Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Conflict in the Middle East

Wasn’t Jordan the Palestinian Arab state?

75 replies

ConscientiousObserver · 31/07/2025 01:36

TBH I don’t think the history of this conflict is very relevant today, as very few affected people are still alive from that era (and the people alive today and feeling the consequences of past decisions are the ones who matter) although the cumulative effect of a people deliberately designated as refugees for generations and the hatred that has fostered has attributed to what is happening today.

Many people say that the war didn’t start on Oct 7th. or even in 1948, as the Palestinians had their lands stolen and this why this conflict has raged on culminating in the present situation, and is also even used as an excuse for Oct 7th.

Leaving aside the fact that ‘Palestinians’ before 1948 referred to Arabs, Christian and Jews, and Palestinian Arabs were identified as and referred to themselves as Arabs as an ethnicity and national identity, didn’t 73% the British Mandate for Palestine, called Ottoman Syria under the ruling Ottoman Empire, or Syria Palestina, include present day Jordan, named Trans Jordan by the British, and wasn’t that created as an Arab State?

Therefore the Arabs got an Arab State covering three quarters of the British Mandate of Palestine which under the Balfour Declaration and San Remo conference was actually originally earmarked as a Jewish homeland.

Why is that not mentioned in discussion about the history of the conflict?

Why did the Arabs of the time need another Arab State when they already had 22 surrounding Arab States?

Interested after the government’s announcement that we will recognise the State of Palestine when we already recognised a Palestinian Arab State in Jordan 104 years ago.

Would a State of Palestine include Jews so will they be able to live there too with equal rights and protections in the same way Palestinian Arabs and Christians live in Israel? Is this what the UK government mean they will be recognising?

Just thinking out loud.

OP posts:
quantumbutterfly · 01/08/2025 11:10

TulipLavender · 01/08/2025 11:01

In the same fucking way it would be racist to say why don't the black South Africans just let the white South Africans have South Africa as there are plenty of other countries in Africa that are black majority governed.

That looks like straw man.

South Africa was an artificially drawn border that crossed tribal boundaries, should it be erased? Or should SA in it's current iteration try to stabilise. ( Let's not get confused by investigating it's current government corruption and inability to deal with domestic issues.)

TulipLavender · 01/08/2025 11:17

quantumbutterfly · 01/08/2025 11:10

That looks like straw man.

South Africa was an artificially drawn border that crossed tribal boundaries, should it be erased? Or should SA in it's current iteration try to stabilise. ( Let's not get confused by investigating it's current government corruption and inability to deal with domestic issues.)

How is it different? Tell me.

Its not artificial borders as they are all artificial borders. Look up the Sykes-Picot agreement and its just an artificial border that created the British Mandate of Palestine.

PurpleChrayn · 01/08/2025 11:20

Of course this history is relevant today.

Try looking up how many Jews lived in Arab/Muslim states before 1948, and see how many live there now. You’re in for a treat.

quantumbutterfly · 01/08/2025 11:27

TulipLavender · 01/08/2025 11:17

How is it different? Tell me.

Its not artificial borders as they are all artificial borders. Look up the Sykes-Picot agreement and its just an artificial border that created the British Mandate of Palestine.

Jordan's borders are artificial, you're right.

But you're the one bringing skin colour into it. There are different races indigenous to current SA, there are tensions.

Are the countries surrounding South Africa constantly attacking it and funded by a religious supremacist autocrat?

TulipLavender · 01/08/2025 11:34

PurpleChrayn · 01/08/2025 11:20

Of course this history is relevant today.

Try looking up how many Jews lived in Arab/Muslim states before 1948, and see how many live there now. You’re in for a treat.

Im no longer debating with racists.

Palestinian lands belong to Palestinian people. Israel got given their state and borders and are not entitled to take anymore. Israel have no right illegally occupying Palestine for decades and decades into perpuity. Every day we witness the most horrific bloodshed and starvation and the cruelest of acts, whilst people on here justify the ongoing occupation and subjugation on obscene grounds such as the existance of other arab states or the expulsion of Jews from across the middle east (which i agree was awful, shouldn't have happened but was also in some part undertaken by zionists and is no justification for occupying Gaza and the West Bank). Shame on you.

Voxon · 01/08/2025 11:37

TulipLavender · 01/08/2025 11:01

In the same fucking way it would be racist to say why don't the black South Africans just let the white South Africans have South Africa as there are plenty of other countries in Africa that are black majority governed.

Analogies are not your strong suit.

White people are not indigenous to Africa. White people have lots of independent states.

A better analogy would be if White people had colonised the entire continent of Africa, and then shat their pants for 100 years because Black people got independence in 0.03% of it.

Voxon · 01/08/2025 11:40

TulipLavender · 01/08/2025 11:34

Im no longer debating with racists.

Palestinian lands belong to Palestinian people. Israel got given their state and borders and are not entitled to take anymore. Israel have no right illegally occupying Palestine for decades and decades into perpuity. Every day we witness the most horrific bloodshed and starvation and the cruelest of acts, whilst people on here justify the ongoing occupation and subjugation on obscene grounds such as the existance of other arab states or the expulsion of Jews from across the middle east (which i agree was awful, shouldn't have happened but was also in some part undertaken by zionists and is no justification for occupying Gaza and the West Bank). Shame on you.

