Israel bans use of word "Nakba" in textbooks

Again, I didn't make that claim, Morris stated so when he was confronted by his lack of evidence when writing his book.

He didn't make that claim when confronted by his lack of evidence. This is the quote you picked out:

Re-read from Morris: "no access to the materials in the IDFA [Israel Defense Forces Archive] or Haganah archive and precious little to firsthand military materials deposited elsewhere."

This quote of Morris is from a chapter he wrote in The War for Palestine -- a book with Avi Shlaim's name on the cover. (Can you see where I'm going with this yet?)

You'll find your quote on p37.

Morris is not admitting to making things up out of thin air. He merely points out that he didn't have access to certain archives when he wrote the first edition of his book. He specifically mentions an interview with Carmel on p51, it's available for free. (I'm typing in what I see in a picture, rather than copy and pasting text. I'll keep it short though, because it is still copyrighted.)

Incidently, in case you need the dates, Morris' book "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949" was published in 1988 and revised in 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Morris#Selected_book_summaries

Morris said:
In an interview I conducted in 1985 with General Moshe Carmel, OC Northern Front (Command) during Hiram, he explained that he had never adopted a policy of expulsion vis-a-vis Arab communities he had conquered in the battles of 1948, though he admitted that in a number of localities he had authorized expulsions for military reasons.

But Carmel had not told me the truth and Shimoni had been somewhat misinformed - so it emerges from the newley released documents in the IDFA. There was a central directive by Northern Front to clear the conquered pocket of it Arab inhabitants, though Carmel had shied clear of using the explicit word "to expel" (le'garesh). It is possible that the "advice" proffered by the Foreign Ministry (as mentioned by Shimoni) to the army command influenced the issuance of this directive.

On the morning of 31 October 1948, Carmel radioed all his brigade and district commanders: "Do all in you power to clear quickly and immediately from the areas conquered all hostile elements in accordance with the orders issued. The inhabitants should be assisted to leave the conquered areas."

On 10 November, Carmel added the following, somewhat "softer" order: "(B) [The troops] should continue to assist the inhabitants wishing to leave the areas conquered by us. This is urgent and must be carried out swiftly." (C) A strip five kilometers deep behind the border between us and Lebanon must be empty of [Arab] inhabitants."

I'll leave you to read the rest. (Some pages are unavailable). Including, the opinion of Major Yitzhak Moda'i -- quoted (it seems) from his once classified analysis for the IDF History branch. (Page 52 of the above link)

So.... When it comes to you asking things like this regarding orders signed by Carmel:

bigjelmapro said:
2nd bait question, do they? Have they ever been produced? Signed orders? Avi Shlaim doesn't even make this claim.

You do sound a little ignorant/naive/dishonest (delete as applicable). Avi Shlaim put his name on a book with Morris' claim printed inside. You show me where Shlaim claims Morris is wrong.
 
I see this thread hasn't progressed one iota, you guys are still bickering about the past.

"My historian says this"
"No, my historian says this"

When will you guys start to worry about the present? The present is what matters, and the only thing we can influence.

You could say similar things in a thread about 911 conspiracies... Do you? Should people stop discussing 911? Or is that too recent to forget about?

If you saw someone claiming that America allowed Pearl Harbour, and then someone comes along and disagrees, you would tell them to stop bickering. Have I read you right?
 
In case you just missed it, I commend to you fellow New Historian Benny Morris's unflattering assessment of Pappe's ahistorical work...

http://www.ee.bgu.ac.il/~censor/katz-directory/04-03-22benny-morris-The New Republic-1.pdf

In which Morris doesn't address the use of Arab sources at all. So I fail to see how this addresses my first paragraph.

As to my second paragraph, I had hoped for some explanation of the logic behind your previous post:
Marc39 said:
Worse, still, neither Morris nor Pappe use Arab archives, resulting in a one-sided, often-anti-Zionist, point-of-view and, ultimately, a flawed historiography.
To reiterate my analogy, it is like saying: when you read Hoess' diary, you get a grimmer view of the Holocaust than it actually was, whereas, if you read Anne Frank's diary, the Holocaust didn't take place?
 
