WN: Vatican signs first treaty with 'State of Palestine'

[thereselittleflower]

 

 

But I must ask, PLEASE be careful of throwing around the "antisemetic" accusation.  I have seen it used way too often and way to carelessly all over the internet as an inappropriate way to silence and invalidate opinions and sources that do not agree with the typical zionist viewpoint .  

 

 

Here is one antisemetic comment.

 

 

It harkens to an antisemetic view.

 

 

If the purpose is to be critical of actions of another, i don't see how it could be construed as anti semitic.

[Steve_S]

 

 

 

But I must ask, PLEASE be careful of throwing around the "antisemetic" accusation.  I have seen it used way too often and way to carelessly all over the internet as an inappropriate way to silence and invalidate opinions and sources that do not agree with the typical zionist viewpoint .  

 

 

Here is one antisemetic comment.

 

 

It harkens to an antisemetic view.

 

 

If the purpose is to be critical of actions of another, i don't see how it could be construed as anti semitic.

 

 

I don't see how the statement in question could be quantified in any meaningful way - "most very rich bankers are american and jewish"? What does that even mean? Has this person taken a survey of some sort of wealthy bankers and using some sort of scientifically grounded statistical approach determined that they're all jewish and american? The historical precedents for people complaining about "jews" having too much money go in an incredibly bad direction.

[thereselittleflower]

 

 

 

 

But I must ask, PLEASE be careful of throwing around the "antisemetic" accusation.  I have seen it used way too often and way to carelessly all over the internet as an inappropriate way to silence and invalidate opinions and sources that do not agree with the typical zionist viewpoint .  

 

 

Here is one antisemetic comment.

 

 

It harkens to an antisemetic view.

 

 

If the purpose is to be critical of actions of another, i don't see how it could be construed as anti semitic.

 

 

I don't see how the statement in question could be quantified in any meaningful way - "most very rich bankers are american and jewish"? What does that even mean? Has this person taken a survey of some sort of wealthy bankers and using some sort of scientifically grounded statistical approach determined that they're all jewish and american? The historical precedents for people complaining about "jews" having too much money go in an incredibly bad direction.

 

 

 

And yes, I agree, I don't see how it can be construed in any meaningful way, which seems to me to preclude it being automatically labeled as anti semitic as well.

[Steve_S]

 

 

 

 

 

But I must ask, PLEASE be careful of throwing around the "antisemetic" accusation.  I have seen it used way too often and way to carelessly all over the internet as an inappropriate way to silence and invalidate opinions and sources that do not agree with the typical zionist viewpoint .  

 

 

Here is one antisemetic comment.

 

 

It harkens to an antisemetic view.

 

 

If the purpose is to be critical of actions of another, i don't see how it could be construed as anti semitic.

 

 

I don't see how the statement in question could be quantified in any meaningful way - "most very rich bankers are american and jewish"? What does that even mean? Has this person taken a survey of some sort of wealthy bankers and using some sort of scientifically grounded statistical approach determined that they're all jewish and american? The historical precedents for people complaining about "jews" having too much money go in an incredibly bad direction.

 

 

 

And yes, I agree, I don't see how it can be construed in any meaningful way, which seems to me to preclude it being automatically labeled as anti semitic as well.

 

 

I disagree with that in principle, both from historic example and from modern ideology. Those sorts of statements are almost always used as propaganda in a negative way against jewish people in general, almost *always*. You could ask for quotes, but I specifically refrained from posting such things earlier simply because the sort of people who have historically publicly made such statements are not the sort i really want to even dignify quoting, these include everyone from legitimate dictators/demagogues to contemporary conspiracy theorist types. Also, arguing semantics is mostly pointless in a conversation such as this, so from this point forward I think it is very fair to assume that everyone who uses and has used the term "anti-semitic" in this conversation basically means "anti-jewish." This is the accepted vernacular of the phrase and it is fair to apply it specifically with that meaning across the board for the purposes of a conversation such as this. 

[thereselittleflower]

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see how the statement in question could be quantified in any meaningful way - "most very rich bankers are american and jewish"? What does that even mean? Has this person taken a survey of some sort of wealthy bankers and using some sort of scientifically grounded statistical approach determined that they're all jewish and american? The historical precedents for people complaining about "jews" having too much money go in an incredibly bad direction.

 

 

And yes, I agree, I don't see how it can be construed in any meaningful way, which seems to me to preclude it being automatically labeled as anti semitic as well.

 

 

I disagree with that in principle, both from historic example and from modern ideology. Those sorts of statements are almost always used as propaganda in a negative way against jewish people in general, almost *always*. You could ask for quotes, but I specifically refrained from posting such things earlier simply because the sort of people who have historically publicly made such statements are not the sort i really want to even dignify quoting, these include everyone from legitimate dictators/demagogues to contemporary conspiracy theorist types. Also, arguing semantics is mostly pointless in a conversation such as this, so from this point forward I think it is very fair to assume that everyone who uses and has used the term "anti-semitic" in this conversation basically means "anti-jewish." This is the accepted vernacular of the phrase and it is fair to apply it specifically with that meaning across the board for the purposes of a conversation such as this. 

 

 

 

Well, I guess we will need to agree to disagree.  I find it way to easy a knee-jerk reaction that precludes someone from actually being heard; instead villainizing them prematurely.

 

We should seek to understand one another, rather than rush to judgement.

Edited July 4, 2015 by thereselittleflower

[Steve_S]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see how the statement in question could be quantified in any meaningful way - "most very rich bankers are american and jewish"? What does that even mean? Has this person taken a survey of some sort of wealthy bankers and using some sort of scientifically grounded statistical approach determined that they're all jewish and american? The historical precedents for people complaining about "jews" having too much money go in an incredibly bad direction.

 

 

And yes, I agree, I don't see how it can be construed in any meaningful way, which seems to me to preclude it being automatically labeled as anti semitic as well.

 

 

I disagree with that in principle, both from historic example and from modern ideology. Those sorts of statements are almost always used as propaganda in a negative way against jewish people in general, almost *always*. You could ask for quotes, but I specifically refrained from posting such things earlier simply because the sort of people who have historically publicly made such statements are not the sort i really want to even dignify quoting, these include everyone from legitimate dictators/demagogues to contemporary conspiracy theorist types. Also, arguing semantics is mostly pointless in a conversation such as this, so from this point forward I think it is very fair to assume that everyone who uses and has used the term "anti-semitic" in this conversation basically means "anti-jewish." This is the accepted vernacular of the phrase and it is fair to apply it specifically with that meaning across the board for the purposes of a conversation such as this. 

 

 

 

Well, I guess we will need to agree to disagree.  I find it way to easy a knee-jerk reaction that precludes someone from actually being heard; instead villainizing them prematurely.

 

We should see to understand one another, rather than rush to judgement.

 

 

It is knot a knee jerk reaction. A knee-jerk reaction implies that someone doesn't use rationalization to draw a conclusion. It is not, at all, irrational to take statements in this context in a negative way, especially in light of previous comments. I agree, we should seek to understand each other, and in accusing others of rushing to judgement, is it at least possible that you, in a rush, misjudged the reactions as "knee-jerk," rather than having been thought out?

[thereselittleflower]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see how the statement in question could be quantified in any meaningful way - "most very rich bankers are american and jewish"? What does that even mean? Has this person taken a survey of some sort of wealthy bankers and using some sort of scientifically grounded statistical approach determined that they're all jewish and american? The historical precedents for people complaining about "jews" having too much money go in an incredibly bad direction.

 

 

And yes, I agree, I don't see how it can be construed in any meaningful way, which seems to me to preclude it being automatically labeled as anti semitic as well.

 

 

I disagree with that in principle, both from historic example and from modern ideology. Those sorts of statements are almost always used as propaganda in a negative way against jewish people in general, almost *always*. You could ask for quotes, but I specifically refrained from posting such things earlier simply because the sort of people who have historically publicly made such statements are not the sort i really want to even dignify quoting, these include everyone from legitimate dictators/demagogues to contemporary conspiracy theorist types. Also, arguing semantics is mostly pointless in a conversation such as this, so from this point forward I think it is very fair to assume that everyone who uses and has used the term "anti-semitic" in this conversation basically means "anti-jewish." This is the accepted vernacular of the phrase and it is fair to apply it specifically with that meaning across the board for the purposes of a conversation such as this. 

 

 

 

Well, I guess we will need to agree to disagree.  I find it way to easy a knee-jerk reaction that precludes someone from actually being heard; instead villainizing them prematurely.

 

We should see to understand one another, rather than rush to judgement.

 

 

It is knot a knee jerk reaction. A knee-jerk reaction implies that someone doesn't use rationalization to draw a conclusion. It is not, at all, irrational to take statements in this context in a negative way, especially in light of previous comments. I agree, we should seek to understand each other, and in accusing others of rushing to judgement, is it at least possible that you, in a rush, misjudged the reactions as "knee-jerk," rather than having been thought out?

 

 

 

I have made no judgment on the matter actually.   I have simply stated I don't see enough to come to a meaningful judgment.   i do believe that coming to a judgment of anti semitism based on so few words with little context is indeed rushing to judgment, but that is simply my opinion.    As I said, we can agree to disagree.  

[Steve_S]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see how the statement in question could be quantified in any meaningful way - "most very rich bankers are american and jewish"? What does that even mean? Has this person taken a survey of some sort of wealthy bankers and using some sort of scientifically grounded statistical approach determined that they're all jewish and american? The historical precedents for people complaining about "jews" having too much money go in an incredibly bad direction.

 

 

And yes, I agree, I don't see how it can be construed in any meaningful way, which seems to me to preclude it being automatically labeled as anti semitic as well.

 

 

I disagree with that in principle, both from historic example and from modern ideology. Those sorts of statements are almost always used as propaganda in a negative way against jewish people in general, almost *always*. You could ask for quotes, but I specifically refrained from posting such things earlier simply because the sort of people who have historically publicly made such statements are not the sort i really want to even dignify quoting, these include everyone from legitimate dictators/demagogues to contemporary conspiracy theorist types. Also, arguing semantics is mostly pointless in a conversation such as this, so from this point forward I think it is very fair to assume that everyone who uses and has used the term "anti-semitic" in this conversation basically means "anti-jewish." This is the accepted vernacular of the phrase and it is fair to apply it specifically with that meaning across the board for the purposes of a conversation such as this. 

 

 

 

Well, I guess we will need to agree to disagree.  I find it way to easy a knee-jerk reaction that precludes someone from actually being heard; instead villainizing them prematurely.

 

We should see to understand one another, rather than rush to judgement.

 

 

It is knot a knee jerk reaction. A knee-jerk reaction implies that someone doesn't use rationalization to draw a conclusion. It is not, at all, irrational to take statements in this context in a negative way, especially in light of previous comments. I agree, we should seek to understand each other, and in accusing others of rushing to judgement, is it at least possible that you, in a rush, misjudged the reactions as "knee-jerk," rather than having been thought out?

 

 

 

I have made no judgment on the matter actually.   I have simply stated I don't see enough to come to a meaningful judgment.   i do believe that coming to a judgment of anti semitism based on so few words with little context is indeed rushing to judgment, but that is simply my opinion.    As I said, we can agree to disagree.  

 

 

Ah, well ,the context was set earlier in the conversation when the US was referred to directly as the "enemy" and then in response to a query about that statement, the statement in question was made. It is not, at all, lacking in context. Given the hostility in the previous statement and the response to a query of that statement first saying that most wealthy bankers are American Jews, then a sarcastic mention of victimhood, it is clear to me what was being suggested.

[Guest shiloh357]

littleflower,

 

It appears that your arguments are a little fact-impaired, which is not surprising since your "research"  is based on Wikipedia, a notoriously unreliable source of information and quotes that I have found appear quite handily on anti-Israel websites.  Your "research"  appears to be less than objective though you try to paint it that way. 

 

Let's deal with your rather laughable post piece by piece...

 

First of all, I did NOT say that because governments are run by people that criticism of the government is a criticism of the people as a whole.    What I am saying (and this is borne out in history) is that Israel doesn't get to enjoy that kind of happy distinction.   Israel is the only country on earth that has to justify its right to exist.  It is the only country where the actions of the government are used to condemn the nation as a illegal entity.  It is the only country where the people share the scathing criticisms that are heaped on the government.   The terrorism that Israel faces are experienced by the people.   It's no just soldiers who are the targets of terrorist attacks, but it's regular people who get shredded by pipe bombs on city buses. It's teenagers who get murdered in pizza restaurants, or little children on playgrounds.  No one decries those things, internationally.  Often these attacks have been labeled not as terrorism, but as "resistance"  to oppression by those who are sympathetic to the Palestinians.   Israel as a whole, not just the Israeli government, is seen as a illegal nation that should not exist.

 

The world operates from a different set of rules than they apply to Israel. Israel is held to different standards by those who question its right to exist.  Even the most non-violent defensive countermeasures enacted by Israel are colored as "state-sponsored terrorism."    Even things that any other nation would do in self defense is called "terrorism"  if Israel does it, but actual terrorism done by Palestinians is almost never labeled as terrorism, and every effort is made in the media is made to avoid calling Palestinian terrorists anything but "armed groups,"  "militants,"  "resistance fighters" and so on.   In fact, when Israel kills terrorists in a combat role, the media will simply say, "Israeli soldiers killed four Palestinians"  and completely omit the fact that they were killed while attempting to carry out a terrorist attack.

 

Jews in Israel are condemned as a nation if you actually take the time to notice.  When an entire country's existence is questioned as being legitimate, it cannot be  argued that it is only the government that is being criticized in the media.

 

And yes, the UN is anti-Semitic and I gave several reasons for why I make that claim, not just the overwhelming number of resolutions that have been aimed at Israel and none of them in Israel's favor.  Israel's self-defense against terrorism has been roundly condemned by the UN while acts of terrorism bankrolled by UN member nations is almost never condemned.  Israel is singled out for special condemnation for defensive countermeasures that other nations use.  Israel has shown far more restraint militarily than any other nation would show if they were facing the same threats Israel faces.

 

I found some of your quotes on pro-Palestinian websites and they are used to promote the illegitimacy of Israel's existence.   I am sure you can find liberal Israelis who are anti-Zionist.   I am a Christian Zionist by the way.    People who want to delegitimize Israel are good at pulling up quotes from anti-Zionist Israelis who regularly misstate history and make claims that are either less than true or are taken out of context and presented in a way to make a point they were not intending to make.  Anti-Israeli folk also tend to make up false "Zionist" quotes where they claim to enjoy mistreating the Palestinians, the problem is that when most of the Zionists were alive from whom these quotes are allegedly taken, never referred to the Palestinians by that name.  Until 1967, they were called "Arabs" which only demonstrates the falsity of those quotes. So I hold your quotes as being extremely suspect, as I can find those who are far more reliable and objective who can contradict your shabby research.

 

Mark Twain visited the region of Palestine in 1867.  You can read chapters 45 an 46 from his book "Innocents Abroad" at www.shechem.org   There he describes what Israel looked like before the Jews came back to the land.    I am not sure where you get some of your quotes because you don't really cite the actual source, but I have found those quotes on anti-Israel websites all over the place and they use them as you do, to counter the notion that the returning Jews purchased the land.

