What are
/r/IsraelPalestine's
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/IsraelPalestine:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/IsraelPalestine:
SemanticScholar
Wikiwand
Encyclopædia Britannica
Screencast.com
Ancestry
Project Gutenberg
The Intercept
Cambridge Dictionary
Worldcat
Wikiquote
Lifehacker
Shazam
Buzzsprout
Sling TV
WikiSpooks.com
The most popular reviews in /r/IsraelPalestine:
The discussion of the states of decolonization comes from: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M2BXWCU
The article you quoted is nonsense. People like Robert Mugabe get to define decolonization not Canada being a little nicer to Indians.
According to Schwartz and Wilf who wrote a recent book on this topic, the number of UNRWA registered refugee descendants is closer to seven million as of 2019, and of course growing exponentially. In 1949 it was about 750,000 actual refugees.
First, it was an arms embargo in South Africa that was enacted by the US, UK, etc.. That isn't going to happen in Israel because Israel faces significant enemies. The US isn't going to leave Israel defenseless against Israel's main enemy, Iran. Second, the South African experiment worked to the extent it did (although it seems to be falling apart now with the riots) because of Nelson Mandela. I'd recommend reading Playing the Enemy by John Carlin. Mandela did quite a bit to foster reconciliation between white and black South Africans. Such a figure doesn't exist in Palestine right now.
Not sure if you’re referring to prior to partition or today, but I’ll provide both.
According to the The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) report, “by 1948, the population had risen to 1,900,000, of whom 68% were Arabs (including Bedouins), and 32% were Jews,” meaning 608,000 Jews lived there.
Today, “About 44.9% percent of Israel's Jewish population identify as either Mizrahi or Sephardi” (https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ethnic-origin-and-identity-in-the-Jewish-population-Lewin-Epstein-Cohen/6b80c2487f3792af3ae63fcd8044d2ad62131a50)
Edit: I also noticed you ignored the rest of my response, feel free to address anything
Im American. I grew up in a very Jewish neighborhood (less than a mile from the Jewish community center) and had many Jewish friends and peers. I can recall distinctly when watching 9/11 unfold realizing that the perpetrators of the attack were Muslims/Arabs (I did not know of a distinction at the time) because of the horror stories I had heard from Jewish friends concerning events in Israel. Even though I was very interested in politics and very involved in speech and debate I never really put much thought into Israel or Palestine and it wasnt until I took a Jewish Studies class in college taught by Ilan Fuchs on the "Arab-Israeli conflict" that I reexamined my preconceptions about the conflict and came to my own conclusions.
Just to reply to certain sentiments expressed in /u/SatoMiyagi posts.
I dont understand how Jews who lived in Poland for the last 500 years can believe they have a right to land in Palestine. I dont understand why, rather than make Europeans stop hating Jews so much, we instead endorsed moving millions of Jews out of Europe and into Palestine. I certainly dont understand how anyone can think the Arabs were "wrong" for refusing to grant land to a bunch of European Jews when Israel would use military force to defend its land from foreigners.
I dont see any peaceful resolution other than one-state with equal rights for all. Whatever the Palestinian state would look like in a 2 state solution, it would always be supplicant to Israel and I dont see Palestinian violence ending unless they are given equality. Rather than point fingers about this attack or this bombing I believe the only way we can really "bury the hatchet" is for everyone to live together, in equality regardless of ethnic affiliation.
Yeah I do expect to be taken seriously. If you disagree with what I wrote please state your objections. I take it all seriously. It was a publicly announced policy and pretty uncontroversial. Here is a discussion of it from a pro Israel newspaper and evidence from wikileaks.
The only African country the Middle East includes is Egypt, and even if you include Jews of Egyptian descent, Middle Eastern Jews do not make up a majority, as you claimed when you said
> most of them are descended from Jews who lived in the Middle East
Including Egyptian Jews brings the figure up to 13.3%, still outnumbered by the Russian and Polish Jews who make up over 20%.
> My comment wasn't downplaying the conflict and you know it.
Oh jesus christ. you know what I mean. Downplaying the actions of Israel in the occupied territories. Gaining support for what Israel is doing with regards to the Palestinians. Ever heard of steel-manning? I would love to see you try it once. you can't ever win a debate if you don't make an honest effort to argue against what the other person is saying.
> To show you why (among many other reasons) I support Israel and not Palestine. But you do, despite Palestine's regressive values. Now how about you tell me why?
So there is a conflict between two countries and your basis for 'support' for one side is the progressiveness of tis society? So did you support the Vietnam war? The USA had better gay and womens rights than Vietnam. did you support the Iraq war? The USA had better gay and womens rights than Iraq. Did you support the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? The USSR was more progressive than Afghan society.
You are completely missing the entire point. You should NEVER 'pick a side' by evaluating the merits of a society, unless your goal is the annihilation of the other side. If you seek peace then deciding 'which side is better' is counter-productive because its pointless. You shouldn't want one side to be annihilated. you should want both sides to live in peace, making the need to 'pick a side' be irrelevant.
> This is just a big fat lie. My comment wasn't about Israel's actions and you know it. Show some honesty.
By saying that you 'support' Israel over Palestine because of the progressiveness of its society thats exactly what you are doing. There is no conceivable other reason for you to declare your support for one side vs the other unless you are referencing the conflict.
Individual settlements had good relations with nearby villages. However, the majority of Arabs opposed Jewish immigration and were hostile. It was an incredibly complex and nuanced situation. I recommend Hillel Cohen’s book “Army of Shadows” which is specifically about Arab Jewish relations during the British mandate.
Much better to have humint moles and sigint. Israeli intelligence has always been scary good, going back to the Shas branch of Haganah. Hillel Cohen thought the organized pervasive cultivation of a huge network of Arab informants used sparingly gave the Jews a huge edge against British law enforcement and Arabs in the post-war revolutionary period (Hillel Cohen, “Army of Shadows”).
A current NY Times Israel beat reporter, Ronan Bergman, also wrote a terrific and scary book “Rise and Kill First” about the Mossad (Israeli foreign intelligence agency) which lays out a long and grisly history of mostly successful assassination efforts (and Eichmans controversial capture)and the basic Israeli doctrine that its better to pick off a few key players in a rocket or nuke R&D program years ahead of deployment or take down a mid-upper level military leader as a peremptory deterrent than risk a war or terror attack that kills hundreds or thousands of civilian citizens.
>Your conclusion, I'm afraid, is not supported by the evidence you present.
Their own FAQ page and about us pages it make it clear that they don't care about improving how the IDF handles the occupation and that thir goal is to end the occupation.
>as with most whistleblowers
They are not whistleblowers! Here is the definition of the term:
BtS openly refuses to work with any authorities and as I showed above has actually fought attempts by authorities to gain the full testimony of the "something illegal that is happening".