You could say similar things in a thread about 911 conspiracies... Do you? Should people stop discussing 911? Or is that too recent to forget about?

If you saw someone claiming that America allowed Pearl Harbour, and then someone comes along and disagrees, you would tell them to stop bickering. Have I read you right?

Good point, but IMO this constant bickering about the past will only further the conflict, and that word is not helping.

By all means, go ahead and bicker.
 
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”

Albert Einstein
 
To reiterate my analogy, it is like saying: when you read Hoess' diary, you get a grimmer view of the Holocaust than it actually was, whereas, if you read Anne Frank's diary, the Holocaust didn't take place?

Morris' argument might help, last paragraph of p52
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=h3EOJGiBBpQC&pg=PA38&lpg=PP1&output=html

There may well be somethings in Arab archives that would embarrass the Arabs. Of course, this isn't go to change what we know about the actions taken by the Israelis. Those are facts -- so the Nakba is a fact.

We are, no doubt, missing some facts on what the Arabs did. But there is a difference: the opening of the Israeli archive confirmed claims long made by the Arabs. This isn't so much "new history" as new evidence for an established history.

Which claims made by the Israelis are likely to be confirmed by the opening of Arab archives? Are they going to find records of radio signals no-one else has records for? I don't think so.


ETA: thinking about your analogy, I really don't see how to fit that in. But my answer might help anyway.
 
Last edited:
In which Morris doesn't address the use of Arab sources at all. So I fail to see how this addresses my first paragraph.

As to my second paragraph, I had hoped for some explanation of the logic behind your previous post:

To reiterate my analogy, it is like saying: when you read Hoess' diary, you get a grimmer view of the Holocaust than it actually was, whereas, if you read Anne Frank's diary, the Holocaust didn't take place?

Why don't you cite for us, then, anything in Plan D that concretely indicates it was an official offensive Zionist plan for genocide or mass expulsion of Arabs?
 
Last edited:
Why don't you cite for us, then, anything in Plan D that concretely indicates an official offensive Zionist plan for genocide or mass expulsion of Arabs?

Why do you ask me to cite that? I'd rather think that - if there is such language in Plan Dalet - it would make your case, wouldn't it? For the benefit of the lurkers, your statement I asked you to clarify:
Marc39 said:
Worse, still, neither Morris nor Pappe use Arab archives, resulting in a one-sided, often-anti-Zionist, point-of-view and, ultimately, a flawed historiography.
So why would I do your work?

However, I fail to see how either using or not using Arab archives would influence the POV, in the presence of such language in Plan Dalet as you ask me to cite.

As your clarification doesn't seem to be forthcoming, I'm trying out your hypothesis. I started reading Anne Frank's diary. On page 10, there's still no mention of this "Holocaust" thing. I think you may be on to something.
 
Why do you ask me to cite that? I'd rather think that - if there is such language in Plan Dalet - it would make your case, wouldn't it? For the benefit of the lurkers, your statement I asked you to clarify:

So why would I do your work?

However, I fail to see how either using or not using Arab archives would influence the POV, in the presence of such language in Plan Dalet as you ask me to cite.

As your clarification doesn't seem to be forthcoming, I'm trying out your hypothesis. I started reading Anne Frank's diary. On page 10, there's still no mention of this "Holocaust" thing. I think you may be on to something.

Pappe's view is Plan D constituted an Israeli scheme for Arab ethnic cleansing. I do not believe this idiocy. If you defend Pappe, then, again, please cite anywhere in Plan D that represents incontrovertible evidence of a plan for Arab ethnic cleansing.
 
Albert Einstein was a physicist, NOT a psychiatrist. His definition of insanity is highly incorrect.
 
Find it quite entertaining how an Aussie (TF) bickers about Israel being some sort of colonizer and ethnic cleanser. You guys took over an entire continent and murdered the brunt of the original inhabitants there. Just like the Americans, the British, the Spanish, and the Portugese, you guys think there's a date one passes, make nice amends by writing a pleasant constitution and set aside a sliver of land on the millions of acres/dunams for the 1-2% of those remaining and everything's honkey-dorey.

