Well, i'll be...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The diplomat
The thing about those maps, is that they show how unfair the partition was to Israel. The partition plan would have given the Palestinians an independant State, yet the Arabs still attacked Israel in 48'.

That's one way of looking at it. Another is noting that the the vast majority of the land (55%) was owned by the Arabs in the area to be given over to the Jewish state, and that's not including the Nagev (which no one owned).

Another is noting that neither the Arab states nor the Jewish state wanted to see an independent Palestine. Almost all of the battles of the '48 war took place outside the area to be given to Israel, which means that Israel was on the offensive when the war began.

In fact, the war was one giant land grab by all the viable states in the region. Israel had secretly agreed with Jordan to split up Palestine, the only place those two countries fought was in Jerusalem, which Jodran could not let go without a fight.

Lebanon grabbed the West Galilee and then did nothing to Israel. Syria tried to take the area around the northern lake, which old French maps show as being part of Syria. Egypt sent troops to cut off Jordan, because the other states were afraid that Jordan would try to take the whole thing (given that Jordan was originally part of Palestine, they certainly had claim to it).

There were no good guys in the 1948 war, but there were a lot of innocent victim, Jewish and Palestinian. But you certainly cannot justify what was done to the Palestinian people because of the actions of the Arab states. That would be like justifying the theft of Cherokee land because the Creek sided with the British in the War of 1812.

[GePap]

The diplomat

What!

Look at that map: the land in red is owned by Jews, everything else by Palestinians. So compare how much land the jews loose in the partition (all red lands in the dark green and olive green) vs all the land the Arabs loose: all lands not in red in the light blue.

To put it another way: in 1947 Jews made up 33% of the population and owned 6% of the land. The partition plan gave them 50% of the land. How on earth is giving half the land to a group that makes up a third of the people and owes 1/20th of the land unfair!!!

Oh, and get the timeline straight. The first violent acts were Jews driving Aarbs out of lands given to Jews by the partition. The invasion of the Arab amies came later.

[Az]

Arab-Israeli violence went both ways. What about Israeli massacres of palestinians between 1948-49?

were after the events of 21' ( yes, I think it was 21'), and 29' , and 36-39'. and the 40s until the turn of the tide late 47'. doesn't make it right, but we're playing the 'he started it' game , right?

The maps are very informative, indeed. they show that the jews were given most of the land of the mandate. and that most of the arrable land given to the jews was indeed jewish. Let me remind you that at the time of the partition the numeric relationship between jews and arabs was 2:1

[chequita guevara]

Well, the first violent acts were anti-Jewish riots instigated by the Mufti of Jerusalem in the late 1920s.

In the birth of Israel, when the UN release the details of its plan in Nov. 1947, the Arabs revolted. (Note that they had been very quiet since 1939, when the Arab uprising was defeated by the Brits). The Palestinian Civil War between Jew and Arab lasted from Nov. 1947, to March 1948. It was after fighting had stopped that the infamous massacre at Dier Yassin occured, and despite Israeli apologia for this, there was no warning of the attack (the truck with the loud speaker had fallen into a ditch before it got close to the village). 254 men, women, and children were executed there.

Anyway, following the collapse of Arab resistence, for about a month and a half, the Jews slowly expanded the area of Palestine under their control. That's why all of the fighting, with the exception of one battle with the Syrians, was outside the Jewish territories.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In fact, the war was one giant land grab by all the viable states in the region. Israel had secretly agreed with Jordan to split up Palestine, the only place those two countries fought was in Jerusalem, which Jordan could not let go without a fight.

I agree with you that it was a giant land grab.

Let's admit the truth: the Arabs States thought they could easily defeat Israel and get all the land for themselves. They thought they could have their cake and eat it too.

The bottom line is that there would be an independant Palestinian State if the Arabs had agreed to the UN Partition in '48. But they did not want a Palestinian State nor a Jewish State, and now 54 years later, the place is still fighting over a Palestinian State.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel

were after the events of 21' ( yes, I think it was 21'), and 29' , and 36-39'. and the 40s until the turn of the tide late 47'. doesn't make it right, but we're playing the 'he started it' game , right?

No, I am playing the who's crime is more fundamentally at fault for the current situation game, whic is different.

The maps are very informative, indeed. they show that the jews were given most of the land of the mandate. and that most of the arrable land given to the jews was indeed jewish. Let me remind you that at the time of the partition the numeric relationship between jews and arabs was 2:1

Yes, there was a 2:1 ration, 2 arabs for every one jew. Hence 66% Arab, 33% Jewish. It is a well documented fact. In fact, the Jewish/Arab split for the lands given to the jews was about 500,000 Jews to 400,000 Arabs, the lands under UN mandate (Jerusalem, bethelhem) were even, about 100,000 jews and 100,000 arabs, and the lands given to the Arabs were 700,000 Arabs to 10-20,000 Jews. for a total of about 600,000 Jews more or less to 1.2 million Palestinians.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Azazel
Let me remind you that at the time of the partition the numeric relationship between jews and arabs was 2:1

Not quite, the percentage of Arabs withing the Jewish Partition was 45% of the population. This was unacceptable to both sides, as the Arabs didn't want to live under the Jews and the Jews didn't want to have a Jewish state that was only a few decades from becoming a majority Arab population.

