Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 03:37 AM Jul 2016

NLRB Confirms Legality of Union Support for Israel Boycott; Union Condemns Political Attacks on BDS

Source: UE Union

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has reaffirmed its dismissal an unfair labor practice charge brought by an Israeli law firm against a U.S. union, the United Electrical Workers, over its support of protests against Israeli policies including the union’s endorsement of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) movement.

At its national convention in Baltimore August 16-20, 2015, the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) adopted a resolution endorsing the BDS movement to pressure Israel to negotiate peace with the Palestinians and end the occupation. UE is the first national U.S. union to endorse BDS. Read the resolution here.

On October 23, the Israeli law firm Shurat Hadin filed a charge with the NLRB alleging that UE’s resolution violated the prohibition in U.S. labor law against “secondary boycotts.” The union disputed the charge, arguing that Shurat Hadin’s action was an attempt to interfere with the First Amendment rights of the union and its members to express opinions on political and international issues, and also that the Israeli firm’s allegation were factually untrue. On January 12, Region 6 of the NLRB dismissed the charge. Shurat HaDin then appealed to the Office of the General Counsel of the NLRB, and on May 26 that office denied the appeal.

UE National President Peter Knowlton says the union “welcomes the labor board’s decision” to reject, for a second time, Shurat Hadin’s charge. He said that UE in the past had “withstood attempts by the U.S. government to silence us during the McCarthy era in the 1950s,” and was “unbowed by the latest attempt of a surrogate of the Israeli government to stifle our call for justice for Palestinian and Israeli workers.” Knowlton added, “The NLRB’s decision is a victory for the growing BDS movement across the U.S., which faces increasing political attempts to silence and intimidate critics of the Israeli government. As Americans who have a constitutional right to criticize our own government, we certainly have a right to criticize and, if we choose, boycott a foreign government that is heavily subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.”

Read more: http://www.ueunion.org/political-action/2016/nlrb-confirms-legality-of-union-support-for-israel-boycott-union-condemns

40 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NLRB Confirms Legality of Union Support for Israel Boycott; Union Condemns Political Attacks on BDS (Original Post) Little Tich Jul 2016 OP
BDS and Israel-hatred are the worst of both communism and alt-right ericson00 Jul 2016 #1
BDS and Israel hatred not the sane unc70 Jul 2016 #2
The former is motivated by the latter. aranthus Jul 2016 #3
These antisemitic bastards support right of return. aranthus Jul 2016 #4
+1 King_David Jul 2016 #5
I personally don't think that promoting equal rights for Palestinians is anti-Semitic. Little Tich Jul 2016 #7
This post in the AA group may also apply here GeoWilliam750 Jul 2016 #9
Yup. 100%. n/t Little Tich Jul 2016 #12
They aren't about equal rights and neither are you. aranthus Jul 2016 #10
Ah, "separate but equal"? Little Tich Jul 2016 #11
Only about 10% of Palestinians would agree to a secular, liberal western style democracy. shira Jul 2016 #15
You're the one advocating the one-state state solution, not me. Little Tich Jul 2016 #18
Wait - that's so much bullshit, I can't take it anymore.... shira Jul 2016 #21
If the partition plan from 1947 would've been adhered to, the Palestinian refugees would've been Little Tich Jul 2016 #24
Nope. Not all refugees come from within the green line.... shira Jul 2016 #31
So guess who's hindering them from returning... (Hint: It's not the PA.) Little Tich Jul 2016 #35
Palestinians are the only refugees that have increased in numbers.... shira Jul 2016 #36
Are France and Germany separate but equal? aranthus Jul 2016 #16
So ethnic discrimination is OK in the name of ethnic sovereignty then? Little Tich Jul 2016 #19
You didn't answer the question. aranthus Jul 2016 #22
They're two separate countries with separate populations. Little Tich Jul 2016 #23
So could be Israel and Palestine. aranthus Jul 2016 #25
Ah, so you're a revisionist... Little Tich Jul 2016 #26
No. You believe lies aranthus Jul 2016 #28
I suppose that if one starts drinking the hasbara kool-Aid, there's no going back to reality. Little Tich Jul 2016 #30
We've had this discussion before. aranthus Jul 2016 #38
Did you download a copy of Morris's "The Birth of the Palestinian refugee problem revisited"? Little Tich Jul 2016 #39
You keep misreading him. aranthus Jul 2016 #40
What a joke quoting Illan Pappe and accusing others of revisionism. shira Jul 2016 #34
Oops? n/t Little Tich Jul 2016 #37
Wikipedia: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 Little Tich Jul 2016 #27
So what? aranthus Jul 2016 #29
UNGAR 194 is about Refugees willing to live at peace who return.... shira Jul 2016 #32
Last time there was one state was 1947 & there was civil war.... shira Jul 2016 #13
Once a civil war, always a civil war? Little Tich Jul 2016 #17
Uh.....ever heard of Hamas? WTF makes you think they want to live... shira Jul 2016 #20
Do you support Israel allowing in Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.? n/t shira Jul 2016 #33
These racist degenerates called the 2014 IDF military operation... shira Jul 2016 #6
While I personally think calling the war on Gaza "genocide" is hyperbole, Little Tich Jul 2016 #8
BDS is all hyperbole, lies, & Jew hatred. Not much else. n/t shira Jul 2016 #14