Israeli lands belong to Israeli people. Palestinians (who called themselves Arabs smd not Palestinians at the time) got given their state and borders and are not entitled to take anymore. They have no right to murder Israelis, to fire rockets at Israel or to kidnap Israeli people for decades and decades into perpuity.

MissyB1 · 01/08/2025 11:42

TulipLavender · 01/08/2025 08:29

The purpose of this thread is to question the legitimacy of a Palestinian state because of the existance of Jordan. That is a disgusting and racist premise.

Edited

This. What a vile thread.
We see you OP 😡

ConscientiousObserver · 01/08/2025 11:46

MissyB1 · 01/08/2025 11:42

This. What a vile thread.
We see you OP 😡

Explain how it is ‘vile’ to discuss the history of the region?

What does ‘we see you OP 😡’ mean?

Is that a threat?

OP posts:
MissyB1 · 01/08/2025 12:04

ConscientiousObserver · 01/08/2025 11:46

Explain how it is ‘vile’ to discuss the history of the region?

What does ‘we see you OP 😡’ mean?

Is that a threat?

Edited

You are "discussing history" in bad faith intentionally . "We see you" means we see why you started this thread. We see your prejudice /bigotry /racism dressed up as a little chat about history. A threat? Don't be such a drama queen 🙄 It means you have shown who you are, we've seen through you!

ConscientiousObserver · 01/08/2025 12:12

MissyB1 · 01/08/2025 12:04

You are "discussing history" in bad faith intentionally . "We see you" means we see why you started this thread. We see your prejudice /bigotry /racism dressed up as a little chat about history. A threat? Don't be such a drama queen 🙄 It means you have shown who you are, we've seen through you!

So anyone discussing a part of history that doesn’t fit the ‘Israel stole the land’ narrative is in ‘bad faith’, prejudicial, bigoted and racism?

What right do you think you have to shut down discussion by making ridiculous and absolutely outrageous allegations.

No, you can be seen through very clearly.

OP posts:
MissyB1 · 01/08/2025 12:23

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

ConscientiousObserver · 01/08/2025 12:28

How outrageous that you accuse ME of having a racist agenda considering your posting history on this board.

You have still failed to explain why discussion about how the land was divided up pre-1948 is ‘racist’.

OP posts:
dairydebris · 01/08/2025 12:38

Sorry OP I haven't read the full thread, but I used to think about this too, but now I think it's this-

A lot of other nations ( Arab and otherwise ) won their independence around this time with the carving up of empires after WW2. The Arabs in Palestine hoped for their own state too.
A combination of absolute refusal to allow for any Jewish state on the land, utterly shambolic leadership ( many Pal leaders previously killed in Arab revolt or exiled by the Brits ) and getting shifted by Jordan and Egypt in particular meant this didn't materialise.

But Palestinians see themselves as a separate identity to Jordanians / Egyptians etc, and thats fair enough. I see myself as English rather than European. They see themselves as Palestinian rather than Arab.

Jujujudo · 01/08/2025 13:05

TulipLavender · 01/08/2025 00:22

So some people who are Jewish, with zero family ties to the area, have a right to move to Israel because it is their ancestral homeland from 3000 years ago but Palestinian families still with the keys to their own houses that they were displaced from 80 years ago should just 'move on'?

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are still living in refugee camps in countries like Lebanon without work permits or equal rights.

Are you against the Law of Return by which Israel grants every Jew the right to live and have citizenship in Israel?

How was Israel created? By UN resolution. How can some UN resolutions be honoured but others like the UN resolution for right of return can just be ignored?

This law exists because the holocaust happened and Jews then, now and in the future need to have a safe county to flee yo next time they are targeted. Stop spinning it all - as I said your manipulation of facts don’t change lived experience and truths.

Jujujudo · 01/08/2025 13:23

Here is a story that might help people to understand the true situation. I met a woman while on holiday this summer. When I asked where she was from she told me she was Palestinian. We started chatting and became friends. Her story is that her father was born in a city near the north of Israel which was then the British mandate. He left when he was young with his parents who were told by their community leader to leave while they “sorted out the Jews that had moved into the town” and then they could return. they went to live in Jordan where he met his wife and my friend was born in Amman. When she was in her 20’s she married an Arab man from Dubai and went there to start a family.
My husband’s parents were born in a coastal area of southern Yemen. In 1946, they started imposing taxes on the Jews living there and implementing laws which meant they couldn’t get work or find affordable homes. Eventually in 1948 after Israel was formed his parents and their entire Jewish community were victims of a pogrom by their neighbours. They fled with the clothes on their back (his mother was pregnant) and eventually airlifted to Israel on the “flying carpet” initiative as it wasn’t safe anymore to be in Yemen).
They were given tents to live in initially on grassland which slowly became rebuilt into proper housing. His father built their home with his own hands. They had Arab neighbours at the time, but very quickly they left to Jordan/West Bank because they knew the invading armies were on their way to get rid of their new residents.
Back to my friend. She claims to be Palestinian, she claims she lost her home to Jews and she believes she has a right to citizenship.
By her reasoning, my husband should be given Yemenite citizenship and the right to go back to where his father was born and live there. There’s one problem with that: Jews and Israelis are not permitted to enter Yemen.
I will add to the end of the story - so many of my Jewish friends have grandparents born in Lithuania, Poland, Austria etc who were forceably removed from their homes in the 1930’s. The German army literally took control of their homes, their belongings, including Art, jewellery, money. Everything. Many rebuilt their lives in the UK, US etc.
How come it’s only those who descend from the area that was trans-Jordan/Palestine are the only ones demanding justice or the right to return? Jews aren’t demanding the right to return, their lives depend on it.

BelleHathor · 01/08/2025 14:33

The myth of the "Arab" broadcasts telling Palestinians to flee was debunked in the 1980s:

"Broadcasts"
In this essay, Christopher Hitchens discusses the "broadcast" issue. This relates to whether or not the Palestinian Arab population who were dispossessed were induced or incited to run away by their own leadership during the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. Hitchens refers to Benny Morris´s then newly published article "The Causes and Character of the Arab Exodus from Palestine: The Israel Defense Forces Intelligence Service Analysis of June 1948", which was first published in January 1986 in the Middle Eastern Studies in which Hitchens quotes Morris as saying that the IDF intelligence report 'thoroughly undermines the traditional official Israeli "explanation" of a mass flight ordered or "incited" by the Arab leadership for political-strategic purposes.' (p. 75)

According to Hitchens this confirmation "by an Israeli historian using the most scrupulous and authentic Zionist sources, at last allows us to write finis to a debate which has been going on for a quarter of a century ... between Erskine B. Childers and Jon Kimche."

Hitchens then goes on to describe the exchange of letters between Erskine Childers and Jon Kimche in The Spectator following the publication of Childers' article of 12 May 1961.

Childers wrote of what Hitchens calls "the best-known Israeli propaganda claim" (p. 75) that the Palestinians had been urged to flee by their own leadership:[1]:

"Examining every official Israeli statement about the Arab exodus, I was struck by the fact that no primary evidence of evacuation orders was ever produced. The charge, Israel claimed, was "documented"; but where were the documents? There had allegedly been Arab radio broadcasts ordering the evacuation; but no dates, names of stations, or texts of messages were ever cited. In Israel in 1958, as a guest of the Foreign Office and therefore doubly hopeful of serious assistance, I asked to be shown the proofs, I was assured they existed, and was promised them. None had been offered when I left, but I was again assured. I asked to have the material sent on to me. I am still waiting.
... I met Dr. Leo Kohn, professor of political science at Hebrew University and ... adviser to the Israeli Foreign Office. He had written one of the first official pamphlets on the Arab refugees. I asked him for concrete evidence of the Arab evacuation orders. ... he took up his own pamphlet. "Look at this Economist report," and he pointed to a quotation. "You will surely not suggest that the Economist is a Zionist journal?"
The quotation is one of about five that appear in every Israeli speech and pamphlet, and are in turn used by every sympathetic analysis. It seemed very impressive: it referred to the exodus from Haifa, and to an Arab broadcast order as one major reason for that exodus.
— Erskine Childers (1961). "The Other Exodus", The Spectator"

Hitchens notes that Childers was "intrigued enough" to go on and examine the original (October 2) 1948 issue of the Economist, which had been cited as a source for the claim that Arab evacuation orders had in fact taken place. It turned out that the report, "which made vague reference to announcements made over the air" by the Arab Higher Committee, had been written from Cyprus by a correspondent who had used an uncorroborated Israeli source. Hitchens remarks: "It hardly counted as evidence, let alone first-hand testimony." (p. 76) The essay goes on to examine the rest of Childers' argument, and to agree that Childers had made his case that no such radio announcements were ever made.

Hitchens concludes the essay with the observation that even as he was writing the article, he noticed a full-page advertisement from Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), which said:

In 1948, on the day of the proclamation of the State of Israel, five Arab armies invaded the new country from all sides. In frightful radio broadcasts, they urged the Arabs living there to leave, so that the invading armies could operate without interference.

Hitchens says he wrote to CAMERA on 20 February 1987, asking for an authenticated case of such a broadcast. He did not receive any reply. And he concludes with a prediction:

Even though nobody has ever testified to having heard them, and even though no record of their transmission has ever been found, we shall hear of these orders and broadcasts again and again.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaming_the_Victims

Blaming the Victims - Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaming_the_Victims

Jujujudo · 01/08/2025 15:08

So my friend is lying?

ConscientiousObserver · 01/08/2025 15:36

BelleHathor · 01/08/2025 14:33

The myth of the "Arab" broadcasts telling Palestinians to flee was debunked in the 1980s:

"Broadcasts"
In this essay, Christopher Hitchens discusses the "broadcast" issue. This relates to whether or not the Palestinian Arab population who were dispossessed were induced or incited to run away by their own leadership during the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. Hitchens refers to Benny Morris´s then newly published article "The Causes and Character of the Arab Exodus from Palestine: The Israel Defense Forces Intelligence Service Analysis of June 1948", which was first published in January 1986 in the Middle Eastern Studies in which Hitchens quotes Morris as saying that the IDF intelligence report 'thoroughly undermines the traditional official Israeli "explanation" of a mass flight ordered or "incited" by the Arab leadership for political-strategic purposes.' (p. 75)

According to Hitchens this confirmation "by an Israeli historian using the most scrupulous and authentic Zionist sources, at last allows us to write finis to a debate which has been going on for a quarter of a century ... between Erskine B. Childers and Jon Kimche."

Hitchens then goes on to describe the exchange of letters between Erskine Childers and Jon Kimche in The Spectator following the publication of Childers' article of 12 May 1961.

Childers wrote of what Hitchens calls "the best-known Israeli propaganda claim" (p. 75) that the Palestinians had been urged to flee by their own leadership:[1]:

"Examining every official Israeli statement about the Arab exodus, I was struck by the fact that no primary evidence of evacuation orders was ever produced. The charge, Israel claimed, was "documented"; but where were the documents? There had allegedly been Arab radio broadcasts ordering the evacuation; but no dates, names of stations, or texts of messages were ever cited. In Israel in 1958, as a guest of the Foreign Office and therefore doubly hopeful of serious assistance, I asked to be shown the proofs, I was assured they existed, and was promised them. None had been offered when I left, but I was again assured. I asked to have the material sent on to me. I am still waiting.
... I met Dr. Leo Kohn, professor of political science at Hebrew University and ... adviser to the Israeli Foreign Office. He had written one of the first official pamphlets on the Arab refugees. I asked him for concrete evidence of the Arab evacuation orders. ... he took up his own pamphlet. "Look at this Economist report," and he pointed to a quotation. "You will surely not suggest that the Economist is a Zionist journal?"
The quotation is one of about five that appear in every Israeli speech and pamphlet, and are in turn used by every sympathetic analysis. It seemed very impressive: it referred to the exodus from Haifa, and to an Arab broadcast order as one major reason for that exodus.
— Erskine Childers (1961). "The Other Exodus", The Spectator"

Hitchens notes that Childers was "intrigued enough" to go on and examine the original (October 2) 1948 issue of the Economist, which had been cited as a source for the claim that Arab evacuation orders had in fact taken place. It turned out that the report, "which made vague reference to announcements made over the air" by the Arab Higher Committee, had been written from Cyprus by a correspondent who had used an uncorroborated Israeli source. Hitchens remarks: "It hardly counted as evidence, let alone first-hand testimony." (p. 76) The essay goes on to examine the rest of Childers' argument, and to agree that Childers had made his case that no such radio announcements were ever made.

Hitchens concludes the essay with the observation that even as he was writing the article, he noticed a full-page advertisement from Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), which said:

In 1948, on the day of the proclamation of the State of Israel, five Arab armies invaded the new country from all sides. In frightful radio broadcasts, they urged the Arabs living there to leave, so that the invading armies could operate without interference.

Hitchens says he wrote to CAMERA on 20 February 1987, asking for an authenticated case of such a broadcast. He did not receive any reply. And he concludes with a prediction:

Even though nobody has ever testified to having heard them, and even though no record of their transmission has ever been found, we shall hear of these orders and broadcasts again and again.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaming_the_Victims

Hitchens was an anti-Zionist -

Hitchens argued that instead of supporting Zionism, Jews should help "secularise and reform their own societies", believing that unless one is religious, "what the hell are you doing in the greater Jerusalem area in the first place?" Indeed, Hitchens claimed that the only justification for Zionism given by Jews is a religious one.

As if history hadn’t already proven (and is further proven today) that a Jewish State was justified for the safety of the Jewish people.

This link contains interviews from Palestinian media, including with the present PA chairman, Abbas, stating why Arabs were told to leave. I wonder if Hitchens spoke to any of them?

https://palwatch.org/page/35117

What benefit would there have been to the Arabs to keep evidence of media broadcasts from 40 years earlier to prove the Arab population was told to leave?

OP posts:
Voxon · 01/08/2025 17:29

Jujujudo · 01/08/2025 13:23

Here is a story that might help people to understand the true situation. I met a woman while on holiday this summer. When I asked where she was from she told me she was Palestinian. We started chatting and became friends. Her story is that her father was born in a city near the north of Israel which was then the British mandate. He left when he was young with his parents who were told by their community leader to leave while they “sorted out the Jews that had moved into the town” and then they could return. they went to live in Jordan where he met his wife and my friend was born in Amman. When she was in her 20’s she married an Arab man from Dubai and went there to start a family.
My husband’s parents were born in a coastal area of southern Yemen. In 1946, they started imposing taxes on the Jews living there and implementing laws which meant they couldn’t get work or find affordable homes. Eventually in 1948 after Israel was formed his parents and their entire Jewish community were victims of a pogrom by their neighbours. They fled with the clothes on their back (his mother was pregnant) and eventually airlifted to Israel on the “flying carpet” initiative as it wasn’t safe anymore to be in Yemen).
They were given tents to live in initially on grassland which slowly became rebuilt into proper housing. His father built their home with his own hands. They had Arab neighbours at the time, but very quickly they left to Jordan/West Bank because they knew the invading armies were on their way to get rid of their new residents.
Back to my friend. She claims to be Palestinian, she claims she lost her home to Jews and she believes she has a right to citizenship.
By her reasoning, my husband should be given Yemenite citizenship and the right to go back to where his father was born and live there. There’s one problem with that: Jews and Israelis are not permitted to enter Yemen.
I will add to the end of the story - so many of my Jewish friends have grandparents born in Lithuania, Poland, Austria etc who were forceably removed from their homes in the 1930’s. The German army literally took control of their homes, their belongings, including Art, jewellery, money. Everything. Many rebuilt their lives in the UK, US etc.
How come it’s only those who descend from the area that was trans-Jordan/Palestine are the only ones demanding justice or the right to return? Jews aren’t demanding the right to return, their lives depend on it.

Interesting. I have spoken to many people over the years online with similar stories to your husband, but despite this being on a much larger scale and much more unfair than the nakba - nobody seems to care.

Similarly I met a Palestinian woman a while ago and she was a lovely woman, but wow did she give me an interesting version of events!

She said her grandparents were Egyptian Christians, obviously quite well to do as they spoke many languages and lived in a beautiful home etc, but had moved to British Mandate Palestine in the 1920s so the Father could "import" various things to make money from the booming business due to the economic growth driven by the Jews.

They were both naturalised as British and made Palestinian citizens, so a classic example of people who had not been in Palestine for hundreds of years, but she considers herself regardless to be Palestinian and to have a right of return to a place she's never been and where her parents migrated to for about 20 years. So weird!

Anyway, said that the Father started "working with the British intelligence" in Palestine which is a weird leap from being a wealthy importer, so no idea what she meant but she went on to say they had left Palestine voluntarily after the Jews declared independence as they "didn't feel safe, welcome or comfortable" anymore.

Her grandfather was Egyptian born so considered himself "Arab" and supported the Arab side in the 1948 war and, as most did, anticipated Israel to lose the war. However, I also inferred from the story that it was likely her Grandfather was involved in some way with with the war personally. She mentioned him working in "military intelligence" and so on - but she didn't seem to connect together that maybe the real reason they chose to leave was not because the Jews made Arab Christians unwelcome, but that they had more or less found themselves in a situation where they had tried to perform a violent coup and failed! She just didn't seem to twig that at all!

The really bizarre part though was that she said after they chose to leave Israel in the late 1940s, they returned to Egypt, where her narrative was that Jews and Muslims were living "as equals" and everyone was in harmony. She then described that they fled Egypt a few years later when all the Jews and Brits were kicked out without a shred of recognition.

I found it amazing that her narrative was that Jews, Christians and Muslims were all one big happy family in Egypt when that could not be further from the truth.

Jews were experiencing extreme and horrific persecution, violence, Nuremburg style laws and were even being expelled and murdered. So how did she persuade herself of this obviously false narrative? Maybe it is just what her Grandad told her so she took it as truth?

Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. Christians and Muslims who stayed in Israel went on to become equal members of society and are safe and still there, whereas all 75, 000 were expelled from Egypt, as was her own family too (due to having taken British nationality) but still she seemed to blame only Israel.

Was completely bizarre that such a woman, such a highly educated woman and clearly someone who was not ignorant, could maintain opinions based on so much obvious evidence that her opinion is based on absolute lies and that in reality her family were Egyptians, treated appallingly by Egyptians and that Israel never did anything to them at all!

EasyTouch · 01/08/2025 17:58

Voxon · 01/08/2025 11:37

Analogies are not your strong suit.

White people are not indigenous to Africa. White people have lots of independent states.

A better analogy would be if White people had colonised the entire continent of Africa, and then shat their pants for 100 years because Black people got independence in 0.03% of it.

Now that is a proper analogy! And in regards to the manifestation of the Israeli state and the fact that Arabs colonised so much of the Middle East, including Palestine and further on, for being the youngest of the Troika of Abrahamic religions, Islam colonised the whole of the Middle East , stifles or genocides minority groups and is via Islamism looking to obliterate Israel, because Arabs or Muslims do not run one tiny area of the whole of the otherwise Muslim run Middle East. And the Islamism runs right up to Albania, part of Cyprus and all of European Turkey! So that makes the the Westernmost part of mainland Europe a ferry ride to Islamic countries with South East Europe consisting of at least three Muslim countries and just across the way from the Islamic Middle East.

Funny how Arab and Muslim colonialism does not attract the same energy that the presence of Modern Israel does...and from the same posse that claims to hate imperialism, racism, slavery which are all high and low key cultural/ political tenets of Muslim Middle Eastern culture.

And was the blue print used by the Whiter Europeans in their foray into Sub Sahara African slave trading.
A path first well furrowed by Muslim Arabs.

This after Spain and them managed to kick out the Muslim Arab invaders from their lands after centuries of rule.

But just as with the British subcontinent colonialism's " but we left them the railways and Civil Service", it's " but the beautiful minarets!" When it comes to Spain.
Quiet as a church mouse on West and non Horner Arab Muslim enslavement of Black Africans.....

As for the contrived demarcating of Jews as White and Arabs/ Muslim Middle Easterners as Brown when I have yet to meet a non Black " typical" Middle Easterner and so many North Africans who seriously classes themselves as non White or is not at pains to differentiate between themselves and Black Arabs and Africans ( non Horner) is dryly amusing to me and always has been.

Voxon · 01/08/2025 18:11

BelleHathor · 01/08/2025 14:33

The myth of the "Arab" broadcasts telling Palestinians to flee was debunked in the 1980s:

"Broadcasts"
In this essay, Christopher Hitchens discusses the "broadcast" issue. This relates to whether or not the Palestinian Arab population who were dispossessed were induced or incited to run away by their own leadership during the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. Hitchens refers to Benny Morris´s then newly published article "The Causes and Character of the Arab Exodus from Palestine: The Israel Defense Forces Intelligence Service Analysis of June 1948", which was first published in January 1986 in the Middle Eastern Studies in which Hitchens quotes Morris as saying that the IDF intelligence report 'thoroughly undermines the traditional official Israeli "explanation" of a mass flight ordered or "incited" by the Arab leadership for political-strategic purposes.' (p. 75)

According to Hitchens this confirmation "by an Israeli historian using the most scrupulous and authentic Zionist sources, at last allows us to write finis to a debate which has been going on for a quarter of a century ... between Erskine B. Childers and Jon Kimche."

