No. How is there a just meaningless distinction between expelling the inhabitants of a territory that comes under your sovereignty, like in Ramle, and not doing it, like in Nazareth? It seems to me like a pretty meaningful distinction between the two.
Ok bad example I guess cause they weren't expelled, just not allowed to return or retrieve their lost property I think. But let's say the Jewish quarter of Bagdhad or whatever. I think you can understand my point. Iraq didn't steal the Jewish quarter of Bagdhad even if they expel the citizens. They stole their property however.
What claim did the provisional government of Israel have on places like Ramle? There is no comparison with the Jewish quarter of Baghdad, again - administratively it had always been part of Baghdad and by extension Iraq. That wasn't the case in 1948 where we're talking about a entirely new government being formed by a minority of the population in the region - it'd be one thing if the borders of Israel were limited to the borders outlined in the UN partition plan but it wasn't. The whole point was that these territories weren't under Israeli sovereignty - that is what makes it theft.
Again, I'm not necessarily condemning or even disagreeing with what happened but it's pretty clear that territory was stolen. At the very least let's be honest about the facts.
Your argument was that expelling people=stealing territory. "How does the expulsion of Arabs by the IDF not constitute as theft?". So how does the expulsion of Jews by Iraq not constitute as theft? That was the whole discussion was about. How there is no meaningful difference between expelling people and extending sovereignty. And Iraq was also pretty recently just established, not that there is any good reason why that is relevant. So how did they not steal the territory of the Iraqi Jews? It's true that they weren't under Israeli sovereignty, but neither was Tel Aviv or Haifa. Jericho and Ramalah was never under Palestinian sovereignty and Baghdad was not under Iraqi sovereignty until like 1932. And so on. All of that is not theft. Why should whether it is theft or not be based on a proposal that never went through? And from the UN no less.
No it is everything but clear. Who is the true owner of the land is a very subjective question and disputed by many. I would hesitate with the word fact about such things.
I already explained the failure of the Iraqi analogy. The Jewish Quarter was always a part of Baghdad. You're right that Tel Aviv and Haifa weren't technically under Israeli sovereignty but don't be difficult, use your head - the provisional government at least had a reasonable claim to these lands. Tel Aviv was a Jewish city founded by Jews that was to be the Israeli capital under the UN partition plan (although when you start talking about Jaffa it gets a little more complicated) . Haifa, while a bit more controversial, was still part of the proposed Jewish state per the partition plan.
The provisional government made a conscience decision when declaring independence not to specify the nation's borders because they didn't want to limit themselves - it was the plan all along to go into Arab neighborhoods and Arab communities, kick them out and repopulate these areas with Jews - how organized and systemic this policy actually was is a matter of debate but it's not inaccurate to say that the war of 1948 was in part a war of conquest. Israeli's anticipated the creation of a Palestinian state and they made an effort to deprive that future state of land. Even when accepting the UN partition plan many Zionists only approved of it for pragmatic reasons because it was seen as a way of getting their foot in the door - there's always been an eye on Eretz Israel.
To say that this was not theft by Israel is like saying it wouldn't be theft if the Kurds declared Independence, marched into Tikrit right now amid all the confusion of civil war, kicked out all the Arabs and declared it a part of the new Kurdish state. It was one thing for Israel to incorporate predominantly Jewish neighborhoods and cities during its founding - Israel had a reasonable claim to these lands, it's a different animal all together when the IDF went into Arab neighborhoods and Arab cities and incorporated that land as well. That's not to say they might've not been justified in stealing this land in terms of practicality but the land was stolen nonetheless.
It was not part of Iraq though. I can say that Ramle was always part of Eretz Israel. In any case I think you get my point. If not baghdad then some Jewish majority city/town/village. There must have been some in the muslim world. Again though how can you say it's stealing based on borders outlined in a non-accepted proposal?
It was never the plan all along. I agree that it could be seen as a conquest war though. I don't think conquering is neccesarily the same as stealing though. I mean a lot of Germany's territory was conquered as a result of the WWs. But it's not generally seen as theft. It is only speculation what would have happened if the partition plan was accepted. Personally I think Israel would have been content enough to not start a war for the rest of the land.
You can't compare it really. Tikrit has an owner already, Beersheba didn't. Also if you can claim a city because it has a majority Jewish population, which is fine to some extent IMO, then why can't you claim it due to a historical connection? Beersheba used to be Israel, long time ago, it's a Jewish city, founded by Jews. Why is that not enough reason to claim a city but the inhabitants have the same ethnicity is? And what about Jerusalem? It was a Jewish majority city. Was Jerusalem stolen?
Conquering is not necessarily the same as stealing but it can and should be when the conquest is done not to unify homogeneous communities under the same umbrella for the sake of self-determination but instead conquering purely for expansionary reasons. Saying Israel had a claim to Beersheba because the ancient Israelites might've lived their thousands of years ago is much less convincing than Arabs taking claim of the land because the residents that were actually living there were primarily Arab. Would it not be stealing if the American Indian nations started conquering American cities?
As for Zionists being content in an alternative reality where the partition plan was accepted by both sides it is definitely not speculation. There is no need to speculate, not only do we have decades worth of evidence of Israel not being content but we have documented proof of Zionists expressing a Zionist version of manifest destiny. In the debates leading up to the declaration of independence about declaring Israel's borders there was a movement among revisionists to declare all of Eretz Isael for the Jewish State, going so far to even wanting to include land east of the Jordan river. Even today are plenty of people in Israel today that have serious problems with giving up any of the West Bank and even Gaza. When Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005 Jewish settlers had to be physically removed from their homes.
So if Palestinians would now conquer let's say Nazareth that would not be stealing because it is to unify homogeneous communities?
If those cities didn't have an owner I would hesitate to call it stealing. That what is being taken already belongs to someone is inherent to the definition of stealing. Then there is also the question of what if those cities are used to blockade supply lines or attack you.
It is 100% speculation just by being an alternative reality scenario. No less what could be considered the core of the conflict. We don't really have any evidence of that. That there were Zionists who wished for all of Eretz Israel to be under Israeli sovereignty doesn't really convince me that Israel would invade Jordan and Palestine completely unprovoked just for that to happen. I mean they left Jordan alone, so it doesn't speak much for the theory that if Zionists wanting territory they will invade it unprovoked to take it. Could happen but I am far from convinced. And it's definitely speculation. And the 2005 event shows exactly that. They left Gaza even if people among them were against it.
Log in to comment