unc70

(6,115 posts)
2. BDS and Israel hatred not the sane
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 10:07 AM
Jul 2016

But we can always depend on you for clear consistent statements and positions.

Communism AND right wing? Seriously?!

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
3. The former is motivated by the latter.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 11:22 AM
Jul 2016

BDS was never intended to promote negotiations or peace. The creators of BDS have said over and over again that it is about enforcing their demands, and they have even admitted that if those demands are met, then there won't be an Israel.

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
4. These antisemitic bastards support right of return.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 11:29 AM
Jul 2016

I realize that you support that too. I just wish that such people would have the courage of their convictions, and just admit that they don't want a Jewish state. Is it too much to expect that antisemites be honest about what they believe? Oh wait. Apparently it is.

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
7. I personally don't think that promoting equal rights for Palestinians is anti-Semitic.
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 11:07 PM
Jul 2016

The right to return to their ancestral homeland shouldn't be a Jewish privilege, it should apply to all - Jews and Palestinans alike. It seems as if you think that discriminating against people based on their ethnicity is a good thing, and that being against that discrimination in this case is anti-Semitic.

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
10. They aren't about equal rights and neither are you.
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 12:19 AM
Jul 2016

Equal would be each people gets their own state so they can live by their own laws and customs. Your way is that the Jews have to live as second class citizens in an Arab state.

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
15. Only about 10% of Palestinians would agree to a secular, liberal western style democracy.
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 11:06 AM
Jul 2016

Last edited Mon Jul 25, 2016, 11:47 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/other/PalestinianPollingReport_June2014.pdf

Remember Joint Party Balad MK's talking about no gay rights, etc.? So what makes you think another Arab majority state in that region with Jews as a minority would be a good thing? If 90% of Palestinians would rather live in a society based on Sharia Law, who are you to disagree?

Do you support a change in Palestinian policy, from demanding an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, to demanding equal rights for Arabs and Jews in one state in Historical Palestine, from the river to the sea?


69% of Palestinians said 'No' to this.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/palpopeace.html

The percentage of Israeli Jews is far higher than that, so why are you advocating 1-state after a full "right of return"? How are you going to impose your colonial white man's solution on the brown-skinned Jewish and Arab natives of that region?

Seriously. I'd like an answer to all this, otherwise you're all smoke and mirrors.

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
18. You're the one advocating the one-state state solution, not me.
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 10:21 PM
Jul 2016

Letting Palestinians return to their ancestral homeland won't change much - according to the partition plan from 1947, the Palestinians in the Jewish state were supposed to be allowed to stay and have equal rights anyway. The one-state solution will happen because of 600.000 settlers who make a Palestinian state impossible, not the ethnic makeup of the Israelis. It's like saying that Hispanic immigrants to the US will cause the US to merge with Mexico.

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
21. Wait - that's so much bullshit, I can't take it anymore....
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 08:34 AM
Jul 2016

Last edited Tue Jul 26, 2016, 10:15 AM - Edit history (2)

You want 2 states, but the Jewish state within the green line should admit millions of Palestinian refugees in - is that right?

