A large fraction of “expelled” Palestinians were “expelled” because Arab armies told them to leave for the time of fighting. For some reason you ignore this fact and put it all on Israel “expelling” people.
That's not true. It's a nationalist myth in Israel that was thoroughly debunked by none other than Israeli historians 40 years ago.
Palestinians overwhelmingly fled because:
* They were forced to at gunpoint by Zionist/Israeli forces, as at Ramle, Lod and many other places.
* Their towns came under direct attack by Zionist forces, as at Haifa and many other places.
* They feared for their lives, especially after Zionist massacres of Arab civilians at places like Deir Yassin became known.
This has been documented in great detail by Israeli historians for each Palestinian town.
For example, much of the population of Gaza comes from Palestinian towns that used to exist in what is now southern Israel. They were driven out and their towns were largely razed by Zionist forces in Operation Barak. Zionist forces had explicit orders to clear out the Arab population, which is what they did with extreme ruthlessness (including atrocities that are too horrible to describe on HN, but which you can read about in histories of the operation).
> Israel is a democracy (albeit increasingly authoritarian) only if you belong to one ethnicity.
> You're referring to the small minority of Palestinians who were not expelled by Israel in 1948. They and their descendants number about 2 million now.
Your initial statement was highly sensational, strongly negative if true, and yet easily debunked. Statements like this on a contentious topic reduce one's credibility and the overall quality of discussion. Why do it?
If the United States were to strip 40% of its population (targeted on an ethnic basis) of citizenship and subject them martial law, would you consider it a democracy?
The answer is obvious. You can pretend to be worried about credibility, but you know what you're defending.
I haven't so far defended anything other than the principle (in fact, merely the utility) of making arguments in good faith.
You could have initially made the observation that a large fraction of Israel's population lack voting rights, and all of those people share an ethnicity -- but you chose instead to make a stronger and more alarming claim that you knew to be wrong.
Arguing in good faith is a prerequisite of useful discussion, it's that simple. Until you accept this, statements you make will tend to undermine your position in readers' minds, not strengthen it.
> who were not expelled by Israel in 1948
A large fraction of “expelled” Palestinians were “expelled” because Arab armies told them to leave for the time of fighting. For some reason you ignore this fact and put it all on Israel “expelling” people.
That's not true. It's a nationalist myth in Israel that was thoroughly debunked by none other than Israeli historians 40 years ago.
Palestinians overwhelmingly fled because:
* They were forced to at gunpoint by Zionist/Israeli forces, as at Ramle, Lod and many other places.
* Their towns came under direct attack by Zionist forces, as at Haifa and many other places.
* They feared for their lives, especially after Zionist massacres of Arab civilians at places like Deir Yassin became known.
This has been documented in great detail by Israeli historians for each Palestinian town.
For example, much of the population of Gaza comes from Palestinian towns that used to exist in what is now southern Israel. They were driven out and their towns were largely razed by Zionist forces in Operation Barak. Zionist forces had explicit orders to clear out the Arab population, which is what they did with extreme ruthlessness (including atrocities that are too horrible to describe on HN, but which you can read about in histories of the operation).
Well, Google says otherwise, eg with Haifa. So, it is not a clear cut. Saying that it was all evil zionists is history revisionism.
Moreover, the Arab-Israeli war was full of expulsions from both sides. My original point still stands.
3 replies →
> a small enough minority
Also the largest muslim minority outside of Africa.
> Israel is a democracy (albeit increasingly authoritarian) only if you belong to one ethnicity.
> You're referring to the small minority of Palestinians who were not expelled by Israel in 1948. They and their descendants number about 2 million now.
Your initial statement was highly sensational, strongly negative if true, and yet easily debunked. Statements like this on a contentious topic reduce one's credibility and the overall quality of discussion. Why do it?
If the United States were to strip 40% of its population (targeted on an ethnic basis) of citizenship and subject them martial law, would you consider it a democracy?
The answer is obvious. You can pretend to be worried about credibility, but you know what you're defending.
I haven't so far defended anything other than the principle (in fact, merely the utility) of making arguments in good faith.
You could have initially made the observation that a large fraction of Israel's population lack voting rights, and all of those people share an ethnicity -- but you chose instead to make a stronger and more alarming claim that you knew to be wrong.
Arguing in good faith is a prerequisite of useful discussion, it's that simple. Until you accept this, statements you make will tend to undermine your position in readers' minds, not strengthen it.