestinian statehood is generally accepted as a given, and the refugee issue has taken centre stage.

- The Israeli perspective, from a leadership standpoint, is seemingly characterized by a sense of being overwhelmed, owing to the complexity of elements making up the refugee issue, the multiplicity of actors involved, and a heightened sense of uncertainty as to the consequences of any negotiated settlement.

- More strategic work is needed at the political and policy-making level to determine the resolution level required for the agreement itself. Much of the detail involved will have to be developed outside the main negotiation framework.

- More research and strategy development work is needed concerning the Israeli public domain, to assess existing attitudes and possible avenues for widening the public discourse. To this end, the Israeli media should also be encouraged to present the different debates and elements of the issue.

- There is a need for an international task force of leading experts working alongside the negotiation process and translating both sides' strategic options into operational frameworks. Such support could ease the load on the actual negotiating parties, thereby facilitating the decision-making process.

---

To Herzl and the millions of Zionists who have followed him, the Palestinians were invisible, simply because their existence did not matter. The very idea that indigenous people mattered at all did not come into currency in the capitols of the Western World, until it became apparent in the Cold War that their "hearts and minds" mattered...except in the case of Palestinians.

The 2-state solution is at best a bridge to a stable state. Stability will not be achieved until there is but one state: either a United State of Israel and Palestine, which would be two homelands comingled in one country and sharing the governance of the same; or a Jewish state with all Arabs removed or killed, who were once affiliated with the land called Palestine.

I do not believe that the Zionists will be allowed by the rest of the world to complete their intention to eradicate "Palestine" and to submerge the remnants of Palestinians into the larger genre called 'Arabs'. Of course, the Zionists are counting on the brute force of American military and economic power to cower the rest of the world into accepting whatever fate they eventually decide for the Palestinians. But, as long as the Palestinians have sponsors and supporters beyond the refugee camps and Occupied Territories, it will be difficult if not impossible for brute force to ultimately succeed.

In June, I helped organize and run three days of simulated Palestinian-Israeli negotiations on the refugee issue for Chatham House (Royal Institute of International Affairs) in the UK. This involved some 35 former and current officials (Israeli, Palestinian, Jordanian, Lebanese, US and others) and technical experts.

The simulation report is here, and the full project description can be found here.

We held it here (complete with bar open well past midnight):

http://www.eynshamhall.com/Images/home_page.jpg

There are times I do love my job :D

CH, 11 Feb 09: The Palestinian Refugee Issue: A Palestinian Perspective

Quote:

---

Summary Points

- The quest of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes is not only a legal and moral right but has become a major part of Palestinian identity and symbolizes Palestinian historical narratives. It has been an effective instrument of mobilization that became the political priority of various resistance groups which later formed the Palestine Liberation Organization.

- The PLO embarked on a line of negotiation which sought to reconcile rightist and realist approaches. They sought acknowledgment by Israel of its responsibility for the refugee issue and acceptance in principle of their right of return while showing flexibility and readiness to discuss various formulations of return.

- At the core of the inter-Palestinian debate is the dynamic between the two objectives of achieving statehood and the resolution of the refugee issue. State-building came to be seen not only as a means of reconstructing Palestinian identity but also as a catalyst to resolution of the refugee issue.

- A peace agreement should widen the options for the refugees and address all aspects of the refugee issue including the rights of repatriation to Israel, return to a Palestinian state, compensation, and equality and full citizenship rights in countries where refugees choose to remain.

- A comprehensive peace agreement must include the regional aspects of the refugee issue and all regional actors.

- There is an urgent need to review the current format of negotiations and bring about more balanced and effective international political engagement in the bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

---

CH, Apr 09: Palestinian Refugees: The Regional Perspective

Quote:

---

Summary Points

• Chatham House’s work on the Palestinian Refugee issue, known as the Minster Lovell Process, looks beyond the narrow Israeli-PLO bilateral negotiations and provides a critical regional perspective. It is inclusive of the host countries and the refugees, bridging regional communication gaps and involving international stakeholders.

• Refugees and host countries will have no legal obligation to go along with the results of a process in which they have no part and which are likely to leave them worse off than before. The political costs of difficult compromises may also be too heavy to bear for any of the stakeholders.

• Negotiators have reached agreements that they cannot sell to their own people. They have been one step away from a solution but this is a major step involving issues such as right of return of refugees, acknowledgment of responsibility and reconciling narratives. The internal debate on each side is as complex as the differences between them. In addition both sides in the conflict have to contend with the views of an international diaspora.

• Should an agreement be reached, the landscape will look radically different. The parties, both local and international, have barely anticipated many of the problems of implementing an agreement. In addition, the regional perspective changes the equation – one cannot talk of permanent resettlement activities given that the distances involved are comparable to that of an average Western commute.