Omar Barghouti of BDS, you know, the actual founder of BDS, says that solution is just 1 Palestinian state next to another Palestinian state. He's very honest about that. But you have no problem supporting that shit.

WTF makes you think Israel would ever in a GAZILLION years agree to that?

BDS demands are bullshit, you know it.

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
24. If the partition plan from 1947 would've been adhered to, the Palestinian refugees would've been
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 10:00 PM
Jul 2016

Israeli citizens instead of refugees.

For me, not allowing certain people to immigrate due to their ethnicity seems a bit wrong, especially since these people are returning to their ancestral homeland. That they're all uncivilized savages who want Sharia law isn't really a good argument. Besides, the idea of a Palestinian state seems to be a pipe dream, so the Palestinians will never have a state of their own to go to. If there was a viable Palestinian state, and the refugees wanted live there rather than in their former homes in Israel, that would've been fine with me. The problem is that there's no Palestinian state, nor will there ever be one.

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
31. Nope. Not all refugees come from within the green line....
Wed Jul 27, 2016, 02:26 AM
Jul 2016

Many are from Gaza and the W.Bank.

Besides, all but the original 30,000 or so from 1948 aren't "refugees" by any definition.

=========

Bottom line is you want one Palestinian state next to another.

The Palestinians get self-determination while the Jews do not. That's the goal of BDS founder Omar Barghouti who says the Jews are not a people worthy of self-determination, which is racist in the extreme.

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
35. So guess who's hindering them from returning... (Hint: It's not the PA.)
Wed Jul 27, 2016, 03:21 AM
Jul 2016

Anyway, it's common practice for children of refugees to inherit their parents' status as refugees until they're refugees no more. Reality always trumps hasbara.

EXPLODING THE MYTHS: UNRWA, UNHCR AND THE PALESTINE REFUGEES
Source: UNRWA, 27 June 2011
(snip)

UNHCR‘s Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for determining Refugee Status provides in paragraph 184: "If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, [for refugee status] his dependants are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity."

In effect, refugee families everywhere retain their status as refugees until they fall within the terms of a cessation clause or are able to avail themselves of one of three durable solutions already mentioned -- voluntary repatriation, local integration or resettlement in a third country.

Also, Chapter 5 of the UNHCR publication, Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination under UNHCR’s Mandate is very clear that in accordance with the refugee’s right to family unity, refugee status is transferred through the generations. According to Chapter 5.1.2 "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."

Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."

Read more: http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/features/exploding-myths-unrwa-unhcr-and-palestine-refugees
 

shira

(30,109 posts)
36. Palestinians are the only refugees that have increased in numbers....
Wed Jul 27, 2016, 03:29 AM
Jul 2016

There are no other refugees in the world whose numbers have increased over decades. From 700,000 to over 5,000,000. Your propaganda is absurd.

What the UN has done with refugees is disgraceful. If someone is born in Qatar, lives in Paris & has a Spanish passport, such a person can still be considered a refugee by the UN. That's ridiculous and unprecedented among non-Palestinians. The reason is pure anti-semitism; to deny Jews their own homeland.

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
16. Are France and Germany separate but equal?
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 12:03 PM
Jul 2016

Last edited Mon Jul 25, 2016, 08:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Of course they are. But you don't want that. You want to force the Jews to give up their sovereignty so that the Arabs can rule over them.

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
19. So ethnic discrimination is OK in the name of ethnic sovereignty then?
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 10:28 PM
Jul 2016

I personally think that ethnic cleansing is always a bad thing, and that it should be reversed when possible. The moral cause for the party doing the ethnic cleansing is always weak.

We'll just have to disagree on that issue.

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
22. You didn't answer the question.
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 10:59 AM
Jul 2016

Inatead, you fell back on your usual BS spiel for when you don't have an answer.

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
23. They're two separate countries with separate populations.
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 09:22 PM
Jul 2016

There are no German refugees in France who are prevented from going back to their ancestral homeland and vice versa. There's no separate but equal system there. You seem to argue that ethnic cleansing is justified sometimes to guarantee ethnic sovereignty. That's an argument that I don't agree with.