If the Arabs hadn't obliged the Jews by fleeing from the war, it would have been necessary to expell them, which was done in somce cases anyway, as with the Arabs of Lyddah and the imfamous Lyddah Death march, and the forcing of some of the remaining Arabs of Jaffa into the sea (where they were rescued by Egyptian boats).

And for all equations, we should exclude the Negev, which was uninhabbited. Neither Jew nor Arab owned the place. Only beduins used the area as a trade route.

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat


I agree with you that it was a giant land grab.

Let's admit the truth: the Arabs States thought they could easily defeat Israel and get all the land for themselves. They thought they could have their cake and eat it too.

The bottom line is that there would be an independant Palestinian State if the Arabs had agreed to the UN Partition in '48. But they did not want a Palestinian State nor a Jewish State, and now 54 years later, the place is still fighting over a Palestinian State.

So perhaps finally we should figure out what the Arabs living in that land, the palestinians, want and need, since we seem to agree that no one stopped to listen back in 1948.

[Az]

Gepap : here lies your mistake. the rest of the lands weren't all owned by palestinians. The desert wasn't owned by anyone, and many lands were owned by governments, the Ottoman, and then the british. Most of the land given to the jews was desert. Desert is defined metorologically defined as a place where less than 200mm of rain fall per year. now let's place that baby on the partition plan. all lands that are south to the orange line are desert.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Let's admit the truth: the Arabs States thought they could easily defeat Israel and get all the land for themselves. They thought they could have their cake and eat it too.

Not really. Everyone in the area knew that the only state that stood a chance in an armed confrontation with the Jews was Jordan, which is why Jordan got the lion's share of Arab Palestine. At no point in the war did the Arab forces in Palestine ever outnumber the Jews, and by wars end, the Jews outnumbered the Arabs almost 2 to 1 militarily. Furthermore, they were better equipped and better trained. State department records from the time echo this.

[Ned]

GePap, Your position seems to assume that the Arabs accepted the UN partition plan in '48. They didn't. Instead they attacked Israel.

I cannot see how the Arabs of Palestine gained any right to exclude Jews from settling in the West Bank and Gaza as "if" they had accepted the UN partition plan and had formed a state. I also cannot see how Jews, or for that matter, any resident of Palestine, lost their right to live anywhere in Palestine outside of the state of Israel after '48. They were all Palestinians then.

And, if we want to get into legalities, the League of Nations mandate allowed the Jews to emigrate to Palestine, which at the time included both the East and the West Bank. How did the Jews lose their right to live what is now called Jordan, but which historically is still Palestine. A possible eventual solution is to include Jordan in the mix.

As to making the people of the West Bank and Gaza Israeli citizens, I think it could be done "gradually." When the South was re-united to the North after the civil war, members of the Confederate government, high ranking (colonels and up) officers, and ex US officers, judges and congressment who joined the South lost their right to vote and participate in government. Everyone else had to take an oath of allegience in order to have their civil rights restored.

I think something similar could be done with Palestinian Arabs.

But most importantly, Isreal needs a constitution and federal form of government to guarantee the continuation of Jewish civil liberties in a Arab-majority state.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
Gepap : here lies your mistake. the rest of the lands weren't all owned by palestinians. The desert wasn't owned by anyone, and many lands were owned by governments, the Ottoman, and then the british. Most of the land given to the jews was desert. Desert is defined metorologically defined as a place where less than 200mm of rain fall per year. now let's place that baby on the partition plan. all lands that are south to the orange line are desert.

So whats with the red blotches south of that line you drew? That seem to be owned by someone. Most jews were ciy dwellers, most palestiians were rural farmers: the Jews were given the most fertile lands overall: hmmm, whom does that type of agreemnt hurt most?

Oh, and isn't Beersheeba, one of the bigger cites in Israel south of that line? as well, as diamona .

Oh, and what about the population issue?

[Az]

yes, but those numbers dont include a local, albeit a very poorly organized, population which was mostly armed. Plus, at the beginning, the only operational units of the jews were the Palmah, which were indeed well trained. The ordinary hagana soldier, AT THE BEGINNING of the war was a conscript basically, a weekend warrior, and was of lower quality than the arab army soldier. however, at the beginning of the conflict the other arab armies didn't even come into play, and the greatness of the Israeli effort was the swiftness of transfer of these local militias into a nationwide army, and the fullness of the mobilization of the little industrial and agricultural productivity they had, while arranging support from abroad. This is where the war was won.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, Your position seems to assume that the Arabs accepted the UN partition plan in '48. They didn't. Instead they attacked Israel.

Ahh, Ned, here we go again:

The paletinians were badly organized. According to modern israeli historians, like Beni MOrris, who has studies the records, the most fighters the Palestinians ever got together was 2000. Compare this to the 30,000 member fo the hagana back in 1947. The fact is that the first act of the 1948 conflict, as Che has stated, was composed of Jews attacking and forcing Palestinains to abandon thier lands within the lands partitoned for the jews, and then atatcking into lands given to the Arabs. This is history, not opinion.

I cannot see how the Arabs of Palestine gained any right to exclude Jews from settling in the West Bank and Gaza as "if" they had accepted the UN partition plan and had formed a state. I also cannot see how Jews, or for that matter, any resident of Palestine, lost their right to live anywhere in Palestine outside of the state of Israel after '48. They were all Palestinians then.

Well, see first that none of the west bank and Gaza were intended to fall into the Jewish state. An independent Palestiian state would have had the ame rights as the Independent Jewish state, to set its own immigration laws, and if that meant no jews in, that would have been legal. As for loosing rights, as che said, the Intended jewish state had 45% arabs i it. Now, you live in California. ll of a sudden, the Hispanics take over, and state that they want a state design primarilly as a Hispanic state. How well would your interest as a non-hispanic be served by such a state? Interstingly, one of the conditions the UN wanted was for new state to have a constitution that guarantees equality for all citizens regardless of ethnicicty. Can a non-Jew be president of a Jewish state? if your answer is no, then obviosuly all citizens are not equal in the state.

And, if we want to get into legalities, the League of Nations mandate allowed the Jews to emigrate to Palestine, which at the time included both the East and the West Bank. How did the Jews lose their right to live what is now called Jordan, but which historically is still Palestine. A possible eventual solution is to include Jordan in the mix.

The Mandate treay which gave britian the mandate in the first place states, clause 25, that Britain reserves the right to divide the Mandate along the Jordan River. Britain exercized its legal rights under the League Mandate it was given to do so and give the East bank to the hashemites. Thus jordan plays no part in this discussion.

As to making the people of the West Bank and Gaza Israeli citizens, I think it could be done "gradually." When the South was re-united to the North after the civil war, members of the Confederate government, high ranking (colonels and up) officers, and ex US officers, judges and congressment who joined the South lost their right to vote and participate in government. Everyone else had to take an oath of allegience in order to have their civil rights restored.

I think something similar could be done with Palestinian Arabs.

But most importantly, Isreal needs a constitution and federal form of government to guarantee the continuation of Jewish civil liberties in a Arab-majority state.

Israel was designed as a Jewsih state. can a Jewsih state exist with an Arab majority? Or even 45% Arabs. NO. which is why a federation would have to lead to the end of the notion of a Jewish state, which no one in Israel, the left included, wants.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, Your position seems to assume that the Arabs accepted the UN partition plan in '48. They didn't. Instead they attacked Israel.

First of all, we need to remember that Arab acceptance of the plan was a necessary precondition of its being approved by Great Britain. The UN didn't have authority over the region. Britain was sick of fightin with the Jews and asked the UN to come up with a solution acceptable to both sides. The Partition plan has no legitimacy. It was not seen as written in stone even then, and the UN envoy to mediate peace during the fighting suggested modfying the plan to give the Negev to the Arabs. He was then assassinated by the Israelis.

And, if we want to get into legalities, the League of Nations mandate allowed the Jews to emigrate to Palestine, which at the time included both the East and the West Bank.

Actually, the League gave Palestine to Britain, and didn't say anything about Jewish immigration. It was the Balfour Declaration of Britain where Britain agreed to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This, coupled with the release of the Sykes-Picot Treaty by the Bolsheviks, in which the European powers argreed to carve up the Ottoman Empire and not recognize the independence which the Arabs had won for themelves created some alarm in the Arab world.

The Arabs liberated themselves from the Ottomans, and the newly established Arab Kingdom of Syria included the whole of Palestine within it. France and Britain then invaded, carved the area up, gave Iraq to the erstwhile King and gave Palestine to his brother Abdullah. Then in 1922 Britain split Palestine in two, creating East and West Palestine, East Palestine becoming the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan.

On thing I should note, both King Faisal of Syria and King Abdullah of Transjordan welcomed the Jews into their Kingdom. Both offered the Zionist movement half the parliament in the new countries, correctly seeing that the Jews would help make their countries modern and wealthy. The Zionists, however, were uninterested. They were nationalists and wanted their own state just for themselves.

I think, however, that had the British not been involved, the Zionists would have accepted the offer, as they had proposed something like this to the Ottoman Empire previously.

All sides can agree, this mess is all the Brits fault. If only the Israelis and the Palestinians could unite on a common hatred of Great Britain.