---

UNRWA And Palestine Refugees: Drawing Lessons From 60 Years Of Service

Date: September 25, 2009 from 1:30 pm to 5:00 pm EDT
Location: Columbia University
Morningside Campus
Casa Italiana
Contact: For further information regarding this event, please contact Leia Reisner by sending email to lrr2131@columbia.edu .

Quote:

---

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestine Refugees and the Middle East Institute of Columbia University present a Symposium entitled, "UNRWA and Palestine Refugees: Drawing Lessons from 60 Years of Service," to mark the 60th anniversary of UNRWA's creation.

---

Full program here.

New to site so don't get uppitty about this

as one who served Palestine 1945/48 clear a few things first up to 1945 Arabs and Jewish people lived cheek to cheek in towns, villages all over the country (1945/46) AMERICAN JEWS started pushing Britain for survivers of camps to go to Palestine. Britain being mandatory power by act of league of nations refused this. America pushed monies into Palestinian Jews to enable this to take place All Jewish people whe survived camps to go to promised land Isreali forces did not push Arab people from lands the arab people choose to go fallowing their leaders advice. Think you will find that most Jewish Settlements were built to protect the main targets. Never has Isreali's forces attacked a Arab village unless in self defence. I know a lot of books has been written concerning this conflict, ( BUT ) i think you will find these books were written by people who were not born at said time. Also you will find that a Jewish Brigade that was armed in 1940 by Britain and fought with British army in western desert and Italy, who were posted back to Eygpt in 1946 deserted taking all, weapons vehicles to Palestine to form frame work of Isreali forces

FOR TRUE STORY find the book ( FORGOTTEN CONSCRIPTS ) by Eric Lowe

Serviceman,

A warning and a welcome:

Warning: don't start by telling everyone to not get uppity. You are not the only one with an opinion on the Middle East in general or the Arab-Israeli issue specifically. Moreover you are not the only one with time on the ground so I recommend that you follow your own advice and avoid confusing opinion with fact.

Welcome. Recommend you introduce yourself

Tom

Moderator

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by serviceman

Think a lot of trouble in Isreali is caused by out side interference

---

Serviceman,

I live in Israel. My current family spans those held in British prisons, as Jewish Terrorists, to those British Arabists who opposed the creation of the modern state of Israel - so please don't assume you have some superior knowledge of the issues. It ain't true and it doesn't help.

While I agree with some of your observations, you're being a bit too black and white. For example, Beit-Shean valley was pretty cleared "pre-emptively" as opposed to true "self-defence." - and you can run out breath arguing about Deir-Yassin, and a few other forgotten villages.

They have three versions of history here in Israel. "Ours, yours and theirs."

Sir may i ask your age in this matter i was there when Isreali was born in May 1948 I admire what the Jewish people did with (as you may say a desert) The Jewish people were getting their homeland as early as 1946, they were not prepared to wait terrorist get nothing or were they trying to grab all British bases intact and why did a peace keeping force have to suffer so many casualities. May i also ask you to visit the cemeteries at Khayat Beach and Remlech. As i say i admired what the Jewish people did before and after 1945/48, but the three years between sticks with me. all these people from America,Britain who do all the shouting about the Arab people getting pushed out of here and there are not helping things

As you say about some General stateing there job in Malaya. that was not the British armies job in Isreal, mistakes were made on both sides. The troops there were curtailed in actions, retaliate if ???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by serviceman

Sir may i ask your age in this matter

---

I'm a pretty good looking 46.

Quote:

---

The Jewish people were getting their homeland as early as 1946,

---

I think Moses would quibble with that and negotiations with the British Government began as early as 1923.

Quote:

---

May i also ask you to visit the cemeteries at Khayat Beach and Remlech.

---

I've visited the one in Haifa, and I know the one in Ramleh.

Quote:

---

all these people from America,Britain who do all the shouting about the Arab people getting pushed out of here and there are not helping things.

---

If you are telling me that ignorance of the roots of the Arab-Israeli conflict is an extremely sever problem, then I can agree, but some people did get pushed out, ( Lod and Haifa for example ) and a far greater number left of their own accord. A great many stayed. I can see Arab villages from where I write this.

I'd just like clarify something: I didn't start this thread. My post at the beginning was actually made on this thread, if memory serves me right, that discussed various small wars and I wondered by the ongoing Palestinian struggle against Israel was not included. Being a relative newcomer to the site at the time, I made a rather poorly worded, quickly typed response, not realizing that I would be assumed to be advocating genocide when merely exaggerating...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

Seems to be me that the Palestinians have very effectively managed to leverage every non-lethal asset available to deter Israel from simply wiping the Palestinians from the planet, which Israeli could have (and probably should have) done long ago, while gaining significant concessions from the Israelis.

---

This was clarified...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

Regarding the phrase in question, for clarification, it would have been better to state that Israel could have (and, with their nat'l security interests in mind, probably should have) stomped the Palestinian resistance/terrorists/insurgents into submission long ago. Kind of like how I was gloating last week that the Patriots slaughtered every team that they've faced this season, but those teams are all very much alive.

---

Just wanted to throw that out there because the absence of context makes this look kind of odd. Upon reading this 2+ year old thread, I was scratching my head for a while wondering why/when I wrote this until I finally jogged my memory.

Only on the internet do I need to assure people that I am not in favor of genocide.:rolleyes:

well Mr Owen, i am a very young 82 year old and remember well you did not give me facts about casualties this started after ww 1 when Lawence promised the land to Arabs then Balfour wanted the Jewish people to have a homeland and started pressing the league of nations for this Balfour never lived in the country and this is why i say to much out-side pressure is not good I know people who say that all the bombers were correct to recover their homes Personally i don't agree, and have spoken out on this. asked people to name one incident where Jewish forces retalilated until enought was enought

OK, we now know that serviceman is a young 82 (roughly in the same vintage as Ken White), I'm a not so young 67 when I crawl out of bed in the morning, and Wilf is a handsome 46 (a mere babe, especially considering that our dads saw combat in the same theatre of war). And Schmedlap is a newly-born, even though he was probably 38 at 18.

Since age carries no particularly weight, we must look to the message and not the messenger. I can find all sorts of messages about Palestine-Israel before, during and after 1945-1948. E.g. (among many sites I've visited over the years), Palestine Remembered and The Jewish Agency for Israel. I've gone through both sites (the territorial nomenclature tells us their positions from the gitgo), with some "rigour" as Wilf might say. Compared to others here, my background in matters Palestinian and Israeli is minimal.

So, serviceman, what exactly are your points for discussion ? Take your time; please puntuate your sentences; and give us an organized presentation of your thesis.

Thanks in advance

Mike

PS: Schmedlap - your Moral Foundations Chart proves that you have a distinct adversion to causing harm (3.8 :). Marct and JMM were at the lower end of that scale (2.0 and 2.3); explained in our cases by too much genetic input from warriors who fought each other at the Battle of the Windmill. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by serviceman

well Mr Owen, i am a very young 82 year old and remember well you did not give me facts about casualties this started after ww 1 when Lawence promised the land to Arabs then Balfour wanted the Jewish people to have a homeland and started pressing the league of nations for this

---

Serviceman, with all due respect to your age and involvement, it actually all started when Theodore Hertzl and others created the political movement to re-establish the State of Israel.
Britain did not create the modern State of Israel. The UN did, and did so in the full expectation that the nation would cease to exist within one or two years.

My point of caution to you is, that arguing about the population movements that occurred as a result of military action in 1947-49 based on personal involvement, doesn't actually help - This long running debate is mostly fact and history free.

Mazal Tov.

think troubles began in June 1920 when Herbert Samuel was appointed as be high commissioner in Palestine on June 30th 1920, this was not talen well by Arabs. Samuel was first Jew to govern Palestine for 2000 years. We are well aware that the U.N.s created the stste of Isreal, Britain held the Mandate for 17/18 years granted by league of natione. In 1946 britain told U.N.s they would give up mandate in 1948, this was due to American pressure on this country to allow refugees from camps to enter the then Palestine. At no time have i menitioned people being forced to move, people moved out on advice of village headmen

If you are interested i was stationed at Neuhardof and Khayat Beach, which is what 10/12 miles down coast from Haifa

Hello

Are you Israeli or do you just live in Israel for professional or ideological reasons? I get the feeling that you weren't born in Israel or Jewish, but have adopted zionist theories and ideologies throughout your life? would this be correct?

Not that it makes much difference, it's just that you say that your current family ... ranges from Jewish terrorists to Brit Arabists...which is a tad out of the ordinary.

It is refreshing to hear your views from someone who was not born into them, as I believe.

rini e.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

Serviceman,

I live in Israel. My current family spans those held in British prisons, as Jewish Terrorists, to those British Arabists who opposed the creation of the modern state of Israel - so please don't assume you have some superior knowledge of the issues. It ain't true and it doesn't help.

While I agree with some of your observations, you're being a bit too black and white. For example, Beit-Shean valley was pretty cleared "pre-emptively" as opposed to true "self-defence." - and you can run out breath arguing about Deir-Yassin, and a few other forgotten villages.

They have three versions of history here in Israel. "Ours, yours and theirs."

---

please introduce yourself before asking Wilf to post his family history - and be prepared to supply your own.

Thanks in advance,

Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmm99

please introduce yourself before asking Wilf to post his family history - and be prepared to supply your own.

Thanks in advance,

Mike

---

To echo what Mike said, you can introduce yourself here

Thanks

Tom

Moderator

rini., I am a Scotsman who served his country in Palestine before end of the mandate in 1948, my family are not military and never served at any time in armed forces. Left that country in June 1948 for good. I have never adopted any theories, i was there to do a job and did it. that was to move stores from same

Aren't we missing the point? History is of course important but the here and now is what needs to be resolved.

is the main impediment to a resolution of the situation -- not that anything done here is likely to resolve much of anything... :wry: