Firstly, some interesting information regarding the desire for democracy on both sides:
There does appear to be some desire for democracy amongst the Palestinians."Palestinians say they want
democracy".
Some statistics on Palestinian
views.
But on to the various issues.
The "Making the desert bloom" myth.
I've actually already addressed this myth once on these forums once before. Firstly I'll address the quots supporting the myth presented, and then I'll provide some counter evidence.
Dawood Barakat, editor of the Egyptian paper Al-Ahram wrote:
It is absolutely necessary that an entente be made between the Zionists and Arabs, because the war of words can only do evil. The Zionists are necessary for the country: The money which they will bring, their knowledge and intelligence, and the industriousness which characterizes them will contribute without doubt to the regeneration of the country.
This is one man's opinion about what the Zionists might be able to do, not any sort of authoritative evidence of what was done. You dont provide any date for the quote either.
Lewis French, the British Director of Development(in an account of Palestine) wrote:
We found it inhabited by fellahin who lived in mud hovels and suffered severely from the prevalent malaria....Large areas...were uncultivated....The fellahin, if not themselves cattle thieves, were always ready to harbor these and other criminals. The individual plots...changed hands annually. There was little public security, and the fellahin's lot was an alternation of pillage and blackmail by their neighbors, the Bedouin.
There's no context for this quote - where is he talking about -all of Palestine or some subset of it? When was this determination made - and what development may occurred after the quote but before the Zionists became involved? Is "Fellahin" a reference to a specific subset of the Palestinian population, or all of its people?
Sherif Hussein, the guardian of the Islamic Holy Places in Arabia wrote:
The resources of the country are still virgin soil and will be developed by the Jewish immigrants. One of the most amazing things until recent times was that the Palestinian used to leave his country, wandering over the high seas in every direction. His native soil could not retain a hold on him, though his ancestors had lived on it for 1000 years. At the same time we have seen the Jews from foreign countries streaming to Palestine from Russia, Germany, Austria, Spain, America. The cause of causes could not escape those who had a gift of deeper insight. They knew that the country was for its original sons (abna'ihilasliyin), for all their differences, a sacred and beloved homeland. The return of these exiles (jaliya) to their homeland will prove materially and spiritually [to be] an experimental school for their brethren who are with them in the fields, factories, trades and in all things connected with toil and labor.
A religious fundie blabbering on with little specifics. Lets see if these opinions were universal, and if we can find any relevant figures.
Here's an article regarding
the myth that includes quotes from some notable Zionist leaders and their opinions of the level of development in Palestine. The article's not too long so I'll quote the entire thing here:
The myth of the Jews make the desert bloom
by Abdul Kader Suliman
In 1891, a Zionist of the first hour, Asher Ginzberg (under the pseudonym Ahad Ha'am, "one of the people"), wrote after a visit to Palestine:
"We abroad are accustomed to believe that Palestine nowadays is almost entirely desolate; a barren dessert where anyone can buy land to his hearts content. In fact, that is not so. All over the country it is hard to find arable land that is not cultivated."
In reality, before the Zionists came to Palestine, the "Bedouin" (arable farmers) exported 30 million tons of wheat per year; the area of Arab-owned orchards trebled between 1921 and 1942; groves of oranges and other citrus groves multiplied seventy fold between 1922 and 1947; and the production of vegetables was in 1938 ten times what it had been in 1922.
To take only the example of citrus fruit, The PEEL Report, presented to the British Parliament by the Secretary of State for Colonies in July 1937, and basing itself on the rapid growth of the orange-groves in Palestine, estimated that of the 30 million cases of oranges by which world production was expected to increase in the following 10 years, the producers and exporters would be as follows:
- Palestine: 15,000,000
- U.S.A: 7,000,000
- Spain: 5.000,000
- Other countries (Cyprus, Egypt, Algeria etc): 3,000,000
This "projection" and the data can be found in the PEEL REPORT, Chapter 8, paragraph 19, PG.214.
If we take an account of the progress of agriculture in all countries during the last 50 years, and especially of the incredible amount of "AID" received by Israel from outside, it becomes clear that, in this field, there is no "miracle of Israel."
Here's another link dealing with
the myth. Some excerpts:
It couldn't have been in 1945, when Palestine had over 600,000 dunums of land planted with olive trees, producing nearly 80,000 tons of olives, and accounting for 1 percent of the olive oil production for the WORLD [_Statistical Abstract of Palestine, 1944-45_ (Department of Statistics, Government of Palestine), 225], and produced nearly 245,000 tons of vegetables [_A Survey of Palestine_, for the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, Vol.I, 325-26].
It couldn't have been in 1942, when Palestine produced nearly 305,000 tons of grains and legumes [_A Survey of Palestine_, Vol.I, 320].
