Goalpost alert because you were about to move them? Thanks for the head's up.
Goalpost alert because you showed covet and used that to supposedly prove seize.
I did no such thing. I responded to your inane comments about how the Palestinians 'should have' developed their land. You know that there was significant economic development in Palestine in the decades preceding the founding of Israel. You know that the Zionist leadership openly coveted the most productive land and businesses. You know that with the implementation of Plan Dalet and other pre-planned actions at the founding of Israel, those areas and the means of maintaining them were secured for the new Jewish State.
You're not this ignorant.
You're talking about Israel when I specifically said Zionists while referring to the time before and during the establishment of the State of Israel. Zionists openly coveted the developed land in Palestine and they made plans to seize them, plans which they carried out to the best of their ability at Israel's founding.
Any halfway competent military makes plans for what to do if the fertilizer gets in the air mover.
Exactly!
The Zionist leadership planned for a secure, defensible State that had the economic resources necessary to bring in the cash it needed to survive. The Jewish Agency also planned to remove the Palestinians from the communities and farmland it coveted, by force if necessary. Some of them, most notably Ben Gurion and Moshe Dayan, spoke openly about killing and maiming Palestinians who tried to return to their homes and/or harvest their crops.
You know all this. Stop pretending you don't.
Also, what you said about Israel never taking land unless it was attacked is untrue. You know as well as I do that Israel struck first in 1967 and used that war as justification for grabbing Jerusalem and much of the West Bank.
1) The Arabs were preparing for war. Even if Israel actually fired the first shot they didn't start it.
2) That's moot anyway because the first act of war was committed by Egypt--namely, a naval blockade. It is legally acceptable to respond to a naval blockade by shooting at the country that imposed it.
Bedouin lived there. Muslim Arab Bedouin. Making it part of Israel was a blatant give-away to the European immigrants who wanted to establish a port at the southern tip. It completely disregarded the interests of the indigenous population. Hell, it pretty much ignored their very existence, just like you do.
It's not the Bedouin that are attacking Israel.
You're not this ignorant. They were thinly scattered because the Zionist settlers throughout much of Palestine were living in small, isolated outposts scattered among well populated towns and cities full of indigenous Palestinians. The only area where Jews outnumbered non-Jews was in the vicinity of Tel Aviv, and that was entirely due to the recent arrival of thousands of European immigrants.
That's not what the maps I've seen showed.
Not true, as you well know. The Zionist immigrants of the 1920s and 1930s hadn't been attacked by anyone except maybe the British Police Force, but guys like Menachim Begin and Yitzhak Shamir were certainly using guns, grenades, and bombs to kill Palestinians.
And once again you ignore the acts of the Arabs. Look at the history, plenty of attacks on the Jews.
But now that the Palestinians have been attacked you approve of them getting guns and using them, correct? Because they should react to that existential threat the way the Jews did? You should maybe tell that to Derec. He seems to get pretty upset when Palestinians act like Lehi and Irgun goons.
The Palestinians have never faced an existential threat.
The Palestinians weren't organized, weren't well funded, and for the most part weren't armed. They were entirely incapable of withstanding the onslaught of Zionists flooding out of Europe with the specific intention of creating their own State in Palestine.
Nobody was well funded or armed.
The Zionists were well enough funded to have large shipments of arms and other supplies coming into ports like Haifa in the 1940s. Palestinians had nothing even close to that.
Evidence?
The Arms Ships
I asked for evidence of "large shipments".
Did you read the linked article all the way to the end? It doesn't look like you did.
As you said, any halfway competent military makes plans for what to do if the fertilizer gets in the air mover. So what exactly are you disputing here? Are you disputing that the Haganah and Irgun were halfway competent, or are you disputing that the Jewish Agency arranged for arms shipments? Or are you merely disputing how large 'large' is?
The
Altalena carried thousands of rifles, millions of bullets, and various other weapons and supplies. Is that 'large'? I'd say so.
And note that the source you provide says they needed them to avoid being massacred. You're defending a group you know seeks to commit genocide.
I agree. Palestine should have been left intact and helped to become an independent State with respect, justice, and fair dealings for all, not a region divided along religious and ethnic lines. But the bigots wouldn't stand for it, and now their bigotry has become entrenched.
It's divided because the Muslims have a genocidal reaction to lands they consider conquered coming under non-Muslim rule.
They declared it. Israel didn't recognize it. So now they are busy at the UN getting their official recognition as a State through a different channel.
Declared it where?
If you think you can support your assertion, please do.
Here is the article on Plan Dalet at the Jewish Virtual Library. Please point out the part about it being a contingency plan rather than a plan to gain as much valuable territory as possible when the War of Independence began.
What you're missing is that that was a contingency plan in case of Arab attack.
What do you mean when you call it a contingency plan?
Are you saying that forcibly seizing land and infrastructure and driving out the non-Jewish Palestinians was only going to be done if they didn't surrender their property and leave willingly? That was the plan all along. The Transfer Committee of the Jewish Agency understood that the Palestinians weren't going to be willing participants in the ethnic cleansing of the proposed Jewish State. They made their plans to force out the non-Jews long before the UN even existed.
You know this. So what's the deal with calling it a 'contingency plan'? It was the main plan for almost 20 years.
But you seem to feel no atrocity against the Jews is a bad thing
Ad Hominem, and untrue.
But I wonder if there's a bit of projection in there. You seem to feel no atrocity against the Palestinians is a bad thing. You consistently defend, ignore, or obfuscate the worst examples of inhumane treatment and state-sponsored bigotry against them. Is that what you think my posting style shows? Because I think my posting style is heavy on facts and properly sourced information, and focused on the human rights of the people caught up in this conflict.
IMO an atrocity is an atrocity no matter who is doing it to whom. I don't think you agree. I think you decide if something is an atrocity based on whether Jews are the targets or the perpetrators.