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
25. So could be Israel and Palestine.
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 10:06 PM
Jul 2016

You seem to think that the Palestinians have some right to revers decades of history so that they can "have it all." I think that when they decided to start a war to ethnically cleanse the Jews, that they lost any right to complain about the result. You seem to think that there is some right to live in all of one's ancestral homeland. I don't know where you get that, because there is no such right, and never has been. You are simply making it up. You don't get to do that. Not only that, but you seem to think that that right is preeminent over any other right that a people might have, such as their right to self determination. That again is just nonsense that you are making up yourself. There is no recognition of that supposed right in the real world. Nor do I agree that there was "ethnic cleansing" of the Palestinians. You seem to believe that most of them were intentionally forced out, but that just isn't true. The truth is that most of them ran from a war that their own side started. They don't get a do over.

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
26. Ah, so you're a revisionist...
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 10:38 PM
Jul 2016

The civil war in Palestine wasn't started by the Arabs - it was a mutual escalation by both sides. Remember the terrorists of Irgun and Lehi massacring civilians?

1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine

Source: Wikipedia
(snip)

Beginning of the Civil War (30 November 1947 – 1 April 1948

In the aftermath of the adoption of Resolution 181(II) by the General Assembly of the United Nations recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan of Partition,[12] the manifestations of joy of the Jewish community were counterbalanced by protests by Arabs throughout the country and after 1 December, the Arab Higher Committee enacted a general strike that lasted three days.

A 'wind of violence' rapidly took hold of the country, foreboding civil war between the two communities. Murders, reprisals, and counter-reprisals came fast on each other's heels, resulting in dozens of victims killed on both sides in the process. The impasse persisted as British forces did not intervene to put a stop to the escalating cycles of violence.

The first casualties after the adoption of Resolution 181(II) by the General Assembly were passengers on a Jewish bus driving on the Coastal Plain near Kfar Sirkin on 30 November. An eight-man gang from Jaffa ambushed the bus killing five and wounding others. Half an hour later they ambushed a second bus, southbound from Hadera, killing two more. Arab snipers attacked Jewish buses in Jerusalem and Haifa.

Irgun and Lehi followed their strategy of placing bombs in crowded markets and bus-stops. As on 30 December, in Haifa, when members of Irgun, threw two bombs at a crowd of Arab workers who were queueing in front of a refinery, killing 6 of them and injuring 42. An angry crowd massacred 39 Jewish people in revenge, until British soldiers reestablished calm. In reprisals, some soldiers from the strike force, Palmach and the Carmeli brigade, attacked the village of Balad ash-Sheikh and Hawassa. According to different historians, this attack led to between 21 and 70 deaths.

According to Benny Morris, much of the fighting in the first months of the war took place in and on the edges of the main towns, and was initiated by the Arabs. It included Arab snipers firing at Jewish houses, pedestrians, and traffic, as well as planting bombs and mines along urban and rural paths and roads.


Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%9348_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine#Beginning_of_the_Civil_War_.2830_November_1947_.E2.80.93_1_April_1948.29

I would recommend that you read some real history books about the history of Israel. I can recommend Benny Morris's "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem revisited", because it's both factually correct and can be found online.

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
28. No. You believe lies
Wed Jul 27, 2016, 01:48 AM
Jul 2016

Apparently you also aren't very familiar with the historiography fo the I/P conflict. It is the "New Historians" such as Avi Schlaim and Ilan Pappe who are the revisionists. I've read them, and they have been discredited by real historians.

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
30. I suppose that if one starts drinking the hasbara kool-Aid, there's no going back to reality.
Wed Jul 27, 2016, 02:08 AM
Jul 2016

I suppose that if one starts drinking the hasbara kool-Aid, there's no going back to reality.

Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappe may disagree on a few things, but that the Palestinians were mostly driven out is not one of those things:

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus
Source: Wikipedia
(snip)

Morris's Four Waves analysis
In The Irish Times of February 2008, Benny Morris summarized his analysis as follows: "Most of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders). But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops." In The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Morris divided the Palestinian exodus in four waves and an aftermath: Morris analyses the direct causes, as opposed to his proposed indirect cause of the "transfer idea", for each wave separately.

Causes of the first wave, December 1947 – March 1948
Morris gives no numbers regarding the first wave, but says "the spiral of violence precipitated flight by the middle and upper classes of the big towns, especially Haifa, Jaffa and Jerusalem, and their satellite rural communities. It also prompted the piecemeal, but almost complete, evacuation of the Arab rural population from what was to be the heartland of the Jewish State—the Coastal Plain between Tel Aviv and Hadera—and a small-scale partial evacuation of other rural areas hit by hostilities and containing large Jewish concentrations, namely the Jezreel and Jordan valleys." More specific to the causes Morris states: "The Arab evacuees from the towns and villages left largely because of Jewish ... attacks or fear of impending attack, and from a sense of vulnerability." According to Morris expulsions were "almost insignificant" and "many more left as a result of orders or advice from Arab military commanders and officials" to safer areas within the country. The Palestinian leadership struggled against the exodus.

Decisive causes of abandonment of Palestinian villages and towns according to Benny Morris
Decisive causes of abandonment Occurrences
military assault on settlement 215
influence of nearby town's fall 59
expulsion by Jewish forces 53
fear (of being caught up in fighting) 48
whispering campaigns 15
abandonment on Arab orders 6
unknown 44

Causes of the second wave, April–June 1948
According to Morris the "Haganah and IZL offensives in Haifa, Jaffa and eastern and western Galilee precipitated a mass exodus." "Undoubtedly ... the most important single factor in the exodus of April–June was Jewish attack. This is demonstrated clearly by the fact that each exodus occurred during or in the immediate wake of military assault. No town was abandoned by the bulk of its population before the main Haganah/IZL assault." Also many villages were abandoned during attacks, but others were evacuated because the inhabitants feared they would be next. A major factor in the exodus was the undermining of Palestinian morale due to the earlier fall and exodus from other towns and villages.[139] Morris says that the "Palestinian leaders and commanders struggled against [the exodus]" but in many cases encouraged evacuation of women children and old people out of harms way and in some cases ordered villages to evacuate.

Regarding expulsions (Morris defines expulsions as "when a Haganah/IDF/IZL/LHI unit entered or conquered a town or village and then ordered its inhabitants to leave&quot Morris says that the Yishuv leaders "were reluctant to openly order or endorse expulsions" in towns but "Haganah commanders exercised greater independence and forcefulness in the countryside": "In general Haganah operational orders for attacks on towns did not call for the expulsion or eviction of the civilian population. But from early April, operational orders for attacks on villages and clusters of villages more often than not called for the destruction of villages and, implicitly or explicitly, expulsion." Issuing expulsion orders was hardly necessary though, because "most villages were completely or almost completely empty by the time they were conquered", "the inhabitants usually fled with the approach of the advancing Jewish column or when the first mortar bombs began to hit their homes." The Givati Brigade engaged in expulsions near Rehovot.

Causes of the third and fourth waves, July–October 1948 and October–November 1948
In July "altogether, the Israeli offensives of the Ten Days and the subsequent clearing operations probably send something over 100,000 Arabs into exile." About half of these were expelled from Lydda and Ramle on 12 through 14 July. Morris says that expulsion orders were given for both towns, the one for Ramle calling for "sorting out of the inhabitants, and send the army-age males to a prisoner-of-war camp". "The commanders involved understood that what was happening was an expulsion rather than a spontaneous exodus."

In October and November Operations Yoav in the Negev and Hiram in central Galilee were aimed at destroying enemy formations of respectively the Egyptian army and the Arab Liberation Army, and precipitated the flight of 200,000–230,000 Arabs. The UN mediator on Palestine Folke Bernadotte reported in September 1948 that Palestinian flight, "resulted from panic created by fighting in their communities, by rumours concerning real or alleged acts of terrorism, or expulsion". United Nations observers, who had been dispatched to monitor how the partition plan, reported in October that Israeli policy was that of "uprooting Arabs from their native villages in Palestine by force or threat". In the Negev the clearing was more complete because "the OC, Allon, was known to want "Arab-clean" areas along his line of advance" and "his subordinates usually acted in accordance"[149] and the inhabitants were almost uniformly Muslim. In the Galilee pocket, for various reasons, about 30–50 per cent of the inhabitants stayed. More specifically regarding the causes of the exodus Morris says: "Both commanders were clearly bent on driving out the population in the area they were conquering," and "Many, perhaps most, [Arabs] expected to be driven out, or worse. Hence, when the offensives were unleashed, there was a 'coalescence' of Jewish and Arab expectations, which led, especially in the south, to spontaneous flight by most of the inhabitants. And, on both fronts, IDF units 'nudged' Arabs into flight and expelled communities."

