UN expert: Palestinian terror 'inevitable' result of occupation

[bemildred]

A report commissioned by the United Nations suggests that Palestinian terrorism is the inevitable consequence of Israeli occupation and laws that resemble South African apartheid - a claim Israel rejected Tuesday as enflaming hatred between Jews and Palestinians.

The report by John Dugard, independent investigator on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the UN Human Rights Council, will be presented next month, but it has been posted on the body's Web site. In it, Dugard, a South African lawyer who campaigned against apartheid in the 1980s, says "common sense ... dictates that a distinction must be drawn between acts of mindless terror, such as acts committed by Al-Qaida, and acts committed in the course of a war of national liberation against colonialism, apartheid or military occupation."

"While Palestinian terrorist acts are to be deplored, they must be understood as being a painful but inevitable consequence of colonialism, apartheid or occupation," writes Dugard, whose 25-page report accuses the Israel of acts and policies consistent with all three.

He cited checkpoints and roadblocks restricting Palestinian movement to house demolitions and what he terms the Judaization of Jerusalem.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/958358.html

[PDJane]

1. And this is a surpise to anyone?

If there was a road blocking you from your farmland, and your house was demolished and occupied, and your kids got hit frequently trying to get to the farmland, I'm sure you'd take a different approach than shooting rockets at the perpetrators. Right??? Wouldn't you???

[Crunchy Frog]

2. Oh, I can assure you that it will be a surprise to many on this board

who will no doubt respond to this with a shocked and offended tone of utter incomprehension.

[Dick Dastardly]

37. Before the Intifada and suicide bombings there were no roadblocks as now

There was terror against Israel before the occupation of the WB and Gaza in 67. When Jordan and Egypt were occupying there was no terror against them, it was directed on Israel. The cause for the Israeli occupation was the Arab aggression against Israel.

While the occupation may be used to fuel terror it is not the cause of it otherwise we would see terror in Tibet as we do in this. The cause of terror is not just because of the occupation. The Arab aggression toward Israel is the main cause of the conflict and the resulting occupation as well as the terror.

[subsuelo]

44. "the main cause of the conflict"

Did you ever consider, that perhaps one main cause could be the theft of land from the native people?

[Dick Dastardly]

48. Sure I thought about it but its not what caused it

The Jews stole no land. That is a false claim


Despite the growth in their population, the Arabs continued to assert they were being displaced. The truth is that from the beginning of World War I, part of Palestine's land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus and Beirut. About 80 percent of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads and Bedouins.18

Jews actually went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap and, most important, without tenants. In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as "the most important asset of the native population." Ben-Gurion said "under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them." He advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. "Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement," Ben-Gurion added, "should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price."19

It was only after the Jews had bought all of the available uncultivated land that they began to purchase cultivated land. Many Arabs were willing to sell because of the migration to coastal towns and because they needed money to invest in the citrus industry.20

When John Hope Simpson arrived in Palestine in May 1930, he observed: "They paid high prices for the land, and in addition they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay."21

In 1931, Lewis French conducted a survey of landlessness and eventually offered new plots to any Arabs who had been "dispossessed." British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80 percent were ruled invalid by the Government's legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the Government land offer.22

In April 1936, a new outbreak of Arab attacks on Jews was instigated by a Syrian guerrilla named Fawzi al­Qawukji, the commander of the Arab Liberation Army. By November, when the British finally sent a new commission headed by Lord Peel to investigate, 89 Jews had been killed and more than 300 wounded.23

The Peel Commission's report found that Arab complaints about Jewish land acquisition were baseless. It pointed out that "much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased....there was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land."24 Moreover, the Commission found the shortage was "due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population." The report concluded that the presence of Jews in Palestine, along with the work of the British Administration, had resulted in higher wages, an improved standard of living and ample employment opportunities.25

In his memoirs, Transjordan's King Abdullah wrote:


It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping (emphasis in the original).26

Even at the height of the Arab revolt in 1938, the British High Commissioner to Palestine believed the Arab landowners were complaining about sales to Jews to drive up prices for lands they wished to sell. Many Arab landowners had been so terrorized by Arab rebels they decided to leave Palestine and sell their property to the Jews.27

The Jews were paying exorbitant prices to wealthy landowners for small tracts of arid land. "In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semiarid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre."28

By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres. Approximately 45,000 of these acres were acquired from the Mandatory Government; 30,000 were bought from various churches and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880 to 1948 show that 73 percent of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin.29 Those who sold land included the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem and Jaffa. As'ad el­Shuqeiri, a Muslim religious scholar and father of PLO chairman Ahmed Shuqeiri, took Jewish money for his land. Even King Abdullah leased land to the Jews. In fact, many leaders of the Arab nationalist movement, including members of the Muslim Supreme Council, sold land to Jews.30



http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf2.html#e

The Peel Commission Report

The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews.

Up till now the Arab cultivator has benefited on the whole both from the work of the British Administration and the presence of Jews in the country

The shortage of land is due less to purchase by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population. The Arab claims that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamps and uncultivated when it was bought.


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/peel1.html

[Violet_Crumble]

49. The Jews stole no land?

You mean Israelis, not Jews, I think. After all, you were chiding someone further down in the thread for talking about Jewish only bypass roads and you insisted they were Israeli, not Jewish...

Anyway, I don't want to keep you from yr 'It's All The Arabs Fault!' routine or posting links from such *ahem* unbiased sources! ;)

[subsuelo]

51. Denial is always the follow up to truth being told

I can never really decide which is worse - those that actually believe it, or those who know better but deny anyway

[Violet_Crumble]

52. What I don't get is how anyone could deny Israel has seized Palestinian land...

It's a rather extreme and silly thing to try to argue when there's so much credible information available about land seizures...

Here's one example that I'm sure the poster in question will ignore:

Israel has used a complex legal and bureaucratic mechanism to take control of more than fifty percent of the land in the West Bank. This land was used mainly to establish settlements and create reserves of land for the future expansion of the settlements.

The principal tool used to take control of land is to declare it "state land.” This process began in 1979, and is based on a manipulative implementation of the Ottoman Lands Law of 1858, which applied in the area at the time of occupation. Other methods employed by Israel to take control of land include seizure for military needs, declaration of land as "abandoned assets,” and the expropriation of land for public needs. Each of these are based on a different legal foundation. In addition, Israel has assisted private citizens purchasing land on the "free market.”

The process employed in taking control of land breaches the basic principles of due procedure and natural justice. In many cases, Palestinian residents were unaware that their land was registered in the name of the state, and by the time they discovered this fact, it was too late to appeal. The burden of proof always rests with the Palestinian claiming ownership of the land. Even if he meets this burden, the land may still be registered in the name of the state on the grounds that it was transferred to the settlement "in good faith.”

Despite the diverse methods used to take control of land, all the parties involved - the Israeli government, the settlers and the Palestinians - have always perceived these methods as part of a mechanism intended to serve a single purpose: the establishment of civilian settlements in the territories. Accordingly, the precise method used to transfer the control of land from Palestinians to Israel is of secondary importance. Moreover, since this purpose is prohibited under international law, the methods used to secure it are also unlawful.

Israel uses the seized lands to benefit the settlements, while prohibiting the Palestinian public from using them in any way. This use is forbidden and illegal in itself, even if the process by which the lands were taken were fair and in accordance with international and Jordanian law. As the occupier in the Occupied Territories, Israel is not permitted to ignore the needs of an entire population and to use land intended for public needs solely to benefit the settlers.

http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/200205_Land_Grab.asp

Another example is Ein Hod in Israel, where the population were expelled from the village and it was later turned into an artists colony...

[Dick Dastardly]

55. Especially for those who cant back up their claims

when refuted with actual facts so they revert to diversionary comments of a personal or nonsensical nature. I hope that isn't you as I see it is with another here. Do you have anything to say about the Peel Report or or the other sourced info or is your comment to VC the best I can expect. I have seen you do better

[Dick Dastardly]

54. There were no Israelis then, It was Arab and Jewish players.

I was not chiding anyone just correcting their errors because they are Israeli only roads, Jew, Arab or any Israeli. But you know that already, but prefer to spin an issue and the facts.


Its not about 'It's All The Arabs Fault! routine' as you say. Its about facts which is something I see you play loose with and ignore when convenient for the only real routine here which is your Israel vilification routine. When I first started posting here I tried to stick only to facts and non personal educated debate but its obvious that you prefer snide comments, diversion and baseless statements rather than factual debate.


Can you refute this sourced source and the Peel Commission report or is snide comments in lieu of facts the best you can do.

[Violet_Crumble]

63. When? How come yr the only person who's going on about pre-Israel times?

The poster you'd responded to hadn't said a thing about then. So how come yr choosing to ignore that Israel has confiscated Palestinian land and property, which is what the poster you responded to was claiming? Which is why I don't feel any need to refute what you posted, coz it doesn't refute the original posters claim at all. I've posted a link from B'Tselem about the confiscation of Palestinian land, so if you want to try and refute that, give it a try. Or are you going to call that a snide comment in lieu of fact?

My apologies. I didn't realise that pointing out that yr post in this thread do nothing but blame the Arabs totally would bring on such a torrent of insults. Guess I'll have to join Bemildred in the corner, eh? ;) Just a few corrections, though. Yr not a mind-reader, so knock off the lame 'but you know that already' stuff. I criticise Israel when I think it deserves it and am highly critical of Hamas as well. So, since when has legitimate criticism been *vilification*? I'm also failing to see anything diversionary, baseless, or snide about my posts to you. If I upset you so, feel free to put me on ignore...

[Dick Dastardly]

73. We were talking about the main cause of the conflict.

[Violet_Crumble]

88. And one of the main causes of the conflict is the dispossession of the Palestinians...

As well as two national movements vying for the same bit of land. To claim that no land has been taken from Palestinians is both ridiculous and incorrect. Not only was land taken from them when Israel was created, it continues to this day in the West Bank where settlements are built on private Palestinian land...

[Dick Dastardly]

90. Sub claimed the Jews stole the land back in pre Israel days.

That is what we have been talking about. You keep expanding the topic rather than comment on just the pre Israel days. We can talk about that separatly if you want but this point was just on pre Israel. So back to topic, Do you claim the Zionists stole Arab land in the mandate period?

As the Peel report which I posted in #48 shows, that is false.

The Peel Commission's report found that Arab complaints about Jewish land acquisition were baseless. It pointed out that "much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased....there was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land." Moreover, the Commission found the shortage was "due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population." The report concluded that the presence of Jews in Palestine, along with the work of the British Administration, had resulted in higher wages, an improved standard of living and ample employment opportunities.

Peel report see #48 for more

The shortage of land is due less to purchase by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population. The Arab claims that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamps and uncultivated when it was bought.



Most of the land Israel was created on was not private land and most of the private land was owned by absentee landlords from whom it was purchased


By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres. Approximately 45,000 of these acres were acquired from the Mandatory Government; 30,000 were bought from various churches and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880 to 1948 show that 73 percent of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin. Those who sold land included the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem and Jaffa. As'ad el­Shuqeiri, a Muslim religious scholar and father of PLO chairman Ahmed Shuqeiri, took Jewish money for his land. Even King Abdullah leased land to the Jews. In fact, many leaders of the Arab nationalist movement, including members of the Muslim Supreme Council, sold land to Jews.-The Land System in Palestine, (London, Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1952), p. 278.

[Violet_Crumble]

91. They said nothing of the sort...

Here's the link to their post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=201282&mesg_id=201348

It's pretty damn clumsy to create yr own arguments out of something that wasn't even said and then insist everyone must stick to them...


So how about you get back on topic for a change?

[Dick Dastardly]

92. Exactly, we were talking about the main cause that started the conflict

which is pre occupation pre Israel days.

Try again, your games dont work. Its hilarious that you are trying to tell me what I was discussing. You must be very talented to be able to know what I was thinking better than myself


Maybe answer the question instead of using diversion to not answer it.
Do you claim the Zionists stole Arab land in the mandate period?

[Violet_Crumble]

93. Well, reading what people actually post is what I do...

It doesn't involve any mind reading, just going on what people post. Sub did NOT say anything about pre-Israel days, and nor had you in the post they replied to. Then suddenly out of the blue you switch to insisting that we must all focus on one narrow aspect of the conflict, which is totally stupid as I doubt even you would try to argue that the Palestinian people have been dispossessed and that disposession is a major cause of the ongoing conflict...

Seriously, there's nothing of a game in pointing out the bleeding obvious to you. And coz yr silly 'question' is imo irrelevent to the discussion, I'm not going to waste my time on it...

I gave you the causes of the conflict. If you agree with them, fine. If you don't, explain why...

