And once again the discussion goes to "who was here first" and "who is right and who is wrong" that lead Israel and Palestinians nowhere, instead of "what to do with the situation now" that might actually have a shot at normalizing the relationship and forming a truly independent (from Israel and Iran) Palestinian state.

Mr. Baskinelli, what do you think of the Barak proposal? What is your solution?

I wonder why this never gets to the international news:

3 Thai workers hurt in mortar strike

Four shells fired at Sha'ar Hanegev Regional Council. One man seriously injured by shrapnel in chest; two others sustain light, moderate injuries

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4010560,00.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dlisbona/2182605811/
http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/2009/02/baghdad-hangings-remembering-horror-and.html
http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/2009/01/forty-years-since-hangings-of-nine-jews.html

So according to Tolstoy, this was justified.

Contrary to what some people write here, Israel does not want more territories. This is not what Israelis want (I am one, so I should know).

What Israelis want is security. We don't want to live under a constant threat of suicide bombers, mortars, missiles and other terror activities.

I think that a two-state solution is the way to go. However, before a two-state solution can even be discussed, there should be one partner to which Israel can talk to. Unfortunately, this is not the case right now. Hamas controls the Gaza strip, killing PLO representatives, and PLO control Judea and Samaria (commonly called West Bank), arresting Hamas activists.

So, the first thing that needs to happen before a two-state solution can be implemented is that Palestinians will be united under one head, under one movement, with which the two-state solution can be discussed with.

In addition, I am part of OneVoice organization that promotes two-state solution among Israelis and Palestinians (http://www.onevoicemovement.org/), I suggest you read about it.

Another problem is purely geographical one. Look at this map: http://www.wordtravels.com/images/map/Israel_map.jpg
As you can see, Palestinians are located in Gaza strip and West Bank. It is impossible to connect between them directly.

What I would like to see is a Palestinian state with its capital in the Palestinian part of Jerusalem, with West Bank and Gaza strip under its control. I think this is also the most realistic solution.

Needless to say, Palestinian refugees won't be able to return to their villages where they lived until 1948, since the villages are no longer there and there are Israeli cities instead, and this territory is officially Israeli, accepted by all (I mean Tel Aviv, Haifa, etc, the territories that are not on the border/in West Bank).

In addition, speaking strictly law language, Israel has not conquered Gaza or West Bank, since neither Gaza nor West Bank belong to any country. Gaza was under Egyptian control and West Bank under Jordanian control, and none of these countries want the territories back (I wonder why...)

"And if one wants a picture as to how the Jews lived under Ottoman rule"

Your excerpt mentions that these Jews are immigrants from various countries who came in the twilight of their life to die in the Valley of Jehosephat. Do you really expect a group of people like that to be wealthy, well-adjusted, and accepted by the local communinty? It also mentions that much of the oppression and disdain came from the various Christian communities of Jerusalem - I'm wondering how the Ottoman government is responsible for that. Also, while my Arabic is very poor, I know enough to know that "hareeth al-Yahoud" does not mean "the dirt quarter". Unmentioned in the greater body of the text is the fact that Jews often held high offices in the Ottoman government. Another interesting quote from the same source:

"To make these Jews more miserable, England and Prussia appointed, in 1840, an Anglican bishop at Jerusalem, whose avowed object is their conversion. He was dreadfully thrashed in 1845, and sneered at alike by Jews, Christians and Turks. He may, in fact, be stated to have been the first and only cause of a union between all the religions at Jerusalem.

It will now be understood why the common worship of the Christians at the Holy Places resolves itself into a continuance of desperate Irish rows between the diverse sections of the faithful; but that, on the other hand, these sacred rows merely conceal a profane battle, not only of nations but of races; and that the Protectorate of the Holy Places which appears ridiculous to the Occident but all important to the Orientals is one of the phases of the Oriental question incessantly reproduced, constantly stifled, but never solved. "

I did not know that allowing Christian countries to appoint Christian religious leaders in an Ottoman city is a sign of oppression of religious minorities. And the aforesaid religious minorities seem to be (according to Marx) too busy fighting amongst themselves to take much account of Ottoman tyranny. I'm not as familiar with the life of Karl Marx as you are, so tell me - did Marx ever travel extensively in the Middle East and have firsthand knowledge of all of this, or is he just recycling what other people have told him here? I get this funny feeling the text you quoted is largely a reprinting of someone else's work.

"This idea of Muslim benevolence towards religious minorities under Islamic rule is a pernicious lie, belied by history and by the present."

Your claim contradicts the bulk of reputable historical scholarship, as I'm sure you know.

"So according to Tolstoy, this was justified."

Can you manage a single post without telling me what I think?

"Can you manage a single post without telling me what I think?"

You called me an advocate of kill 'em all gun Zionism. Why does hypocrisy not bother you?

Plus you said it was justified in previous posts, rambling on about 'spies' and 'false flag operations'.

Putin, I apologize for calling you a kill 'em all gun Zionist. I agree that that was not justified based on your comments.

But I never said that repression of Jews in Arab countries was justified - false flag terrorist operations or not (which are well-documented historical facts, not 'ramblings') - any more than repression of Muslims today in the United States would be justified due to terrorism committed by Muslims. The repression was particularly ironic in light of the fact that Zionism up to then hadn't gained much traction among Jews in the Muslim world, whose experience was very different from the European Jews who went through the Holocaust. All I did was state the facts and put the whole thing in context, lest anyone be left with the assumption that there was a massive, unprovoked, coordinated, simultaneous, and effective expulsion of Jews all across the Muslim world.

baskineli,

I largely agree with you. Your website gets the Tolstoy Stamp of Approval (unfortunately, it's not worth much). And I know from polling figures that most Israelis don't care about the occupied territories and are simply interested in going about their daily lives in peace and security. It is a sentiment shared by the vast majority of Palestinians as well, from my experience. But as you well know there is a very vocal and well-armed minority in Israel who believe that Judea and Samaria were given by God to the Jews exclusively, and all gentiles need to be kicked out by any means necessary. I don't think there will be any peace until Israel seriously cracks down on these people, but that would cause a civil war in Israel. I'd be interested to hear your take on this, and roughly what percentage of the Israeli population these people are.

"Your excerpt mentions that these Jews are immigrants from various countries who came in the twilight of their life to die in the Valley of Jehosephat. Do you really expect a group of people like that to be wealthy, well-adjusted, and accepted by the local communinty? "

Much of the Arab population of Jerusalem was not 'local' either. Everybody was a migrant from somewhere else. So this excuse doesn't wash. Jews outnumbered Muslims 2:1 (well prior to the Zionist movement) in Jerusalem and yet still, despite Ottoman 'benevolence', they were treated miserably.

"Unmentioned in the greater body of the text is the fact that Jews often held high offices in the Ottoman government"

Probably not mentioned because this wasn't the case.
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~dhershkowitz/

More evidence of the supposed 'idyllic' relations between the Ottomans and their dhimmis.

"Jews had to pass Muslims on their left side, because that was the side of Satan. They had to yield the right of way, step off the pavement to let the Arab go by, above all make sure not to touch him in passing, because this could provoke a violent response. In the same way, anything that. reminded the Muslim of the presence of alternative religions, any demonstration of alternative forms of worship, had to be avoided so synagogues were placed in humble, hidden places, and the sounds of Jewish prayer carefully muted." [David Landes in "Palestine Before the Zionists"]

Murad III decreed that all Jews throughout his empire be executed, but Murad was persuaded to reduced the death sentence for Jews to a law prohibiting them from wearing silk and forcing them to wear special headdresses. Murad also managed to deport 1,000 Jews to Cyprus. The entire Jewish community of Safed was then annihilated by Ibn Barouk in 1660.



Aleppo massacre of 1850.
http://books.google.com/books?id=_EhACvcqVXkC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=Aleppo+massacre+1850&source=bl&ots=8VjnLcq2eX&sig=dVROiRMYO1PJbtW90h8x0OdUdm8&hl=en&ei=QuMoTY3vO8f_nAf8-fSdAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Aleppo%20massacre%201850&f=false

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/morris-victims.html

More massacres in Nablus, Damascus, and Lebanon in the mid-1800s by Muslims upset at any equalization of rights under Ottoman rule.






More evidence of Ottoman 'tolerance' is the repeat massacres could took place in Ottoman lands in the mid-1800s - Aleppo, Nablus, Damascus.

''Jews in the Muslim world, whose experience was very different from the European Jews who went through the Holocaust''

Have you heard of this guy - Mufti Haj Amin el Husseini? If not this will enlighten -

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/

You might also care to read up on the Farhud of 1941 in Baghdad -

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007277

"All I did was state the facts and put the whole thing in context, lest anyone be left with the assumption that there was a massive, unprovoked, coordinated, simultaneous, and effective expulsion of Jews all across the Muslim world."

Except that's exactly what it was.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/jewref.html

Had the Palestinians gotten their way in 1948, Palestine would have been ruled by Husseini, who was so pro-Nazi he helped butcher Christians and Jews in the Balkans with his Handzar Division.

Your eretzyisroel.org website touts Joan Peters on its front page, who wrote the thoroughly discredited book "From Time Immemorial" which claimed that Palestine was a deserted wasteland in the 19th century. Much of the site (including the specific page you linked) seems to be in support of that thesis, which is easily refuted by looking at Ottoman (and later British) census records. Sorry, but after I stopped laughing I decided not to take anything there seriously.

"Probably not mentioned because this wasn't the case. "

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Turkey
"Jews who reached high positions in the Ottoman court and administration include Mehmed II's minister of Finance ("defterdar") Hekim Yakup Pasa, his Portuguese physician Moses Hamon, Murad II's physician Ishak Pasha and Abraham de Castro, the master of the mint in Egypt.

During the Classical Ottoman period (1300–1600), the Jews, together with most other communities of the empire, enjoyed a certain level of prosperity. Compared with other Ottoman subjects, they were the predominant power in commerce and trade as well in diplomacy and other high offices. In the 16th century especially, the Jews were the most prominent under the millets, the apogee of Jewish influence could arguable be the appointment of Joseph Nasi to Sanjak-bey (governor, a rank usually only bestowed upon Muslims) of the island of Naxos.[23] Also in the first half of the 17th century the Jews were distinct in winning Tax farms, Haim Gerber describes it as: "My impression is that no pressure existed, that it was merely performαnce that counted."[24]"

"Aleppo massacre of 1850."

Your link is as fascinating as it is brief. It mentions that this was the only major incident of its type in Aleppo in the Ottoman period (400 years and only one massacre is a great record that trumps most European cities). Also says that the government was the initial target of the angry mob (not the city's Christian community - that came later), and that when the Ottoman government regained control of the situation, it cracked down hard on the perpetrators, arresting and either exiling or conscripting 600. Sectarian violence yes, but hardly evidence of systemic government repression of religious minorities - if anything, it's the opposite.

"I did not know that allowing Christian countries to appoint Christian religious leaders in an Ottoman city is a sign of oppression of religious minorities. And the aforesaid religious minorities seem to be (according to Marx) too busy fighting amongst themselves to take much account of Ottoman tyranny."

This was due to Ottoman capitulations, concessions granted to European powers after military defeats and written down in treaties. It had nothing to do with Ottoman 'tolerance'.

As for Marx, he visited Jerusalem in the early 1850s.

"Had the Palestinians gotten their way in 1948, Palestine would have been ruled by Husseini"

No, it wouldn't have. Husseini was considered a gadfly by Arab leaders and he was more or less sidelined in the 1948 war.

"But as you well know there is a very vocal and well-armed minority in Israel who believe that Judea and Samaria were given by God to the Jews exclusively, and all gentiles need to be kicked out by any means necessary. I don't think there will be any peace until Israel seriously cracks down on these people, but that would cause a civil war in Israel. I'd be interested to hear your take on this, and roughly what percentage of the Israeli population these people are. "

This is exactly what it is - a vocal minority. Israel will not crack down on these people, since Israel is a democracy and everybody can voice their opinion - including leftists, rightists, Jews, Arabs and what not.