Main causes of the Palestinian exodus according to Israeli historian Benny Morris
Wave Period Refugees Main causes
First wave December 1947 – March 1948 about 100,000 sense of vulnerability, attacks and fear of impending attack
Second wave April–June 1948 250,000–300,000 attacks and fear of impending attack
Third wave July–October 1948 about 100,000 attacks and expulsions
Fourth wave October–November 1948 200,000–230,000 attacks and expulsions
Border clearings November 1948 – 1950 30,000-40,000


Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus#Morris.27s_Four_Waves_analysis

aranthus

(3,385 posts)
38. We've had this discussion before.
Wed Jul 27, 2016, 03:38 PM
Jul 2016

You are deliberately misreading Morris. He doesn't say that the Arabs were all, or even mostly, expelled. Like most responsible historians he recognizes that most simply ran from the war; a war the Arabs started.

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
39. Did you download a copy of Morris's "The Birth of the Palestinian refugee problem revisited"?
Wed Jul 27, 2016, 09:51 PM
Jul 2016

I'd like to direct your attention to map 2: Arab settlements abandoned in 1948-49 together with the corresponding key indicating the reason for their abandonment:

In the Key, the following codes are used for decisive causes of abandonment:
A Abandonment on Arab orders
C influence of nearby town's fall
E Expulsion by Jewish forces
F Fear (of being caught up in fighting)
M Military assault on settlement
W Whispering campaigns - psychological warfare by Haganah/IDF


The lines between C, F and M are somewhat blurred. It is often difficult to distinguish between the flight of villagers because of reports of the fall or flight from neighbouring settlements, flight from fear of"being next" or flight due to the approach of a HaganahlIDF column. I have generally ascribed the flight of inhabitants on the path of an Israeli military advance to M, even though some villagers may have already taken to their heels upon hearing of the fall of a neighbouring village (which could go under C or F). Similarly the line between M and E is occasionally blurred.

(Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian refugee problem revisited, map 2)

There's a compilation of the Key to Map 2 in the wikipedia article I quoted above, which has the following numbers:

Decisive causes of abandonment of Palestinian villages and towns according to Benny Morris
Decisive causes of abandonment Occurrences
military assault on settlement 215
influence of nearby town's fall 59
expulsion by Jewish forces 53
fear (of being caught up in fighting) 48
whispering campaigns 15
abandonment on Arab orders 6
unknown 44

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus#Morris.27s_Four_Waves_analysis

Finally, I would like to draw your attention to the following passage in Morris's book, p60-61 from chapter 2: "The idea of ‘transfer’ in Zionist thinking before 1948" (Actually, it's better to read the whole chapter, but the passage, will do.):

My feeling is that the transfer thinking and near-consensus that emerged in the 1930s and early 1940s was not tantamount to preplanning and did not issue in the production of a policy or master-plan of expulsion; the Yishuv and its military forces did not enter the 1948 War, which was initiated by the Arab side, with a policy or plan for expulsion. But transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism – because it sought to transform a land which was ‘Arab’ into a ‘Jewish’ state and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population; and because this aim automatically produced resistance among the Arabs which, in turn, persuaded the Yishuv’s leaders that a hostile Arab majority or large minority could not remain in place if a Jewish state was to arise or safely endure. By 1948, transfer was in the air. The transfer thinking that preceded the war contributed to the denouement by conditioning the Jewish population, political parties, military organisations and military and civilian leaderships for what transpired. Thinking about the possibilities of transfer in the 1930s and 1940s had prepared and conditioned hearts and minds for its implementation in the course of 1948 so that, as it occurred, few voiced protest or doubt; it was accepted as inevitable and natural by the bulk of the Jewish population. The facts that Palestine’s Arabs (and the Arab states) had rejected the UN partition resolution and, to nip it in the bud, had launched the hostilities that snowballed into fullscale civil war and that the Arab states had invaded Palestine and attacked Israel in May 1948 only hardened Jewish hearts toward the Palestinian Arabs, who were seen as mortal enemies and, should they be coopted into the Jewish state, a potential Fifth Column.

Thus, the expulsions that periodically dotted the Palestinian Arab exodus raised few eyebrows and thus the Yishuv’s leaders, parties and population in mid-war accepted without significant dissent or protest the militarily and politically sensible decision not to allow an Arab refugee return.

It was at this point and in this context that some Yishuv leaders occasionally looked back and reflected upon the connection between what had already happened (by autumn 1948, some 400,000–500,000 Arabs had been displaced) and the transfer thinking of the 1930s and 1940s.

‘In my opinion . . . there is no need to discuss a return of the refugees [so long as a renewal of hostilities is possible] . . . ’, said Yitzhak Gruenbaum, Israel’s minister of interior, in September 1948. In the past we had a plan, that were we able to transfer the Arab population to [neighbouring] Arab states – we would have been ready to participate in the expense of their resettlement with assistance and financial help. Now, too, I see nothing wrong with this plan . . .

(Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian refugee problem revisited, p60-61)

What I want to prove with this post is that there was indeed a well formulated idea that Arabs ought to be "transferred" and that the resulting removal of Arabs from Palestine seems to reflect that in practice.



 

shira

(30,109 posts)
34. What a joke quoting Illan Pappe and accusing others of revisionism.
Wed Jul 27, 2016, 02:45 AM
Jul 2016

Pappe is notorious for being a liar & propagandist. He even admits it:

There is no historian in the world who is objective. I am not as interested in what happened as in how people see what's happened. ("An Interview of Ilan Pappé," Baudouin Loos, Le Soir (Bruxelles),Nov. 29, 1999)

I admit that my ideology influences my historical writings...(Ibid)

Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts. Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons, not because we are truthseekers. (Ibid)

The debate between us is on one level between historians who believe they are purely objective reconstructers of the past, like (Benny) Morris, and those who claim that they are subjective human beings striving to tell their own version of the past, like myself. (“Benny Morris’s Lies About My Book,” Ilan Pappé, Response to Morris’ critique of Pappé’s book, “A History of Palestine” published in the New Republic, March 22, 2004, History News Network, April 5, 2004)

(Historical) Narratives... when written by historians involved deeply in the subject matter they write about, such as in the case of Israeli historians who write about the Palestine conflict, is motivated also... by a deep involvement and a wish to make a point. This point is called ideology or politics. (Ibid)

Yes, I use Palestinian sources for the Intifada: they seem to me to be more reliable, I admit. (Ibid)

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
27. Wikipedia: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 10:50 PM
Jul 2016

Source: Wikipedia

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 was adopted on December 11, 1948, near the end of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. The Resolution defined principles for reaching a final settlement and returning Palestine refugees to their homes. It resolved that “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.” (Article 11)

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_194

For me it's pretty natural that people should be able to return after fleeing or being ethnically cleansed in a civil war. In fact, not allowing them to return would only benefit those who did the ethnic cleansing.
 

shira

(30,109 posts)
32. UNGAR 194 is about Refugees willing to live at peace who return....
Wed Jul 27, 2016, 02:32 AM
Jul 2016

Last edited Wed Jul 27, 2016, 04:12 AM - Edit history (1)

But you believe Hamas and Islamic Jihad members are innocent lambs who should be allowed "return".

They don't have a right anymore than Germans of the Sudetenland have a right of return.

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
13. Last time there was one state was 1947 & there was civil war....
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 10:52 AM
Jul 2016

This one state after a make-believe Right-of-Return is a call to war.

You know that.

====================

If you want peace and an end to pretend apartheid drop BDS and its goal of 1-state as Israel will never, ever in a million years -agree to such terms. Even if heavily pressured, with full boycotts, sanctions, divestment. Israelis aren't suicidal. By clinging to an unrealistic BDS, you're part of the problem, only prolonging the conflict.

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
17. Once a civil war, always a civil war?
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 10:04 PM
Jul 2016

For example, there was a civil war in the US once, but it's a pretty safe bet to say that it won't happen again, just like most civil wars. I can't really see how allowing the Palestinians who want to return to their ancestral homeland would result in civil war, unless the belligerent party is those who oppose their return...