 

The Arab narrative is that the land was taken, but from who???   Alan Dershowitz in his book defending Israel entitled, "A Case for Israel," points out that, there was quite a bit of ethnic diversity in Palestine as early as the 18th century.  He says that, (according to  the 1910 Encyclopedia Britannica),  "In addition to Arabs and Jews, the other ethnic groups in Palestine at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century included Kurds, German Templars, Persians, Sudanese, Algerians, Samaritans, Tartars, Georgians, and many people of mixed ethnicities."  (2003, p.  26). 

 

The argument that the Jews stole the land from "Palestinians" is nonsense because the land they purchased was owned by Turks who controlled the region of Palestine until the end of the Ottoman empire and  there were no "Palestinian"  Arabs during that time.  The purchase of land is confirmed by the British Peel Commission Report of 1936.  There was an extremely large diversity of peoples and so it is not the case that the Jews came in and took Palestinian land.

 

It should also be noted that no Arab was ever called a Palestinian until 1967 when Yasir Arafat began referring to Arabs in Israel as Palestinians.    It should also be noted that today's Palestinians are descended from Arab migrant workers from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, etc.  who needed work and found employment helping the Jews irrigate the deserts and dry out the swamps with Eucalyptus trees.  These Palestinians have no historical connection to the land beyond the beginning of the 20th century.  

 

Your  Wikipedia sources are also wrong.   The partition took no land from the "Palestinians."  The original mandate of 1921 was taken by the British and 75% of that mandate was given to the Arabs and created the nation of Jordan.   The remaining 25% was divided in a way that gave about 13% to the Jews to form the nation of Israel and the rest to the Arabs.  From the original mandate two Arabs nations would have been formed owning over 85% of the mandated land and the Jews having less than 15% of what was promised to them originally in the British/League of Nations mandate of 1921.

 

No land was being taken from the "Palestinians."  The Jewish nation was going to be formed on purchased land.  The partition would not have awarded Israel anymore land that what they already had, which was less than 1/10 of 1% of the entire land mass of the middle east.    The partition actually gave more land to the Arabs.   The Arabs had no control of anything.   This notion that the land was taken from them can only be found in anti-Israel claims that adhere to the Arab narrative, which is historically faulty.

 

I cannot defend the Irgun or the Lehi in all that they did, but their actions, were done prior to the establishment of Israel and I might add that while I deplore many of their tactics, they would not have made those errors were they not forced to respond to the Arab atrocities that precipitated them.   And that brings up an important point.  People like you want to condemn Israel for what they do without recognizing the actions of Israel's enemies that  brought the response from Israel.   You treat the actions of the Lehi and the Irgun almost as if they happened in a vacuum and were not a response to Arab aggression.  That is the kind of criticism of Israel that should be deplored.  You fail to point out at that Lehi and Irgun were pre-Israel and you fail to point out that they were responding to Arab aggression.    I get tired of that kind of dishonest handling of the situation.   No one is claiming that Israel is a perfect and righteous nation, because they are not.    But neither are they monsters that you try to paint them out to be. 

 

Sorry, littleflower, but I have to reject your faulty Wikipedia research and your quotes from anti-Semitic websites as faulty and a poor attempt at history revisionism.

[Guest shiloh357]

In addition to that, it should be noted that it was the Arabs, not Israel that caused the Arabs to be refugees in the West Bank and Gaza.  The Arab Newspapers and other magazines of the time period make this clear.   The Arabs attempted to destroy Israel in defiance of the UN vote in favor of Israel becoming a nation.   The ones responsible for the Palestinians have no land is clearly the Arabs and no one else.  Israel accepted the UN resolution and has always favored a Palestinian state so long as the Arabs recognize Israel's right to exist.