The real problem is not the vocal minority which is fed from pure hatred towards Palestinians (after all, their fire rockets and mortars, send suicide bombers and so on), but the nuts (like Hamas) that believe that all land historically belongs to Israel (it doesn't even matter whether they are right or not) and none of the land should be given away. Luckily, there are not much of them, I don't think more than 5-10%.

If you ask my own opinion on this issue, then it is rather simple:

Jews lived in Israel for at least 2500 years. When Jews first came to Israel (about 2500 years ago), there were a lot of people who lived there, but none of them remain now. A lot of things happened, and in 67 BC Jews were expelled from Israel by Romans, scattered around the globe. Roman empire fell, Ottoman empire rose and fell, British empire rose and fell - and during all these years Jews always wanted to return to Israel. It is part of our DNA. If you will read HaTikva, the national anthem, it won't speak about how great Israel is, but about the longings of Jewish people to return to Israel, Zion. More about Zionism later.

Most Israeli people (except the vocal minority I mentioned earlier) do not consider West Bank as part of Israel. I am not talking about the official stance of the state, but about the common perception of general public in Israel. We don't want these territories, and we are tired of fighting the terror that crawls from there. Most of Israelis want an independent Palestinian state, so we will leave them alone and they will leave us alone.

However, the problem is that there is no one Palestinian leadership whom we can talk to. As long as there is no single Palestinian leadership that takes control over Palestinian territory, there will be no Palestinian state in West Bank and Gaza, because once there will be such a state and the terror continues, what will Israel do then? Who will be responsible for it, if there is no Palestinian government that controls its territory?

It is easy to imagine the evil Israel that controls poor Palestinians. However, the situation is much more complex than that. Palestinians under PLO live much better than Palestinians under Hamas, since the PLO are enforcing peace on their territory to some extent, while Hamas wages war against Israel. Only today 3 people in Israel were badly hurt by a mortar shot from Gaza - and it is not unusual. Mortars are launched from Gaza on every day basis. If Hamas would invest so much energy in talking to Israel, instead of finding ways to smuggle weapons, there would be peace and a Palestinian state.

Regarding Zionism. It is so misunderstood that I am shocked. Zionism is not a doctrine, it is not a philosophy, but the will of Jewish people return to Israel and settle it. There is a great deal of debate in Israel in the last decades what Zionism is, since we have returned to Israel. Right now Zionism in Israel is a term that mainly used when you want to describe someone who is loyal to the country, pays taxes, wants to go to uninhabited areas or weak cities and build their home there. When people who are not Jews speak of Zionism, they put all their hatred towards Jews in this word, and it has totally different meaning - some sort of evil doctrine of taking over the world, starting with the poor and helpless Palestinians.

On a more personal level, I wasn't born in Israel. I came here with my family in 1990 from former USSR, when I was 10 years old, because my parents wanted their children to grow up with their heads up, with equal opportunities, because they (and I) believe that Israel is the homeland of all Jews. The existence of Israel is the only way we can make sure Holocaust will not happen again, since every country where the Jews live will be able to promote anti-Jewish laws, as it happened in Germany prior to 1939, except Israel. Israel is our home, both historically and nowadays. We have no where else to go.

well, interesting discussion. Thanks for the read.

If I were a Palestinian, I would have given my life long ago in a suicide bombing and I'd rather die as an accidental victim of a suicide attack than live as an Israeli.

Israel shouldn't exist. It does exist because the work of a few zionist terrorists was seized upon as a mea culpa for the world in the aftermath of the holocaust. That was the justification anyway, the geo-political advantages of such an arrangement for the West (US) are obvious. The rest of the history is as nauseating as the beginning. On both sides. May they continue to kill each other infinitely.

To be clear, I don't have much sympathy for the Palestinians much less their Arab "allies".

I'm curious about how Putin feels about the Soviet-PLO connection. Arafat was a KGB creation. Was it pure real-politik, enemy-of-my-enemy type stuff or did the interest run deeper? For someone who rejects all the "official" versions of the cold war, I'm surprised at how you accept and vehemently defend them all when it comes to Israel. Are you Jewish?

