Excellent unbiased article. What is always neede and rarely seen

By m. Jacobs on Mar 17, 2009 at 10:17 am

What right Israel have to established state on land of Muslim?If U.K.andU.S.A.did not supported to Jew had they established their state on Muslim land?
U.K.U.S.A.. had very bad intention to hand over this land to Jew, they want this land under their control for oil.Three thousand years back this was Jew`religion`s birth place so they must occupay this land.Is this logic is creating justice?
If this logic is reasonable than what right white people have to settle on American land which was belonged by Red Indians.Is white will vacate the land of America ?
You have money and armspower so you can bwehave anyway,justice and morality is always base on money and musal power?

By Ramesh Raghuvanshi on Apr 3, 2009 at 3:07 am

Required reading concerning a much misunderstood series of events, the historical record of which has been badly contaminated by partisan special pleading of one kind or another.

By Fossil on Apr 3, 2009 at 6:08 am

Good overview of a key military episode in Israel's history. One detail — the Palmach did not mobilize 10 brigades, but rather three. The Haganah as a whole mustered 10 brigades, I believe.

By Ralph Hitchens on Apr 3, 2009 at 9:37 am

Unbiased?

"And, from 1939 on, the Zionists also had to contend with a British government that had turned from pro-Zionism to appeasing the Arabs."

Pro-zionist vs. appeasing?

Though, admittedly, this doesn't get said very often…

"The additional embarrassment of having to fight illegal immigrants, most of them Holocaust survivors, and the trauma of continuous Jewish terrorist attacks finally persuaded Whitehall to throw in the towel"

By Erasmus on Apr 3, 2009 at 11:00 am

A onesided and biased article.

I wonder how you can occupy the land of some people, and then call it "War of Independence". Beats me!

The Palestinians are probably the worst off people today on this planet, yet the techniques which Israel uses to bomb them is so ruthless, that it pains me as a human.

Sorry, but I must keep my humanity and conscience before buying into such skewed historical accounts.

By Ivor on Apr 3, 2009 at 1:26 pm

Raghuvanshi's incoherent note is typical of the 'rant-o-matic' response any article about Israel brings these days.

If Jewish territorial claims in the Levant are a 'logic [not] creating justice,' why should the claims of jihadist conquerors be any different?

If Raghuvanshi is serious we must ask "What right Greeks, Spaniards, Italians, French, Hungarians, Romanians, Swiss, Austrians, Indians, Ukranians, Albanians, Bulgarians, etc. have to established state on land of Muslim?"

Some, or all, of each of these states are established on land that became 'Muslim' by the same means that Palestine did–military conquest and occupation.

By John Coffin on Apr 3, 2009 at 2:25 pm

An excellent article that reminds us that the beginnings of the Midle-East conflict we see today are found in the unwilllingness of the Arab nations around what is now Israel to accept that nation's right to exist. This was of course further evidenced by 1967 and 1973. Perhaps when Ramesh and his ilk finally accept that Israel has a right to exist and work together to find genuine solutions that allow for viable sovereign units for Arab AND Israeli we will see peace in that region. Until then, I doubt it.

By Anthony Rimell on Apr 3, 2009 at 5:19 pm

I enjoyed your last book, Mr. Morris. You should write an article about the ceasefire agreements. I've read the documents in the Yale online archive and they provide a fascinating insight into why the conflict continues.

By jonathan on Apr 3, 2009 at 5:23 pm

A ridiculously one sided account: one look at the loaded language gives it away as the usual pro Israel pap. Does anyone in the USA see past the nonsense? In the end this skewed account damages Israel too: for peace, we need some truth.

By Chris Horner on Apr 3, 2009 at 7:28 pm

Why must Muslims despise Jews? How come every offer for Jewish people to live on even a small slice of the land was rejected?

I think Muslim hatred of Jews is rooted in religious insecurity and historical uncertainty. Many tenets of Islam–as with Christianity–are rooted in Judaism. And the Koran is unclear about whether the spot the Al-Aqsa mosque stands on is really the place where Mohammed rose to heaven. Muslim claims on Israel are weak, and they know it.

By Rebecca R. on Apr 3, 2009 at 8:04 pm

I was in a class with a Palestinian woman whose family was ordered by the Haganah to leave their house in 1948. Her 60 year old father refused and was gunned down in his doorway. Surviving family members later emigrated to Egypt.

By BJ on Apr 4, 2009 at 3:11 am

A hugely distorted view, unworthy of a serious scholar.