It couldn't have been in 1887, when Lawrence Oliphant's visit to the Esdralon Valley prompted him to marvel at the "huge green lake of waving wheat, with its village-crowned mounds rising from it like islands; and it presents one of the most striking pictures of luxuriant fertility which it is possible to conceive" [quoted from Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, ed., _The Transformation of Palestine_ (Chicago, IL: Northwestern Press, 1971), 126].
It couldn't have been any time between 1856 and 1882, because the German geographer Alexander Scholch found that in those years, "Palestine produced a relatively large agricultural surplus which was marketed in neighboring countries," and to Europe [Alexander Scholch, "The Economic Development of Palestine, 1856-1882," _Journal of Palestinian Studies_ Vol 10, No. 3, 1981, 36-58]. And in 1859 a British missionary described the southern coast of Palestine as "a very ocean of wheat," observing that "the fields would do credit to British farming" [quoted from James Reilly, "The Peasantry of Late Ottoman Palestine," _Journal of Palestine Studies_, Vol. 10 No. 4, 1981, p. 84].
It couldn't have been in 1856, when Henry Gillman, the American consul in Jerusalem, suggested that Florida citrus growers could learn from Palestinian grafting techniques [Beheiry, 75-76].
And really, it couldn't have been any time during the 18th or 17th centuries. French economic historian Paul Masson acknowledges that during that time, imports of wheat from Palestine saved France from numerous famines [Beheiry, 67].
Expulsion and Arab encouragement:
Firstly, before we even get into the issue of Arab encouragement, I think we need to remember that the expulsion occurred during a war, a war in whcih massacres were carried out against Palestinians.
Deir Yassin is a famous example, we're all probably fairly aware of it, but I'll post a
link anyhow.
News of this massacre in particular became widely disseminated within the Palestinian population. Naturally, we could expect this to cause immense fear. It was probably even exaggerated, increasing the level of terror. And Deir Yassin was not the only massacre, there were also massacres in Nasser El Dein, the village of Tantura, West Hebron. You've even got at least one instance of a massacre taking place in Lebanon. Whether you believe that the average Palestinian was in real danger or not, it is surely understandable that they would have this fear, and that it would influence their actions.
The second point is that expulsion of the Palestinians was an important goal of the Zionists. The following is all from links I've already provided, please read them. Some Ben Gurion quotes:
In a joint meeting between the Jewish Agency Executive and Zionist Action Committee on June 12th, 1938:
"With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." (Righteous Victims p. 144).
In a speech addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut on December 30, 1947:
"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176 & Benny Morris p. 28)
In speech to the Jewish Agency on June 12, 1948, Ben-Gurion stated:
"I am for compulsory transfer; I don't see anything immoral in it." For tactical reasons, he was against proposing it at the moment, but "we have to state the principle of compulsory transfer without insisting on its immediate implementation." (Simha Falpan, p. 103)
On December 19, 1947, Ben-Gurion advised the Haganah on the rules of engagement with the Palestinian population. He stated:
"we adopt the system of aggressive defense; with every Arab attack we must respond with a decisive blow: the destruction of the place or the expulsion of the residents along with the seizure of the place." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176-177 and Israel: A History, p. 156)
Some Yosef Weitz quotes. A bit about him:
Yosef Weitz was a Polish Jew who settled in Palestine in 1908. Weitz was the prime mover behind the first and second Transfer Committees (1937-48), and between 1932 and 1948 he was the powerful director of the Jewish National Fund's Land Settlement Department.
The "Transfer Committee" (especially Weitz) had unfettered access to Ben-Gurion, the rest of the Israel Cabinet, and local Haganah officials on the field, which enabled it to become extremely effective and efficient in achieving its goals.
"...the transfer of [Palestinian] Arab population from the area of the Jewish state does not serve only one aim--to diminish the Arab population. It also serves a second, no less important, aim which is to advocate land presently held and cultivated by the [Palestinian] Arabs and thus to release it for Jewish inhabitants." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 94-95)
"I am increasingly consumed by despair. The Zionist idea is the answer to the Jewish question in the Land of Israel; only in the land of Israel, but not that the [Palestinian] Arabs should remain a majority. The complete evacuation of the country from its other inhabitants and handing it over to the Jewish people is the answer." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, 132)
From Yitzhak Rabin's diary:
"After attacking Lydda [later called Lod] and then Ramla, .... What would they do with the 50,000 civilians living in the two cities ..... Not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution .... and during the discussion at operation headquarters, he [Ben-Gurion] remained silent, as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave [Lydda's] hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could endangered the supply route [to the troops who were] advancing eastward.
Ben-Gurion would repeat the question: What is to be done with the population?, waving his hand in a gesture which said: Drive them out! [garesh otem in Hebrew]. 'Driving out' is a term with a harsh ring, .... Psychologically, this was on of the most difficult actions we undertook". (Soldier Of Peace, p. 140-141 & Benny Morris, p. 207) .
There are plenty more. What I want to establish though is that the Zionists wanted the expulsion to occur, it is in fact a part of Zionism - you cannot have a Jewish state that is not controlled by Jews. It's really not possible to argue that, even though Zionist leadership often talked about their aims necessitating the expulsion of the Palestinians, they werent REALLY trying to do this, and it just happened by accident, a fortunate coincidence.
Now, on to the issue of Arab encouragement.
I've already provided
this link with evidence indicating that the Arabs did not encourage people to leave, and took some measures to stop them, including blocking roads, and ordering them to stay as the population wished to escape Jewish advances. It does indicate that in instances, women and children were asked to leave so as to avoid fighting. I think what is clear is that the Palestinians received a confused message. What I dont think is at all clear is that even if you believe the Arabs encouraged exodus from Palestine, it was this that caused them to leave. I have already discussed the issue of massacres and the terrorizing effect these masacres must undoubtedly have had upon the Palestinian population.
So what did Israeli Intelligence believe was the cause of the expulsion? Benny Morris has come across an ISraeli intelligence report that provides their opinions.
In "1948 and After" Benny Morris examines the first phase of the exodus and produces a detailed analysis of a source that he considers basically reliable: a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled "The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948". This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. "At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations." To this figure, the report's compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which "directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration". A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to "fears" and "a crisis of confidence" affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases...
The morality of not allowing the Palestinians to return is I think even more important than the question of why they left. A number of you have argued that the Palestinians left of their own free will, and simply asserted that this therefore makes their inability to return just. you're not providing any actual argument linking that premise to your conclusion.
Why should people who have left their homes be unable to return if they left of their own free will? What difference does it make why they left? I do not accept the premise that they left of their own free will, but disregarding this fact I can see no moral or legal justification for the confiscation of their properties and the barring of their return.
The issue of a statute of limitations on land claims, or historical grievance has come up again. This isnt a legal question, it's a moral question. I'm not interested in the legal statute of limitations on theft within the US, or any other legal system, and such a comparison is not even valid. A statute of limitations on theft applies when a person chooses not to prosecute, or does not know of the crime, not where they would quite happily prosecute, but are unable to because the criminal is also the judge, jury, and at times, executioner.
A form ofstatute of limitations is needed for such matters, I agree. Hence why I do not support the Jewish claims to the holy land in the first place. However, it is not at all hard to see that the Palestinians originally expelled who are still alive today, and not only them, but their children who would undoubtedly have inherited the land, have had a crime committed against them, and deserve justice.
Water supplies:
I hope that you're right that Israel will soon have an independent supply of water. And this is a big obstacle to the two state solution, but not the only one, and even disregarding the water issue, I still view the one state option as preferable.
Rogue 9 wrote:They might not without outside force. As for your second question, because any outside force that could realistically be supplied is going to come from the United States, and the United States is not going to go further and gut Israel.
If we're limiting ourselves to what is going to happen, rather than what should happen, this is all rather pointless. I'm interested in finding out the morally right solution, whether I believe it will ever happen or not. I believe I've found that solution.
Coyote wrote:I feel that two states, even if they are racially exclusive and hate each other and glare at each other over barriers, is better than ongoing war, violence, and murder, regardless of who the perpatrators are.
I'm not convinved that the two state option means an end to violence. Without integration, and especially without justice, the hatred is unlikely to ever subside, and where there is hatred, there will be violence.
SanchestheWhaler wrote:You're damned insistent that we merge Israel and Palestine because YOU think it's better? Who the fuck are you to tell anyone what they should do with their lives? How is this any different from a religious fundamentalist telling you to accept Jesus because he knows better than you do?
How is this different? I'll tell you how it's different. A fundamentalists doesnt have a valid argument for the validity of the bible. I have a valid argument for the justice and longterm superiority of the one state solution.
I'm Andy Newton, that's who the fuck I am. Who the fuck are you? And more importantly, who the fuck are the Zionists to tell the Palestinians that they cant come back to their rightful homes? Who the fuck are the Israelis to tell the Palestinians that innocent Israelis who are killed are murdered and innocent Palestinians who are bombed and shelled and shot are "collateral damage"?
Rwanda, Sudan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan. What do all of these countries have in common?
Not a lot.
Different ethnic groups were forced together, and ended up killing each other. And this is what you're proposing? Jeebus H. Christ.
I guess the Blacks and Asians and Hispanics better be removed from the United States.
Oh, one last thing I thought I would quote:
As Moshe Sharett was ending his career in the mid-1950s, he came to the conclusion that Israel cannot be ruled without deceit as if it's essential for the Jewish state's survival. He wrote just before resigning:
"I have learned that the state of Israel cannot be ruled in our generation without deceit and adventurism. These are historical facts that cannot be altered. . . In the end, history will justify both the stratagems and deceit and the acts of adventurism. All I know is that I, Moshe Sharett, am not capable of them, and I am therefore unsuited to lead this country."
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