 

shira

(30,109 posts)
20. Uh.....ever heard of Hamas? WTF makes you think they want to live...
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 08:31 AM
Jul 2016

Last edited Tue Jul 26, 2016, 04:49 PM - Edit history (3)

....in a pluralistic society with gay and women's rights? They'd have to get real jobs and no longer want to kill all Jews. And you believe they would do just that, along with Islamic Jihad and Fatah's armed brigades. That's like expecting America to invite ISIS into the country and counting on them to be good citizens.

The problem is you don't think Hamas, Islamic Jihad and friends are that bad and that only racist Jews would have a problem with them. That's quite a disgusting & offensive POV, similar to claiming KKK'ers aren't so bad and that only racist Black people would have a problem with them. How vile...



 

shira

(30,109 posts)
6. These racist degenerates called the 2014 IDF military operation...
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 11:54 AM
Jul 2016

....in Gaza a genocide.



Then again, this idiocy is what we've come to expect from BDS hole crackpots and lunatics who support Hamas and its psychotic Jew hating agenda.

Let me know when these dipshits boycott any other country, calling for its destruction based on "human rights".

Please.

Little Tich

(6,171 posts)
8. While I personally think calling the war on Gaza "genocide" is hyperbole,
Sun Jul 24, 2016, 11:32 PM
Jul 2016

I see no UE links to "BDS hole crackpots and lunatics who support Hamas and its psychotic Jew hating agenda". It seems as if the UE is a bit one-sided on the I/P issue, but it doesn't mean that they deserve to be called anti-Semites or be accused of supporting them.

Here's an excerpt from the UE Union resolution of 01 September, 2015 which calls the Israeli attack on Gaza genocide:

UE Endorses BDS Movement for Peace and Justice in Israel and Palestine
Source: UE, 01 September, 2015
(snip)

JUSTICE AND PEACE FOR THE PEOPLES OF PALESTINE AND ISRAEL

In 1988, delegates to the UE 53rd Convention adopted the resolution “Time for a Just Settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” In it they said, “The occupation by Israel of the West Bank and other Arab lands since 1967 has blocked the exercise of Palestinian national rights and resulted in ongoing violations of human, social, political, economic and particularly trade union rights of Palestinians…” The resolution said the U.S. government had “contributed to the continued conflict by its one-sided support for Israel and its failure to take into account the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people,” and it called for the U.S. government to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization and for the creation of a Palestinian state.

For more than 25 years the U.S. has engaged in a so-called “peace process” with Israeli and Palestinian representatives. But the U.S. role has remained extremely one-sided. The U.S. provides Israel $3 billion a year in aid and repeatedly uses its UN veto to shield Israel from criticism of its human rights abuses. The Palestinians are worse off. In the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, Israel continues to confiscate homes and land to expand Israeli settlements which violate international law. Since 1967 Israel has settled more than 500,000 of its citizens in the West Bank, and has been building a wall that separates neighboring towns and cuts off farmers from their fields. Many prominent human rights activists including former President Jimmy Carter and South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu have called the system of Israeli rule over Palestinian people “apartheid.”

In Gaza, 1.8 million Palestinians are crowded into a tiny enclave under continuous military and economic blockade. In the summer of 2014 Israel waged a merciless war on the impoverished population of Gaza. More than 2,000 Palestinians were killed. The vast majority were civilians, including more than 500 children; and the physical destruction was overwhelming. UE’s officers issued a statement expressing our union’s alarm and over 300 Holocaust survivors and descendants signed a full-page newspaper ad that condemned the Israeli attack as genocide and declared, “never again must mean never again for anyone.” Yet incredibly, the U.S. Senate voted unanimously at the time to endorse Israel’s actions.

The source of the conflict goes back to the origins of the State of Israel. The population was overwhelmingly Palestinian Arab (Muslim and Christian) before 1947-48, when well-armed Zionist militias seized most of the territory of Palestine and expelled 750,000 people from their cities, villages and farms. They executed much of the Palestinian leadership and declared the founding of the State of Israel. As a result millions of Palestinians are refugees both in the occupied territories and in other countries. Israel prohibits their return to their homes.


Read more: http://www.ueunion.org/political-action/2015/BDS
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Israel/Palestine»NLRB Confirms Legality of...