I suggest a more accurate view is presented by Shlomo Ben Ami, a former FM of Israel and top Israel peace negotiator who confirms that the Jews were never in danger of defeat in their War of Conquest. You can find his alternative account on Norman Finkelstein's home page.

To Rebecca R, the Muslim-Arab hostility is solely based on the events of 1947-8 and later. Muslims welcomed Jews earlier. Biblical history is but myth. The original Jews were Arabs.

But nothing, whether myth or fact, justifies what Israel is currently inflicting upon Palestinian Arabs, the indigenous people of Palestine, dispossessed at gunpoint.

Even if Israel just complied with international law, including complying with UN resolution 242, what I now call The Israeli Problem would be peacefully resolved.

You can read more of my views by visiting kbrmrebutted.blogspot.com.

By Luc Hansen on Apr 4, 2009 at 4:46 am

Good article and precis of the early stages of the war. It generally accords with other accounts I've read and I can detect no obvious "distortion."

Seeing Luc Hansen's name on Philip Weiss's site — a magnet for radicals, kooks, fringe anti-Israel conspiracy-theory types and assorted racist cranks — tells me everything I need to know about Luc Hansen, whose comments (predictably) strain to construe "distortion" in what is a fairly innocuous an inoffensive account of the early stages of the 1948 war.

By Chen Weisong on Apr 4, 2009 at 6:24 am

Luc Hansen: "To Rebecca R, the Muslim-Arab hostility is solely based on the events of 1947-8 and later. Muslims welcomed Jews earlier."

Wow. Those Jews who suffered in the Arab pogroms and riots of the 1920s and 30s might beg to differ.

By Jerry S. on Apr 4, 2009 at 11:49 am

The rights of "Conquest" have a long history with Aryan tribes (Brahmin; Persian; Greek; Latin; & Celt). If you "Win" you are right. If you "Lose", you are dogmeat and the victor gets to eat you and your family and your children – and the US will give you $5bn a year to buy the knives and forks and charcoal to cook the "meat" at the barbecue. Of course if the dogmeat fights back, with rocks and stones and suicide bombers, you get to play with your food before you eat it. Bon apetit.

Such "normal behavior" will ionize the atmosphere of planet earth. The particular "Winner" who starts the conflagration will be irrelevant.

By Frere Loup on Apr 4, 2009 at 11:51 am

#

Luc Hansen: “To Rebecca R, the Muslim-Arab hostility is solely based on the events of 1947-8 and later. Muslims welcomed Jews earlier.”

Wow. Those Jews who suffered in the Arab pogroms and riots of the 1920s and 30s might beg to differ.

By Jerry S. on Apr 4, 2009 at 11:49 am

Not to mention the Arabs who hopped on board with Hitler, knowing full well what Hitler's intended end for Jews was.

There is an incomplete sense in which Hansen is sort of right – many were willing to accept Jews in their midst, but this largely dissolved the instant the Jews wanted to be self-governing and not let their survival be subject to the whims of another ethnic or religious majority.

By Laura on Apr 4, 2009 at 12:43 pm

I would like to suggest a possible explanation for the never ending conflict: all parties in the Israel-Palestine issue banked in 1947 on a Jewish defeat – except the Jews themselves. The US was neutral and hostile. Britain convinced the Arabs that they don't have to accept the UN resolution and the UN itself did not fulfil it's duty bringing forces to defend the Jews and enforce the partition. Most telling is the u.s.s.r behavior. They supported Israel the same way they supported 10 years earloer the Spanish republic – i.e, they counted on it's defeat. They supported the Jews as long as was needed to throw the Brits. When they saw that Israel survives, they turned fiercely against it – as soon as November 1948. So Israel exists by mistake; all the cinical and cruel calculations of the Powers and the Arabs were dashed and the equilibrium hasn't been found since. The Arabs understood from the powers and the UN that it's okay to continue fighting. Everybody thought along the years that there is something to gain – and thus from disaster to disaster.

By A. Lord on Apr 4, 2009 at 3:05 pm

I see nothing in this informative article to suggest bias. The history of the world is full of population displacement and subsequent misery. You can hardly blame the Jews for doing all they can to ensure their survival or for succeeding. People who feel very strongly about this, on one side or the other, ought to look around their own neighborhoods – victims of injustice are everywhere and provide every opportunity for would be champions to do something useful with their righteous indignation.

By d otis on Apr 4, 2009 at 11:25 pm

Laura: you highlighted a mistake in my post, thank you. I meant to write "Muslim – Jew" hostility, the point being that the religious aspect developed as a result of the territorial conflict. I would also point out that from 1492 it was Europe who persecuted Jews, culminating in the Holocaust.

And in 1492, incidentally, the Ottoman empire happily accepted 50,000 Jews from Spain, only a few of whom settled in Palestine. The point again is the lack of religious hostility.

Palestinians should not have been made to pay for European genocide.

Chen: play the ball, mate. Morris' article is inoffensive only to those who readily accept the romantic myths Israel assidiously promotes and which Ben Ami demolishes. Read the transcript.

A. Lord: interesting conspiracy theory unsupported by facts. Remember that the western nations voted en masse in favour of 181 while all Muslim and Arab states justifiably opposed it.

I return to my main point: whatever the sins, real or imagined, of Palestinians in the past, nothing justifies the continuing oppression and killing of present and future generations.

In it's current belligerent, bullying, militaristic mode, Israel is a blight on humanity. And western complicity in Israel's sins casts a very dark shadow on us all.

By Luc Hansen on Apr 5, 2009 at 12:04 am

A fascinating historical account that illustrates well the present-day Israel-Palestine conflict.

The assurance of Israel's security and the establishment of another Palestinian Arab state are not helped by partisan, racist comments like the above from Luc who is clearly a vehement anti-Zionist.
Clichés about Jewish life in Muslim lands are not helpful in the 21st century. Why have all minorities Jews, Christians, Bahai and others, practically disappeared in the last 100 years from countries where they had existed long before the rise of Islam? I guess it's all the fault of Israel, as usual.

The fact remains that minority religions are not considered the equals of Muslims, and the protected status of 'dhimmi' didn't prevent Jews from being persecuted and massacred throughout 1300 years or so before 1948. The Jews rebelled against their hostile Arab neighbours ( as much as against the British ) and declared their independent nationhood in an act of self-defence.
History has shown them to be in the right. Had they lost, they too would have suffered the fate of the Armenians who similarly wanted an independent country from the Muslim majority.

By Mike Stein on Apr 5, 2009 at 10:23 am

On Israel's so-called "independence day" in 1948, close to 70% of its citizens were foreign born (ref Israel's own census data). To this very day, majority of all Israeli prime ministers since 1948 are foreign born, many from Russia. To this very day, Israel as a state still does not have a decisive majority of native born citizens.

This is a colony in the making.

Now we can surely understand the right of a given minority to self-determination within its native lands but we can not accept a group of Russian-born fanatics who unilaterally decide that the time has come for them to go back to some place they claim God promised to them exclusively some 3000 years ago.

Commentators in this thread must understand Arabs (with all their creeds and political affiliations) will never accept the unjust Zionist colonial project.

The fact that the Zionists happen to be Jewish is no more significant than the French/Spanish colonists of Morocco/Algeria were Christians. It really is irrelevant. We view Zionists as Europeans.

Commentators who infer that our refusal to accept the violent Zionist colonial project stems from anti-semitism are in-denial. Anti-semitism exists but one does not need to be fed anti-semitic propaganda to take a stand against a group of fanatics who hail from Russia and Europe who decided to settle in the Middle East against the will of its natives and b y the use of violence.

The stolen lands need to be given back to their natives. Yes, justice can be served.

By Moroccan on Apr 5, 2009 at 4:16 pm

"What right Israel have to established state on land of Muslim?"

What makes land Muslim?

And I wonder if you've bothered to read the article. The question is not "What right…" but "What necessity…"

The Jews had nowhere to go if they lost but the sea or murderous Europe. Murderous Europe and merciless America and Canada that refused immigrants trying to flee the Holocaust are not the Jewish homeland. Zionism is not colonialism because one has first to have a base from which to emigrate to a colony. Where is the Jewish base? The gas chambers of Auschwitz? Is that where Jews belong?

Had they not won, they would have been wiped out in a further chapter of the Holocaust by Husseini. By what right has anyone to say that people of other faiths cannot live here or there, cannot be equal citizens, must pay special taxes, etc… read history sir.

This is an excellent article that explains why, now as then, either the Jews control the roads or the Arabs do. There is no doubt that mass murder would be the result of the latter though not the former. It is clear that only the Jews are prepared to accept a peaceful two-state solution (Resolution 81, remember?).

What right had the white man to establish states in the Americas? The Jews at least were trying to establish one of two states, one Jewish, one Muslim, in the land of their own origin. It's astounding how hypocritical Western anti-Zionists are.

What right have the Japanese to have a Japanese state that restricts citizenship to ethnic Japanese only and not to Chinese no matter how many generations they live there (unlike Israel); what right has Syria and other Arab states to deny Palestinian third generation residents citizenship (unlike Israel which grants citizenship by nativity, as do most civilized countries)?

A first rate article!

By Abu Nudnik on Apr 5, 2009 at 4:33 pm

Abu Nudnik,

Zionism as a movement started way before the Nazis took over Germany. The fanatic colonists from Russia and Poland were already in Palestine fighting the native peasants for their lands before they knew the Holocaust was underway.

You are using the holocaust as an excuse for conquering other people lands and for subjecting defenseless natives to collective suffering.

Instead of using the holocaust as a lesson for humanity in order to prevent such sufferings to happen again, you use it as a justification for inflicting suffering on others.

Zionism as a movement has used the colonial ideals of the time. Why do Zionists always pretend to have a superior morality?

By Moroccan on Apr 5, 2009 at 4:46 pm

The Zionist ideologues are out in force.

By Zionist on Apr 5, 2009 at 5:32 pm

Benny Morris took so much heat when he first discovered some documents questioning the Israeli myth of 1948 that he went over to the dark side and now repudiates his own work. He has become one of the leading apologists for Ashkenazi colonialism. Pappe, on the other hand, unrepentant about telling the truth, has been hounded out of Israel. Hasbarists will allow no facts to interfere with the great myth.

By Jack on Apr 5, 2009 at 6:56 pm

"To Rebecca R, the Muslim-Arab hostility is solely based on the events of 1947-8 and later. Muslims welcomed Jews earlier."

To Muslims, Jews have always been dhimmi, legally and formally second class citizens with only the privilege the current rules wishes to grant. A Jew in a Muslim society is worse off than a black man in the Deep South of the 1930s.

"But nothing, whether myth or fact, justifies what Israel is currently inflicting upon Palestinian Arabs,"

Except the Palestinian Arabs' insistence on continued terrorism. If the Arabs stop their rocket attacks, Israel stops their IDF's incursions. It's that simple.

By Robert on Apr 5, 2009 at 9:15 pm

Mike: " Clichés about Jewish life in Muslim lands are not helpful in the 21st century." Then how helpful are myths from antiquity in the 21st century? How come Arabs take the rap for European expulsion, ghettoisation and slaughter? The first recorded mass-murderers of Jews were the Crusaders, who slaughtered Jews and Muslims with equal enthusiasm.

Abu: Zionism is a form of colonialism, settler colonialism based on religious affiliation instead of ethnicity. European Jews did not originate from the ME, sorry. And read Pappe.

Robert: The world is not perfect. Let's stick to the issue at hand. Even the title of this piece is misleading – it was always and remains the Palestinians "lashing back" at the Jewish invasion.

And your final point simply demonstrates profound ignorance of the facts. Stopping rocket fire and resistance to occupation in return for stopping IDF "incursions" ie murder ignores the central issue – Israel's determination that forever Palestinians remain a defeated, oppressed people.

I'm outta here now, folks. See you at http://kbrmrebutted.blogspot.com

By Luc Hansen on Apr 6, 2009 at 10:00 am

The pro-Palestinian ideologues are out in farce.

(misspelling entirely by design)

By cowboy curtis on Apr 6, 2009 at 2:08 pm

"Independence war" …"Israel's Civil War" …historically Jewish land…..sounds to me like a lot of Pro-Israeli, not pro-Jewish necessarily, rhetoric.

Initially Muslims don't hate Jews, they hate Israels and clearly a great many have found these words interchangeable.

What would the USA do if some Red Indian tribe tried to establish a state within the U.S. it would probably kill them, extirpate them, or at least disease them with small box to death. The author is clearly insinuate that this conflict was initiated by Muslims….listen if some random people that come from the other side of the world come to take my homeland to establish a state i won't shoot them I'll obliterate them.

The whole empathetic argument that they're holocaust survivors and need some land to live in peacefully….frankly, I'm not buying it. They were killed in Europe why don't they ask Germany for a slice of their land. The whole we were killed the world should feel sorry and kill others to quell them into giving us some land….I'm also not buying it.

I agree with some that say this is a fair historical recollection. BUT IT'S ALL ABOUT CONNOTATIONS. The authors feeds you one or two truth you know then fits in some biased comment to twist the argument or distort it so that it seems that the Arabs are not suppose to be their this is Jewish land.

