This is part of a broader trend in left-wing social justice politics that categorizes everything into the simple binary of oppressor and oppressed, perpetrator and victim. The oppressor can have no understandable motives, no real grievances, and no legitimate claims. The victim is portrayed as simple, pure, and blameless. He can do no wrong. The oppressor is held entirely responsible, while the victim is denied any agency. The type of simplistic thinking comes from intelligent people who, in their sophistication, have determined that nuance is immoral. Attempts to gain deeper understanding or nuance are seen as cruelty towards the victim.
The Palestinians will never tell an ugly truth when a hideous lie would suffice instead. Let's not forget either that there are plenty of Palestinian refugees and Arab leaders who expressly said they were not expelled and that the population was told to leave:
"We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."
-- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, quoted in “Sir An-Nakbah” (The Secret Behind the Disaster) by Nimr el-Hawari, Nazareth, 1952
"The Arab Exodus …was not caused by the actual battle, but by the exaggerated description spread by the Arab leaders to incite them to fight the Jews. …For the flight and fall of the other villages it is our leaders who are responsible because of their dissemination of rumors exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs ... By spreading rumors of Jewish atrocities, killings of women and children etc., they instilled fear and terror in the hearts of the Arabs in Palestine, until they fled leaving their homes and properties to the enemy."
–- The Jordanian daily newspaper Al Urdun, April 9, 1953.
In listing the reasons for the Arab failure in 1948, Khaled al-Azm (Syrian Prime Minister) notes that “…the fifth factor was the call by the Arab governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it (Palestine) and leave for the bordering Arab countries. Since 1948, it is we who have demanded the return of the refugees, while it is we who made them leave. We brought disaster upon a million Arab refugees by inviting them and bringing pressure on them to leave. We have accustomed them to begging...we have participated in lowering their morale and social level...Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson and throwing stones upon men, women and children...all this in the service of political purposes...”
-- Khaled el-Azm, Syrian prime minister after the 1948 War, in his 1972 memoirs, published in 1973..
Even if you don't believe this narrative, to not mention it at all is pretty (typically) dishonest.
Oh, i was talking strictly about the 1947 war before. But there were bouts of fights between the zionists and the arab opposition throughout the time you described, it wasn't really one sided. Is it really a surprise tho when there eas a millitant group formed in opposition to your interests. Tho it heavily leaned to the arabs, i imagine because of the demographic majority and political positioning.
Think you missed the point of the Russia Ukraine comparison, would Russia have liked to roll into Ukraine and take it over without having to fight? Yes, but it became large scale violence because the Ukrainians resisted their movement understandably. That's my analogue to 1947. It's not an invasion cause it happened by forces within but essentially what happened was a millitant group rolled in forces to take control of a contested region. By all account, this was an invasion if they were coming from outside. I'm not sure what people are imagining here when they hear "Israel declared independence", it wasn't with roses, they rolled army to secure the territory they wanted and then were met with resistance like Russia was and it became violence then the arabs came in later.
1929 shouldn't be traced to Al Husseini but to the earlier protests that had participants explicitly state "the jews will take the wall and the wall is ours". Obviously goes without saying that the resulting riots was indiscriminate and bad but it does still tie to Khalidi thesis of Balfour starting the stuff. A lot of those our attacks often had similar pretext too
My opinion of zionism is it is understandable for European jewry around Holocaust but it truly made things crazier for both parties in the Palestine region.
Granting that violence was initiated by the Arabs is unavoidable but in no way exculpates Zionism.
It was only logical for the Arab side to initiate violence, given how the Mandatory system worked against them: despite being the majority of the population, they were denied political power; meanwhile, the Mandate's facilitation of Jewish immigration meant that, by the time self-determination came, they risked being a minority at the mercy of a Jewish majority.
Note that when Britain swung in favor of the Arabs in 1939, Jewish-initiated violence eventually followed. Which is again unsurprising: when politics favor your side, you stay quiet; when politics favor your opponent's, at least some factions on your side will entertain violence.
Ultimately, the origins of the conflict are very simple: no one likes being forcibly turned into a minority in the territory they inhabit, and if political avenues for redress are denied, violence will ensue.
I don't even grant that, I'm sorry but it's like saying Ukraine initiated Violence, this was a contested land and Israel declared a state on it by force and started establishing control by force (yes we know for sure they already started even removing people from some places before the other 5 arab states joined). It's like saying Ukraine started teh violence by resisting Russia, instead it should have just let Russia roll in and declare their banner on all of Ukraine with force and that would not be "initiating violence".
Lile if Pakistan did the same with Kashmir, most people would rightly call them as the initiator of violence that would ensue
Arab violence began, admittedly in fits and starts prior to 1936, under the British Mandate, not upon the proclamation of the State of Israel.