 

• "Even amidst the violent attacks launched against us for months past, we call upon the sons of the Arab people dwelling in Israel to keep the peace and to play their part in building the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its institutions, provisional and permanent."We extend the hand of peace and good-neighborliness to all the States around us and to their people, and we call upon them to cooperate in mutual helpfulness with the independent Jewish nation in its Land. The State of Israel is prepared to make its contribution in a concerted effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East."- David Ben-Gurion, in Israel's Proclamation of Independence, read on May 14, 1948, moments before the 6 surrounding Arab armies, trained and armed by the British, invaded the day-old Jewish microstate, with the stated goal of extermination.

 

• "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, THEY ABANDONED THEM, FORCED THEM TO EMIGRATE AND TO LEAVE THEIR HOMELAND, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe, as if we were condemmed to change places with them; they moved out of their ghettos and we occupied similar ones. The Arab States succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did not recognize them as a unified people until the States of the world did so, and this is regrettable".- by Abu Mazen, from the article titled: "What We Have Learned and What We Should Do", published in Falastin el Thawra, the official journal of the PLO, of Beirut, in March 1976

 

• "The first group of our fifth column consists of those who abandon their houses and businesses and go to live elsewhere. . . . At the first sign of trouble they take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle."- Ash Shalab (Jaffa newspaper), January 30, 1948

 

• "The Arab streets are curiously deserted and, ardently following the poor example of the more moneyed class there has been an exodus from Jerusalem too, though not to the same extent as in Jaffa and Haifa."- London Times, May 5, 1948

 

• "The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile."- Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, in the Beirut newspaper Sada al Janub, August 16, 1948

 

• "Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the -Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit.. . . It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."- The London weekly Economist, October 2, 1948

 

• "It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem."- Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949

 

• "This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country."- Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London) in The Arabs (London, 1955), p. 183

 

• "The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by order of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city...By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa.".- Time, May 3, 1948, p. 25

 

• The Arab exodus, initially at least, was encouraged by many Arab leaders, such as Haj Amin el Husseini, the exiled pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, and by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine. They viewed the first wave of Arab setbacks as merely transitory. Let the Palestine Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab peoples to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck, the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea.- Kenneth Bilby, in New Star in the Near East (New York, 1950), pp. 30-31

 

• I do not want to impugn anybody but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing Partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem, [Daily Telegraph, September 6, 19481- Emil Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, the official leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, in the Beirut newspaper, Daily Telegraph, September 6, 1948

 

• The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies.- Falastin (Jordanian newspaper), February 19, 1949

 

• We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, quoted in Sir Am Nakbah ("The Secret Behind the Disaster") by Nimr el Hawari, Nazareth, 1952

 

• The Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade. . . . He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean. . . Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes, and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.- Habib Issa, Secretary General of the Arab League (Azzam Pasha's successor), in the newspaper Al Hoda, June 8, 1951

 

• Some of the Arab leaders and their ministers in Arab capitals . . . declared that they welcomed the immigration of Palestinian Arabs into the Arab countries until they saved Palestine. Many of the Palestinian Arabs were misled by their declarations.... It was natural for those Palestinian Arabs who felt impelled to leave their country to take refuge in Arab lands . . . and to stay in such adjacent places in order to maintain contact with their country so that to return to it would be easy when, according to the promises of many of those responsible in the Arab countries (promises which were given wastefully), the time was ripe. Many were of the opinion that such an opportunity would come in the hours between sunset and sunrise.- Arab Higher Committee, in a memorandum to the Arab League, Cairo, 1952, quoted in The Refugee in the World, by Joseph B. Schechtman, 1963

 

• "The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in."- from the Jordan daily Ad Difaa, September 6, 1954

 

 

• "The Arab civilians panicked and fled ignominiously. Villages were frequently abandoned before they were threatened by the progress of war."- General Glubb Pasha, in the London Daily Mail on August 12, 1948

 

• "The Arab exodus from other villages was not caused by the actual battle, but by the exaggerated description spread by Arab leaders to incite them to fight the Jews"- Yunes Ahmed Assad, refugee from the town of Deir Yassin, in Al Urdun, April 9, 1953