Therefore by definition they cannot be considered a whistleblower group.
>and don't see how else they could operate given the nature of the society that they are operating in.
Ok, now i get it. You have already decided without evidence that the entirety of Israeli society is complicit. So to you:
Their refusal to cooperate with the MAG doesn't matter because the MAG are morally corrupt.
Nor does their refusal to cooperate with the civilian state's attorney matter because the the state's attorney are also morally corrupt.
Nor does their choice to publicize unverified anonymous rather than say file those claims in full with the ICC matter, or any other legal institution matter.
I came here to engage you in open and honest debate and discussion, but it has become clear that you long ago decided, and that this whole post of yours has been been a fraud.
You don't actually care about preventing/reporting misconduct by the IDF any more that BtS or B'Tselem, you have already passed judgment on Israeli society as a whole, and all you want now is the punishment for the crimes you have decided they are guilty of.
I will not waste further time on you. Have a nice day.
Don’t know why you are arguing about this. Several books have been written about this, including the linked source by Israel’s most respected relatively objective historian, Benny Morris.
Morris’ book generally describes various reasons for fleeing. In the appendix, there is a list of over 700 villages and cities from which Arabs fled and the reasons listed in a code from among five reasons for leaving.
One thing not remarked on usually, but important, is the known fight of most effendis (rich, powerful Arabs) at the beginning of the civil war in December 1947 who had family or residences in other Arab cities like Cairo or Beirut. I’ve got to think that sent a very conspicuous, demoralizing message to the masses of poor fellahin.
That’s been done by a lefty Israeli, but you know what, it’s a smoking pop gun, because there’s no equivalency. Sure, Israeli text books make Zionists the good guys, trying to convey the national history and civic ethos to mostly Jewish children who will graduate school and be conscripted in the Army. Just like school textbooks anywhere from Texas to Azerbaijan.
But there’s nothing remotely like the crude hate propaganda that’s instilled in the Palestinian textbooks to make them want to kill Zionists and “free Palestine”. It’s a comparison between Mickey Mouse’s love for Uncle Scrooge’s capitalism and Farfour the Mouse’s fight to retrieve his grandfathers land from the Zionists.
Since the above comments were deleted, putting this here:
​
>The links PROVE IMMIGRATION, because the "population increase" is grossly out of proportion to the human body.
No, it doesn't prove immigration. It just proves population growth.
For example, the annualized growth rate from 1922 to 1941 is 2.7%. If we instead do 1922 to 1950, it is 2% annual growth rate. It is high, but not proof of immigration.
You need to look into births and mortality, if you actually want to answer the question.
To a large degree this was driven by public health improvements under the British mandate, by decreasing infant mortality and increasing people who survived to later age.
If you are actually interested, look into some real studies instead of just looking at a population growth chart. Here's a start: https://www.amazon.com/Population-Palestine-History-Statistics-Institute/dp/0231071108
>Either Palestinian women started having 20 children each who all survived to adulthood, or half the population consisted of migrants eventually.
You don't seem to understand compounded growth rates or demographics.
I’m sorry, the Ottoman period and how that unwound in after the 1st decade of the Twentieth Century and into WWI is not my area of historical expertise as I’s British Palestine beyond a few key events outlined in standard histories like Gordis’ “Israel : A Concise History“.
Micharl Provence“s book about the collapse of the Ottoman Empire looks like what gou mughf want tk read (I haven’t read it, on a wish list)
You’re somewhat wrong.
It was never intended by England or US to be a "Jewish^ state. It was intended to be a state for jews alomgside natve palestinians, but exicitly not a jeeish state. This is very clear in the LON's Palestine Mandate document. It was clear in President Truman's understaning. It was later made explicit in 1948 with the declaration of independence that the Zionists submitted to the UN. Author John Judis did an in depth analysis of this issue in his book Genesis. https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-American-Origins-Israeli-Conflict/dp/0374535124
You're too far gone to continue entertaining a discussion with. I recommend taking a look at the sources I linked or at the very least purchasing a peer reviewed textbook on the subject. I recommend this one written by a past Professor of mine:
https://www.amazon.ca/History-Modern-Middle-East/dp/081334980X
Another soldier book which is less of a PTSD type confessional, about a forward operating base in Southern Lebanon in the late 1980s and is more in the usual mold of lots of boredom, then chaos soldiering books. A true story from an Israeli journalist/writer Matti Friedman, “Pumpkinflowers: A Soldier’s Story of a Forgotten War”, in which (spoiler alert) the author mans a random outpost base with others for months and all is calm until the night Hezbollah stages a fierce attack on the base, to make a propaganda video.
Yes, a perfect example of how Palestinians instill hatred, intransigence, and incitement to murder in their population with fabricated mythologies of Jewish evil. Exactly why there can never be a “return” of the descendants of Palestinian refugees.
https://www.amazon.com/Massacre-That-Never-Was/dp/1592645437/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
In this it says "it's identity with the site of Solomon's temple is beyond dispute". This is from original Waqf text from the 60's.
>Do you possibly have the source of where you got this translated excerpt from? If Herzl's words in German directly translate to 'It is not in your accustomed line' then that puts my views on what Herzl's thought of his own movement when speaking to Rhodes to bed.
From "The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl," translated by Harry Zohn and edited by Raphael Patai. The Amazon link is [here]. The complete five volume set is available on libgen, which is where I got it.
"Israelis aren't having to deal with corruption and bribery"
I follow Israeli papers and it's not exactly a paradise over there. The siege mentality has created an atmosphere of constant tension and suspicion and secret police activities cause fear and anxiety throughout their society. The cost of living is very high and many Israelis simply prefer to live in the US or Canada. The corona situation was an absolute nightmare over there, and it's not over yet. Constant antagonism with the Palestinians is stressful and brings fear of retaliation.
Have you ever read Jack Bernstein's book? Something is really off about Israel, it's messed up on many levels.
Always amusing to hear Arabs accusing Jews living in Judea of being "occupiers". You cannot be an occupier of your own land, especially when you're so indigenous to this land that your name "Jew" is derived from the name of the land "Judea".
The only occupiers in this situation are the Arabs living west of the Jordan River, almost all of whom are recent arrivals or their descendants. I invite anyone who wants to learn more about the historical demographics of the situation to read "The Claim of Dispossession".
This outstanding book goes into exhausting detail using verified facts & figures that prove the vast majority of Arabs living in Eretz Yisrael are recent arrivals who only migrated there......wait for it.....because of the economic opportunities created by THE JEWS!
For one that's relevant to this topic, I recommend Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe. It's excellent.
Think you said it yourself in your write up: no “right of return” to Israel and “reversing 1948” is always going to be a deal killer because that’s what the majority of Palestinians want, hope for, expect, have been promised. Any other solution that ends up with anything but one Arab majority state or two Arab majority states is a non-starter with Arabs. Period. Prove me wrong.
This is a quick summary; at least one book by respected Israeli authorities claim that the “right of return” is the main sticking point.. No Arab leader wants to tell their people they lost the 1948 war, there’s not going to be a “redo” or “backsies”. You might get a mulligan in a friendly game of golf, but not in a war where thousands shed their lives.
Yes, I cited the source, “Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages”
They are not talking about right of Palestinian “refugees” (descendants) to return to Palestine. They are talking about the right, supposedly guaranteed by a UN cease fire resolution, Resolution 194, for refugees from the 1948 war to return “in peace” to their former homes within Green Line Israel proper.
Many observers believe the failure to address this demand is the reason no peace talks or arrangements have worked. Arafat referred to this as the “two stage” approach, where refugees would flood Israel, Arabs become the majority, and then either vote or riot until an Arab Palestine was re-established.
By the special way UNRWA counts refugees and includes settled naturalized citizens of other countries (done only for Palestinians; they have their own special UN refugee agency by design), the number of refugee descendants is counted at approximately 6 million from an original approximately 700,000 in 1948).
Source: Schwartz and Wilf, ““The War of Return” (2020).
>The Sheikh responded that it is not them who would determine the future, but rather the invading Arab armies. He told my grandfather that the grand mufti ordered them to leave to the east
Sorry to nitpick but do you mean West in this instance? If you look at the movement patterns of Palestinian Arabs during the Nakba, the overwhelming majority of the lines point to either North (to Syria and Lebanon) and West (Jordan/West Bank).
Also interesting that the leaders of the Kibbutzim were referred to as Mukhtar.
What was the name of this village? Is it featured in All That Remains by Walid Khalidi?
Would love to learn more. Thanks! https://www.amazon.com/dp/0887283063/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_i_BRM88AC35M9JBWHZXM36
When you made your post, I looked it up to see if there was anything there. This article was all I found. This article is by Alexander Murinson. Googling him brings up this book. The Amazon summary is "This book offers a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the evolution of the trilateral relationship between Turkey, Israel, and Azerbaijan."
This article is pure propaganda. Armenians and Jews are both ancient peoples, if there was historical antagonism it'd be documented. Now, there is current active political issues, but those are not historical and understandable due to the choices made by Israel and Jewish lobbies. For example, the Wiki article for "Armenian–Jewish relations" has a note on the recent Armenian Genocide recognition efforts. It begins with "After some previous opposition, Jewish lobby groups in the United States have joined in the call for recognition of the Armenian genocide by the U.S. government. Grassroots activism by Jewish Americans was influential regarding this issue." This shows the good and the bad together. There was active Jewish lobby groups lobbying against Armenian Genocide recognition. That should make everyone sad, especially given the ongoing discourse regarding Holocaust recognition and education. There's more in the Wiki article to dive into if you're feeling the need to be even more sad.
There's no historical hatred towards Jews. There is an active dislike of Israel's pro-Azerbaijani attitude. But when you can count the cargo carriers flying from Israel to Azerbaijan during the war supplying (sometimes banned) weapons that are blowing up hospitals, churches, schools, and apartment buildings, and taking human lives, you can't expect a positive attitude.
Yeah sorry no. Where I pulled it of was classic texts on international law: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/41046/41046-h/41046-h.htm#Page_308
> First of all, Jordan was not the sovereign of the West Bank, but simply another occupier.
From whom? Who was it occupying? The previous sovereign is the British mandate and they had also rejected all claims. If Jordan is an occupier then it was occupying land of the successor state to the British Mandate which means it was occupying Israeli land. You can't have there being an occupation after 1967 and one before they contradict.
> . Secondly, it never "abandoned it", but rather had it taken by force.
Jordan abandoned their claim to it.
> And third one, taking control of a foreign territory, wanted or unwanted, makes you by default an occupier, never a sovereign.
This is fiction. And I suspect you know that by now.
I removed that sentence because it didn't add anything to my comment, but I'll still answer you.
Jews in Europe were often given last names by the non-Jewish authorities. Sometimes they were based on a person's job or community role (like Shkolnik - a Polish term for a synagogue sextant). Others were given deliberately offensive names (like Chertok - nickname for a wicked man, a diminutive form of eastern Slavic chort, chert ‘devil’.)
You can read more at https://www.genealogytoday.com/articles/reader.mv?ID=491, which notes: According to JewishGen FAQ, various European nations with sizable Jewish populations began compulsory measures to impose the adoption of hereditary surnames on Jews between the years 1787 and 1834. Many Jews received surnames in the same fashion that other Europeans had during centuries past, from one of the following four categories:
Patronymic or matronymic (became fixed and hereditary) Locative (based off of place-name of origin) Vocational (occupation-specific) Personal characteristics (tall, short, etc.) As a mistreated people, however, many officials gave Jews derisive and belittling surnames.
1) It is a transliteration from Hebrew to Latin to English. The Hebrew transliterates directly to English as Yehuda
2) There actually was a "J" sound in Hebrew 1. A Gimel without a dot was a /g/ but a Gimel with a dot (Jimel) was a /j/.
This distinction (dot vs no dot) does not exist in modern Hebrew. Instead an apostrophe is used to distinguish between a Gimel and a Jimel 2
Didn't answer that because it is irrelevant. Religion is one aspect of culture, and Yahweh isn't a Caananite god so Judaism so that's a weak point as well.
Culture is multi-faceted and though they speak arabic, many of their customs have been tailored to living in the levant. Can they move more towards being indigenous? Sure, but even then they are far more localized than most of the Jewish population who cling to cultures that were formed in places farther away.
Palestinians are not Arabs and like many other Levantine groups show genetic continuity. So again by your own standard you fail. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Genomic-History-of-the-Bronze-Age-Southern-Agranat-Tamir-Waldman/e60c4a8c6d1bffc408498ade46a8028775a63cd4
Genetics do not play a factor into my argument. You fundamentally disagree with naturalization making one indigenous. So again we are at an impasse, there is nothing more to discuss.
Where’s the source for your claim they were killed by Jewish terrorists?
Edit: just to entertain you: “ According to official British figures, the army and police killed
more than 2,000 Arabs in combat, while 100–112 were hanged, and 961 died because of ‘gang and terrorist activities’.200 Building on the British statistics, Walid Khalidi cites figures of 19,792 casualties for the Arabs, with 5,032 dead, broken down further into 3,832 killed by the British and 1,200 dead because of ‘terrorism’, and 14,760 wounded.”
The claimed source has yet to be confirmed by anyone reliable.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Moshe_Dayan
The claimed source has not been in print for quite some time (near as I can tell there was only ever a single printing), and I have been unable to locate a copy in any academic libraries.
It's a rare book.. Maybe look for it in a library?
The Americans just gifted Israeli/ Palestinian peace initiatives with $250 million dollars. They pretty much told you what they'd like to have happen.. basically "here is some $$, go talk to each other and develop tech start-ups and sports leagues for kids." And that is what has to happen for any conflict resolution to happen. Any conflict is resolved with negotiations. The BDS movement likes to spit on about South Africa and the end of apartheid. But that came about because of negotiations. Mandela did a huge bit to heal the nation and provide insurances to the white population in South Africa that he wasn't their enemy. In fact, he famously used rugby to unite everyone. https://www.amazon.com/Playing-Enemy-Nelson-Mandela-Nation/dp/1848876599
Agree. If you fall down thus rabbit hole, also suggest Menachem Begin’s memoir “The Revolt” and “Fire in the Night” by Bierman and Smith about the iconoclastic British officer Orde Wingate who organized the Haganah’s first counter insurgency units during the Arab Revolt (credited with beginnings of Palmach tactics).
Someone recommend today to me to read: https://www.amazon.com/Claim-Dispossession-Jewish-Land-Settlement-1878-1948-dp-0878559647/dp/0878559647/
I am more engaged in the 6 Day war and recommend Oren's book.
I also recommend Drinking the Sea at Gaza by Hass.
>50,000 is appalling. These are citizens that supposedly have the same value and protection as Israelis!
50'000 (actually 46k) includes conventional wars, like when Israel was invaded in 1948, 1967 and 1973, or aggression from neighbouring forces such as Hezbollah, ISIS, Hamas, al Fatah, etc. It is actually an extremely small number if you compare it to US or UK kills in the same time frame (two countries that tend to fly across the world to get into a war, two of which I've personally been involved in).
Here is a screenshot (from the video I shared above) to put these deaths into context with other countries.
If you read about civilian vs combatant death ratios in each NATO war, and compare it to Israel's wars, you'll see that Israel has a fairly good record in this area. Of course, the bombardment of al-Jazeera-like videos you can find on youtube suggests a different story, but looking into the statistics above paints a much clearer picture of what is going on, and implies that many of these videos are most likely taken out of context in order to fulfil an anti-Israel agenda. Take this from someone who strongly opposes the occupation.
Do you genuinely believe your own country would have a better conduct if it were in Israel's shoes: In terms of ensuring Arab rights within its borders, in spite of over a century of receiving violence from local Arabs, in terms of civilian vs combatant deaths (an extremely important statistic to consider when looking at a conflict objectively), or in terms of dealing with 230 UN resolutions about how the very foundation of the country was an act of racism?
The Al Haram Al Sharif is the property of Muslims, with no viable challenge whatsoever.
(An occupation force cannot be allowed to rename any road or building or area, as per the rules we drew up in 1945).
In 1930, for no very good reason, the British invited the Zionists (assuming they spoke for the Jews, which is pretty insulting to the Jews) to present any claim they thought they had over the Al Haram Al Sharif.
The Zionists (despite having been marching with sticks and guns crying "The Wall is ours" almost from the moment they got off the boat in 1920) made no claim to the enclosed property, no claim to Al-Buraq or the Plaza in front of it.
The sole objection raised by the Zionists (and we can suppose it is entirely valid) is that the limit of the Waqf ownership was not properly delineated.
I do not understand why UNESCO has waited so long to protest the desecration and wanton damage being done to this very, very important historic monument.
It augurs very badly that any Zionists make threats against it, rendering any presence of their very problematical.
And it casts a huge shadow over the legitimacy of the concept of Israel, which was only accepted on the basis that the civil and religious rights of native Christians and Muslims would be inviolate.
See the 1930 Inquiry Report here - https://www.academia.edu/14523912/1930_Commission_appointed_by_His_Majestys_Government_in_the_United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland_with_the_approval_of_the_Council_of_the_League_of_Nations_to_determine_the_rights_and_claims_of_Mosl...
> There are no objective observable universal morals and ethics.
Not having much to do with the I/P conflict but I'd disagree with you here. This could turn into a long discussion but I'd pretty much agree with the Christians that there is a universal morals and ethics (best summary I know of, regarding Christian concept of Natural Law). I think that ethics is defendable from a purely atheistic perspective as well in terms of selfish gene theory.
- A History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, by Ian J. Bickerton, Carla L. Klausner.
- Planting Hatred, Sowing Pain - The Psychology of the Israeli Palestinian Conflict, by Moises F. Salinas.
- A Never ending Conflict - A Guide to Israeli Military History, by Mordechai Bar-On.
- Palestine And The Palestinians, by Samih-K. Farsoun, Christina E. Zacharia, Christina Hawatmeh.
- The Routledge Atlas of the Arab Israeli Conflict, by Martin Gilbert.
"Planting Hatred, Sowing Pain", actually has a summary of the conflict in its introduction, which is partly based on the Farsoun book. So it's a great starter. You can find all of them in Z-Lib.org
There's also many articles, if you're interested.
1) as a pro tip get apollo for the colored comments theme. It makes it way easier to track comment threads on mobile.
2) if you're using your browser, you should be able to get out of mobile mode, and use the desktop version from your phone
3) if you want to do this from the official reddit app, tap the three dots button at the top right of the screen on your post. A window will come up with options, and one of them will be Delete post.
It's a lot more complicated than that -- others have suggested some excellent resources, which I'm sure you'll check out. I'd recommend that, in addition to wiki pages and encyclopedia articles, you read a couple of long-form history books.
In particular, 1948 by Benny Morris is a really strong source of reliable information, and Benny Morris is one of the most objective historians you'll find.
Have to recommend here Hillel Cohen’s book centered on Arab society and politics during the Mandate era, “Army of Shadows”, which provides quite a penetrating look at Arab Jewish relations from the Arab perspective, but based on archival documents kept by Jewish Agency bureaucrats and Haganah intelligence (not interviews or recollections of participants or only speeches and media reporting of leaders and official statements). Cohen is an Israeli scholar who is also fluent in Arabic and has been interested in Arab issues since his youth.
Two sources that seem to be accepted as accurate by Israelis, Palestinians and Western Liberal Zionists, non-Zionists, most non-Palestinian Arabs...:
Gush Shalom's Truth against Truth. This is a pamphlet written by liberal Palestinians and very Liberal Zionists outlining what happened. That is mainly trying to tie the Jewish and Palestinian narratives together by nothing that most of the core differences arise out of a difference in perspective and focus. There is no need to deny the other party's point of view.
Benny Morris Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem. Morris himself is a fairly rightwing Zionist. But he is brutally accurate about the events. Palestinians do feel comfortable using him on matters of what happened when.
As far as BDSers they pride themselves on concepts like, "always side with the weaker party". That sort of viewpoint requires them to make arguments that are inconsistent, invalid or unsound frequently when the weaker party is at fault. They appear either mostly or entirely disinterested in logic, correctness of facts or completeness one has to conclude they simply lack placing any value on truth. Lacking the intellectual integrity (either generally or specifically with respect to Jews) that makes the concept of truth possible I don't know of anything that would be generally acceptable that they would agree with.
But those two sources work for the rest.
I think the main similarities lies in the mandate policies. Like for example separatism, which was an early policy in Palestine, and caused amplified problems later. Another one would be the attitude towards Muslims, which is to diminish the powers of nationalistic leaders who are more pluralistic, but more likely to rebel against British rule, and powering instead Muslim fundementalists. In terms of partition and so on, yes the date of the partition plans are similar and that was not an accident. Other than that there are less similarities than differences. Even the support for Israel by Indians that you point out, is quite recent, historically they were supporters of the Palestinian national movement much more. But many things have changed, the fall of the Soviet Union, the Oslo Accords, the rise of exclusive Indian nationalism, rise of Islamism, war on terror, cooperation with Israel, and so on.
It is referred to as "colonial" because of: 1. Illegal occupation of land with impunity 2. Expulsion of natives and demolitions of homes with impunity Israeli news report 3. Building illegal settlements with impunity 4. Erasure of Palestinian history (there's actually an app that sums up all the Palestinian villages and cities that just "vanished" the app
Now, are the people living in Israel complicit of these crimes? Perhaps, but to me, the state of Israel is solely responsible for this oppression. Not the people, not the Israeli citizens.
Even if you're an Israeli, zionist or Jew, you must be above all a human and speak up against injustices and be critical of a state. I'm sure Israel has good things too, like a high quality of education, an advanced economy and good people, but you can't deny the horrors that are currently happening.
Yes, Menachem Begin’s memoir of the Etzel/Irgun underground militia, “The Revolt: Story of the Irgun”. The main tactics followed by Begin were acts of terrorism directed at symbols of British rule as well as tit-for-tat reprisals for death sentences and canings meted out by British authorities, such as the kidnapping and hanging and whipping of British officers, and blowing up the government offices in Jerusalem during a period of martial law, the Acco prison break and many bold raids on British military bases disguised as British soldiers to raid their armories.
The British did not leave willingly and under the Atlee/Bevin government intended to continue both to hang on to Palestine and continue to block Jewish Holocaust survivors from entering, until several years later the British public, under postwar austerity and rationing, couldn’t see why maintaining an Empire in India and 100,000 Brits on the government payroll in Palestine was worthwhile. Pretty similar to how public opinion turned against the Vietnam War in the US twenty years later.
Per is latin for by (and not part of his name)
Benny Morris is an academic author who's written the best reviewed, most thorough books on the subject. I excerpted this from, as I said, <em>1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War</em>
Many of your questions can be answered by reading the footnotes. I'd suggest what you're looking for can more easily be found in a library loan of this book, than a post on this forum.
There is a LOT of basics to understand to fully understand the war at the level of detail you want to.
>The wiki article says they had an army of 70,000, that sounds like they were trying to stop the conflict to me.
They already had a force of 70,000 there ... they had just finished fighting WWII there. They certainly did not ramp up troop deployments in anticipation of the fighting.
I'm sorry, but I gotta tap out now ... if you want access to all the evidence, you're going to have to read a history book. I'd recommend starting with 1948 by Benny Morris, and then (for a little bit of a more Arab-biased perspective), The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe.
Reading your post history, you learned the British didn't 'give the Jews' Israel yesterday; there's a real awful lot to know about the conflict, and there just is not a substitute for directly reading the work of respected historians.
An amusing account of a Birthright trip was done as a graphic novel by Sara Glidden “How to Understand Israel in 60 days or Less”. Of particular note was her journaling her reactions to the propaganda she expected as the typical “woke” American who’s highly skeptical of Israel, particularly, of course, in its relations with Palestinian Arabs. This book might give you an idea of what to expect.
Please refrain from using foul language. I have ex zionist, and orthodox Jewish associates who have told me this there is literature on it too. 1. Herzl 2. Lendman
Great comment! I’d like to add a reference to a related discussion by Israeli historian/professor Daniel Gordis about why American Jews, especially younger ones, do not understand the purpose and history of Israel and think of it as a miniature secular US, with all the misunderstandings that might entail with not understanding their fellow Jewish Israelis.
That book, “We Stand Divided” is a detailed discussion of these misunderstandings, which apply not just to Jewish Americans but left-leaning “woke” Americans generally.
I guess you're referring to the medieval dhimmi business patting Arabs on the back for being better to Jews than European Christians (that's not as great as you think) not talking about the 30 years of British trusteeship where Arabs and Jews shared Palestine, which was marred by a lot of unprovoked violence of Arabs against Jews , er, I mean, "Zionists".
Very glad to hear people are listening to your series in light of current events. I was raised to fully support (not question) one side and failed for years to educate myself because each source was missing big pieces. Combining macro and micro emotional elements with big picture history really allowed my brain to absorb information I had previously been very resistant to.
And in your Jonestown series, Paul Berman’s pieces on the 60’s radical left answered questions I didn’t know I had. But I very badly needed to have. The parts about “suffering from an illegitimacy complex and “taking radical politics in with their mothers milk” were two very impactful ideas.
Id like to recommend 2 books. Neither are exceptionally written, but they have interesting perspectives (development of religion, social interactions of inner circle in turn-of-century radical anarchism group)
https://www.amazon.com/Source-James-Michener/dp/0449211479
https://www.akpress.org/catalog/product/view/id/2635/s/storm-in-my-heart/
On the greatly misunderstood and incorrect “coexistence” meme during the Yishuv/Mandate period others have debunked here, I’d add the quip by some Israeli historian that the only thing shared by Arabs and Jews was the air they breathed and the hatred of some different British officials.
I haven’t read the book you’ve cited but another which directly speaks to the Arab - Jew issue and a detailed x ray view into the Palestinean side during the Mandate (from detailed records of the Jewish Agency and Haganah intelligence) is a book I’ve recommended on this sub many times for those who want to understand what was really going on from 1920 - 1949 is Hillel Cohen’s book Army of Shadows: Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism 1917 - 1948.
This book will quickly dispell any notion that the binational Mandate was some peaceful utopia.
In Bethlehem of 1996-2000, there was high hopes, huge investments, the PA vowed to make it the center of tourism. All of that was destroyed during the second intifada, in which Israel caused a considerable amount of destruction and agony. It was also an era of power vacuum and chaos. That led many Christian families to migrate, the ones who would have benefited most from the prospects.
It's like when they talk about the remaining thousands of Christian Gazans. It's true that Hamas, with its package of Islamism, has put a considerable pressure on Christians there, especially in the first years of their rule. But it's the fact that if Gazans were to be offered a good migration plan, half of them would leave(latest poll). Look at the numbers who died during trying to migrate via the sea to Europe.
Actually, Stalin DID agree to a supposedly autonomous Jewish state in Asia, and it was supposedly near the Soviet border with Mongolia. It was called Birobidzhan and it was a total cruel joke, like many inventions of Stalin and the Communists. .
You’re making a lot of assumptions here that really are at odds with the history. The people beaten, raped and killed in the Kishinev riots were indeed innocents. This was in 1903 and the culmination of 20 years persecution by the Russian Empire which had nothing to do with communism at that point, it was long before the 1917 revolution.
Indeed, much of Zionism and the image of the strong, resilient Jewish fighters you mention was the shocked reaction of the early Zionists, particularly the journalist Jabotinsky and the poet Bialik who wrote about the riots and was particularly harsh on the traditional Jews who were passive in the face of assault and unmanly: men who hid while their wives were being raped and then were concerned whether they could have sex with them again, etc. Much of Zionism and the Jews who settled in Palestine was to reject the perceived passivity and weakness of the Eastern European Jew in favor of the strong new Zionist Jew who worked the land instead of being middlemen and so forth.
Without going too far into Rule 3 territory, you wouldn’t assume that at least some Jews who perished in the Holocaust were not “innocent” because you assume the Trumpian equivalence that there are “good and bad people on both sides” or some similar nostrum that flattens history beyond recognition based on an assumed equivalence of all flawed human actors.
This book about the Kishinev pogrom and it’s influence on early Zionism is a good read. I challenge you to read this book and then get back to me on what those victims of the riots did “to have it coming to them”.
According to a recent book by Adi Schwartz and Einat Wilf, The War of Return, the right of return to Israel of Palestinians is not an insignificant negotiating point or something symbolic which can be addressed with a token return, but indeed the Palestinians’ primary demand and objective. According to Schwartz and Wilf, the failure to sufficiently address the right of return issue is why Oslo, Camp David and similar peace initiatives failed, and Palestinians are still holding out for an eventual restoration of a majority Arab Palestine through the Arafat/PLO “stages” strategy.
u/avicohen123 is right. The best thing you can sort of do is just read as much as you can and come to your own conclusions. If you start of with the idea that both sides are going to skew history to make themselves look better, you can come to a more nuanced view of what’s going on in the region. It is also VERY important to understand the entire Middle East and its relationship with regional powers from the mid-1800s up through WWI and the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
I still think that the best book I ever read on the conflict was The Israel-Palestine Conflict by James Gelvin. It’s not about the Nakba in particular, but I think it presents the conflicting experience of Israeli Independence/Palestinian Catastrophe pretty even-handedly.
Oh, snap, it’s an 1952 out of print book and copies are $150 - $300 + shipping on Amazon and AbeBooks. Guess I’m going to have to pass on that (I do buy rare books about Israel but they have to do with my interest in graphic arts and Israeli designers).
Can you suggest anything similar that covers similar territory about land sales (pun not intended)?
BTW, have you read Hillel Cohen’s “Army of Shadows”? It’s a terrific book about land sales during the Mandate and the dissension within Arab society about whether to deal with Jews or not. I’d highly recommend it if for no other reason it deals with the issues surrounding Palestinian nationalism and how Arab society was seriously divided about Zionism. You have to wonder if it would have worked out so poorly if a different cohort of Arab society which was not opposed (or so opposed) to Jewish immigration had power as opposed to the Grand Mufti and the Arab Higher Council of the day.
From the official summary:
https://www.amazon.com/Catch-Jew-Tuvia-Tenenbom/dp/9652297984
> Catch the Jew! recounts the adventures of gonzo journalist Tuvia Tenenbom...
I think it is much closer to gonzo journalism than immersion journalism, and the publisher seems to agree
> ...at times risking his life as he assumes the identities of Tobi the German and even Abu Ali in order to probe into the many stories in this strange land and poke holes in all of them...
So his objective is not just to figure out their motivations and attitudes, but rather to poke holes in them.
> ...By turns poignant, enraging, and laugh-out-loud funny...
So it does indeed seek to entertain just as much as inform
You can look at the migration figures of Jews to Palestine. Until the Balfour declaration, Zionism was failing. It failed to attract Jews to come as was hoped. Two years of the good days of migration to the USA equals the total number of Jews in Palestine before the Balfour declaration, both migrants and natives. The population that Zionism was made for, mostly migrated to the USA, and they hated to come to Palestine, they considered it a backward place. Compared to the USA at the time, that would be rational.
Then you have the effects of the Balfour declaration together with the British occupation, which had a major effect. By the end of the 1920s, migration plummeted. It's only after the rise of the Nazis, when the Zionist movement made the deal with the Nazi, to ease Jewish migration into Palestine, most of them due to increased anti-Semitism and after that persecution, only then you have significant migration figures. How would you build a state of migrants, without a significant population?
Let's put it in other words. If there was no rise of Nazism, and antisemitism even in the USA, Zionists would have waited years and even decades for them to form a significant confident portion of the local population. Would they have waited? I'm not sure.
You can add to these the Arab revolt, which came directly because of the significant increase in the number of that. Also, anti-Semitism made the migration to especially the USA much harder.
ping: u/Fofoi12 , u/1235813213455891442 and u/tangentc , u/ColTwang333
u/1235813213455891442 filed an appeal against his own ruling.
The question was raised about attacking sources and whether that's a rule 8 violation. Tangentc is correct a good faith questioning of sources isn't a rule violation and is constructive. Its an important part of advancing the debate. However source debates should be more than is-too, is-not.
HRW may be biased but it is a more mainstream source.
Tangentc is a bit incorrect that Thomas Wictor is a random source.
Thomas Wictor is an author of a book on flamethrowers (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0764327720/) for Schiffer Military History series. I.e. he's not some random person but is rather familiar with incendiary munitions. But it is worth mentioning that Schiffer is a 3rd tier publisher.
More importantly from a rules standpoint ColTwang333 didn't raise this even when the quality of his source was repeatedly questioned in the comments.
Ruling: 1235813213455891442's moderation was in error. Both Fofoi12 and ColTwang333 made poor arguments regarding sources but neither was a rules violation.
You keep shifting the question. Traditional rabbinic teaching is that Jew who inhabits the holy land takes on new obligations and thus the Zionists were committing further sins in moving there.