[thereismore]

3. Makes sense. nt

[bemildred]

4. Yeah, it's almost like there is some sort of pattern to these things. nt

[breakaleg]

5. This made me chuckle...

"Professor Dugard will better serve the cause of peace by ceasing to enflame the hatred between Israelis and Palestinians, who have embarked on serious talks to solve this contentious situation."

And if Israel has nothing to hide, why not let the man proceed with a fact finding mission in Gaza?

[eyl]

95. Maybe because

Dugard was appointed in 2001 as an unpaid expert by the now-defunct UN Human Rights Commission to investigate only violations by the Israeli side, prompting Israel and the U.S. to dismiss his reports as one-sided. Israel refused to allow him to conduct a UN-mandated fact-finding mission on its Gaza offensive in 2006.

The report will be presented next month at the 47-nation rights council's
first regular session of the year. The new body has been widely criticized - even by its founder, former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan - for spending most of its time criticizing one government, Israel's, over alleged abuses

[Phx_Dem]

6. Dugard is not the least bit qualified

to be making conclusions like the ones in his article.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. He looks far more qualified to do so than many others I've seen comment on the conflict...

Just because you don't personally agree with what he says doesn't make him unqualified...

[bemildred]

24. John Dugard

John Dugard (born in 1936 in Fort Beaufort) is a South African professor of international law. He has served as Judge ad hoc on the International Court of Justice and as a Special Rapporteur for both the former United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the International Law Commission. His main academic specializations are in Roman-Dutch law, public international law, jurisprudence, human rights, criminal procedure and international criminal law. He has written extensively on South African apartheid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dugard

[Phx_Dem]

27. He is a lawyer

Who has no formal training in any of the fields of social science.

Yet he feels qualified to comment on the etiology of terrorism.

:eyes:

[bemildred]

28. No shit, a lawyer?

Heck, I feel qualified to comment on the etiology of terrorism, and I have no qualifications whatsoever. What do you think this is, some sort of academic dispute? String theory? Do you feel qualified to comment on the etiology of terrorism? Do you think you are better qualified to comment on terrorism than Dugard or me? Is everybody just supposed to shut up unless they get a comment credential first?

[Phx_Dem]

32. He's writing in an official capacity for the UN

not posting on the internets.

[bemildred]

33. Look, there is no requirement for expressing an opinion.

It does not matter where you do it. He did this in his official capacity, and it is what he was hired to do, and it is fatuous to say he is not qualified to do it. There are no extra qualifications. You can disagree if you like and state your reasons, but there is NO BASIS for saying he is not qualified to speak about it. Barney the Dinosaur is qualified to speak about it.

[Jim Sagle]

46. And he'd make more sense as well.

[bemildred]

58. Speak of the devil. nt

[Jim Sagle]

65. All you really need is love.

;)

[bemildred]

67. Its a Small World

It's a world of laughter
A world of tears
It's a world of hopes
And a world of fears
There's so much that we share
That it's time we're aware
It's a small world after all

There is just one moon
And one golden sun
And a smile means
Friendship to ev'ryone
Though the mountains divide
And the oceans are wide
It's a small world after all

It's a small world after all
It's a small world after all
It's a small world after all

http://blog.tmcnet.com.nyud.net:8090/blog/tom-keating/images/its-a-small-world-after-all.jpg

[subsuelo]

7. If we accept this argument...

Are we also prepared to accept arguments that describe Israeli war crimes as the 'inevitable result' of Palestinian terror?

IMO the better approach is to argue that both are inexcusable. Both are not "inevitable results" of crimes committed against one another. We need to hold both sides to higher standards.

[bemildred]

9. Actions and situations may be both "inexcusable" and "inevitable".

The actions of individuals and small groups (or governments for that matter) may be inexcusable, while at the same time a person viewing the matter in aggregate and context will see that it is quite predictable that such inexcusable actions will occur. One is viewing the matter in different contexts in making those judgements. I am quite sure that the UN guy here is not out to excuse anything, he is pointing at what he sees as cause and effect relationships. One of the proper businesses of leaders and governments is precisely to do the sort of things that prevent inexcusable actions from becoming both inevitable and prevalent. It's called "maintaining order", and failure to do that is of itself more than sufficient to justify dismissal, rebellion and revolution, as the case may require.

[subsuelo]

12. Good points

Again, however -- I would ask the question: are we prepared to accept a similar argument for the Israeli side? Would we be alright with a report concluding that the 'inevitable results' of rocket attacks are: Power outages, restrictions on fuel supplies, extra-judicial killings, etc. Maybe so, maybe not so much. For me, it is a questionable approach either way.

[bemildred]

15. Sure, why would you not?

As long as it is allowed that it goes both ways? How could you deny that it works the same both ways? We already stipulated that it's inexcusable, and the issue of proportionality has not been addressed, but you won't get far being discriminatory in your reasoning.

[subsuelo]

17. "How could you deny that it works the same both ways?"

Exactly.

A major problem in this conflict, as I see it, is the failure of proponents from both sides to acknowledge this very point.

[bemildred]

18. That works for me. nt

[LeftishBrit]

11. ITA - great post!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

13. Here's what I fundamentally don't understand:

how can "both sides" be equally responsible? They didn't happen simultaneously. How can resistance to a huge immoral act be as immoral as the original act? I just don't get that.

Nothing African slaves could have done to free themselves from that evil institution could have been more evil than the institution of slavery. Same goes for occupation. Nothing that Palestinians do to cast it off is worse than the occupation.

And also please explain, while we're all congratulating ourselves for being so "fair," if everything is so "equal," why is it only one side is taking it up the butt?

[subsuelo]

14. I never said both sides are equally responsible

[Phx_Dem]

16. What "huge immoral act" are you referring to?

Maybe that is why you don't understand.

The partition plan created countries for the Israelis and Palestinians, except the Palestinian leadership thought all of it should be theirs and still do.

[PDJane]

20. the partition plan was not the immoral act.

What is the immoral act is the fact that the Israelis have not respected that partition plan and have never compensated the Palestinians for land taken from them in the original plan and certainly not in the aggregate.

The reason that Palestine was not given status as an independent state after WWI was the implementation of the Balfour Declaration; the idea of giving the jews and independent state and getting them out of Europe. The idea was that anti-semitism was so ingrained in Europe that the only way to fix the "problem" was to give the Jews a 'homeland.' That Palestine happened to be occupied by the Palestinians was simply part of the problem.

There was supposed to be a single state, where Jews and Palestinians would live. That is why Israel began to engage in terrorism; there was to be a single state solution, and the Israelis would eventually be outnumbered. The Palestinians responded, the thing escalated to a point that Israel was given its own state inside Palestine after WII and further warring.

As it stands now, Israel is simply taking over more and more of Palestine; look at the incredible shrinking Palestine maps from B'Tselem, and read some of the materials available there. Remember, too, that this is an Israeli group.

[Phx_Dem]

26. Res 181 was only implemented by the Israelis

The Palestinians choose not to form their state, and instead declared war on Israel.

Why don't the Palestinians implement 181?

You are aware that the land partitioned for the jews were areas that had a jewish majority?

[PDJane]

29. That isn't what I said, and you're not listening.

The Balfour Declaration was immoral. The removal of Palestinians without recompense for the lost land was immoral.

The majority in that section of the Jews was a fait accompli, and under the previous statements was the best that could be done under the circumstances. Had Israel or the UN compensated the Palestinians, ended the apartheid inside Israel and given the Palestinians homes and their own territory, that would have made some sense. Had Israel stayed within their borders, that would have gone some way to making the thing reasonable. They didn't.

The 1967 war was an immoral land grab, and the keeping of that land was illegal under international law. The constant expansion of the settlements is immoral. The fact that the separation wall includes palestinian land, settlements and the water table is immoral.

The fact that Israel keeps the palestinian population from their farms, razes their homes, collects their crops and forces them into smaller and smaller areas is immoral. The standard Israeli tactic of killing more of them than they kill of you, just because that way you're a mad state that can't be touched is immoral (and can't last; Lebanon proved that).

Starving the civilian population. Building Jewish only roads through the occupied territories and confiscating Palestinian land to do it. Refusing to understand the culture or the limits of an ancient land and the people on it. Yeah, those things are immoral.

No, the Palestinians are not trying to "drive Israel into the sea." But Israel is trying to drive Palestine into the sea. It is "ethnic cleansing," and there is no justification for that brutal and ongoing occupation. It isn't war; it's occupation of another people's land.

[Dick Dastardly]

40. You are wrong

"The Balfour Declaration was immoral. The removal of Palestinians without recompense for the lost land was immoral."

The majority in that section of the Jews was a fait accompli, and under the previous statements was the best that could be done under the circumstances. Had Israel or the UN compensated the Palestinians, ended the apartheid inside Israel and given the Palestinians homes and their own territory, that would have made some sense. Had Israel stayed within their borders, that would have gone some way to making the thing reasonable. They didn't.



The Jews were the majority in the portion partitioned to them. They were attacked which is why they didn't stay within the partition borders. It was not immoral


The 1967 war was an immoral land grab, and the keeping of that land was illegal under international law. The constant expansion of the settlements is immoral. The fact that the separation wall includes palestinian land, settlements and the water table is immoral.

It was no immoral land grab. It was due to Arab aggression and casus belli. It is not against International Law as you say as they can administer it until such time as a comprehensive peace is signed. They are also not required to leave all of it. That said I do agree that they have expanded the settlements more than they should have but they can always be torn down or vacated.



Starving the civilian population. Building Jewish only roads through the occupied territories and confiscating Palestinian land to do it. Refusing to understand the culture or the limits of an ancient land and the people on it. Yeah, those things are immoral.


They are not starving the civilian population. The roads are Israeli only not Jewish.
Well there were no roadblocks until the intifada, terror and suicide bombings started.


No, the Palestinians are not trying to "drive Israel into the sea." But Israel is trying to drive Palestine into the sea. It is "ethnic cleansing," and there is no justification for that brutal and ongoing occupation. It isn't war; it's occupation of another people's land.

The Palestinians and their Arab brothers did try to drive the Jews into the sea but lost.

It is not ethnic cleansing, genocide or many of the other ridiculous descriptions.

The reason and justification for the occupation and the Palestinians plight is the wars and terror waged against Israel. That said there needs to be a negotiated solution but the Palestinians need to stop the terror and then Israel needs to back off and ease up. The Palestinians need to realize the tactics used since the birth of Israel have hurt them and their cause more than Israel. Israel is in a position of power and they will not get all they want or even as much as they could have had. Fair has nothing to do with it, it is reality. They can continue to live as they are, killing a few Israelis here and there, or get a deal that is not all or even close to all they wanted and start to live and prosper.

[Shaktimaan]

57. Your facts are incorrect.

have never compensated the Palestinians for land taken from them in the original plan and certainly not in the aggregate.

Israel has offered compensation to any Palestinian landowners who lost their land in the nakba in exchange for those individuals renouncing any right of return to Israel. Under this plan many Palestinians were compensated. However no Israelis who lost land when the Arabs rejected the plan and attacked have ever even been offered compensation. Nor have any of the Jewish refugees from Arab states. Why do you single out the one state that attempted to honor the plan and compensate refugees as being immoral? Aren't the states who violated the plan more responsible for the war's outcome?

That is why Israel began to engage in terrorism

Israel did not begin the violence. Terrorist attacks were started by the Palestinians. This fact isn't even under debate by historians. Palestinian terrorism began in the 20's. Jewish terrorism only began as retaliation many years later, following numerous Arab attacks on their community.

If the reverse were true, as you stated, then it seems unlikely that the current MidEastern demographics would have occurred. Right now Israel has a 20% Arab population while the surrounding Arab states have evicted all of their Jewish citizens.

The reason that Palestine was not given status as an independent state after WWI was the implementation of the Balfour Declaration

No, it was because of the Mandates issued by the League of Nations. If what you said was true then why weren't there any states given independence in the middle east after WWI? Balfour didn't affect any of them, yet they were still kept under Mandates, just like Palestine.

As it stands now, Israel is simply taking over more and more of Palestine

Actually, as it stands now Israel has been leaving more and more land in Palestine, pulling out completely and leaving the areas to be governed completely by the Palestinians. In the past decade Israel has evacuated all of Gaza and Area A in the west bank.

[Violet_Crumble]

64. Could you post some more info on this compensation?

Israel has offered compensation to any Palestinian landowners who lost their land in the nakba in exchange for those individuals renouncing any right of return to Israel. Under this plan many Palestinians were compensated.

You made this claim once before and I asked about it then, but don't remember that you posted any info on it. What was this plan and when did it happen? I haven't heard of it before...