Now we can argue about this for decades, and trust me, we have…but now it's time to reach some form of an agreement because frankly history….is history. What we Arabs failed to to do is get up and reconcile after we fell and failed. We failed to unite, we failed to improve, we failed to develop, now people start blaming Islam for the lack of education solidarity and strength in the Arab states. Then I feel like we failed to continue our Regligions messages. People are now predisposed into thinking that there is an intimate connection between Islam ,Suicide(which is a taboo in Islam), terrorism, and lack of education.

Arabs and Muslims are seen as non-educated barbarians.
The funny thing is the first scientist in the world,ibn- alhasan, is Muslim, actually who ever is reading this comment look up the Islamic Golden Age(at the time Europeans were uneducated and barbaric in their dark age). The Muslims initiated the most important thing in science….something called the scientific method they did studies in engineering, anatomy, optics, medicine, biology, physics, astronomy….while the European have not yet been introduced to paper. Does anyone recall what Saladin did? Does anyone recall how the Muslims were able to defeat the world's biggest empire ever, mongol empire, and be able to convert them into Islam? No. No does because that not what shows up on your everyday TV or Hollywood movie….it saddens me.

Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for Jews as the greatest minds of today world but don't forget who built the foundations for them add on….all I'm trying to do is subvert this misconception of Muslims being stupid and uneducated.

By Montasir on Apr 6, 2009 at 3:46 pm

Boy, I can't help but wonder why this Arab-Israel conflict attracts such passion from outsiders who ostensibly have no direct connection with it.

Jews didn't just re-appear in the Holy Land 2000 years after being expelled. Small communities had remained in all the holy cities, Jerusalem, Hebron, Tiberias, Safed. European Jews are just as entitled to return as Oriental Jews, having the same genes as the latter. The reason that the League of Nations decided to set up a Jewish homeland in Palestine after WW1 was because the land had just become vacant after the breakup of the Ottoman hegemony, and no other nation had been created in the area since the expulsions by the Romans. The Arab Palestinians were mostly newcomers who came in either at the end of the 19th century or in the early decades of the 20th when the land started to be settled by the Jewish pioneers. Until the 60's, the local Arabs were not thought of as "Palestinians" anyhow.

As for calling Israelis colonialists, how ridiculous can people be !
Just because Europeans have a bad conscience about their history doesn't mean they can displace all that guilt upon the Israelis.

By Mike Stein on Apr 6, 2009 at 7:43 pm

How many hundreds of thousands of Muslims, Christians and Jews were living on that "vacant" land after the breakup of the Ottoman hegemony?

Not that it matters, if no one thought of them as "Palestinians" anyhow.

As far as using genetic entitlement to trump existing land titles, I think someone has already done a "gene check" on Palestinian Arabs. How did that turn out?

By Howard Hastings on Apr 7, 2009 at 5:57 am

How about this dissembling from the author: Plan D was not a master plan for explulsion, but when put into effect expulsion occurred.

So expulsion was planned but it wasn't part of the plan!

Typical Israeli obfuscation.

Or the inset: "Palestines Jews". Excuse me, do you mean the European Jew recent immigrants who arrived intent on colonising Arab land?

By the way, Mike, the Arab population of Palestine was 1.2 to 1.4 million, with only a few thousand recent immigrants. Arab homes and villages date back to Roman times.

By happipat on Apr 7, 2009 at 11:20 pm

so what are the different perspectives of the war today? from arabs and jews?

By Robin on Apr 8, 2009 at 12:27 am

The conflict is not a very complicated one. It's simple the jews were given some land that didn't belong to them….they said 55% should belongs to jews, but now like 80% belongs to jews. Still today continues the proliferation of settlements. And Palestine is no longer a country it's more like a couple of cities divided in political views.

By Montasir on Apr 8, 2009 at 12:38 pm

Israeli professor of sociology Baruch Kimmerling has written an account of Benny Morris and the history of 1947-48.

http://hnn.us/articles/3166.html

It is essential reading. It should also help answer the "different perspectives" question above.

The level of many of the comments here is appalling, even by the usual standards. Rebecca evidently believes Palestinians to have so little in common with other human beings that driving hundreds of thousands of them – innocent men, women, children, grandparents – from their farms and homes could not conceivably account for any sense of grievance. That, for her, is instead conveniently explained by turning to religion, where she is pleased to believe her chauvinism to be not only respectable but secretly recognized as such by Muslims. While for Rebecca it is inferior or superior religious claims which determine title to land, in Mike Stein's thinking, it is his genes. He is apparently oblivious to certain other heinous ideologies to which he lends legitimacy by such arguments, and the absurd implications it would have for the rest of the world.

