Arab-Israeli 1948 war

Zephyr:
Anyone know of unbiased sources on this topic?
Click to expand...
No-one is unbiased. However, that does not mean that their claims are biased. Facts are facts.

As to a fair understanding of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, I'd try reading a rather neutral history book/encyclopaedia, and also books from both sides of the conflict.

Personally, I find that 1948 war quite easy to understand. Tens of thousands of Jews immigrated illegally into a land where they were not welcome. They had a contempt for Arab culture, and the Muslim religion. They boycotted Arab businesses. They used any means necessary to bulldoze settlements, annex land, and drive the Palestinians out of employment.
The final insult to the the Arabs came when the U.N (ergo. the U.S) granted over half of Palestine to the immigrant Jews due to Zionist lobbying. So the Arabs got pissed, and protested. Meanwhile, the Israelis initiated Plan Dalet, which aimed to take far more land than given to them in the U.N mandate. Both sides fought, and the Jewish invaders came out on top.

I have no doubt that each side committed their share of atrocities. Yet the situations are not parallel, for the simple reason that the European Jews were the invaders, whereas the Palestinians were the indigenous inhabitants. And quite simply, the Israelis engaged in systematic genocide and ethnic cleansing, in order to push the Palestinians out of Palestine and form a Jewish-only state. After all, you can't have a Jewish-only state with those pesky non-Jews (Goyim) around.

For a good summary, read "The Ordeal of the Palestinians" by David Gilmour.
 
"One nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third nation” - Arther Koestles, Promise and fulfillment, London, 1949, P-4 (regarding the existence of Israel over Palestinian land given to them by the British.)
 
Wikipedia and its mirrors are probably the only unbiased sources. Try those.
 
Ophiolite:
Mountainhare: Balfour. There was a legal commitment that the British reneged on.
Click to expand...
Umm, no. Just no. Bone up on this material before flapping your gums.

Britain had only one commitment, and that was to the Arabs. Read up about the Hussein-McMahon correspondance. Read up about how the British promised the Arabs the unification and independence of their lands, if they rose up against their Ottoman overlords. More specifically, the Hussein-McMahon agreement granted Hussein all Arab land in which to form his independent Arab state, except for three areas. These included the wilayets (Ottoman provinces) of Basra and Baghdad, the Turkish districts of Alexandretta and Mersin, and most importantly, portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo.
Note that the Hussein-McMahon correspondance promised Palestine to the Arabs.

Then read up about the Sykes-Picot agreement, where Britain and France conspired to split up and occupy the Arab lands. Read up about the Treaty of Sevres, where the British stabbed the Arabs in the back by carrying out the Sykes-Picot plan.

As to the Balfour Declaration, that 'legal commitment' was effectively void, because Palestine did not belong to the Jews at the time the Balfour Declaration was made. It actually belonged to the Ottoman's. So this effectively nullified the 'legal commitment'.

You are aware that both the Ottoman's, and then the British, made Jewish immigration to Palestine illegal, right? And that the Jews came in anyway, right? And that the Jews were responsible for continuous terrorist attacks against the West while attempting to form their Jewish only state, right?

Hapsburg:
Wikipedia and its mirrors are probably the only unbiased sources.
Click to expand...
Wrong. In fact, Wikipedia is rather unreliable, because anyone can edit it.
 
mountainhare said:
Wrong. In fact, Wikipedia is rather unreliable, because anyone can edit it.
Click to expand...
Actually, just last year, a study was done, and wikipedia was proven to be just as reliable, if not moreso than, the Encylopedia Britannica. All of the information is referenced, all of the articles are moderated, and moderators and administators edit them constantly to maintain them as neutral, informative pages.
 
Hapsburg:
Actually, just last year, a study was done, and wikipedia was proven to be just as reliable, if not moreso than, the Encylopedia Britannica.
Click to expand...
1. Who done this study?

2. How did they come to the above conclusion?
 
mountainhare said:
Umm, no. Just no. Bone up on this material before flapping your gums.
Click to expand...
Umm, yes.
This was traditional British diplomacy. Make promises to both sides, then abandon the one with the weaker hand.
That the Balfour Declaration is contentious is not in dispute. That it is automatically void as you suggest is pure nonsense.
It provided a legal justification for Jewish immigration. The subsequent real politik manouverings of British governments do not negate this, but rather establish the contradictions and dichotomies that have plagued the Middle East since.
 
Ophiolite:
It provided a legal justification for Jewish immigration.
Click to expand...
*sighs* What part of 'the Declaration was null' do you not understand? Do you need me to draw diagrams to explain that because the land belonged to Turkey (under the pact of the League of Nations), the BRITISH could not make laws regarding who could immigrate to that land? You can't make laws which establish a homeland for a third party in a country which isn't yours. This is just damn common sense.

If a declaration is null, it has no legal power.

I challenge you to justify how a declaration made by the British in 1917 (when Turkey owned the land) is legal justification for Jewish immigration to said land during the 1930's and 1940's. Especially given that the British made Jewish immigration to Palestine ILLEGAL during the 1930's and 1940's.
 
I thought you knew that just shouting louder and repeating the same thing, over and over, doesn't work with me.

Who won the First World War? Which side was Turkey on? Who determines the diposition of the spoils at the end of a war, the winners or the losers?

The Delcaration was not null simply because you say it was.

I already stated the Britain had reneged on the agreement. That is part of my argument, so I fail to see how restating it supports yours.
 
Ophiolite:
The Delcaration was not null simply because you say it was.
Click to expand...
Ahh, but I've supported why the Declaration is null. Apparently you have trouble grasping the concept that because Palestine belonged to Turkey (under the pact of the League of Nations) at the time the Balfour Declaration was made, the 'law' was effectively null.
You can't lawfully promise that someone can form a homeland on a piece of land which isn't yours. You don't have the jurisdiction to pass such laws.
And please note that even after the Ottoman Empire was toppled, the British DID NOT own Palestine.

That is part of my argument, so I fail to see how restating it supports yours.
Click to expand...
I don't have a foggy clue as to what your argument is. Perhaps you should clarify. Are you saying that the European Jews had a right to invade, steal land, and ethnically cleanse the inhabitants, because the British gave them permission to do so?!
 
Hapsburg said:
Actually, just last year, a study was done, and wikipedia was proven to be just as reliable, if not moreso than, the Encylopedia Britannica. All of the information is referenced, all of the articles are moderated, and moderators and administators edit them constantly to maintain them as neutral, informative pages.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia is good when it comes to technical and informative pieces, however when the issue is politics and religion wikipedia is very unreliable. Many of the pages on Islam are very biased. Infact, they are one of the most biased sources of information of Islam on the web. The pages on Palestine and Arabs have an obvious pro-Israeli slant.
 
It was my understanding that the British made promises to both tht Arabs & the Jews in order to get their cooperation. As far as I know the promises made involved land belonging to the Ottoman Empire.
 
DiamondHearts said:
The pages on Palestine and Arabs have an obvious pro-Israeli slant.
Click to expand...
And this is bad how? The pallies are the ones rebelling and causing the violence in the region, the israelis are simply fighting back. War is war. If you didn't want to reap the whirlwind, you shouldn't have called down the thunder.
 
The pallies are the ones rebelling and causing the violence in the region, the israelis are simply fighting back.
Click to expand...
"The American Revolutionaries were the ones rebelling and causing violence in the region, the British were simply fighting back."
 
That's a vastly different case. The British were actually oppressing the American colonials, taxing them unfairly. Israel did no such thing, and only fired shots back when the pallies revolted.
 
That's a vastly different case. The British were actually oppressing the American colonials, taxing them unfairly.
Click to expand...
The Israelis were oppressing the Palestinians, as well as trying to establish a Jewish-only homeland on their homes, gardens and villages.

Israel did no such thing, and only fired shots back when the pallies revolted.
Click to expand...
Heh, you keep telling yourself that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top