To clarify on the geo-political benefits, they were in hind-sight minimal, given the creation of Israel provided and continues to provide the single rallying cry for all radical Muslims. What appeared at the time as a clear geo-political advantage turned out to be ground zero for the culture clash that has taken center stage in the post-soviet world of international politics. But it sure looked good at the time.

"Right now Zionism in Israel is a term that mainly used when you want to describe someone who is loyal to the country, pays taxes, wants to go to uninhabited areas or weak cities and build their home there."

Zionism as I understand it simply means Jewish nationalism. It is used as a code word by critics of Israel to attack anyone with any sympathy for Israel, Jewish or not. Plus attacking "Zionists" sounds less anti-Semitic than bashing Jews, so they like that word better. But they don't know what it means. It's like calling an American who supports India a Hindu nationalist. It doesn't make much sense.

"If I were a Palestinian, I would have given my life long ago in a suicide bombing and I'd rather die as an accidental victim of a suicide attack than live as an Israeli."

That's a remarkable statement. 'I'd rather be dead than Israeli' is your line on the whole thing? Nobody's suffering is more exaggerated than the Palestinians. Their living standards went up and up after 1967, yet the world thinks they're the most oppressed people on earth. What a great PR job. No propaganda effort has ever been more effective than Arab propaganda.

"Israel shouldn't exist."

Should the United States 'exist'?

"It does exist because the work of a few zionist terrorists was seized upon as a mea culpa for the world in the aftermath of the holocaust."

That's apparently not persuasive enough for you to create a Jewish state. What should have been done with the survivors of the Holocaust? Returned to the states that tried to exterminate them? We have worthless mini-states like Qatar and Kuwait, but a Jewish state the size of New Jersey in malaria-infested wasteland is too much to ask?

And this bit about Zionist 'terrorists'. It's as if the Safed and Hebron massacres never happened, nor the scores of other unprovoked attacks of the old Yishuv, which was never a Zionist community. It was the Jewish community who had lived in Palestine for hundreds of years prior to any Zionist aliyah.

" That was the justification anyway, the geo-political advantages of such an arrangement for the West (US) are obvious."

Except the geo-political advantages did not come about until much later, so this business about a US geopolitical conspiracy to create Israel is total garbage. US only became a reliable ally of Israel after 1967. If anyone cares to remember, it was Eisenhower who told Israel, France, and the UK to get out of the Suez.
The UK, for its part , abstained when it came to the creation of Israel. Once again, this western geopolitical conspiracy doesn't pass the smell test. This was an honest effort to give a people a homeland who had been the victims of non-stop repression. Maybe progressives aren't sympathetic to that story, and have fallen in love with any third world liberation tale.

"To be clear, I don't have much sympathy for the Palestinians much less their Arab "allies". "

Which is why you claimed you'd be a suicide bomber and said you'd rather be dead than Israeli. I call shenanigans on your attempt to cleanse your hands of this matter.

"I'm curious about how Putin feels about the Soviet-PLO connection. Arafat was a KGB creation."

I already explained how I feel and how the Soviets turned to supporting the Arabs after 1956, and the Soviets only came to support the groups which made up the PLO after 1967, and even then only really after the Jordanians expelled them. This idea that Arafat was a KGB agent is a first though, considering Arafat's public pronouncements of his hostility to communism and Marxism. Soviet support for Arafat, like any and all Arab nationalists, was much more one-sided than this idea that Arafat ever paid the Soviets back by being a reliable backer of the Soviets. Arafat was a rightist even within Fatah, outflanked on the left by Abu Iyad and others, who was much more willing to be pro-Soviet in exchange for support. Arafat was more reluctant, and even with the Fatah 'leftists' it was a matter of pure opportunism. The PLO used the Soviets much more than the Soviets used the PLO.

There were/are Communist Palestinians, but they're the PFLP, not Arafat's crowd. They became irrelevant after Arafat's assent to power, which shows you much Arafat was a 'KGB creation'. But even the PFLP was more Arab nationalist, really, being more inspired by Nasser than anyone.

"I'm surprised at how you accept and vehemently defend them all when it comes to Israel."

I don't get what this has to do with the official versions of the Cold War. The Arab-Israeli conflict pre-dates and post-dates the Cold War.

"Are you Jewish?"

No, do I have to be?

"they were in hind-sight minimal, given the creation of Israel provided and continues to provide the single rallying cry for all radical Muslims. What appeared at the time as a clear geo-political advantage turned out to be ground zero for the culture clash that has taken center stage in the post-soviet world of international politics. But it sure looked good at the time."

Why do people think appeasing radical Muslims by destroying Israel will somehow make the Muslim world love us? The west has helped create an Islamist state in Iraq, has helped promote Islamism and jihad in Bosnia (massive Wahhabi mosques being built, Bosnia is the operational base for Al Qaeda in Europe), Chechnya, and Kosovo, has worked with Islamist Iran in Afghanistan, and our 'reward' for all of this help is absolutely nothing. So really, the geopolitical 'advantages' of letting Israel be annihilated to please radical Muslims has far less geopolitical 'advantage' than not doing so.

What have we gotten out of funding the Saudis to the hilt? We sent 100,000 troops to Saudi to defend it from Iraq. Fighting Iraq was about defending Saudi Arabia in 1990, and the 2003 war was nothing but a continuation of that. But the Israel haters never bother to check their own logic when it comes to Middle East strategy.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/25207223/1850-Events-in-Aleppo

Fascinating article on the aforementioned Aleppo riot (previously described as a 'massacre') of 1850. Sounds more like a draft/tax riot cooked up by feuding political factions in the city - the looting of the Christian quarter was apparently an afterthought on the part of the rioters, who all came from a specific neighborhood on the bad side of the tracks and had become impoverished while the particular Christian 'hood that was targeted became wealthy in recent decades due to changing trade patterns. Amazing how much an angry riot can teach you about a society.

Just going to preclude this little factoid with the fact that I actually do support the Israel side of the conflict, despite having read the entire thread. I my beliefs still stand.

However a friend of mine can't stand Israel and whenever we debate anything related to them he just brings up one fact over and over again

Namely the fact that Israel used White Phosphorous on Palestine in a heavily populate area

http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/israeloccupied-palestinian-territories-israel039s-use-white-phosphorus-a

What would be your counter argument? It's one of those things that I don't think is justified however it isn't enough to shift me from a pro-Israel stance.

Do you have a source for American support of 'Islamists' in Chechnya and Iran (in Afghanistan)?

I'll try to tackle this thing here by Tolstoy.

"it is impossible to discuss the inherent discrimination of Israeli law and society without dealing with the fact that the beneficiaries happen to be Jewish."

What 'discrimination'? Arabs make up 20% of Israel. The Arabic Wafq is purposely set up to control land exclusively for Arabs. Arabic is an official language of Israel. They all can vote, hold political office (including top cabinet positions), organize parties. Arab MKS routinely blast the Israeli government and have the right to do so. Arab women can vote. How many Middle East countries allow this? [But nevermind the rampant Arab racial/gender discrimination, right]. In the UAE, workers of South Asian descent literally live as indentured servants and have no political rights, yet make up 50% of the population. But I'm sure Tolstoy will shriek that I'm changing the subject. But if holding top political offices is supposedly an example of Ottoman/Islamist 'tolerance' towards non-Muslims, why does Israel's impressive treatment towards its Arab Muslim and Christian citizens warrant a positive view? Compared to the treatment of minorities elsewhere in the Middle East, Israel is a model. Hell, compared to countries in Europe, Israel is a model.

This idea that Jewish 'settlements' are Jewish only is ridiculous, since these communities you're protesting about are often right next to Arab neighborhoods. It's the Arabs who are saying no Jews allowed, to the other way around. And nobody complained when Jordan forbade any Jews from living in the Jordanian West Bank.

"What charity. "Here. You can have 80% of the 22% of the land we agreed to leave you six years ago. Oh, and that land is essentially cut up into four pieces."