There's really nothing you guys can say in regards to this. There's no, but but this, but but that.
And you want to know what entertains me? Its people such as you who can Watch Marc39 gleefully describe how the non jews will be removed from the land he regards as Jewish land.

Sort of handy when there are others around who can articulate the plans of the loonie right in Israel for the fate ofArabs on "jewish land" isn't it. Sort of removes the need for courage of your convictions. Of course there is always the possibility that you could remind marc39 that his views of ethnic cleansing are not mainstream Israeli views and are offensive....but hey, you can't go and do that can you....
 
Its people such as you who can Watch Marc39 gleefully describe how the non jews will be removed from the land he regards as Jewish land.

The League of Nations Palestine Mandate "gleefully" regards Palestine as Jewish land...

Preambular...

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and


Jews are the true Palestinians...

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

Jews rule in Palestine...

The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.


Jews may live anywhere in Palestine...

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.


Jews from any other part of the world can immigrate to Israel and become citizens...

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

Palestine is for Jews. Jews are for Palestine.
 
I see this thread hasn't progressed one iota, you guys are still bickering about the past.

"My historian says this"
"No, my historian says this"

When will you guys start to worry about the present? The present is what matters, and the only thing we can influence.
look, you have a very valid point and personally I am nowhere near as concerned over the Nakba as I am concerned about the chance it will be repeated. There is a body of opinion among the far right in Israel that Arabs need to be removed from "jewish land" these views are represented on this board by Marc39. In order for this to be achieved these people need to form the will and capacity to do it. I believe they would be able to do this, more improtantly they would need a much larger body of people to be indifferent to it. Thats where we come in. I have put this to Bigjelmapro...I believe it is time to start addressing the spectre of another Nakba rather than worry about the first. Shall we continue to allow Marc39 to believe his views are somehow mainstream and acceptable? Or do you have sympathy for the view that arabs west of the Jordan should be shunted over the border into some neighboring arab country?
 
The League of Nations Palestine Mandate "gleefully" regards Palestine as Jewish land...

Preambular...




Jews are the true Palestinians...



Jews rule in Palestine...




Jews may live anywhere in Palestine...




Jews from any other part of the world can immigrate to Israel and become citizens...



Palestine is for Jews. Jews are for Palestine.
Do you anticipate that these non jewish people are going to leave this "jewish land" voluntarily or do you anticipate having to use force?
 
These people are citizens of Israel. If Israel ever dared to even contemplate shipping their own citizens to another country, simply due to their ethnicity or religion, Israel would be immediately branded a fascist state.

I love how Neo-Zionists believe that if a Gentile converts to Judaism, be automatically becomes an inheritor of Palestine. Maybe the Palestinians should just convert to Judaism and this mess will all be over
=)
 
Last edited:
These people are citizens of Israel. If Israel ever dared to even contemplate shipping their own citizens to another country, simply due to their ethnicity or religion, Israel would be immediately branded a fascist state.

I love how Neo-Zionists believe that if a Gentile converts to Judaism, be automatically becomes an inheritor of Palestine. Maybe the Palestinians should just convert to Judaism and this mess will all be over
=)
Not all are citizens of Israel....according to Marc39 Non jews in the west bank and Gaza are on "jewish land" which is synonomous with "jewish state" (his words) so in his view they are inside the Jewish state. He wants rid of them.
 
Not all are citizens of Israel....according to Marc39 Non jews in the west bank and Gaza are on "jewish land" which is synonomous with "jewish state" (his words) so in his view they are inside the Jewish state. He wants rid of them.

If Israel ever decided to attempt to deport these people, simply because of there race and religion, then Israel will have lost all right to exist..and should be destroyed militarily.

Let me say that again: If Israel ever attempted to deport either their Arab citizen minority or the Palestinians of the West Bank, then they will have forfeited their right to exist as a state and should be destroyed.

And, I would happy to have my tax dollars pay for its destruction. And I will applaud as the leaders who survive the onslaught are tried and punished for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom