Truth is in the details. One of the ways lawyers break down a witness who is not telling the truth is to get into factual details . Human beings do not have a tendency to come up with stories that have rich narrative detail. So if a witness is asked about a detail they have not rehearsed they have to think about an answer. The more details they are asked about the more likely they will say something that will contradict a part of their story. Or they will, to be safe, just keep saying they can't remember--of course, that answer has its own problems because it may not be believable that a person would forget so many important details.
And historical interpretation is similar. I want details and more details. It's easy to pick out one event or statement to support a particular historical interpretation but a narrative supported by extensive factual content is more compelling to me. If you want to show that most Palestinians were forced out, then details are very important. One point that it is not even disputed is that the wealthy, the elite of the Palestinian community, left early on. How did that effect the rest of the Palestinian community? How did Palestinian society hold up after the British left and many of the educated and wealthy left? Dates and places of Palestinian communities that were allegedly forced need to be identified. You want to prove something? Then come up with the details. Why hasn't a Palestinian historian done extensive oral histories to find out all the places where Palestinians were allegedly forced out?

rickyp wrote:freeman3

Ricky.If Israel evicted all Palestinians from a town or even many you might have an argument. Evicting a few does not qualify.

Like i said. they evict a few at a time... Over time, as they annex more suburbs, more security zones ...it adds up.
Its the same thing, because the result is the same. No more Arabs where there used to be Arabs.

In some ways I agree with you. The Palestinians do have shrinking prospects as time goes on.

Based on this you would think that they would grab a deal now because next year's deal will be worse ... I think their pride prevents them from grabbing a deal now. It is much worse than they think they deserve; it is certainly worse than what many in the world tell them they do deserve. It's quite a pickle since Palestinian expectations are way in excess of their negotiating position. Deals are very uncommon in those situations. Any good Diplomacy player realizes that.

The 1967 quote from Abba Eban quoted by Mr. Hertz is very interesting:

This is the first war in history which has ... the vanquished calling for unconditional surrender.

Hamas rejecting several cease fires has a similar eerie quality to it. I left out the "victors suing for peace" part because it no longer rings true to me. The Israelis are no longer suing for peace even though many (e.g. Ricky) think they should.

freeman3

Have you proven your assertion that Israel has driven Palestinians out of significant geographic areas through evictions

.
Actually those quotations were to prove that evictions are continuing.
If you want proof that West Bank evacuations were significant...

Parts of the barrier are built on land seized from Palestinians,[63][68] or between Palestinians and their lands[69] In a 2009 report, the UN said that the most recent barrier route allocates more segments to be built on the Green Line itself compared to previous draft routes of the barrier. However, in its current route the barrier is annexing 9.5% of the total area of the West Bank to the Israeli side of the barrier.[70]

In early 2003, 63 shops straddling the Green Line were demolished by the IDF during construction of the wall in the village of Nazlat Issa.[71][72] In August 2003, an additional 115 shops and stalls (an important source of income for several communities) and five to seven homes there were also demolished.[73][74]
According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), 15 communities were to be directly affected, numbering approximately 138,593 Palestinians, including 13,450 refugee families, or 67,250 individuals. In addition to loss of land, in the city of Qalqilyah one-third of the city's water wells lie on the other side of the barrier. The Israeli Supreme Court says the Israeli government's rejection of accusations of a de facto annexation of these wells, stating that "the construction of the fence does not affect the implementation of the water agreements determined in the (interim) agreement".[18]
The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) estimates that in the north of the West Bank approximately 80 per cent of Palestinians who own land on the other side of the barrier have not received permits from the Israeli authorities, and hence cannot cultivate their fields.[75]

freeman3

And historical interpretation is similar. I want details and more details. It's easy to pick out one event or statement to support a particular historical interpretation but a narrative supported by extensive factual content is more compelling to me. If you want to show that most Palestinians were forced out, then details are very important

But you chose to accept the details provided by a chairman of AIPAC.
The original narative about the Palestinian expulsion/evacuation and the war had Israel as an out gunned, out manned army fighting for its survival.
In reality the situation was not so dire. The enemy was poorly organized, poorly equipped, poorly lead, and nothing was coordinated between all the component armies.. And since no engagement was actually fought in Israel proper, its hard to accept the premsie that israel was invaded and fighting for survival.
I accept that history is in the details. But its only in recent years that documents revealed much of the discrepancies between the original Israelis accounts of the expulsions/evacuation and israelis records.
And the Palestinian accounts were never accepted as an alternative by western media or govenrments.
If you read Roman accounts of the Ben Kochbar revolt your get a whole different view of Jews than if you read Jewish accounts. Its really no different in 1949 or even today....
In the recent Gaza conflict the IDF kept claiming that Hamas was hiding behind civilians... Amnesty International disputed this.... And yet the narrative that wins out in the west is "hidng behind women and children".
I think my point is Freeman, tha what we often get is Israelis press... And the Palstinians have lousy press agents.
What is pretty clear, just by looking at geography, is that almost 10% of the West Bank have been seized from Palestinians or placed behind security fences.... and the occupants forced off. You don't want to call this ethnic cleansing....
I think it fits the definition even if it is done incrementally.

ray

The Israelis are no longer suing for peace even though many (e.g. Ricky) think they should.

Why aren't they "suing for peace"?
Because the calculation is that they gain more, by frustrating attempts at a resolution. And because they calculate the costs for continuing a situation that leads to intermittent violence that costs a few Israelis lives and many Palestinians lives and continued suffering for Palestinians in their occupied state as minimal.
Is that a moral postion?

Ricky:

In reality the situation was not so dire. The enemy was poorly organized, poorly equipped, poorly lead, and nothing was coordinated between all the component armies..

You've gone off the deep end with your revisionist history. The reality is that a tiny country that was just formed, was poorly equipped and facing an arms embargo, and had a large part of its population aligned against it with several surrounding armed countries with something like 50X its population and a greater percentage of military equipment who were saying that they want to kill all Jews in the new country. Israel survived against all odds. It was a modern day miracle.

Now you can say the enemy was poorly everything. But then ... OMG ... the Israelis were scared for all of their lives.

rickyp wrote:ray

The Israelis are no longer suing for peace even though many (e.g. Ricky) think they should.

Why aren't they "suing for peace"?
Because the calculation is that they gain more, by frustrating attempts at a resolution. And because they calculate the costs for continuing a situation that leads to intermittent violence that costs a few Israelis lives and many Palestinians lives and continued suffering for Palestinians in their occupied state as minimal.
Is that a moral postion?

It's moral to defend your population. The Israelis are not suing for peace because they won the 48 war and the 67 war and all of the conflicts since. The Palestinians have shown themselves to be bad actors and there is no reason why the Israelis should trust them. There is no reason why Israel should return to 9 mile borders.

I think that Israel will annex more land in the West Bank as time goes on. It is time for the Palestinians to sue for peace. That's what you do when you lose wars. The encouragement to do otherwise is part of the problem.

Ricky:

Ben Kochbar

His name was Bar Kokhba. Bar means son in Aramaic; Ben means son in Hebrew.

ray

It was a modern day miracle.

The role of history-writing in producing a unifying national myth has been especially pronounced in Israel.

rickyp wrote:ray

It was a modern day miracle.

The role of history-writing in producing a unifying national myth has been especially pronounced in Israel.

Right. And you know that because you've done an extensive study of objective truth (as determined by your non-biased view) vs. national belief for all countries and can make that determination with full objectivity and authority.

Ricky, you're just quoting from Palestinian biased sources without any analysis of whether they are reasonable or comparison with other sources. That is not convincing... And the Palestinians are adept out in getting out their story, so I really don't know what you mean by Israel having better press agents. How do you think you got your sympathy for the Palestinians?
I think you have the causation all wrong. You appear to think that Israel has been this extremely powerful country and it is simply making calculations as to how much it can wrest away from the Palestinians before an ultimate deal is made. As for the Palestinians, you appear to think that they are primarily upset with Israel at how they have been treated under the Occupation.
But Israel has only relatively recently become that powerful. Ultimately, their power is based on a strong economy which it took a while to build. Remember, the 1973 war was a near thing for Israel.
As for the Palestinians you are dreaming if you think you they are going to be satisfied if Israel starts acting nicely towards them. They don't hate Israel because of what has happened under Occupation, they hate Israel because it won the war in 1947-1949 and the Palestinians did not get all of Palestine. Israeli heavy-handedness in the West Bank does not (at least primarily) cause Palestinian terrorism (that stems from 1947-1949). Israeli heavy-handedness has been caused primarily by Palestinian terrorism. That is how the causation goes here.
I saw this in a German newspaper describing the Middle East: "In Nahen Osten gilt seit Langer Zeit: Jeder gegen Jeden und alle gegen Israel." Which in my rudimentary German I think means for a long time in the Middle East it's been each against each and all against Israel. That's what Israel faces.

Ricky:

The original narative about the Palestinian expulsion/evacuation and the war had Israel as an out gunned, out manned army fighting for its survival.
In reality the situation was not so dire. The enemy was poorly organized, poorly equipped, poorly lead, and nothing was coordinated between all the component armies.. And since no engagement was actually fought in Israel proper, its hard to accept the premsie that israel was invaded and fighting for survival.
I accept that history is in the details.

Per Wikipedia:

Initial line-up of forces

Military assessments

On the eve of war, the Palestinians hardly existed as a military force.[81] The British Intelligence and Arab League military reached similar conclusions.[82]

The British Foreign Ministry and C.I.A believed that the Arab States would finally win in case of war.[83][84] Martin Van Creveld says that in terms of manpower, the sides were fairly evenly matched.[85]

In May The Egyptians generals told their government that the invasion will be “A parade without any risks” and Tel Aviv “in two weeks”.[86] Egypt, Iraq, and Syria all possessed air forces, Egypt and Syria had tanks, and all had some modern artillery.[87] Initially, the Haganah had no heavy machine guns, artillery, armored vehicles, anti-tank or anti-aircraft weapons,[45] nor military aircraft or tanks.[40] The four Arab armies that invaded on 15 May were far stronger than the Haganah formations they initially encountered [88]

On 12 May, three days before the invasion, David Ben-Gurion was told by his chief military advisers (who over-estimated the size of the Arab armies and the numbers and efficiency of the troops who would be committed — much as the Arab generals tended to exaggerate Jewish troops strength) that Israel's chances of winning a war against the Arab states were only about even.[87]

Ricky:

And since no engagement was actually fought in Israel proper

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 10.svg.png

from your source ray:

By the end of 1948, the Israel Defense Forces had 88,033 soldiers, including 60,000 combat soldiers

.

On the eve of the war, the available number of Arab troops likely to be committed to war was between 23,000-20,000 (10,000 Egyptians, 4,500 Jordanians, 3,000 Iraqis, 6-3,000 Syrians, 2,000 ALA volunteers, 1,000 Lebanese, and several hundred Saudis), in addition to the irregular Palestinians already present. Prior to the war, Arab forces had been trained by British and French instructors. This was particularly true of Jordan's Arab Legion under command of Lt Gen Sir John Glubb.

According to Benny Morris, by the end of 1947, the Palestinians "had a healthy and demoralising respect for the Yishuv's military power" and if it came to battle the Palestinians expected to lose.
By March 1948, the effective number of Arab combatants numbered 12,000.[52] The Yishuv had a numerical superiorit

The other problem witht he story of a bealguered Israelis force, hopelessly out numbered, is that the best forces the Arbas had were the Jordanians. And Abdullah had already made a deal with the israelis not to invade Israel. He wanted the west bank for jordan. . Plus there's was constant infighting amongst the Arabs over leadership.

I'm not saying that the Israelis did not achieve a great victory. I'm just saying that it wasn't the miracle that its presented as....
Just as I've said that the disappearance of up to 700,000 Palestinians from lands they occupied was an expulsion, not simply them all deciding to leave.

Well, clearly some were forced out and some left voluntarily. The issue really is the proportions of each and whether whatever expulsions there were happened ad hoc or were done pursuant to an overall plan. You can believe what you want to believe but if you want to convince other people you need to marshall facts, evidence , convincing arguments. So, apparently you believe that the 700,00 left primarily due to expulsions as part of an overall ethnic cleansing plan so make your case.