Chapter 5 of The Empty Wagon: https://www.amazon.com/Empty-Wagon-Zionisms-journey-identity/dp/1642555541
is a terrific introduction to this concept by a noted proponent.
https://www.amazon.com/Dear-Zealots-Letters-Divided-Land/dp/1328987000
When you read it, please let me know what you think.
https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Concise-History-Nation-Reborn/dp/0062368745
The audio version is free.
Edit: if you sign up and then cancel audible that is
The one source that is generally agreed to be excellent is: The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem by Benny Morris. Its been updated a bit: https://www.amazon.com/Palestinian-Refugee-Problem-Revisited-Cambridge/dp/0521009677
Pretty much what happened and when depends on which town of village. Its a complex detailed story.
FWIW I see very little antisemitism from the mainstream or even institutional right. Moreover when it appears they are very likely to correct it or condemn factions that won't.
A good example of this process is: https://www.amazon.com/5000-Year-Leap-Cleon-Skousen/dp/0880801484 That's a book that repeats antisemitic themes in very every page but with no mention of Jews specifically. Instead the global conspiracy against the common man is about liberals and leftists.
Conversely on the left we see virtually every antisemitic theme explicated with slight updates and modifications. By using "Zionist" in place of "Jews" leftists really seem to believe that racially anti-Jewish hate literature suddenly becomes perfectly normative political discourse. There is nothing like this on the right. Even among genuinely antisemitic rightwing writers there isn't this kind of denial of what they are doing. The leftwing variety thus mainstreams antisemitic ideology.
Because America (and the West generally) is culturally if not religiously Christian among non-dispensationalists the ground for horrific antisemitism is fertile. The left wants people to focus on token extremists and infrequent token violence rather than their well organized mass movements spreading hate to hundreds of thousands of new converts annually.
> We definitely know, however, that the Christian Jewish sect was wealthy enough and numerous enough to entice the governor of Syria to arrest Paul (who was eventually executed for disturbing the peace of the empire).
We don't definitely know that. We know that Acts says that. And there is very good reason to believe that Acts is ahistorical propaganda. Especially when it comes to trying to rework the Paul character who had played such a large role in books in Marcionic Christianity. (https://www.amazon.com/Marcion-Luke-Acts-Defining-Joseph-Tyson/dp/1570036500/)
>1.i hate israel but not jews
Israelis are, in general, amazing people. And the two things kind of go hand in hand: Israel is the only nation that is a Jewish nation. This is open to debate, of course, but that's my point of view.
​
>2.second they have a right to be shocked Israel is killing thousands if not millions
I think you need to be suspicious about where you're getting these numbers from. Europe killed millions of Jews in less than a 5-year span, definitely. Israel is not killing millions of people. (an interesting fact is that the IDF actually has a lower civilian-to-combatant kill ratio than NATO militaries did in WW2, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq).
​
>3.well if you want people to stop people arguing for the removal of Israel then argue with those when it comes to the removal of Palestine
Anyone who argues for the removal of Palestinians is just as bad as those that call for the removal of Israelis, no doubt.
​
>4.what two state solution with what borders and will Arabs be given land in Jeruslam?
Read a short book by Amos Oz, if you have the time. It's called Dear Zealots. The third section summarizes my belief in the Two State solution.In general, 1967 borders, and addressing, one way or another, the Right of Return. I don't pretend to have worked out all the details, but I do believe it's the only moral, and practical, way forward.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1250252768/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_4n-KFb327KC47 New book by Einat Wilf and Adi Schwartz reexamine this claim. It's an interesting read knowing that both of them are considered from the Israeli political left. The premise of the book basically states that the "right of return" is a non negotiable for the Palestinians while Israel and the Western world treat it as a bargaining chip which will ultimately be compromised on. The book further states that understanding the essence of the demand of the Palestinian right of return inherently dismisses Israel's right to exist. This argument is strengthened by the numbers game. If the number if current refugees includes those living in the West Bank and Gaza, then the right they are ultimately demanding is to return to Israel and not The Palestinian territory. The book argues that no country is expected to repatriate refugees that seek to destroy it. Another interesting argument/accusation that is brought up in the book is the role the UN and specifically UNRAW in strengthening this narrative, which is harmful and unrealistic. They argue that under International law the right of return is promised solely to the first generation that had to leave/flee their homes, and the original responsibility of this organization was to help the Palestinians to either achieve that goal OR find suitable alternatives (rehabilitation in adopting countries).
Ariel Sharon's autobiography, Warrior contains a unique perspective on the War and Israeli politics, at the time.
The islamization of Palestine due to Saudi financing is a very real issue Palestinians take issue with. Just because Saudi Arabia larps as a secular Jew loving nation doesn't change that reality Before Saudi educated palestinians created hamas and the other terrorists like azzam, palestinians were led by secularists (who nevertheless werent good people bu the point remains)The islamization of the entire sunni world since the 1960s is directly a result of the saudi petro-dollar. In Somalia, Afghanistan, Algeria, Syria, Yemen etc
Saudi Arabia created these beats and now is trying to cover its tracks
You should read this book,
https://www.amazon.com/Hatreds-Kingdom-Arabia-Supports-Terrorism/dp/0895260611
its by a former Israeli ambassador to the UN, a respected scholar of islamism
u/thebigcheen thank you for sharing your views with us.
I think you would like the work of Amos Oz, maybe start with Dear Zealots.
In his words:
>My Zionist point of departure, for decades now, has been a simple one: we [the Jews]] are not alone in this land. We are not alone in Jerusalem. I say the same thing to my Palestinian friends: you are not alone in this land. [...] If someone from either side of the Israeli-Palestinian divide comes along and says, 'This is my land,' he is right. But if someone says, 'This land, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, is all mine and only mine,' then he is out for blood.
Zionism, in my eyes, is complete. It's achieved its objectives by creating a flourishing, beautiful and secure state for the Jewish people. Now all it needs to do is protect itself. In my eyes, this includes defending Israel from terrorism, from future foreign invasion, and even maintaining a Jewish majority (this last point is a source of much argument among the World). It does not mean annexing more land, creating more Palestinian refugees, and supporting settlements. It does not mean seeing the Palestinian people as enemies, beyond those that are guilty of carrying out armed terrorism. It does mean finding a peaceful, long term solution for both sides.
As a Zionist-leftist, my views are criticized by the left, and by the Zionist right alike. Both sides, in my eyes, don't seem to realize that each of their views for a binational state will lead to the destruction of Israel, and yet another travesty added to the list of Jewish history.
u/josephesaad thank you for sharing these other NGOs with us, I'll look into them in detail.