 

• "[The Arabs of Haifa] fled in spite of the fact that the Jewish authorities guaranteed their safety and rights as citizens of Israel."- Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, according to Rev. Karl Baehr, Executive Secretary of the American Christian Palestine Committee, New York Herald Tribune, June 30, 1949

 

• "Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe. [However] ...A large road convoy, escorted by [british] military . . . left Haifa for Beirut yesterday. . . . Evacuation by sea goes on steadily. ...[Two days later, the Jews were] still making every effort to persuade the Arab populace to remain and to settle back into their normal lives in the towns... [as for the Arabs,] another convoy left Tireh for Transjordan, and the evacuation by sea continues. The quays and harbor are still crowded with refugees and their household effects, all omitting no opportunity to get a place an one of the boats leaving Haifa.""- Haifa District HQ of the British Police, April 26, 1948, quoted in Battleground by Samuel Katz

 

• "The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce they rather preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town. This is in fact what they did."- Jamal Husseini, Acting Chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, told to the United Nations Security Council, quoted in the UNSC Official Records (N. 62), April 23, 1948, p. 14

 

• "the military and civil authorities and the Jewish representative expressed their profound regret at this grave decision [to evacuate]. The [Jewish] Mayor of Haifa made a passionate appeal to the delegation to reconsider its decision"-The Arab National Committee of Haifa, told to the Arab League, quoted in The Refugee in the World, by Joseph B. Schechtman, 1963

 

• "...our city flourished and developed for the good of both Jewish and Arab residents ... Do not destroy your homes with your own hands; do not bring tragedy upon yourselves by unnecessary evacuation and self-imposed burdens. By moving out you will be overtaken by poverty and humiliation. But in this city, yours and ours, Haifa, the gates are open for work, for life, and for peace, for you and your families."-The Haifa Workers' Council bulletin, 28 April 1948

 

• "...the Jewish hagana asked (using loudspeakers) Arabs to remain at their homes but the most of the Arab population followed their leaders who asked them to leave the country."-The TIMES of London, reporting events of 22.4.48

 

• " The existence of these refugees is a direct result of the Arab States' opposition to the partition plan and the reconstitution of the State of Israel. The Arab states adopted this policy unanimously, and the responsibility of its results, therefore is theirs...The flight of Arabs from the territory allotted by the UN for the Jewish state began immediately after the General Assembly decision at the end of November 1947. This wave of emigration, which lasted several weeks, comprised some thirty thousand people, chiefly well-to-do-families."- Emil Ghory, secretary of the Arab High Council, Lebanese daily Al-Telegraph, 6 Sept 1948

 

• "Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return."- Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-49, The Memoirs of Haled al Azm, (Beirut, 1973), Part 1, pp. 386-387

 

• "Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of refugees... while it is we who made them to leave... We brought disaster upon... Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave... We have rendered them dispossessed... We have accustomed them to begging... We have participated in lowering their moral and social level... Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon... men, women and children - all this in service of political purposes..."- Khaled al Azm, Syria's Prime Minister after the 1948 war [note: same person as above]

 

• "As early as the first months of 1948 the Arab League issued orders exhorting the people to seek a temporary refuge in neighboring countries, later to return to their abodes in the wake of the victorious Arab armies and obtain their share of abandoned Jewish property."- bulletin of The Research Group for European Migration Problems, 1957

 

• One morning in April 1948, Dr. Jamal woke us to say that the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), led by the Husseinis, had warned Arab residents of Talbieh to leave immediately. The understanding was that the residents would be able to return as conquerors as soon as the Arab forces had thrown the Jews out. Dr. Jamal made the point repeatedly that he was leaving because of the AHC's threats, not because of the Jews, and that he and his frail wife had no alternative but to go.Commentary Magazine -- January 2000, http://www. commentarymagazine.com/0001/letters.html