[Shaktimaan]

79. sure

Despite the position taken by the Arab states, Israel did release the Arab refugees' blocked bank accounts, which totaled more than $10 million. In addition, through 1975, the Israeli government paid to more than 11,000 claimants more than 23 million Israeli pounds in cash and granted more than 20,000 acres as alternative holdings. Payments were made by land value between 1948 and 1953, plus 6 percent for every year following the claim submission.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/refugees.html

[Vegasaurus]

80. Wonder if the Arabs compensated the Jews that they chased out of all their countries

No. I didn't think so.

[Violet_Crumble]

89. I noticed there were no references in there to support his claims...

And considering that I spotted a few incorrect things in other bits of that 'Israel Is Totally Blameless' thing written by a guy who is or was a member of AIPAC, I'm going to take that link to a very biased pro-Israel site with a big grain of salt, just the way you'd take something at EI the same way. If there ever was any offer made to any refugee, given the way Israel still refuses to fairly compensate or let Israeli-Arabs return to their homes, I suspect there would have been massive strings attached to any offer made...

[Violet_Crumble]

22. It's obvious that PM is talking about the occupation...

The partition plan created countries for the Israelis and Palestinians, except the Palestinian leadership thought all of it should be theirs and still do.

While Hamas and religious parties in Israel may think that way, the Palestinian leadership have formally recognised Israel since 1993

September 9, 1993

Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.

The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.

In view of the pormise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

Sincerely,

Yasser Arafat
Chairman
The Palestine Liberation Organization

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/22579.htm

Also, since when has the govt of Abbas thought that all of Israel should belong to the Palestinians? That's a ridiculous thing to think seeing as how Abbas is a supporter of the two-state solution...

[Phx_Dem]

25. Abbas does support 2 states

But the "other" part of the Palestinian government (Hamas) does not as well as many other Palestinians and Palestinian supporters. As things stand right now, there is no reason why the Palestinians couldn't unilaterally declare a state per res 181. Res 242 would still need to be resolved but two states could exist before all the final points are covered.

[PDJane]

31. No, it couldn't.

Israel would have to give back territory in order for that to happen, and they won't. As it stands, the backing of the US for Israel means that Palestine lives in limbo, and Israel is able to defy international law with impunity.

Palestine could declare a state, of course. But what do they back up their claims with and how do they reclaim the land that they have lost? They need a military, they need international support, and the support of the US under the UN charter means that they can't do any of those things.

[subsuelo]

8. hypocrisy of Israel's UN Ambassador

Israel's UN ambassador in Geneva slammed Dugard's analysis.

"The common link between Al-Qaida and the Palestinian terrorists is that both intentionally target civilians with the mere purpose to kill," Itzhak Levanon said. "The fact that Professor Dugard is ignoring this essential fact, demonstrates his inability to use objectivity in his assessment."

Of course, Levanon is also ignoring the essential fact that Israel's military intentionally targets civilians. Talk about inability to assess objectively!

I understand that Israel's ambassador can't just come out and say such a thing. But I couldn't help but note the hypocrisy.

Problem is that hardly anybody involved in this conflict talks honestly.

[bemildred]

19. Come come, Mr Levanon is a dispassionate and objective observer

who would never even think of being biased in favor or one side or another in this dispute. His word is not to be questioned.
:sarcasm:

But seriously, it just cracks me up that he has the chutzpah to even use the word "objectivity". That was a favorite of the Commie whackos in their sectarian disputes back in the old days. Like this: "Objectively, I'm right!".
:rofl::rofl:

[Tom Joad]

10. And Israeli govt. terror against the civilian population is a natural requirement

of continuing the occupation.
To end the violence they would have to end the occupation and recognize Palestinian rights. They are not ready to do that.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. I couldn't find the report on the website...

Has anyone got a link to it or a copy of it?

[Behind the Aegis]

30. here

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/402/29/PDF/G0840229.pdf?OpenElement

[Violet_Crumble]

38. I'm getting a weird error message when I click on it n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

50. OK..try this.

(Sorry about that. It seems sometimes one can access UN pages in Adobe and other time...who knows?!)

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/7session/reports.htm

Scroll down to A/HRC/7/17

"Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 (John Dugard)"

Then choose one the letters to the far right (languages). That should open the report.

[Violet_Crumble]

60. Thanks. That got me to the report...

Yeah, pdf pages on the UN site tend to be a bit precious when it comes to their urls, coz I've had it happen to me before. Now I'll head off and read the report...

[oberliner]

34. East Timor was brutally occupied for 25 years by Indonesia

Around 100,000 East Timorese lost their lives during that occupation.

Did those who suffered under the occupation resort to acts of terrorism?

[bemildred]

35. I don't see your point.

My impression is that, as in the I/P issue, most of the terrorism comes from the occupying side, but that's the way it usually is. The occupying forces would not be there if they didn't think they could control the situation with violence. But I don't see that it matters much. It's a strategic issue, whether you resist violently or non-violently to a violently imposed occupation. It's really nobody else's choice to make.

[oberliner]

42. This piece suggests that Palestinian terrorism is inevitable due to the Occupation

I dispute that claim. I do not believe that Occupation inevitably leads to terrorism.

How about Tibet?

[bemildred]

59. I think he's speaking in the specific case, I don't think he's proposing a general rule.

That is, he is talking specifically about the I/P situation, not making a general statement about terrorism, colonialism, apartheid, etc. So it's "inevitable" in Palestinian's situation, not inevitable whenever there is an occupation; what about Japan and Germany after WWII? There was almost nothing. Those are the classic "successful" ones. But those were unusual cases. I've seen long involved discussions about why there was not more trouble with those too.

I don't know about Tibet. How would you know unless China wanted you to? Though I'd be surprised if there was nothing.

[oberliner]

66. Dugard seems to be making a broader statement

Note this quote from the article:

"As long as there is occupation, there will be terrorism," he argues.

"Acts of terror against military occupation must be seen in historical context," Dugard says. "This is why every effort should be made to bring the occupation to a speedy end. Until this is done, peace cannot be expected, and violence will continue."

[bemildred]

68. That was not my take.

You can make that argument if you want, but as I pointed out it's ridiculous.

Do you really think Tibet is a good advertisement for the virtues of non-violent resistance? Although, if you compare it to Iraq or Gaza, maybe it is. But do you want to compare Israel to China? Hmm. These are thorny issues.

[Vegasaurus]

69. Why would terrorism be "inevitable" in I/P

but not in any of the other horrific occupations that have happened world-wide?

What is specific to this particular occupation (of course, terrorism occurred before there even was an occupation, but that seems to matter not to many posters of the forum) that makes Palestinians more prone to terror than other oppressed groups?

If occupation causes terror, then it seems we would see a lot more of it than we do from other oppressed groups. It seems to only be from a specific group of people, which is why the argument makes no sense.

[bemildred]

71. I believe Mr Dugard addresses what he thinks the reasons are.

At least he offers some explanations.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. I hope yr not thinking that the answer is no...

In the latter years of the occupation Indonesian migrants and their property in East Timor were attacked by the East Timorese. And Fretilin mounted attacks on the Indonesian military throughout the occupation, and I've learnt from reading this forum that some folk consider attacks on military targets to be terrorism. Fretilin were labelled as terrorists and the founder of Fretilin, Jose Ramos-Horta, who's now the President of East Timor, was denied a visa to Australia for ten years due to his activities with Fretilin...

btw, for anyone who does follow events in East Timor and heard of the recent assassination attempt on Jose Ramos-Horta, he's now regained consciousness. Here's hoping for a full recovery...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/21/2168775.htm

[oberliner]

41. I am stunned by your characterization of this organization

Yes, it is true that several nations, including Australia, denied a visa to Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Jose Ramos-Horta, for fear of upsetting the Indonesians, but I am truly stunned by your characterization of this organization and their leader.

Perhaps you've been fed too much of the Australian MSM, but I would argue that the majority of people who are aware of the successful struggle for independence in East Timor would not share your perspective.

The Indonesian occupiers certainly were guilty of terrorist attacks - of shooting unarmed civilian protesters, among other atrocities.

Is there a single incident of ordinary East Timorese conducting terrorist operations against Indonesian civilians?

[Violet_Crumble]

43. Then you'll be even more aghast when I tell you I supported Fretilin...

So I'm sure you know where you can shove that stupid line about being fed stuff by my own MSM :)

But thanks for making it crystal clear that when you asked yr 'question' you weren't the slightest bit interested in anything but hearing a resounding no. You can deny it all you like, but that's the reality of what happened. And for yr information, Fretilin was made up of ordinary East Timorese, and it's a fact that they did attack Indonesian migrants and their property as well as attacking Indonesian military targets. Just because Indonesia was guilty of terrorist attacks (just the same way as Israel is now, though of course you'll be stunned at aghast if someone dares to say Israel carries out terrorist attacks) doesn't mean that the other side was squeaky clean...

[oberliner]

45. Sorry about the Australian MSM line

But you've get to admit, the Australian MSM does have quite a biased view on this topic.

But to the main point, you are right. It was a rhetorical question.

The East Timorese were victims of one of the more brutal occupations in recent history.

I do not believe that people of East Timor responded to that occupation with terrorist attacks against civilians.

If you can provide evidence to the contrary, I would appreciate it.

If you do have evidence that they committed terrorist attacks against civilians then it definitely would seem odd that a progressive such as yourself would support such an organization.

Incidentally, I am no longer aghast when you or anyone else on this board claims that Israel is now carrying out terrorists attacks. Those claims happen so frequently that any shock or surprise at seeing such statements has long ago worn off.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. Maybe back in the 1970's it did, but I was too young to be taking notice of the MSM then...

But from all I remember, the MSM was majorly pissed off at Indonesia for the murder of five journalists working for Australian tv networks during the invasion in 1975 and much of what I read was supportive of Fretilin. If it had been the I/P conflict, most pro-Israel 'supporters' would trot out lines about how that's what's to be expected in a war-zone and try to make out it was all the fault of the victims...

You don't want to believe me that the East Timorese did attack Indonesian migrants (let's refer to them as settlers seeing as how we're comparing this to the I/P conflict) and their property? Then don't dig up a copy of "East Timor, Twenty Years After: (Resistir v Vencir)" by R. Pateman from Terrorism and Political Violence, coz you won't like what you read...

If you do have evidence that they committed terrorist attacks against civilians then it definitely would seem odd that a progressive such as yourself would support such an organization.

I'm not a progressive, I'm a left-winger, and while I would have preferred that Indonesian civilians in East Timor not be attacked, I feel the same way about them as I do about Israeli settlers in the West Bank. In both cases they choose to move into territory that's under a brutal occupation and become part of the mechanics of that occupation, so I can't muster up too much sympathy for them...

Now, this is intersting. I notice that each time I've mentioned attacks on the military, you ignore it and solely focus on civilians, yet when it comes to the I/P conflict I've seen you claim that attacks on military targets in non-military situations aren't terrorism. I bet if we were to find outselves an average Indonesian citizen, they'd behave much the way 'supporters' of Israel do and go back through history with a fine-tooth comb, massaging incidents of attacks on military targets to try to make out they were acts of terrorism...

Incidentally, I am no longer aghast when you or anyone else on this board claims that Israel is now carrying out terrorists attacks. Those claims happen so frequently that any shock or surprise at seeing such statements has long ago worn off.

Why would you be aghast when you just sat there and said Indonesia carried out terrorist attacks in East Timor even though (with the exception of a few things like napalm which doesn't have a use in the Occupied Territories) there are more than a few similarities in the way both occupiers have used violence in order to try to control the occupied populations? It's okay to say things like that about another country, but not Israel? For the record, I think neither Indonesia or Israel carried/s out terrorist attacks, but both resorted to the use of violent repression on the East Timorese and Palestinians respectively...

[oberliner]

56. Some say it's going on even today

You may want to check out this interview from 2007:

"East Timor and Australian media bias"

http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/node/51486

Thank you for the recommended reading. Is it a book or an article? Can you let me know where I might be able to find it?

I'm not sure I know what the difference is between a progressive and a left-winger. I'm also not sure if I know if those terms mean the same thing in the US as they do in Australia. Can you explain how you differentiate between the two?

Regarding the distinction between military and civilian targets, the article in the OP states that Dugard is saying that the terrorist acts committed by Palestinians against Israelis were inevitable. Presumably he is including the terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians as well as members of the military - he is claiming that the Palestinian terrorist attacks against non-military civilians are inevitable. That is the portion of the argument that I dispute. If he claimed only that terrorist attacks against military targets were inevitable that would be different.

Have you read "Masters of Terror: Indonesia's Military and Violence in East Timor"? That book really makes the case that Indonesia did carry out terrorist attacks in East Timor.

Also, I didn't say that it's not okay for people to say things about Israel. I do respectfully dispute the validity of some of the statements that are made but that is what this discussion forum is for.