I do agree that, in political terms, Jewish colonists were the aggressors. I'm not sold on the Russia-Ukraine comparison, though, given that Russia initiated large-scale violence from the very beginning of its invasion.
Seems my reply to this that day didn't go through l:
Oh, i was talking strictly about the 1947 war before. But there were bouts of fights between the zionists and the arab opposition throughout the time you described, it wasn't really one sided. Is it really a surprise tho when there eas a millitant group formed in opposition to your interests. Tho it heavily leaned to the arabs, i imagine because of the demographic majority and political positioning.
Think you missed the point of the Russia Ukraine comparison, would Russia have liked to roll into Ukraine and take it over without having to fight? Yes, but it became large scale violence because the Ukrainians resisted their movement understandably. That's my analogue to 1947. It's not an invasion cause it happened by forces within but essentially what happened was a millitant group rolled in forces to take control of a contested region. By all account, this was an invasion if they were coming from outside. I'm not sure what people are imagining here when they hear "Israel declared independence", it wasn't with roses, they rolled army to secure the territory they wanted and then were met with resistance like Russia was and it became violence then the arabs came in later.
I don’t see many examples of them being effective, and I see many examples of them driving radicalisation. The theory that you just need to do it even harder is unfalsifiable, because you can always do it harder, but you can’t get away with just being the SS. Mostly, though, I think they were a result of a do-somethering mentality.
In Israel it seems in the past ineffective. I think this is a long game of hammering. Why wouldn't it lead to retaliation? I don't think its unfalsifiable. Nor does have to be the SS. Its brutal and effective. But you need both if you're going to do it.
"There is a need now for strong and brutal reaction. We need to be accurate about the timing, place and those we hit. If we accuse a family, we need to harm them without mercy, women and children included. Otherwise, this is not an effective reaction. During the operation there is no need to distinguish between guilty and not guilty"
I think that the history of the conflict bears out the thesis that these kind of punitive raids don’t really deter anyone and inspire greater radicalisation as critics argued at the time.
This is part of a broader trend in left-wing social justice politics that categorizes everything into the simple binary of oppressor and oppressed, perpetrator and victim. The oppressor can have no understandable motives, no real grievances, and no legitimate claims. The victim is portrayed as simple, pure, and blameless. He can do no wrong. The oppressor is held entirely responsible, while the victim is denied any agency. The type of simplistic thinking comes from intelligent people who, in their sophistication, have determined that nuance is immoral. Attempts to gain deeper understanding or nuance are seen as cruelty towards the victim.
The Palestinians will never tell an ugly truth when a hideous lie would suffice instead. Let's not forget either that there are plenty of Palestinian refugees and Arab leaders who expressly said they were not expelled and that the population was told to leave:
"We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."
-- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, quoted in “Sir An-Nakbah” (The Secret Behind the Disaster) by Nimr el-Hawari, Nazareth, 1952
"The Arab Exodus …was not caused by the actual battle, but by the exaggerated description spread by the Arab leaders to incite them to fight the Jews. …For the flight and fall of the other villages it is our leaders who are responsible because of their dissemination of rumors exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs ... By spreading rumors of Jewish atrocities, killings of women and children etc., they instilled fear and terror in the hearts of the Arabs in Palestine, until they fled leaving their homes and properties to the enemy."
–- The Jordanian daily newspaper Al Urdun, April 9, 1953.
In listing the reasons for the Arab failure in 1948, Khaled al-Azm (Syrian Prime Minister) notes that “…the fifth factor was the call by the Arab governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it (Palestine) and leave for the bordering Arab countries. Since 1948, it is we who have demanded the return of the refugees, while it is we who made them leave. We brought disaster upon a million Arab refugees by inviting them and bringing pressure on them to leave. We have accustomed them to begging...we have participated in lowering their morale and social level...Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson and throwing stones upon men, women and children...all this in the service of political purposes...”
-- Khaled el-Azm, Syrian prime minister after the 1948 War, in his 1972 memoirs, published in 1973..
Even if you don't believe this narrative, to not mention it at all is pretty (typically) dishonest.
Not exactly related to this specific post but I feel like your incessant dooming (which
I agree with and if anything am more bearish) sorta begs the question of what you think is the most realistic pathway out of the current predicament.
Oh, i was talking strictly about the 1947 war before. But there were bouts of fights between the zionists and the arab opposition throughout the time you described, it wasn't really one sided. Is it really a surprise tho when there eas a millitant group formed in opposition to your interests. Tho it heavily leaned to the arabs, i imagine because of the demographic majority and political positioning.
