Israel kills head of Hamas police's special forces in Rafah - report
Israel kills head of Hamas police's special forces in Rafah - report
The commander of the IDF's 98th Division said he would work on evacuation plans "if and when" he is told to launch an invasion.
The commander of the IDF's 98th Division said he would work on evacuation plans "if and when" he is told to launch an invasion.
A Hamas police vehicle was struck in Gaza's southern city of Rafah on Wednesday evening in what Palestinian media reported as a targeted assassination by the IDF.
According to the reports, Hamas police's special forces head, Majdi Abd al-Aal, was killed in the suspected attack.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Weird, your sources seem to be missing the events in late 1947 that led up to the formulation and execution of Plan Dalet. All cases of the Arab League threatening mass genocide of Jews and conclusive evidence of the Arab League having deep ties to Nazi Germany also seem to be mysteriously absent. 🤔
Those are both revisionist histories that got debunked from the declassified archives of the Israeli Military, especially when cross referenced with Arab Sources.
The Nakba preceeded the arab-israeli war
Plan C, that preceded Dalet, was implemented in May 1946, and previous plans (A and B) that were more recon oriented (such as detailing the village/town layouts, which if any officials to kill, how many militia was in each town, how many if any weapons the militias had) were developed earlier. This goes back to the concept of transfer in Zionist thought which I linked. As well as the declassified info I also linked.
Additional context of what was detailed in Plan C (May 1946) and Plan D (March 1948)
Israel was the aggressor in 1948
What Hitler and the Grand Mufti Really Said: Time, Haaretz, WaPo
The wiki on Amin Husseini and Azzam Pasha also show the revisionism in your source. After his expulsion, Amin's influence continued to dwindle. His antisemitism was never popular. It's no wonder why his personal Holy War Army only had about 1500, while over 12000 Palestinians fought alongside Jewish forces against Nazi Germany
If you want a more accurate account of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict you should look towards the New Historians that emerged once documents about the founding of Israel became declassified
The Hundred Years' War on Palestine - Rashid Khalidi
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine - Ilan Pappe
A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - Mark Tessler
Oh I have looked towards the New Historians for clear black and white answers to what otherwise seems like unabated mutual extremism. Unfortunately, Pappe's absolute mockery of an attempted chronicling only served to add to the obfuscation of what can be accepted as truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Palestine
Jørgen Jensehaugen, in the Journal of Peace Research, while calling the book "a good read", faults Pappé for claiming that the preplanned expulsion of Palestinians was "the reason for the war", rather than merely "one aspect of the various war plans".[8]
Ephraim Nimni, in the Journal of Palestine Studies, commends Pappé on the book's "polemical character", but claims that the Zionist leaders were not solely responsible for the ethnic cleansing: Consequently, even if Pappé’s chronology is correct, and there is no reason to doubt this, the book does not provide a sufficient explanation for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. No matter how meticulous the planning by the leaders of the Yishuv (settlers) was, it would have been to no avail without an unusual concatenation of international events (the genocide of European Jewry, the onset of the cold war, the closing of liberal democratic gates to Jewish refugees, the emancipation of colonies in North Africa, and last but not least the hegemony of the model of the ethnic nation-state as the only available avenue for national emancipation).[9]
Even one of Pappe's close colleagues completely discredited him:
Critical analysis appeared in The New Republic. In his review of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, fellow new historian Benny Morris wrote, "At best, Ilan Pappe must be one of the world's sloppiest historians; at worst, one of the most dishonest. In truth, he probably merits a place somewhere between the two." Morris argued, "Such distortions, large and small, characterize almost every page of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine."[11]
The siege of Jerusalem preceded Plan D according to New Historians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet
On November 29, 1947, the UN voted to approve the Partition Plan for Palestine for ending the British Mandate and recommending the establishment of an Arab state and a Jewish state. In the immediate aftermath of the United Nations' approval of the Partition plan, the Jewish community expressed joy, while the Arab community expressed discontent.[19][20][qt 2] On the day after the vote, a spate of Arab attacks left at least eight Jews dead, one in Tel Aviv by sniper fire, and seven in ambushes on civilian buses that were claimed to be retaliations for a Lehi raid ten days earlier.[21] Shooting, stoning, and rioting continued[dubious – discuss]apace in the following days. Fighting began almost as soon as the plan was approved, beginning with the Arab Jerusalem Riots of 1947. Soon after, violence broke out and became more and more prevalent. Murders, reprisals, and counter-reprisals came fast on each other's heels, resulting in dozens of victims killed on both sides in the process. The sanguinary impasse persisted as no force intervened to put a stop to the escalating cycles of violence.[dubious – discuss]
From January onward, operations became increasingly militarized, with the intervention of a number of regiments of the Arab Liberation Army (consisting of volunteers from Arab countries) inside Palestine, each active in a variety of distinct sectors around the different coastal towns. They consolidated their presence in Galilee and Samaria.[22] Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni came from Egypt with several hundred men of the Army of the Holy War. Having recruited a few thousand volunteers, al-Husayni organised the blockade of the 100,000 Jewish residents of Jerusalem.[23] To counter this, the Yishuv authorities tried to supply the Jews of the city with food by using convoys of up to 100 armoured vehicles, but the operation became more and more impractical as the number of casualties in the relief convoys surged. By March, Al-Hussayni's tactic, sometimes called "The War of the Roads",[24] had paid off. Almost all of Haganah's armoured vehicles had been destroyed, the blockade was in full operation, and the Haganah had lost more than 100 troops.[25] According to Benny Morris, the situation for those who dwelt in the Jewish settlements in the highly isolated Negev and North of Galilee was equally critical.[26] According to Ilan Pappé, in early March, the Yishuv's security leadership did not seem to regard the overall situation as particularly troubling, but instead was busy finalising a master plan.[27]
Citation [25][26]&[27] are all New Historian documentation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_Jerusalem
Avi Shlaim, a New Historian, substantiates the Arab League's genocidal threats:
https://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The Debate About 1948.html
It is true that all the Arab states, with the exception of Jordan, rejected the UN partition plan. It is true that seven Arab armies invaded Palestine the morning after the State of Israel was proclaimed. It is true that the invasion was accompanied by blood-curdling rhetoric and threats to throw the Jews into the sea. It is true that in addition to the regular Arab armies and the Mufti's Holy War army, various groups of volunteers arrived in Palestine,the most important of which was the Arab Liberation Army, sponsored by the Arab League and led by the Syrian adventurer Fawzi al-Qawukji. More importantly, it is true that the military experts of the Arab League had worked out a unified plan for the invasion and that this plan was all the more dangerous for having had more limited and realistic objectives than those implied by the wild pan-Arab rhetoric.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calls_for_the_destruction_of_Israel
New Historian Benny Morris has described the Arabs as making calls with a “expulsionist or eliminationist mindset”:
In late 1947, King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia corresponded with U.S. President Harry Truman: The Arabs have definitely decided to oppose [the] establishment of a Jewish state... Even if it is supposed that the Jews will succeed in gaining support... by their oppressive and tyrannous means and their money, such a state must perish in a short time. The Arab will isolate such a state from the world and will lay siege until it dies by famine... Its end will be the same as that of [the] Crusader states.[15]
Around the same time, in response to the UNSCOP report, Azzam Pasha, the Secretary-General of the Arab League, stated that a war with the proposed Jewish state would lead to "a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades." Ephraim Karsh and David Barnett characterized this statement as a genocidal threat, while Tom Segev contested this interpretation.[16]
In the early months of 1948, Matiel Mughannam, an Arab Christian born in Lebanon and the leader of the Arab Women’s Organization, stated: [A Jewish state] has no chance to survive now that the ‘Holy War’ has been declared. All the Jews will eventually be massacred.[15]
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41858205?seq=2
"The Nazi government developed a cordial relationship with some Arab nationalists and it also cooperated with them, based on their common enemies and their shared distaste towards Jews and Zionism. Notable examples include the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine and other actions led by Amin al-Husseini..." - Nafi, Basheer M. "The Arabs and the Axis: 1933-1940". Arab Studies Quarterly, Vol. 19, Issue 2, Spring 1997
I've used enough time disputing and this point about Nazi Germany and the Arab League is a really dense subject that Bernard Lewis. who is admittedly alleged to be anti-Arab/Muslim, has revisited many times after Basheer. It's not really that important to my overall point other than its role in inciting The Great Revolt, which is when it became obvious that war was imminent.
Pappe is biased towards Palestinian emancipation. He explains his position and why in his introductions instead of hiding his bias like some Historians such as Benny Morris.
Here's Pappe's response to Benny Morris, where he debunks Morris' claims:
https://electronicintifada.net/content/response-benny-morris-politics-other-means-new-republic/5040
CAMERA criticisms are easily debunked as seen here:
https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/42571
"Ben-Gurion’s 5 October 1937 letter thoroughly vindicates Ilan Pappé’s reading; indeed, the Pappé quotes to which CAMERA objects seem almost mild when compared to the actual words Ben-Gurion penned to his son. The more literal translation of the Ben-Gurion direct quote (“We must expel Arabs and take their place”) is actually stronger than Pappé’s freer rendering (“The Arabs must go”), although the meaning is basically the same. As for Pappé’s paraphrase, it is as accurate and comprehensive as any so succinct a sentence could possibly be."
There's plenty of reputable historians praising Pappe's work and credibility. You can find links to them in his wiki page too. The criticisms don't really hold water.
I think you may be unfamiliar with the phrase "official policy" if you're asserting the Prime Minister's letter to his son as such. You're also squinting really hard to avert your gaze from the numerous times Arabs made it abundantly clear they were going to respond to Jewish independence with indiscriminate obliteration no matter how the chain of events transpired. In fact, you responded to a total of 0 points involving genocidal threats made by Arabs before Israel's existence in all three of your comments. 🤔
And yes, I'm sure you're as critical of Pappe as you are of the undoubtedly anti-Semitic views of the Al Jazeera Media Network.
Morris attributes my mistakes for being almost a Palestinian. The moment you are a Palestinian you can only be a bad historian. He detests, as he admits, my siding with the Palestinian narrative of disputed events, such as the debate over the question of who provoked the 1920 and the 1929 riots. Morris relies on the British reports when they endorsed the Zionist claims and disregards the British reports when they endorse the Palestinian claims. I probably do the opposite in many cases, I admit it; he does not. He is an ‘objective’ historian.
Openly admitting bias does not exonerate you from the ways in which it affects the "truth" you report. You're also ignoring the criticism that correctly points out that the chronicling of Israel's history by Pappe can't be reconciled with interconnected events that happened internationally or with the previously available avenues for Jewish emancipation prior to Plan Dalet being adopted as official policy.
I think you may be unfamiliar with the phrase "official policy" if you're asserting the Prime Minister's letter to his son as such.
I suggest you read the links I provided for the Concept of Transfer in Zionist thought and the two links on Plan Dalet if you think there is/was no "official policy."
You're also squinting really hard to avert your gaze from the numerous times Arabs made it abundantly clear they were going to respond to Jewish independence with indiscriminate obliteration no matter how the chain of events transpired. In fact, you responded to a total of 0 points involving genocidal threats made by Arabs before Israel's existence in all three of your comments. 🤔
No, it's more that a few quotes are no justification for doing ethnic cleansing. Especially when there was no military policy that backed up any genocidal threats.
I can't find any evidence of that quote in the photo you posted at all, it's as if they just made it up. The wiki commons for the leaflet say "A leaflet, distributed after the U.N partition resolution, by the Mufti High Command supporters, which calls the Arabs to attack and conquer all of Palestine, to burn all the middle east and cancel the U.N partition resolution." Was Amin antisemitic? Yes. Is it possible the leaflets influenced some people? Yes. Does that represent the majority of Palestinians? Absolutely not. Most Palestinians were anti-zionist because of fears of being ethnically cleansed from their homes, which ended up happening.
The Azzam Pasha quote, which the wiki link goes into, isn't as clear cut.
Horowitz quoted Azzam's gloomy assessment of the situation: "We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we'll succeed, but we'll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it's too late to talk of peaceful solutions."
Ben-Gurion, who was informed of the meeting, summed up Azzam's words thus, in a meeting with members of his party: "As we fought against the Crusaders, we will fight against you, and we will erase you from the earth."
Israeli military officials were quite confident that there was no threat according to New Historians, it's even within the paragraphs you quoted from the wiki. It's even more clear if you read the books and get the full context as to why from the minutes of their meetings and their diary entries.
Plus you ignore the decades of Palestinians officials advocating for a unitary state or what life was and the dispossession of Palestinians like under British occupation.
The real question is why Ben-Gurion wanted partition instead of a unitary binational state that was advocated by the Arab side since 1928 and other Jewish participants within the talks. And the point is Transfer / Settler Colonialism
And yes, I'm sure you're as critical of Pappe as you are of the undoubtedly anti-Semitic views of the Al Jazeera Media Network.
Anti-zionism is not remotely antisemitism. Although, the intentional conflation of them is. As your saying the criticisms of the state of Israel (which doesn't represent all Israeli and not remotely all Jewish people) is the same as genuine antisemitism.
Openly admitting bias does not exonerate you from the ways in which it affects the "truth" you report. You're also ignoring the criticism that correctly points out that the chronicling of Israel's history by Pappe can't be reconciled with interconnected events that happened internationally or with the previously available avenues for Jewish emancipation prior to Plan Dalet being adopted as official policy.
That's just wrong, it definitely does. In fact he has multiple books on it that go into immense detail. There are more historians that agree with Pappe than Morris' criticisms. It basically goes into whether you only believe official Israeli sources or you also cross reference them with additional sources such as the diaries of Israeli officials, Arab sources, and oral history. I highly suggest you try reading the book assuming Pappe is wrong about everything and verifying everything he discusses on your own.
I suggest you read the links I provided for the Concept of Transfer in Zionist thought and the two links on Plan Dalet if you think there is/was no “official policy.”
It's funny you should mention your sources for the Concept of Transfer. This is what originally clued me in on your propagandistic presentation. Nur Masalha obviously failed to conduct credible research, evidenced by his use of works by known fraud, Israel Shahak. Shahak is infamous for taking a personal diary of one Yosef Weitz, who never so much as stepped foot into Jewish government, and deploying it out of context to prove some deep-rooted Zionist conspiracy. Far from being official policy, Weitz later even repudiated the idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shahak
As a public intellectual, Israel Shahak was accused of fabricating the incidents he reported, of blaming the victim, of distorting the normative meaning of Jewish religious texts, and of misrepresenting Jewish belief and law.[37] Paul Bogdanor claimed that Shahak "regaled his audience with a stream of outrageous libels, ludicrous fabrications, and transparent hoaxes. As each successive allegation was exposed and discredited, he would simply proceed to a new invention."[38]
In his book review, Werner Cohn said that Shahak was making "grotesque charges" and that specific passages in Jewish History, Jewish Religion are without foundation:[32] Some are just funny. He says (pp. 23-4) that "Jewish children are actually taught" to utter a ritual curse when passing a non-Jewish cemetery.[b] He also tells us (p. 34) that "both before and after a meal, a pious Jew ritually washes his hands....On one of these two occasions he is worshiping God... but on the other he is worshiping Satan..." I did take the trouble to question my orthodox rabbi nephew to find what might be behind such tall tales. He had no clue. If orthodox Jews were actually taught such hateful things, surely someone would have heard. Whom is Dr. Shahak kidding?.[c]
The main contention among historians is whether or not "Transfer" had remained a contingency in the case of unavoidable war for Jewish independence or a secret plot. What I'm here to address is that you've only presented one interpretation of the events that defined this conflict. There can be a sincere case made for the origins of Zionism disillusionment with a lack of independence being embedded by centuries of persecution, the inhumane practices of Sharia law, and the burgeoning of such practices being galvanized by Islamic revivalists present in the remnants of the collapsed Ottoman Empire. I find it concerning that there is so much one-dimensional rhetoric about Israel's practices of apartheid (to be clear this is not a justification for anything, but rather presenting the unrelenting nature of both sides of the coin) and yet the second-class citizenship associated with that of a Dhimmi is absent.
- Muslim countries where Islam is the official religion and Sharia law has been declared to be a source, or even the only source, of the law, practice a “classical Sharia” system, creating a sort of “government under God.” The fifteen (15) countries that implement this form of Sharia law include: Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, certain regions in Indonesia, the Maldives, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.15 In these countries, Sharia law has a high degree of influence on the entire legal system, including the areas of family and criminal law.16 In Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq, it is also forbidden to enact any legislation that is antithetical to Islam.17
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
According to human rights groups, some of the classical sharia practices involve serious violations of basic human rights, gender equality and freedom of expression, and the practices of countries governed by sharia are criticized.[18] The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECtHR) ruled in several cases that Sharia is "incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy".[19][20] Against this, "the concept of human rights" have been categorically excluded by the governments of countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia by claiming that it belongs to secular and western values,[21] and the Cairo conference by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation declares that human rights can only be respected if they are compatible with Islam.[22]+
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_revival
In the 20th century, figures such as Sayyid Rashid Rida, Hassan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, Abul A'la Maududi, and Ruhollah Khomeini, have been described as such. Academics often use the terms "Islamist" and "Islamic revivalist" interchangeably.[9][10] Contemporary revivalist currents include Jihadism; neo-Sufism, which cultivates Muslim spirituality; and classical fundamentalism, which stresses obedience to Sharia (Islamic law) and ritual observance.[4]
Next point:
No, it’s more that a few quotes are no justification for doing ethnic cleansing. Especially when there was no military policy that backed up any genocidal threats.
Let's take a step back. If I gave the impression that I am attempting to justify anything, then I've made an error. I've already implied that I condemn both parties that this conflict derived from, I.E. my use of "...unabated mutual extremism". The point here is to remember that I'm presenting what you've failed to include in your campaign, the contested interpretation and the context in totality. War had become unavoidable by 1947, and you can imagine what those Jew's reactions would've been to facing another perceived existential threat.
I can’t find any evidence of that quote in the photo you posted at all, it’s as if they just made it up. The wiki commons for the leaflet say “A leaflet, distributed after the U.N partition resolution, by the Mufti High Command supporters, which calls the Arabs to attack and conquer all of Palestine, to burn all the middle east and cancel the U.N partition resolution.”
I'll admit, it's difficult for me to measure the validity of the original claim because I don't speak Hebrew or Arabic. However, I do know that al-Husseini had already issued several declarations using this exact same Nazi-emulating rhetoric.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world
Back in the summer of 1940 and again in February 1941, al-Husseini submitted to the Nazi German Government a draft declaration of German-Arab cooperation, containing a clause: Germany and Italy recognize the right of the Arab countries to solve the question of the Jewish elements, which exist in Palestine and in the other Arab countries, as required by the national and ethnic (völkisch) interests of the Arabs, and as the Jewish question was solved in Germany and Italy.[185]
Subsequently, al-Husseini declared in November 1943- It is the duty of Muhammadans [Muslims] in general and Arabs in particular to ... drive all Jews from Arab and Muhammadan countries... . Germany is also struggling against the common foe who oppressed Arabs and Muhammadans in their different countries. It has very clearly recognized the Jews for what they are and resolved to find a definitive solution [note: see German translation ] for the Jewish danger that will eliminate the scourge that Jews represent in the world.[205]
Plus you ignore the decades of Palestinians officials advocating for a unitary state or what life was and the dispossession of Palestinians like under British occupation.
I don't blame you for accusing me of this. I'm not some omniscient scholar that can decipher exactly what version of events had occurred or who had the onus of making concessions in order to salvage some kind of unity out of what is otherwise over a century of suffering caused to the innocent bystanders of Palestine. However, I do know that there was enormous unrest in the region both before and after the birth of Zionism, and that I am acutely unqualified to suggest the perfect resolution.
Remember that friction was extremely high between these groups. It's completely possible, had the events occurred differently, that Jews would currently be on the disproportionate receiving end of suffering. I just have absolutely no way of knowing.
Anti-zionism is not remotely antisemitism. Although, the intentional conflation of them is. As your saying the criticisms of the state of Israel (which doesn’t represent all Israeli and not remotely all Jewish people) is the same as genuine antisemitism.
https://www.axios.com/2023/10/25/tony-blinken-qatar-israel-hamas | https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/20/al-jazeera-suspends-two-journalists-over-offensive-holocaust-report | https://www.arabnews.com/node/1499786/media | https://www.israelhayom.com/2019/05/24/al-jazeeras-anti-semitism-runs-deep/ | https://www.france24.com/en/20170712-uae-slams-al-jazeera-anti-semitism-inciting-hate
In it, Gargash wrote that Al-Jazeera had "promoted anti-Semitic violence by broadcasting sermons by the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Yusuf al-Qaradawi".
Qaradawi, he added, had "praised Hitler, described the Holocaust as 'divine punishment', and called on Allah to 'take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of people... and kill them, down to the very last one'".
Bud, I would not go there. I could not care less what you choose to label it. Openly supporting systematic annihilation of an entire people is beyond redeemable. It's heinous. And most importantly, it's evil.
I highly suggest you try reading the book assuming Pappe is wrong about everything
Not everything. Definitely all the times he insinuates that Jews had complete and total control over everything and could commit ethnic cleansing whenever the hell they so chose, though.
Nur Masalha referenced A History of the Concept of “Transfer” in Zionism by Israel Shahek, which I haven't found criticisms of fabrications of. Looking into his controversy which is about a different book than Nur referenced, it looks like some criticisms are valid. Of course, I'm no religious scholar. I don't get your point about Yosef Weitz, he did play a major role with the unofficial Transfer Committee and the JNF. Which has dispossessed Palestinians to present day. 972mag, MEE, Haaretz
Yosef Weitz (Hebrew: יוסף ויץ; 1890–1972) was the director of the Land and Afforestation Department of the Jewish National Fund (JNF). From the 1930s, Weitz played a major role in acquiring land for the Yishuv, the pre-state Jewish community in Palestine. He became known as the "Father of the Forests" for his work in afforestation, and as the “Architect of Transfer” for his role in the expulsion of the Palestinian population.
Morris writes that Weitz recorded Ben-Gurion's agreement, though according to Morris, Ben-Gurion wanted to focus first on the destruction of Arab villages, and only later on helping the residents to resettle in other Arab countries. Ben-Gurion's account of the meeting was different: he said he had agreed to the establishment of a committee to oversee the "cleaning up" (nikui) of Arab towns and villages and their settlement by Jews, but said he had nowhere explicitly referred to the destruction of villages or preventing refugees from returning. Efraim Karsh writes that Ben-Gurion specifically told Weitz that he rejected the idea of the Transfer Committee. Karsh quotes Weitz as saying: "[Ben-Gurion] would like to convene a narrow meeting and to appoint a committee to handle the issue [the cleaning up or improvement of Arab villages]. He does not agree to the [existence] of our temporary committee."
In his capacity as director of the Forestry Department, he initiated projects to destroy Arab property, ordering personnel to create obstacles for Arabs attempting to return to cultivate their fields, to destroy villages, and to render habitable other villages in order to enable Jewish settlement. He had discussed these activities with Ben-Gurion on June 8, and according to his diary, gained the latter's approval. On June 22, 1941 he wrote in his diary: "The land of Israel is not small at all, if only the Arabs were removed, and its frontiers enlarged a little, to the north up to the Litani, and to the east including the Golan Heights...with the Arabs transferred to northern Syria and Iraq...Today we have no other alternative...We will not live here with Arabs."
I don't support Sharia, human rights abuses are present in practically every religious fundamentalism. I don't think Christian or Jewish fundamentalism are compatible with democracy either. I don't like the concept of Dhimmi either, that goes for any laws that create 2nd class citizens. However, looking into the history, it looks like many Jewish people experienced more rights as Dhimmi than they would've under Christian nations for example, more so when there were other minority religions groups such as Christians in Muslim countries since it was general to any non-muslim. Especially during the Ottoman empire, it looks like Jewish people had comparatively more rights and was generally considered a 'safe haven.' especially in the region of Palestine from what I understand. They deserved equal rights of course, but it's important to note how it differs from western antisemitism historically.
Antisemitism in the Arab World
Antisemitism (prejudice against and hatred of Jews) has increased greatly in the Arab world since the beginning of the 20th century, for several reasons: the dissolution and breakdown of the Ottoman Empire and traditional Islamic society; European influence, brought about by Western imperialism and Arab Christians; Nazi propaganda and relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world; resentment over Jewish nationalism; the rise of Arab nationalism; and the widespread proliferation of anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist conspiracy theories.
I focused on the unrest, such as the 1929 riots, within Palestine with multiple sources since not all Arabs/Muslims are Palestinian and not all Palestinians are Arab/Muslim. And that once Zionism chose Palestine as a location, it was deliberately a settler colonialist movement. However I see your point and I'll add those wikis about historic antisemitism to the list for more context. Amin Husseini became antisemitic largely after his Exodus to Germany. I'm certain he fell for Nazi propaganda and even tried to promote it in Palestine. However his influence continued to dwindle after his Exodus and in Palestine his western antisemitism didn't really catch on, which I think is most apparent by the magnitude more Palestinians willing to fight Nazi Germany than side with Husseini in his personal army.
