TheIronRuler said:
Damn it.
No. The Arabs claimed so. There was no evidence of such actions in the 1948 war of Israeli Independence.
About going back in - They have their own brothers and sisters. Why won't they help them?
Yes, this is a sensitive subject because NOBODY wants these refugees.
But why lay all of the blame of Israel? What about all of the neighboring Muslim countries that can assist them, or the leaders that promised them they will return there after the Jews have been defeated?
That's not true. There is in fact abundant evidence. The Palestinian refugees fled due Israeli military attacks, the threat of attacks, and expulsions. There may or may not have been an active policy of expulsions by the Israelis, but expulsions were ordered by the Israeli high command. Also, there is of course a whole documented variety of Israeli atrocities including massacres, rape, and torture. Naturally the Arabs are not guiltless either; there were instances of Palestinian leaders ordering/convincing villagers to leave and neither are they guiltless when it comes to civilian deaths; however, to claim that the primary responsibility for the refugee problem does not rest on Israel is unsupportable and untrue.
If you'd like further reading on this topic, I'd recommend Benny Morris' "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited" (2004). This is some excellent scholarship and was groundbreaking work when the first version was released in 1988. Furthermore, it's worth noting that Benny Morris is an Israeli historian, a self-proclaimed Zionist, served as a paratrooper in the 1967 war and was injured (and thus discharged from the army) during the War of Attrition. Just in case it might have thought I was trying to point you to a biased source.
On the subject of the 1948 war though, I'm curious: what sort of narrative do you have in your head? Is it the classic Israeli David vs. the Arab Goliath? I don't want to presume, but if it is, and since you seem to put such stock in educating people, I thought I do you the service of explaining how that view is incorrect. Simply, historically, factually incorrect.
TheIronRuler said:
The image of 1949-1967 is supposed to be the future palestine and how it would look like geographically. The newest map is bullshit.
If you look at the Oslo treaties and the security arrangements you'll see that the West bank autonomy is divided into three different parts - A, B, C.
That newest map is far closer to the present truth than the 1967 also provided. In fact, it probably comes pretty close to demonstrating the restrictions on movement etc. which the Palestinians face within their own homeland.
Oh, also, on that note: Settlements!*
*Explanatory Post Script: Your few words on settlements thus far have been woefully inadequate. The settlements are immoral, illegal, and (to the best of my knowledge) ongoing. Also, government supported. Oh, and underhanded attempts to sidestep negotiations by altering "facts on the ground" (the most blatant example of this being Jerusalem).
Edit: Also, obligatory: "Hi all, first post." In retrospect, I probably could have picked a friendlier thread for that.