The 80% was to be immediately given to the Palestinian state with the total coming to 96% within several years, as Israel withdrew from the Jordan valley. The territory was fully contiguous, including a highway that would connect Gaza to the West Bank without obstruction. The maps from the proposal clearly show the full contiguity of the territory.

http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm

The proposal offered East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, which had never before been offered. 67 settlements were to be dismantled. The Arabs were given sovereignty over the Temple Mount, giving limited sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall. The proposal guaranteed the right to return to Palestinians who would return to the Palestinian state, and compensated refugees from Israeli territory. The proposal offered Palestinians access to Israeli water. Arafat never even bothered to make a counter-offer. One only has to read what the American negotiators present at the Camp David summit have said to know who refused to negotiate. In fact the final proposal/parameters was/were really outlined by the Clinton administration, which Barak accepted while Arafat did not, meaning Arafat would not even accept the proposal as negotiable parameters. You can continue to pretend they were nothing, but that just shows how maximalist the pro-Palestinian side is.

"http://www.socialismtoday.org/50/camp_david.html
http://www.palestine-studies.org/journals.aspx?id=7317&jid=1&href=fulltext
http://www.gush-shalom.org/generous/generous.html"

Socialism-Today, oh the irony of a self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist resorting to socialism-today to get anti-Israel talking points. Lew Rockwell must have really gotten to you.

"Interestingly, this passage (which I've edited for brevity)"

No, you did not edit 'due to brevity', since the rest of the passage is only a few sentences long. It goes on to talk about the fact that some soldiers refused to participate in this order. Not surprisingly, this is left out.

'Great suffering was inflicted upon the men taking part in the eviction action. Soldiers of the Yiftach Brigade included youth-movement graduates, who had been inculcated with values such as international brotherhood and humaneness. The eviction action went beyond the concepts they were used to. There were some fellows who refused to take part in the expulsion action."

So, the best you can come up with is the operations in Lod and Ramle. Notice the Rabin memoirs said that the Lod residents were marched to join the Arab Legion, the very people fighting the IDF. Does that sound like a harsh and brutal eviction to you? The other part you left out [I'm sure it was for 'brevity's sake] is that Rabin says the Lod Arabs were armed and hostile, and that the reason for their evacuation was that they couldn't have this armed and hostile group on their rear, which could endanger their supply route. All in all, nice selective editing on your part.

Your Weitz quote, how is this 'proof' of expulsion? He supported transfer, so that means transfer was the policy during 1948? If you want to settle scores through quotes about different individuals and groups goals, you will lose. Weitz was a peripheral figure whose full title was head of Land and Afforestation Dept for the JNF, he was essentially in charge of planting trees.

"There are tons of other very clear proofs of deliberate explusion."

Yes, "tons". You have a forced march to reunite armed hostiles with the Arab armies and a quote by a guy whose job was planting trees for the JNF. I can't wait to see what other 'proofs' you have.

"See particularly Benny Morris' "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949", which is entirely devoted to this question. (This is also the source for the IDF admission that 70% of Palestinians were driven out by force)"

I would love a page number for this remarkable quote. But it seems you're hanging your hat on Benny Morris, who is (or rather, was) the leading "new" (revisionist) historian in Israel, bent on claiming that I. He has since moved far from his earlier positions [ironically because he thought the Palestinians refused a generous offer in 2000, heh]. Morris's work is replete with contradictions to the point of absurdity. He says there was no plan to expel Arabs. He then goes on to say there was. There was no transfer ideology. The Israelis were better armed than the Arabs. No they weren't., etc. Then he says there was. He goes back and forth constantly. How can you believe anything he says? His new book 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War says the opposite of what he said in the latter book on virtually every subject.

Page 331 is particularly interesting, in that it documents how the Palestinian population fled, and the IDF did not need to resort to expulsion orders.

http://books.google.com/books?id=CC7381HrLqcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=benny+morris+1948&hl=en&ei=um8pTfDuGcGdnAf91oyZAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=expulsion&f=false

On page 120, he emphatically denies that there was ever any general plan to expel Arabs.

"7-800,000 Palestinians were driven from 350-500 villages by force or threat of force."