I only engage with English AJ, so I can't speak for Arabic AJ. From what I understand posts with antisemitism are removed and the journalists responsible are fired or suspended. Which they should be. Antisemitism like Holocaust revisionism or 'kill all jews' Should never be tolerated and always denounced. This is the AJ obituary on Yusef al Qaradawj which does talk about some of his controversies but doesn't mention his Hitler related antisemitism which it definitely should. I totally get talking about other aspects of his life but that kind of thing should not be ignored. I was also surprised it wasn't even talked about on the dude's wiki. those are genuine antisemitic remarks. Criticisms of the state of Israel are not.
I don't think Pappe ever insinuates 'jews' had 'complete control.' Zionists were dependent on British occupation for quite a while. He discusses in detail the military intelligence gathered during plans A,B, and C which were used for Plan Dalet, how the Yishuv military internal intel differed from the rhetoric they gave to politicians not involved in the military operations for Public Relations, and why Ben-Gurion chose the 1947 partition plan as the right precedent to start putting plan dalet into action and obtain the most Palestinian land with the least Palestinians. Also the off-the-record discussions with King Abdullah about the takeover of the West Bank. I don't know how you got the impression they could've done it 'whenever,' I certainly disagree with that notion. It took a lot of planning and cooperation with western forces by Ben-Gurion. There is no way they could've gotten away with the ethnic cleansing before the 47 partition plan and the status of Israel in the UN as an observer-state. The partition plan wasn't even official as it would've required Palestinian officials to accept it. And it was declined for completely valid reasons.
I don't agree with the notion that the civil war was inevitable. For one, that argument depends on the notion that Palestinians had no desire for peace and wanted to genocide all the Jews, making it a war for survival. Which doesn't hold true when looking at the details of the peace process. It is also an after-the-fact justification of partition. Ignoring both the reasons Ben-Gurion insisted on partition, the ongoing dispossession of Palestinians under British occupation, and how the Palestinians officials repeatedly advocated for a unitary/binational state instead of partition. This kind of argument, that the war and ethnic cleansing were a form of preemptive self defense, is used to blame the ethnic cleansing of Palestine to be the fault of the Palestinians. That it was the Palestinians fault they had to be violently forced from their homes. It also justifies the ongoing occupation as a form of security, as it implies the notion that Palestinians are simply inherently violent and don't want peace.
I advocate for a one-state solution with equal rights for all, like it should've been in the first place. Pappe's book A History of Modern Palestine has a lot more info prior to 1947
First and foremost, I owe you an apology for all of my unfounded accusations. The mere fact that you are willing to hear me out is clear indication that I was mistaken. Upon reflection, it appears that your passion about the topic is entrenched by empathy for the Palestinians that lack any form of agency over their own suffering. That is, of course, the most important thing here. I would do better to remember that.
Note: In an attempt to cut down on the enormous amount of text on screen, I've added a lot of links to selected text. I'm not sure whether or not they're going to work correctly in your browser of choice.
I don’t get your point about Yosef Weitz, he did play a major role with the unofficial Transfer Committee and the JNF. Which has dispossessed Palestinians to present day.
My point is that extremism had pervaded both parties perpetuating this conflict, not to mention there was a tidal wave of Nationalism surging through many countries of the time period. The presence of radical ideology is self-evident and gets us no closer to conclusively proving that the Jewish government had always been plotting to expel Palestinians by force. There needs to be a very clear distinction here. This controversy is embroiled in an abyss of disputed information.
The JNF is actually a prominent example of an organization that took measures not to expel Palestinians by force. There were plenty of Palestinians that were more than happy to sell their land in Palestine, presumably because they wanted to live elsewhere.
And that once Zionism chose Palestine as a location, it was deliberately a settler colonialist movement.
Yes, they made mention of this often. Presently the terms "settler" and "colonialist" are used to retroactively transpose modern narratives onto a period in history where conquest/colonialism had not yet been demonized. The Ottoman Empire had not even completely dissolved by the turn of the 20th century. Hell, Egypt, Jordan - Syria and Iraq all swooped in to occupy territory in Palestine, even though the only country that Britain had sanctioned in the territory was Israel. And sure, the ideologies of Zionism were certainly distorted by individual extremism, but I would argue that the underlying goal of an independent Jewish state is not inherently evil when considering they had long established territories in the region. As you brought up, the alternative was to submit themselves to the inhumane segregation of Christian fundamentalism or the inhumane segregation of Islamic fundamentalism.