Hitchens then goes on to describe the exchange of letters between Erskine Childers and Jon Kimche in The Spectator following the publication of Childers' article of 12 May 1961.

Childers wrote of what Hitchens calls "the best-known Israeli propaganda claim" (p. 75) that the Palestinians had been urged to flee by their own leadership:[1]:

"Examining every official Israeli statement about the Arab exodus, I was struck by the fact that no primary evidence of evacuation orders was ever produced. The charge, Israel claimed, was "documented"; but where were the documents? There had allegedly been Arab radio broadcasts ordering the evacuation; but no dates, names of stations, or texts of messages were ever cited. In Israel in 1958, as a guest of the Foreign Office and therefore doubly hopeful of serious assistance, I asked to be shown the proofs, I was assured they existed, and was promised them. None had been offered when I left, but I was again assured. I asked to have the material sent on to me. I am still waiting.
... I met Dr. Leo Kohn, professor of political science at Hebrew University and ... adviser to the Israeli Foreign Office. He had written one of the first official pamphlets on the Arab refugees. I asked him for concrete evidence of the Arab evacuation orders. ... he took up his own pamphlet. "Look at this Economist report," and he pointed to a quotation. "You will surely not suggest that the Economist is a Zionist journal?"
The quotation is one of about five that appear in every Israeli speech and pamphlet, and are in turn used by every sympathetic analysis. It seemed very impressive: it referred to the exodus from Haifa, and to an Arab broadcast order as one major reason for that exodus.
— Erskine Childers (1961). "The Other Exodus", The Spectator"

Hitchens notes that Childers was "intrigued enough" to go on and examine the original (October 2) 1948 issue of the Economist, which had been cited as a source for the claim that Arab evacuation orders had in fact taken place. It turned out that the report, "which made vague reference to announcements made over the air" by the Arab Higher Committee, had been written from Cyprus by a correspondent who had used an uncorroborated Israeli source. Hitchens remarks: "It hardly counted as evidence, let alone first-hand testimony." (p. 76) The essay goes on to examine the rest of Childers' argument, and to agree that Childers had made his case that no such radio announcements were ever made.

Hitchens concludes the essay with the observation that even as he was writing the article, he noticed a full-page advertisement from Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), which said:

In 1948, on the day of the proclamation of the State of Israel, five Arab armies invaded the new country from all sides. In frightful radio broadcasts, they urged the Arabs living there to leave, so that the invading armies could operate without interference.

Hitchens says he wrote to CAMERA on 20 February 1987, asking for an authenticated case of such a broadcast. He did not receive any reply. And he concludes with a prediction:

Even though nobody has ever testified to having heard them, and even though no record of their transmission has ever been found, we shall hear of these orders and broadcasts again and again.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaming_the_Victims

I searched quite a lot and couldn't find any evidence of a coordinated approach to Arabs being told to flee, although there was certainly some towns / villages that were told this and there's Palestinian witnesses who can be found telling their stories online.

What happened is pretty obvious factually because there's historical evidence that supports it.

The Jewish people were trying to establish independence in Israel and the Arab people didn't want them to.

The first serious proposal for sharing the land was made in the 1930s and that was rejected by the Arabs even though it gave them 80% almost all of which had no Arabs living on it.

In fairness, I don't actually blame them for that. They had just suffered a humiliating loss of their empire and had a foreign non-Muslim government arrive and tell them what to do and they reacted angrily at it as potentially most people would have done.

Add into that, for 600 years their empire had ruled the whole region, and their culture was based significantly on the ideology that Muslims were superior to others, something that were not accustomed to having challenged. They had been superior by law to Jews and others, who were their "dhimmi"- much in the way white people would have felt superior to Black people in old Alabama - it was deeply ingrained.

It wasn't possible in their collective psyche for them to say "well the Jews were here first and we did take their land originally so maybe it's fair if they have a little of it for their own" because that was completely against their entire ideology of life. So they revolted very violently to it, beset on the idea that absolutely no Jewish sovereignty could ever be accepted on land that in their minds was "Muslim" owned.

At the same time, there was a small number of Jews in the zionist movement, who had been trying for a long time to get Jewish statehood for a variety of very fair reasons. Some also saw Israel as their ancestral home, for which in fairness their is a very solid set of historical supporting evidence.

There was a greater number of Jews who were not really political or "zionists" but were left with largely fuck all choice, because they had been persecuted and exterminated almost entirely in Europe and then persecuted pretty horrifically in their homes around the middle east too. So whatever way the cake was sliced, they had to have somewhere to live.

Had Arabs not persecuted Jews around the MENA region in the 40s and 50s I am honestly not sure Israel would have taken off, as most people would prefer not to leave their homes, businesses and possessions and flee somewhere with nothing but if you are backed into a corner, what are you supposed to do? They knew what happened in Germany so they understandably sought safety.