The patience of those willing to engage with such people is admirable, especially given that doing so is ineffective when the principal problem is not an absence of knowledge (though indeed it sorely lacks) but an absence of ethics. Bigotry and racial ideologies of the kind on display above are impervious to facts: in challenging mytho-histories designed to deny or excuse ethnic cleansing of an indigenous population, one could forever cite scholarly debunkers (including Israeli and non-Israeli Jews such as Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Ilan Pappe, Avi Shlaim, Shlomo Sand, and many others) without making the least impression on them. However, rebuttals will at least be helpful for those readers not already misinformed to the point of implacable prejudice.

By Mchl on Apr 8, 2009 at 1:30 pm

Benny Morris' racism is evident in this extract from a 2004 article published in The Guardian:

"To many in the west, the right of refugees to return to their homes seems natural and just. But this "right of return" needs to be weighed against the right to life and well-being of the five million Jews who currently live in Israel, about half of whom were born in the country, have known no other country and have no other homeland. Wouldn't the destruction or, at the least, the forced displacement of these 5 million – and this would be the necessary upshot of a mass Palestinian refugee return, whatever Arab spokesmen say – constitute a far greater tragedy than what befell the Palestinians in 1948 and, currently, a graver injustice than the perpetuation of the refugeedom of fewer than 4 million Palestinians?"

Firstly, Morris demonstrates his view that any solution involving recognising basic human rights and norms for Palestinians, self-determination and right of return, in particular, would be an acopolypse for Jews. I am sure this view prevails in Israel. Yet it ignores the 1.4 million Palestinian Arabs who already co-exist with the Jews and who, in polls, indicate that they want this situation to continue. And it ignores countless examples of previously bitter enemies reconciling and working together for a common good.

Secondly, Morris affirms that Palestinians do indeed have a right of return. A right which, according to Morris, must be denied. And this is where he descends into racism.

Morris believes the fate of Palestinians is simply not as important as that of Jews, most of whom are recent immigrants or first generation. If this is not racism, I don't know what is.

Morris lacks the imagination and goodwill necessary to arrive at the inevitable end result of this failed Zionist project – the return of Palestinians and the birth of a new nation.

And Jews like Morris will emigrate, and good riddance to them.

Morris can write all he likes about the past; it's the future that counts.

By happipat on Apr 11, 2009 at 2:56 am

This is, as expected, a very biased article towards the Jews. Of course, most "articles" and media reports and TV coverages on this topic are. What else can be expected when the media and large corporations are controlled by the Jews, and when they ahve such a strong influence in the American government?

Slowly but surely, people are starting to see the real picture. That what the Israelis did was inhumane and unjust, and hopefully, one day, the Palestinians will get a state to call their own.

By Peace on Apr 12, 2009 at 2:28 am

I find this discussion interesting as it coming from a lot of preconceptions. Wrong has being done to the Palestines. A lot of wrong has been done to the Israelis as well. Don't forget that after the ww2 most jews weren't welcome in their homelands – remember pogroms happened in poland and rumenia and many countries had immigration restrictions. During the war of independance most (about 97%) of the jews living in arab countries were kicked out. The land they posessed was twice the size of of current Israel. A lot of wrong has been done, it is time for Israel to accept the Palestines and for the Arabs to accept the Israelis.

By Gerard Hart on May 20, 2009 at 3:48 pm

Hey Ramesh, I'll tell you the same thing the Texicans told the Mexican government when they demanded their weaons: "Come take it!"
Long live Texas and long live Israel

By Larry Krauser on May 29, 2009 at 9:54 am

It's just too bad the Jews desire not to totally wiped out, inconvenienced some Moslems. They have 50 plus countries where they are the majority . The Jews don't need to apologize for saying , "OK, even though the Arabs have 30 countries including Jordan which is a Palestinian (sic) country, we will not just let ourselves be murdered ,in order not to inconvenience the Arabs of Jaffa". Anyone who says Zionism is racism is using projection. This when someone accuses someone else of having a negative characteristic in order to relieve their own inner guilt. So all you anti-Zionism are the most racist, bigoted people as you want to deny Jews any sanctuary after 2000 years of continuous persecution. I especially want to call out Luc Hansen who probably feels unconscious guilt for all the murder and pillage his Viking ancestors carried out. So to relieve his terrible feelings of guilt he picks on the Jews. Why don't you make amends for all mayhem your ancestors committed? Furthermore, all those residing in the US and Canada, who criticize Israel are the biggest hypocrits. You are residing on land you had absolutely no claim to and committed genocide against the native North Americans. If you want to see colonialists, bigots, and genocidists, LOOK IN THE MIRROR.

By Joe Hamilton on Jun 4, 2009 at 12:57 pm

Cowboy Curtis;
You sound like the biggest idiot. Why didn't the Jews ask the Germans for land? Are you that stupid.

By Joe Hamilton on Jun 4, 2009 at 1:02 pm

To Mchl;
Look in the mirror to see a real racist;
You are correct. It is the future that counts

Israel possesses 400 nukes. Who is going to make the Jews leave?

Iran??

Give me a break. Iran won't be able to have one ballistic missile avoid being shot down over it's own country or neighboring Arabs countries.

Israel has the most effective , comprehensive missile defense system in the world. They are constantly improving it.

The Jews will remain in their homeland they have lived in for 4,000 years.

"Morris believes the fate of Palestinians is simply not as important as that of Jews, most of whom are recent immigrants or first generation. If this is not racism, I don’t know what is."

No denying Jews a sanctuary after thousands of years of persecution is as racist as Adolf Hitler.

"Morris lacks the imagination and goodwill necessary to arrive at the inevitable end result of this failed Zionist project – the return of Palestinians and the birth of a new nation. "

400 nukes and increasing as we speak says you are an idiot if you think the return of the fictitious group you call Palestinians is inevitable.

By Joe Hamilton on Jun 4, 2009 at 1:13 pm

The pain Palestine is going through is the land which was taken apart from the treaty that was signed initially.

Peace can prevail if their territory can be returned to them.

By Arvind Leo Pereira on Jun 9, 2009 at 7:35 am

Benny Morris’s almost exclusive reliance on Israeli documentation results in a one-sided narrative of the civil war. Many of his conclusions are not supported by the documentary record or eyewitness accounts.

The Arab-Zionist conflict was predicted after World War I. The 1919 U.S. King-Crane Commission confirmed that founding a Jewish state in Palestine could not be accomplished without violating “the civil and religious rights” of the indigenous Arabs. The British military warned that transforming Arab Palestine into a Jewish state could only be carried out “by force of arms.”

War provides governments with strategic justification and cover to carry out ethnic cleansing. David Ben Gurion, head of the Jewish Agency, viewed war as an opportunity to deal with the “Arab problem.” Under his leadership, Jewish settlers began preparing militarily in the 1930s for a decisive war to seize control of Palestine.

The U.N. partition resolution of November 29, 1947 sparked the civil war. U.S., British, U.N., Zionist and Arab military analysts concur that Zionist militias were far superior in manpower and armament than the Palestinian Arabs during the civil war. The Haganah, IZL, and LHI went on the offensive in December 1947, according to experienced on-site U.S. and British military officers.

Zionist forces depopulated twenty-six known Palestinian villages before April 1948, while Britain remained responsible for law and order in Palestine. The Haganah launched Plan D in early April when British troops were too few to counter Zionist offensives. The British hands-off policy during the civil war enabled the Arabs’ expulsions. During the civil war, the Palestinian Arabs were forced out of the major cities including: Acre, Baysan, Haifa, Jaffa, Safad, and Tiberias. Zionist militias seized control of most of the British-built state and military apparatus before May 15, 1948.

The Zionists used the cover of war to deliberately and systematically expel over 400,000 Palestinian Arabs from 225 villages, towns, and cities before May 15. The majority of the Palestinians (55%) were forcibly displaced during the civil war before the British left Palestine on May 15. Even those cities and villages that concluded nonaggression pacts with the Zionists were attacked and their people expelled, including al-Maliha, al-Shaykh Muwannis, Abu Kishk, Miska, Haifa, Jaffa, Dayr Yasin, and many others. About 6,000 Jews were killed during the 1948 war, and an estimated 20,000 Palestinian Arabs.

This was not a war against combatants; the Red Cross estimated that 84% of the Palestinians expelled were children under 15, pregnant and nursing mothers, the elderly, and the infirm. As the Arabs were being driven out, Jewish settlers robbed, harassed, humiliated, and killed them. Palestinians survivors reported that in numerous villages, those who remained after a Zionist attack—the handicapped, sick, wounded, and the elderly—were killed. Churches, mosques, and cemeteries were desecrated and destroyed to eliminate the Palestinian presence from the land.

Even the last British High Commissioner of Palestine, General Sir Alan Cunningham viewed the Zionists’ actions as deliberate ethnic cleansing: “In the end, it was clear that it was the Jews who were trying to frighten the Arabs and to drive them into the sea…They were being pretty ruthless in their attacks and it was clear it was being done by conscious design.”

The recent book, Under the Cover of War: The Zionist Expulsion of the Palestinians by Rosemarie M. Esber (Arabicus, 2008), is a study of the civil war period of the 1948 Palestine war. The book is based on British, U.S. and U.N. military and diplomatic records, Israeli sources, and interviews with Palestinians who witnessed the civil war. Her research supports these findings and challenges Morris’s presumptions.

By Arabicus Books & Media on Jun 17, 2009 at 4:08 pm

This article is laughable in it's bias and revision of history. I thought to subscribe to this magazine, but am now glad i didn't. The State of Palestine was ethnically cleansed of 800,000 Palestinian Arabs, 531 villages were bulldozed flat and kibbutz built on top of them, there were 58 massacres, there was rape, torture, and atrocities committed by all the Zionist gangs and militias. The Palestinians are being methodically but relentlessly being pushed off their land. This policy continues today.Illegal settlements have broken up the Occupied Territories, The system of control has been compared to apartheid, the politics of the Zionist State called Nazism by prominent Jews.Palestinians are arbitrarily harassed by over 600 internal checkpoints, a meandering wall, and strutting, arrogant IDF troops who believe that God gave them the land. The brutality of the occupation has brutalized Israeli society and traumatized it's youth. Israel has become a pariah in the international community, kept afloat by billions of US dollars.The only state that has disappeared is Palestine, not Israel. Added to this, world opinion has concluded that Israel, with it's nuclear weapons, is the most dangerous state in the world. So much for historical truth!

By Colin Smith on Jul 4, 2009 at 4:15 am

Little is said of, as how the Jewish settlers, on ground purchased from the Palestinians, succeeded in what the Palestinian Arabs had failed to (and could never) accomplish, i.e., make the land productive, the merciless attacks by the Arabs upon defenseless settlers. Until the Irgun were properly established – and that was one hell of a long time after 1868 – and a tit for tat rule was established – then, and only then, did the Arabs really start to become concerned. The Jewish people wanted only what they had purchased, and they needed to consolidate their aquisitions, which they did, eventually,i.a.. So many refuse to take an in-depth look at the past before commiting their ignorance to word. Such are the Colin Smiths of this world

By sampieses on Jul 4, 2009 at 2:36 pm

When Israel is accused of conducting a Nazi policy – without any factual basis for such a serious statement, and contrary to reality in which the state of Israel operates according to democratic laws and under the watchful eye of the Supreme Court (which is world renowned) – this is a case of anti-semitism. When there is one-sided criticism of the security fence and roadblocks to check Palestinian traffic, without presenting anti-Israel terrorism and Israels need for defensive measures, this is a discriminatory attitude.

When human rights organizations devote a great part of their time to criticizing the state of Israel but do not refer equally to blatant human rights violations elsewhere, such as the premeditated murder by Palestinian terrorist organizations for decades of thousands of innocent Israeli citizens including infants, children and old people, and even more since the intifada, to the mass murders and expulsions in other places for example, in Sudan, or to ignoring the denial of citizen rights to women and homosexuals as is common in many Arab and Muslim countries – this is a one-sided discriminatory attitude whose motives we should question. In quite a few cases the motives are anti-semitic.

By Dov Coder on Jul 12, 2009 at 8:24 pm

It is funny to see people blaim Morris for a pro-israel bias approach where in Israel he is considered a revisionist pro-Arab historian.
Neither claims are true of course . This article shows Moriss' balanced and thorough approach to the issue.

As an Israeli, I find it difficult to read about bad things done by my people (like Dier Yassin). However, as a human being and as a History student I can't ignore them either. Morris does well by describing the attrocities done by both sides and by providing the full variety of reasons that created the refugee problem that still troubles the middle east today..

Some answers to claims raised in comments:

Moroccan : "most Israeli prime ministers were immigrants". Well, the same can be said about President Obama's father (and acording to some Americans – Obama himslef…). So ????

"Israel is made of Russian born fanatics" – good one, Haven't had this kind of good lough for years

"What right Israel have to established state on land of Muslim?"
Well, what right have the muslims of Afganistan (Al-Kaida) to attack the US at 9/11? – the country that armed them, trained them and helped them win back their liberty from the Soviets?

Ramesh: "U.K.U.S.A.. had very bad intention to hand over this land to Jew, they want this land under their control for oil"
Go back to geography 101 Ramesh, Israel is the only place in the middle east that doesn't have any oil whatsoever.,, this is why most of the world supports the Arabs against us (besides post colonial guilt)

By Zvika on Feb 20, 2010 at 5:05 pm