Two final points I want to make.

One, regarding the OP, I do not think that Dugard's conclusions are supported by the historical record. Do you not feel that there have been situations involving an occupation that did not result in acts of terrorism against civilians (East Timor aside)?

Secondly, I am glad to be (hopefully) encouraging people to learn more about what happened in East Timor. Thank you for sharing your insights into that conflict. It's always so heartbreaking when a people finally become free of their repressive colonial/occupying forces only to descend into factional violence.

[Violet_Crumble]

62. The indymedia link raises an important issue...

..and that is...why do all announcers on community radio stations sound as though they're operating on a bellyful of valium? I swear those guys could send people to sleep even if they were reporting the most exciting news in the world...

It doesn't surprise me to hear that the Australian was accused of bias, coz imo it's one of the most biased newspapers in the country. I was much more surprised to see Four Corners accused of bias, but seeing I didn't see that episode, I don't know if there's anything to it. I stick to the ABC, the Age and the Canberra Times for my daily doses of media, and I've not detected any anti-Fretilin bias from them...

The thing I mentioned was an article in a publication. If yr near a uni, that'd probably be the best way to try to get a hold of it. I haven't read the book you mentioned, but I'll keep an eye out for it. When you talk about the book making a case that Indonesia carrying out terrorist attacks, is it talking about the militia groups which were controlled by the Indonesian military? If it is, I'd agree wholeheartedly and also add to it that it can reasonably be argued that what was done by the militia groups in 1999 was genocidal...

The factional fighting that's been happening there since independence is something I do think was kind of inevitable. You've got a brand new state which just happens to be one of the poorest nations in the world with a lot of former resistance fighters who join the military and then leave and start a rebellion because they think the east of the country is being discriminated against. Add to that unemployed youth and a fledgling government under all sorts of external pressure, and it all adds up to a really volatile mix. Hopefully now we have a Labor govt, East Timor will get the revenue its legally entitled to from the Timor Sea oil and be more prosperous. Though given the ALPs appalling history when it comes to East Timor (a former Labor govt officially recognised Indonesia's annexation of East Timor and ignored the atrocities that were happening) I'm not entirely confident...

And while I'm talking East Timor, I'll plug a fund set up to help East Timorese kids in remote parts of the country get a better education...

http://seetheroadwell.com/aboutUs.html

Back to the I/P conflict, I don't necessarily think that occupation makes terrorism inevitable. It'll happen with some and not with others, just like it does with secessionist movements. What I think is that depending on the circumstances (eg if it's a benign or belligerant occupation), occupation can make conditions ripe for terrorism to flourish. I think that when you have a powerful and very well organised military up against a much less powerful occupied people, there's a pretty good chance that the resistance movements are going to turn to hitting soft targets coz they've got no chance against the military itself...

Oh yeah. I've got no idea either if there's a difference between progressive and left-winger coz we don't use the word progressive over here. But I think progressive sounds a little bit on the wanky side, and I see too many people at DU putting dit-dits around it, so I've decided to reclaim left-wing for myself :)

[Tinita]

39. I wish Israel and Palestine could get along

But the difference go back so many years. It's not impossible though. The talks must continue.

[Shaktimaan]

53. Of course

Duggard ignores the fact that terrorism has often peaked in response to peace negotiations, rather than occupation. The Oslo Accord negotiations brought about a huge increase in terror from Hamas in an attempt at derailing any peace agreement that did not meet with their approval. In this case Israel was seeking a negotiated end to the occupation while providing the Palestinians with greater autonomy and self-determination. Likewise, Israel's retreat from Lebanon in 2000 caused greater threats from Hezbollah.

If Duggard's theory was correct then we would see a decrease in terrorism whenever Israel took steps to reduce occupation. But instead we've seen the opposite occur. Terrorism also would have started AFTER the occupation began, not before. Meanwhile, we've seen less terrorism occur since checkpoints and the wall were built. I would restate his opinion to read, "While checkpoints, the wall and oppression of Palestinians in general should be deplored, they must be understood as being a painful but inevitable consequence of terrorism against Israeli civilians."

[ProgressiveMuslim]

61. ... which is an inevitable consequence of Israeli tyranny over Palestine.

I think we've come full circle here.

[Shaktimaan]

70. except that palestinian terrorism came first. np

[ProgressiveMuslim]

72. It's time for reasonable people to take an honest look at historical facts.

If you can't face what you see, perhaps you need to call upon Israel to change.

[Vegasaurus]

74. Reasonable people don't only see the world through one lens

They don't need to rely on revisionist history to make their points.

They can see nuance, not just black and white.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

75. Reasonable people see through absurd propaganda and look for historical fact. nt

[Shaktimaan]

78. Do you disagree that it was the Arabs who began the violence in the 20's? np

[ProgressiveMuslim]

83. I think successive waves of aliyah began the conflict. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

76. what truly boggles my mind is that almost EVERY significant early Zionist understood

perfectly well that the Palestinians would resist them fiercely by any means available. And that the Palestinians were simply doing what anyone else in their situation of having a land that they had every natural right to consider their homeland and themselves the legitmate sovereigns that was under direct threat from a well organized colonization project - would do- From David Ben Gurion to Ze'ev Jabotinsky to Moshe Dyan they ALL understood this.

Why on earth can't others understand such a simple and glaringly obvious principle?

"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but 2000 years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should they accept that?"

David Ben-Gurion as quoted in "The Jewish Paradox" by Nahum Goldmann, former president of the World Jewish Congress.

----------------

If I may quote I quote the great Israeli historian Avi Shlaim of Oxford University
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/It%20Can%20Be%20Done.html

(I might add that Avi Shlaim is definitely a Zionist. He was actually born in Baghdad, Iraq in 1945 and immigrated to Israel with his family as a small child of five years in 1950. He makes it quite clear in his books that he strongly believes establishing the Jewish state was a historic necessity and a great accomplishment. However he also acknowledge the grave injustice this project brought upon the Palestinian people):

"The history of Zionism, from the earliest days to the present, is replete with manifestations of deep hostility and contempt toward the indigenous population. On the other hand, there have always been brave and outspoken critics of such attitudes. Foremost among them was Ahad Ha'am (Asher Zvi Ginsberg), a liberal Russian Jewish thinker who visited Palestine in 1891 and published a series of articles that were sharply critical of the aggressive behaviour and political ethnocentrism of the Zionist settlers. They believed, wrote Ahad Ha'am, that "the only language that the Arabs understand is that of force." And they "behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency." Little seems to have changed since Ahad Ha'am penned these words a century ago.

That most Zionist leaders wanted the largest possible Jewish state in Palestine with as few Arabs as possible inside their state is hardly open to question. As early as 1919, at the Paris peace conference, Chaim Weizmann called for a Palestine "as Jewish as England is English." And Chaim Weizmann, the uncle of Israel's current President, was one of the moderates. "

snip:"Zangwill's slogan about "a land without a people for a people without a land" was useful for propaganda purposes, but from the outset the leaders of the Zionist movement realized that their aim of establishing a Jewish state in a territory inhabited by an Arab community could not be achieved without inducing, by one means or another, a large number of Arabs to leave Palestine. In their public utterances the Zionist leaders avoided as far as possible any mention of transfer, but in private discussions they could be brutally frank. "

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/It%20Can%20Be%20Done.html

[Lithos]

77. A couple of questions

Given that this attitude was NOT the primary belief for either side back when the first Aliyah started during the 1880's (prior to Herzl), why would this belief change? Or better stated, what prompted this? It certainly did not happen in a vacuum.

[Douglas Carpenter]

81. I would suspect

That when Jewish migration first began there was not a general impression among the Palestinian-Arab population that these relatively small Jewish communities had any intention of creating a Zionist state. Probably because most of the early migrants from all that I gather did NOT have that agenda. When Mr. Herzl's book, "The Jewish State" was first released in 1896- besides the Agenda of an explicitly Zionist state starting to gain increased traction among many Jewish people - news of this agenda rapidly spread among the Palestinian-Arab population and throughout the region - both by word of mouth and by the printed word as well.

I would also surmise that when land purchase began to occur in a major way - this also changed the impression. Besides the reality that most of the largest land purchases were from absentee owners - a new foreign idea about what land purchase actually meant was introduced. Previously, as I understand the matter - when land ownership changed hands - the relationship of the tenants to the land generally remained basically unchanged. They continued living and perhaps paying modest rent in terms of produce, labor or perhaps even money as they always had before. However the Zionist purchases frequently came with the expectation that the tenants would have to vacate to make room for colonies of new immigrants. This would have been a foreign concept.

I would also guess that when the numbers of European Jewish immigrants started to reach a certain level - the Palestinian-Arab community reacted with a feeling that they were being taken over. And they reacted like people react when they feel their way of life is threatened by outsiders.

I gather that even the long established old Jewish communities of Palestine along with their Muslim and Christian neighbors were somewhat culture shocked by the ways and customs of these the new European Jewish immigrants who probably clashed with this conservative culture. When their numbers were small - it could be overlooked. As their numbers grew - it would seem that the indigenous people felt their way of life was under mortal threat and land considered holy was being profaned.

I'm sure you have some thoughts about this too. I don't think there is any one single answer to that question.

I suppose this all begs the question as to whether or not it would have been possible to have large scale Jewish migration to Palestine without it resulting in a violent life or death struggle over the same piece of land. I think it would have been possible if the agenda did not include the establishment of an explicitly Jewish state. Given that a state by the very nature of what a state is - I cannot imagine that any indigenous people would have accepted that. Also it would have required the new immigrants to maintain a respectful attitude to the local people and their culture. Unfortunately, once the numbers reached a certain level - the Zionist were no more capable of that than other colonialist throughout history. Western people (and probably other relatively wealthier, more formally educated and technologically advanced people as well) have this terrible tendency to treat local peoples as inferiors and view their cultures with contempt. Even western expatriates, tourist and military people have a terrible tendency to treat third-world peoples this way - even today.

[pelsar]

82. i think thats a good description....

whenever a community is "overrun" with new comers and they change the character of the community your going to get friction. Whether or not it could have been done peacefully or not is an interesting question..how much of the local violent reaction was inherent or were the "hot heads' egged on by others?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

84. I think it's interesting that both pelsar and Shakti

(see Shakti's post above) seem to frame the central problem as "violence" (the way the zinoists were received) as opposed to "effect on indigenous." (the way the zionist influx impacted the native Palestinians).

I see that the trend continues even to today, where so many Pro-I's identify the issue as "violence." Violence isn't the problem -- it's a response to the problem.

[pelsar]

85. people moving around

and moving to new places is not violent, .....even if the "neighborhood changes"

[breakaleg]

86. Moving around is not the problem. Moving around with the purposes of taking over is.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

87. That's what I'm trying to hone in on: how can reasonable people look at the same

set of facts and draw such different conclusions:

I think pro-Palestinian folks look at that history and locate the problem as the land expropriation.

Pro-Israel folk loook and see identify the problem as the reaction to the takeover.

Those patterns continue to this day. Pelsar, you're a prime example, with your continued stupefication regarding the resistance out of Gaza... and suggestions to 'stop the violence' so we can get back to the status quo of 2006 -- which may have been good for Israel, but from teh Palestinian POV...

[Lithos]

94. Excellent post

What you describe is probably a good description for a general state of what was happening in 1880. However, please note that this was again prior to Herzl, which meant the idea of a Jewish homeland/state/nation (pick which ever you feel) was not on the table. The introduction of Nationalism into the mix beginning with Herzl and the Young Turks at the turn of the Century is when this came into play with a tipping point not happening until the 1920's

For the most part, from what I've read, the settlers of the first Aliyah made it a point to settle in areas which had been traditionally Jewish and which seen large amounts of European traffic (ex: Sderot, Jerusalem, etc.). This meant there was a minimal amount of "culture clash" (I hate that phrase) between people. Now, skipping ahead to the 1910's and 1920's, I do think there are more disconnects as you described due to the rise of Nationalism on both sides and to the establishment of significant settlements outside of the traditional Jewish areas, but this is well past the initial problems back when the Jewish settlers were a minority and I think were only compounding the existing problem.

This pretty much leaves land ownership and land usage as being the primary areas where the problem started. I think in a nutshell, the problem was that the Jewish settlers and the Arab peasants played by the rules of the game established by the Ottomans even though it was extremely unfair and biased to both parties.

One thought though is that it is dangerous to try and over simplify too much. The dynamics in 1880 were extremely complicated. By the time the 1930's rolled around, they were exponentially so. To try and second guess the events leading up to 1948 really leads to nothing more than a form of bias confirmation, people will see what they want to see. The forces were wound so tight that a little movement or change of events could easily have created a completely different future.

L-