Which is the highest number given for all of the Palestinian refugees combined. Which means you assume that all of the 'refugees' were forced out, and none left voluntarily. On it's face this claim is ridiculous. The Statistical Abstract of Palestine put of the total number of Arabs living in all of Palestine in 1944-1945 to be 570,800. Israel reported that around 150,000 Arabs remained in Israel in 1948.

"but the suggestion that twice as many Israelis than Palestinians died when there were no mass expulsion of hundreds of Jewish villages and settlements is absurd."

It's only 'absurd' if we can accept the asinine claims that every single Palestinian refugee was forced out, and that there were 7-000,000 such forced out refugees, among other things.

" I think granting full citizenship to Palestinians in the occupied territories would be a step forward in the situation, but of course that kind of limited equality is considered synonymous with "destroying Israel"."

If they did that, people would be screaming about 'annexation'. It assumes that the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza even want citizenship.

"I see some Marxist influence in parts of it."

Which parts are those exactly? Article 22 where it says Zionists were behind the Bolshevik Revolution and Communism? Or Article 7 where it says judgment will not come until Muslims kill all the Jews? Or Article 5 where it expresses support for Salafism and claims it is part of the Muslim Brotherhood? I'm missing the 'Marxism' here.

" it also says that "Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other."

Which is totally believable considering the parts which call for the extermination of the Jews and calls for the banner of Allah to be raised over every inch of Palestine, and Article 11 which says that no compromise is possible. I love you just happily ignore this.

From Article 7:

"Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem)."

Imagine for one minute if any prominent political party in Israel [and Hamas is one of the two main parties and controls Gaza] wrote something like this. Hell, you cling to a quote in a diary written in 1940 by a nobody who happened to espouse transfer. We know what'd you do if the shoe was on the other foot. This defense of Hamas some kind of misunderstood moderate group exemplifies the sheer fanaticism of the anti-Israel crowd.

"Hirst also notes that appeals by local Palestinian notables to Constantinople to restrict immigration were largely ignored (p.148-149). Without the active assistance of the Ottoman government and its governors in Palestine, there never would've been an Israel."

Funny then that you compare the immigration of 60,000 Jews to Ottoman Palestine by 1918 to an "invasion". Sounds like legal immigration. Putting aside the fact that Hirst is notorious for claiming 1-Jewish groups control our foreign policy (sounds like you) and 2-The invasion of Iraq was done completely at the behest of Israel, the source for all of this information about the Turks is interesting because it's all from some book by a guy named Nevill Barbour - about whom I can't find anything.

But you did provide a citation and I thank you for that.

Disregard "bent on claiming that". Wish this thing had an edit function.

"Fascinating article on the aforementioned Aleppo riot (previously described as a 'massacre') of 1850."

It's never a massacre if Muslims do it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=l6mZAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=Aleppo+1850+killing+Christians&source=bl&ots=Lq6VCXIldM&sig=ZvlRJ5Czw0ieEdC3hnyJROsmsC0&hl=en&ei=RoMpTe3TK86fnwfh07T2AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Aleppo%201850%20killing%20Christians&f=false



It says here that thousands of Christians were killed indiscriminately after the Christian quarter of Aleppo was stormed. The number of 'thousands' is used here as well.
So does this:
http://books.google.com/books?id=5vopAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=Christians+killed+Aleppo+1850&source=bl&ots=S5vlVRL_O9&sig=9VY-52hVlw-61l3P2uUMzpEOD6A&hl=en&ei=e4QpTbfeJ8eQnwfE5KSIAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCQ#v=snippet&q=burning%20everything&f=false

Your Benny Morris calls Aleppo 1850 a massacre, surprisingly enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/morris-victims.html

"Namely the fact that Israel used White Phosphorous on Palestine in a heavily populate area"

White Phosphorus is legal. The International Committee of the Red Cross said that using phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international law and claimed that there was no evidence that Israel was "using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down buildings or consciously putting civilians at risk."

http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231866575577&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

The 'evidence' that white phosphorus was used as anti-personnel weapon is flimsy at best and pretty much non-existent, relying on nothing but innuendo and 'anonymous' reports from 'researchers' from the HRW, and even those reports couldn't definitively verify if white phosphorus was used.