Where did you get this from? As I have tried showing previously is that the Arabs fled because of the war, people flee in war, it was not premeditated nor complicit in some slaughter, they fled because they feared they'd be killed by the Jewish army, either in pure slaughter or because they were near troops. You know the reason people flee wars. A smaller portion were expelled.Philwelch wrote:So the Arab populations were pulled out by the Arab states in order to simplify the task of genocide they had before them, and you blame the Jews for removing the Arab population of Israel--rather than the Arab states who made the call of "withdraw from Palestine and we will drive the Jews into the sea and give you their lands"?
There were a number of massacres, as well as a lot of civilian casualities. So the ones who fled might have saved their lives by doing so. Now as is usual in war way more fled than died, and there appears to have been instances where massacres were either made seem worse than they were as well as reported very widely which had the effect of people fleeing, but none the less people legitimately fled what was, as was very standard at the time, a rather bloody and brutal war. The Arabs who fled then were not in any way "throwing their lot in with the Arabs", they had legitemate reasons for fleeing the oncomming Israeli army, and under international law they need not have feared being denied the right of return, even if I imagine they might have suspected they would be.Philwelch wrote:these Arabs did not flee because they were gleefully expecting the slaughter of Israelis, but because they feared getting slaughtered by them, they fled for legitimate reasons and they were denied the right of return for illegitimate reasons.
Funny then, that the Arabs who stayed in Israel were not slaughtered or repressed and remain citizens today.
The Arabs who fled Israel cast their lot in with the Arab states, and the Arabs who stayed cast their lot in with Israel. As it happens, Israel, the lone Jewish state in the region, was a safer bet for those Arabs than the Arab states.
And god forbid I respect international law, it's not like these very laws were formed to prevent the stuff Israel has been doing, formed because when you do the things Israel have been diong, siezing land and expelling the local population, you exacerbate a conflict and encourage war. And of course the laws that prevent civilian suffering.
It was the UN that partitioned Palestine and gave the Jews a homeland there in the first place. The Arab states were the ones to reject the plan and attempt genocide. Quite frankly, I challenge any civilization to do any better than Israel has done since then, given a similar situation.
I question the notion that genocide would have been the conclusion to an Arab victory. Second, the situation is assimilar to most other conflicts due to the highly localized wealth and power in the small state of Israel. Obvious analogues pre say the 1900's are inept, not only was the weaponery entirely differently but there were only vague notions of rules of war and going further back it only gets worse. Holding a nation to the same standards as Rome would not inspire the conscience. An obvious analogue would be with that of Great Brittain and Ireland, and I think no doubt that situation has been handled vastly better, without for example resorting to jet strikes or bombing campaigns despite the prolonged and deadly bombing campaign of the IRA.
Another analogy would be South Africa, which certainly in terms of relations between groups has come a great deal further, and abandoned the plan of "Cantons", but it too is a rather vague analog.
But okey, let's look at the Gaza massacre, it was one year ago. Could it have been handled better? There is no question yes, it could have been handled vastly better, I believe you're a FaiDite so if you want more details you can look at the topic there, it's a bit tiring detailing these things in every topic. But in short to quote the Goldstone report it was by this "model state" an attack to "“punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population". I think they could have done not that.
Okey let's look a bit further back at past conflicts, could the 1972 war have been handled better? Yes, Israel could have agreed to have peace by agreeing to abide by International law and returning the Sinai. And they did, after the War. Not a hard standard for a country to beat.
Deflecting criticism by saying "others could not have done better" isn't really valid when you look at the facts.
Two words: "Iraq" and "Afghanistan". The 60 years of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have resulted in fewer casualties than the American occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq and Afghanistan aren't merely supported by the United States but perpetrated by it. They result in less controversy than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Depending on how you meassure it this is most certainly untrue, judging by the size of protests again the Iraq war both on the eve of war and after it's vastly less controversial than Israel/Palestine. This goes for Internal US debate, there is much more debate regarding Iraq and Afghanistan than there is re supporting Israel.
Second I think the evidence suggests that the US does behave better than Israel in Iraq and Afghanistan, the vast majority of civilian casualties in Iraq are caused by internal conflict as Iraq unlikely Palestine consists of three major factions and there is only a very weak nationalist movement, whereas it was the nationalist movement that Israel was trying to beat down before and during the first intifada.
To the extent that it's true is simply is a mix of lack of time and lack of easy sources. If I want to catch up on the recent news re Israel it's very easy, if I want to look up atrocities committed by the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan it's much harder, but this is a local source.
Accepting those refugees is commendable, even though of course it is essentially the purpose of a Jewish state, but the Arab states are not required to accept these refugees. It would be nice if they did, and it is possible they will be forced to or that these will be encouraged to live in a future Palestinian state, but they have no obligation. Israel has an obligation. So putting the blame of the Arabs is not reasonable.And I'm sure that the Palestinian Arabs would feel the same way if someone had actually integrated them instead of holding them in decrepit refugee camps in order to "preserve their cultural identity" and to "protect their right of return".