I have an author you may like. Try Amos Oz, maybe start with Dear Zealots. He talks on fanaticism, what it is to be a secular Jew, and then his ideas on the 2 state solution. I believe you'd like his views, and his words, very much.
If you do get around to reading it, please let me know and we can talk about it.
What you were trying to argue, is that refusal of the establishment of a Zionist state in Palestine, was because of how Arabs thought about Jews. Like if the question was about Maronites, European Christians, Kurds, or Assyrians, there would be a totally different answer. What I argue, and that goes back in time, that the arguments made by the Arab public and elites, were that Zionism is a threat to their aspirations.
> to make sense of them or provide examples
These are a summarization of the arguments. I don't think you can find something like Jews is not a nation and don't deserve a state. And that is your whole argument
> And that's true they might expand from .1% of Peel to the .3% of all of Palestine.
Let's assume that is what they thought, not considering what did actually happen. How does that help your argument?
> Defeating military enemies is a goal if not a function of any state
Circular thinking.
Palestinian Arabs denying that Jews are a nation is complex. For example, reading Palestinian in the late Ottoman empire, you can find the view the Jews are not a nation because they are a multi-racial, multi-lingual, and multi-cultural community, united by religion(Ruhi al-Khalidi, Issa Al-Issa,...). Early anti-Zionists like Najib Nassar, for example, thought that Zionism is a racial movement(ethnocentric), that he would agree with if it was not on the expense of the communities of the Ottoman empire. In fact, he praised Hertzl and thought Arabs of the Ottoman state should have a similar national leader for their own cause. Read this for more info. Whatever do you think about that, most Jews in this era(pre-1917), didn't consider themselves Jewish nationalists.
Try reading books instead of wiki links:
Jerusalem in the 19th Century: The Old City First Edition
https://www.amazon.com/Jerusalem-19th-Century-Old-City/dp/0312441878
Jerusalem in the 19th Century: Emergence of the New City First Edition
There's a great book you'd enjoy reading.
It's been deemed as the historical book on this topic that is most neutral, written with the help of Jewish, Palestinian and foreign historians, by Ian Black.
Enemies and Neighbours: Arabs and Jews in Palestine and Israel, 1917-2017
It's great to put this conflict into perspective.
Just about any secular history of Judaism.
William Creighton Graham, Babylonian Influence on the Hebrews
Robert Coote and Keith Whitlam's The Emergence of Early Israel in Historical Perspective
Lemche, Niels Peter. The Israelites in History and Tradition.
Thompson, Thomas L.. The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology And The Myth Of Israel.
Whitelam, Keith W.. The Invention of Ancient Israel.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006TH2S4Y/ is a good summary of the debate and the issues.
Shlomo, Ben-Ami. Scars of War, Wounds of Peace. Oxford University Press, 2006. You can find these specific quotes on pages 25 and 37; click the book cover on Amazon to search
The map shown has clearly been changed as the the map that predates it modification number shows different stats.
https://zochrot.org/en/article/56444
There's even a book where one of the reviews says the information was wrong.
> Seriously, I am really just protesting American involvement in the Conflict in general. If the US cutoff all aid and weapons deals and remained completely neutral, then acted through the UN to create peace, this conflict would end in 6 months.
What makes you believe that? And why didn't that policy work for Eisenhower when he tried it? Heck why didn't it work for the Yishuv when the USA imposed arms limitations to avoid 1947-9?
> OOOOR, vested special interests in the military industrial complex
The military industrial complex? Meaning who Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics? What interest would they have and how would they be so influential on this conflict?
> I’m not justifying the Holocaust.
I didn't say you were. You asked me to imagine something that was even worse in reality.
> This sounds like a poisoning the well/guilt by association fallacy.
No it sounds like simply stating their positions.
> My beef is not with the Jewish people.
Of course it is. The same way as if you had a beef with France you have a beef with the French people or if you had a beef with Japan you have a beef with the Shinto people.
> Citation Needed.
Read some Zionism. You want to get involved in this conflict you should know something about it. Netanyahu's father wrote a great book on the topic: https://www.amazon.com/Founding-Fathers-Zionism-Benzion-Netanyahu/dp/1933267151
I would suggest "Palestine: The Reality: The Inside Story of the Balfour Declaration" by J.M.N. Jeffries
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1566560241/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Written in 1940, it goes into the treatment of the indigenous population under the British Mandate from the issuance of the Balfour Declaration into the Arab Revolt, and relies on contemporaneous accounts.
What "Jewish people"? https://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844676234
Ironic considering that Israel denies the people-hood of Palestinians and denies them their right to exist.
Try the book "Side by Side" - it describes the history of the conflcit, but half is written by an Israeli historian, and the other half by a Palestinian historian. https://www.amazon.com/Side-Parallel-Histories-Israel-Palestine/dp/1595586830/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1497407590&sr=1-1&keywords=side+by+side+israel
Anonymous Soldiers written by Bruce Hoffman shows the situation in Palestine from 1917-1947 and focuses on the situation after the Second World War.
Not really, as the actual people who were here were wiped out or cleansed. Whole cultures werw wiped away in a destructice orgy, rather than adapting and changing and learning to live with one another gradually. This is a generalization, of course, but even then one odt he bog things that drove this was mythology of the superiority of European cultural practices and the rights of Europeans to appropriate land of the natives. The Native tribes were not allowed to adapt, they were put into camps, killed and their children stolen from them.
The situation in America is much the same as the situation in Israel Palestine witht he Nakba, although Israel certainly didn't have the time bor the inclination to achieve a genocide in the same manner as my fellow Americans did. There were even attempts to simply become indigenous to the land as well, but it is a complex picture.
In Israel Palestine, the Arabs did not do that. There is not a lot of evidence of massacres and the like, and the Arabs remained a minority for many years afterwards. Given that this hsitory is also 1400 years, there are some generalizations here as well, but the Palestinians are for the most part a continuation of previous peoples, just Arabs now via their speaking of Arabic. There is also an influz of other people from around the Muslim world due to the mobility Muslims, Jews and Christians had during the Islamic golden age.
This is a fascinating book that details this phenomenon through the life of a Jewish merchant in 12th century Egypt and India. I cannot highly recommend it enough.
>Great! More Jews in Palestine! Bring them all in!
This confirms that you are not a serious person, and that I wasting my time.
>You just defended Arabs doing precisely that as something that has happened throughout history.
How does stating something as a fact equate to defending it? If you had bothered to read what I said, you would have found that I explicitly stated that it's wrong regardless of who does it.
>Benny Morris confirms actually the exact opposite
He argues that there was no deliberate plan, but the evidence he uses contradicts this. See for instance Norman Finkelstein's analysis in Image and Reality of the Israel Palestine Conflict.
Benny Morris is on record stating that he wished that all the Arabs had been expelled.