Moreover, I'd imagine there was a shift in the collective Jewish psyche where they saw Nazi antisemitism and it's consequences in Europe, and then saw similar spreading like wildfire around their homes in the middle east and I'd guess many just came to a point of realising independence was probably their only chance for safety, given how unhinged the world seems to become around Jews.

So I have empathy for both sides here. But what is certainly true is that Israel / the Jews didn't set out to expel Arabs or anyone else. But there were circumstances that made peaceful coexistence impossible.

Violence towards Jews had been ongoing for decades. People often cite the Jewish terrorism that began much later on, but for 18 years prior to that, there had been more than 60 Arab terror attacks against Jews - some were horrifically brutal and if you do that for 18 years I do think it means peaceful coexistence becomes very hard.

When the state of Israel became a reality, there was a war. A civil war was started in 1947 after the UN declaration, and over that time there was very violent fighting on both sides. Both sides were trying to expel each other. And then once Israel announced it's statehood the civil war turned into an international one - 5 Arab Armies vs Israel.

I think people forget the Jews did at least try peace. Not least because I imagine they thoroughly expected to not survive an Araba attack. The quote I always remember is this one:

"We appeal – in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the building of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions."

This comes from the Israeli Declaration of Independence, proclaimed on May 14, 1948. It was read aloud by Ben-Gurion. And it reflects the collective stance of the provisional government, which was a stark contrast to the Arab one which was promising a war of annihilation. The Arabs invaded 4 hours later, I believe.

I think the truth of the matter is what I have said above, and while I do not see any evidence to support that Palestinians were told en masse to evacuate, what I do think is true is that...

Some were told to evacuate - probably isolated groups
Wealthy Arabs moved as soon as any war started because it just wasn't safe
Many left out of fear
Many left because they didn't want to be ruled by Jews
Many left because they were forcibly displaced.

It's important to understand all of this in the context of war, not as a deliberate planned policy to expel people. The Nakba was a tragic outcome, but it occurred during a violent conflict. By contrast, the Jews who were expelled or driven out of Arab countries weren’t at war with those nations. They were targeted solely because they were Jewish. In my view, there’s no moral equivalency here - the expulsion of Jews from across the Middle East was a far greater injustice because there was no conflict involved.

What’s often overlooked is that, in the years that followed, Israel - despite relentless hostility and threat from the Arab and Muslim world - made a real effort to create a state that offered a home to both Jews and Muslims. And it did this more successfully than any other regional government has managed. They get no credit for that.

What I find most disappointing is when people are so blinded by anti-Israel bias that they cast Jews as the villains of the story, without any grasp of the full historical context that really in 1948 probably nobody was a villain.

The Jewish aspiration for statehood was entirely reasonable. There is overwhelming historical, religious, and cultural evidence of their deep and continuous connection to the land. Their holiest sites are there. They were indigenous to the region. And after millennia of persecution - culminating in the near-destruction of European Jewry - they had every justification to seek the same rights to independence and security as any other people.

They did not, and had never had the option to live freely, safely and equally in their lands when ruled by Muslims - that was already proven and was never, ever, ever offered to them.

Of course, this wasn’t fair to every Palestinian. But it also wasn’t fair to every Jew, every Christian, or every one of the millions of displaced and wronged people across the world in the 20th century.

What matters is that the cause of Jewish statehood was justified, morally sound, and a far more balanced outcome than allowing the entire Middle East to be claimed exclusively by Arab states while Jews were left with nowhere at all.

People just have to come to that and settle on making peace.

dairydebris · 01/08/2025 18:22

Voxon · 01/08/2025 18:11

I searched quite a lot and couldn't find any evidence of a coordinated approach to Arabs being told to flee, although there was certainly some towns / villages that were told this and there's Palestinian witnesses who can be found telling their stories online.

What happened is pretty obvious factually because there's historical evidence that supports it.

The Jewish people were trying to establish independence in Israel and the Arab people didn't want them to.

The first serious proposal for sharing the land was made in the 1930s and that was rejected by the Arabs even though it gave them 80% almost all of which had no Arabs living on it.

In fairness, I don't actually blame them for that. They had just suffered a humiliating loss of their empire and had a foreign non-Muslim government arrive and tell them what to do and they reacted angrily at it as potentially most people would have done.

Add into that, for 600 years their empire had ruled the whole region, and their culture was based significantly on the ideology that Muslims were superior to others, something that were not accustomed to having challenged. They had been superior by law to Jews and others, who were their "dhimmi"- much in the way white people would have felt superior to Black people in old Alabama - it was deeply ingrained.

It wasn't possible in their collective psyche for them to say "well the Jews were here first and we did take their land originally so maybe it's fair if they have a little of it for their own" because that was completely against their entire ideology of life. So they revolted very violently to it, beset on the idea that absolutely no Jewish sovereignty could ever be accepted on land that in their minds was "Muslim" owned.

At the same time, there was a small number of Jews in the zionist movement, who had been trying for a long time to get Jewish statehood for a variety of very fair reasons. Some also saw Israel as their ancestral home, for which in fairness their is a very solid set of historical supporting evidence.

There was a greater number of Jews who were not really political or "zionists" but were left with largely fuck all choice, because they had been persecuted and exterminated almost entirely in Europe and then persecuted pretty horrifically in their homes around the middle east too. So whatever way the cake was sliced, they had to have somewhere to live.

Had Arabs not persecuted Jews around the MENA region in the 40s and 50s I am honestly not sure Israel would have taken off, as most people would prefer not to leave their homes, businesses and possessions and flee somewhere with nothing but if you are backed into a corner, what are you supposed to do? They knew what happened in Germany so they understandably sought safety.

Moreover, I'd imagine there was a shift in the collective Jewish psyche where they saw Nazi antisemitism and it's consequences in Europe, and then saw similar spreading like wildfire around their homes in the middle east and I'd guess many just came to a point of realising independence was probably their only chance for safety, given how unhinged the world seems to become around Jews.

So I have empathy for both sides here. But what is certainly true is that Israel / the Jews didn't set out to expel Arabs or anyone else. But there were circumstances that made peaceful coexistence impossible.

Violence towards Jews had been ongoing for decades. People often cite the Jewish terrorism that began much later on, but for 18 years prior to that, there had been more than 60 Arab terror attacks against Jews - some were horrifically brutal and if you do that for 18 years I do think it means peaceful coexistence becomes very hard.

When the state of Israel became a reality, there was a war. A civil war was started in 1947 after the UN declaration, and over that time there was very violent fighting on both sides. Both sides were trying to expel each other. And then once Israel announced it's statehood the civil war turned into an international one - 5 Arab Armies vs Israel.

I think people forget the Jews did at least try peace. Not least because I imagine they thoroughly expected to not survive an Araba attack. The quote I always remember is this one:

"We appeal – in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the building of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions."

This comes from the Israeli Declaration of Independence, proclaimed on May 14, 1948. It was read aloud by Ben-Gurion. And it reflects the collective stance of the provisional government, which was a stark contrast to the Arab one which was promising a war of annihilation. The Arabs invaded 4 hours later, I believe.

I think the truth of the matter is what I have said above, and while I do not see any evidence to support that Palestinians were told en masse to evacuate, what I do think is true is that...

Some were told to evacuate - probably isolated groups
Wealthy Arabs moved as soon as any war started because it just wasn't safe
Many left out of fear
Many left because they didn't want to be ruled by Jews
Many left because they were forcibly displaced.

It's important to understand all of this in the context of war, not as a deliberate planned policy to expel people. The Nakba was a tragic outcome, but it occurred during a violent conflict. By contrast, the Jews who were expelled or driven out of Arab countries weren’t at war with those nations. They were targeted solely because they were Jewish. In my view, there’s no moral equivalency here - the expulsion of Jews from across the Middle East was a far greater injustice because there was no conflict involved.

What’s often overlooked is that, in the years that followed, Israel - despite relentless hostility and threat from the Arab and Muslim world - made a real effort to create a state that offered a home to both Jews and Muslims. And it did this more successfully than any other regional government has managed. They get no credit for that.

What I find most disappointing is when people are so blinded by anti-Israel bias that they cast Jews as the villains of the story, without any grasp of the full historical context that really in 1948 probably nobody was a villain.

The Jewish aspiration for statehood was entirely reasonable. There is overwhelming historical, religious, and cultural evidence of their deep and continuous connection to the land. Their holiest sites are there. They were indigenous to the region. And after millennia of persecution - culminating in the near-destruction of European Jewry - they had every justification to seek the same rights to independence and security as any other people.

They did not, and had never had the option to live freely, safely and equally in their lands when ruled by Muslims - that was already proven and was never, ever, ever offered to them.

Of course, this wasn’t fair to every Palestinian. But it also wasn’t fair to every Jew, every Christian, or every one of the millions of displaced and wronged people across the world in the 20th century.

What matters is that the cause of Jewish statehood was justified, morally sound, and a far more balanced outcome than allowing the entire Middle East to be claimed exclusively by Arab states while Jews were left with nowhere at all.

People just have to come to that and settle on making peace.

👏👏👏👏👏

Noeasyanswer · 01/08/2025 18:52

I recommend the book My Promised Land by the Israeli journalist, Ari Shavit. He is a Zionist.

His research is that from the beginning (early 20c) there was a divide in Zionism, between those who believed that there could be coexistence between Jews and Palestinians and those who believe that to be a Jewish state, the existing inhabitants needed to be forced out.

Initial immigration happened peacefully, but after the Balfour Declaration there was totally understandable disquiet about mass Jewish immigration which explicitly intended to turn Palestine into a Jewish state.

Can one imagine if there was mass immigration into England by people (say descendants of the Plymouth Brethren) who claimed that they wanted to establish a Brethren state? How do you think you would feel?

In the 1930s, there were skirmishes between Jews and Arabs, and then active terrorist attacks by both sides. Jewish terror groups (Irgun, Stern gang) sought to establish a state. Some leaders organised youth training to prepare for what they saw as an inevitable war.

When the British withdrew, some zionists (but not all) saw it is an opportunity to solve the 'arab problem'. Shavit cites a massacre of the town of Lydda. Israel could not exist with a Palestinian town in its centre and so Lydda had to go.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/10/21/lydda-1948

Lydda, 1948

A city, a massacre, and the Middle East today.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/10/21/lydda-1948

Noeasyanswer · 01/08/2025 19:08

Shavit's book reminded me of 'Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee' which told the story of native Americans. They faced successive waves of European immigration and were displaced.

Whenever hot-headed youths struck back at being pushed off their land, there was a cry that these people were 'savages', and then they were attacked with many times the ferocity and the opportunity used to take more land.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page