However, looking into the history, it looks like many Jewish people experienced more rights as Dhimmi than they would’ve under Christian nations for example
I think we can agree that they're both demeaning, and they're both inhumane. Here are some examples of rights stripped away from you under the Ahl ad-Dhimma System:
required to pay additional taxes, required to wear certain forms of dress, required to join only a set list of occupations, had their ability to work in the government circumscribed, forbidden to possess weapons, judged in Islamic Courts for any crime involving a Muslim (even if the Muslim was the perpetrator), Jews and Christians confined to certain areas, etc.
Especially during the Ottoman empire, it looks like Jewish people had comparatively more rights and was generally considered a ‘safe haven.’
The Ottomans sometimes made concessions to appease Europe, but Islamic revivalists were still prevalent. Sharia law still being rampant in the middle-east to this very day should be more than sufficient evidence that it was not just paranoia.
Amin Husseini became antisemitic largely after his Exodus to Germany. I’m certain he fell for Nazi propaganda and even tried to promote it in Palestine. However his influence continued to dwindle after his Exodus and in Palestine his western antisemitism didn’t really catch on
I'm almost in complete agreement with you here, but I would still be very careful that we're not conflating that contemporary Palestine and Arab League. I only ever claimed it had ties to the latter, and the former was not the only Jewish adversary. I'd just really rather not get into the minutia of this topic, its only relevance is the cooperation of some Arab leaders and the fear it would invoke in Jews. It's not isolated to just Husseini:
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna29058048
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'athism
Ba'athism has been criticized by Western observers as similar in form to Nazism, specifically regarding its historic anti-semitism, authoritarian and nationalist tendencies.[287][288] The historian Stephen Wild in his 1985 paper National Socialism in the Arab near East between 1933 and 1939 briefly draws a direct line between these two ideologies. He cites the fact that Michel Aflaq, one of the founding fathers of Ba'athism, purchased a copy of Alfred Rosenburg's The Myth of the Twentieth Century. He also quotes Sami al-Jundi: Whoever has lived during this period in Damascus will appreciate the inclination of the Arab people to Nazism, for Nazism was the power which could serve as its champion, and he who is defeated will by nature love the victor.
We were racialists, admiring Nazism, reading its books and the source of its thought, particularly Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Fichte's Addresses to the German Nation and H.S. Chamberlain's Foundations of the Nineteenth Century which revolves on the race. We were the first to think of translating Mein Kampf.[289]
Arsuzi formed the Arab Ba'ath Party in 1940
Hopefully I at least raised enough alarm about Al Jazeera to compel you to be more skeptical about them. The English branch does placate to public opinion, but has still been caught pushing the limits of antisemitism until the outrage starts to boil. I do strongly agree with you though, criticism of Israel is indeed not antisemitism. And extremism still present in Israel continues to disproportionately cause much more suffering than any extremism permeating the Palestinian population.
I don’t think Pappe ever insinuates ‘jews’ had ‘complete control.’
Pappe's entire rhetoric about an overarching "master plan" is beyond silly to me. The Arab League's biggest weakness was not having a united front, but for the overwhelming majority of this time period, even up to the very month the war of independence began, the Jewish military could not even begin to compete. If not for the exact set of events that lead up to this moment in time, such as the Holocaust and emancipation in North Africa both causing massive surges in Jewish emigration and conscription, conquest in Palestine would've never been feasible for them as they would've been easily obliterated as soon as they occupied territory in Palestine. However, I won't discredit his assertions that there were radical individuals.
I don’t agree with the notion that the civil war was inevitable. For one, that argument depends on the notion that Palestinians had no desire for peace and wanted to genocide all the Jews
We have a complete misunderstanding here. I'm not suggesting that Palestinians, or Arabs in general, had no desire for peace. They had no desire to recognize Israel's independence, under any circumstance. And Israel had no desire for anything but independence, under any circumstance. These two diametrically opposed beliefs were on a collision course from the very beginning.