Think you missed the point of the Russia Ukraine comparison, would Russia have liked to roll into Ukraine and take it over without having to fight? Yes, but it became large scale violence because the Ukrainians resisted their movement understandably. That's my analogue to 1947. It's not an invasion cause it happened by forces within but essentially what happened was a millitant group rolled in forces to take control of a contested region. By all account, this was an invasion if they were coming from outside. I'm not sure what people are imagining here when they hear "Israel declared independence", it wasn't with roses, they rolled army to secure the territory they wanted and then were met with resistance like Russia was and it became violence then the arabs came in later.
1929 shouldn't be traced to Al Husseini but to the earlier protests that had participants explicitly state "the jews will take the wall and the wall is ours". Obviously goes without saying that the resulting riots was indiscriminate and bad but it does still tie to Khalidi thesis of Balfour starting the stuff. A lot of those our attacks often had similar pretext too
My opinion of zionism is it is understandable for European jewry around Holocaust but it truly made things crazier for both parties in the Palestine region.
Granting that violence was initiated by the Arabs is unavoidable but in no way exculpates Zionism.
It was only logical for the Arab side to initiate violence, given how the Mandatory system worked against them: despite being the majority of the population, they were denied political power; meanwhile, the Mandate's facilitation of Jewish immigration meant that, by the time self-determination came, they risked being a minority at the mercy of a Jewish majority.
Note that when Britain swung in favor of the Arabs in 1939, Jewish-initiated violence eventually followed. Which is again unsurprising: when politics favor your side, you stay quiet; when politics favor your opponent's, at least some factions on your side will entertain violence.
Ultimately, the origins of the conflict are very simple: no one likes being forcibly turned into a minority in the territory they inhabit, and if political avenues for redress are denied, violence will ensue.
I don't even grant that, I'm sorry but it's like saying Ukraine initiated Violence, this was a contested land and Israel declared a state on it by force and started establishing control by force (yes we know for sure they already started even removing people from some places before the other 5 arab states joined). It's like saying Ukraine started teh violence by resisting Russia, instead it should have just let Russia roll in and declare their banner on all of Ukraine with force and that would not be "initiating violence".
Lile if Pakistan did the same with Kashmir, most people would rightly call them as the initiator of violence that would ensue
Arab violence began, admittedly in fits and starts prior to 1936, under the British Mandate, not upon the proclamation of the State of Israel.
I do agree that, in political terms, Jewish colonists were the aggressors. I'm not sold on the Russia-Ukraine comparison, though, given that Russia initiated large-scale violence from the very beginning of its invasion.
Seems my reply to this that day didn't go through l:
Oh, i was talking strictly about the 1947 war before. But there were bouts of fights between the zionists and the arab opposition throughout the time you described, it wasn't really one sided. Is it really a surprise tho when there eas a millitant group formed in opposition to your interests. Tho it heavily leaned to the arabs, i imagine because of the demographic majority and political positioning.
Think you missed the point of the Russia Ukraine comparison, would Russia have liked to roll into Ukraine and take it over without having to fight? Yes, but it became large scale violence because the Ukrainians resisted their movement understandably. That's my analogue to 1947. It's not an invasion cause it happened by forces within but essentially what happened was a millitant group rolled in forces to take control of a contested region. By all account, this was an invasion if they were coming from outside. I'm not sure what people are imagining here when they hear "Israel declared independence", it wasn't with roses, they rolled army to secure the territory they wanted and then were met with resistance like Russia was and it became violence then the arabs came in later.
I think they are effective. Part of the issue is you can't half ass it. Also the argument for safety is somewhat antithetical to sovereignty.
I don’t see many examples of them being effective, and I see many examples of them driving radicalisation. The theory that you just need to do it even harder is unfalsifiable, because you can always do it harder, but you can’t get away with just being the SS. Mostly, though, I think they were a result of a do-somethering mentality.
In Israel it seems in the past ineffective. I think this is a long game of hammering. Why wouldn't it lead to retaliation? I don't think its unfalsifiable. Nor does have to be the SS. Its brutal and effective. But you need both if you're going to do it.
"There is a need now for strong and brutal reaction. We need to be accurate about the timing, place and those we hit. If we accuse a family, we need to harm them without mercy, women and children included. Otherwise, this is not an effective reaction. During the operation there is no need to distinguish between guilty and not guilty"
Bad? maybe. Unfortunate? Sure. Realistic? Completely.
I think that the history of the conflict bears out the thesis that these kind of punitive raids don’t really deter anyone and inspire greater radicalisation as critics argued at the time.
You can't deter people who don't care about their own lives or the lives of their family members.
We are talking about more than deterrence.