Segev, oh how interesting.......
The fact is that the palestinians and the arabs attacked the israelis, the fact is ben-gurion stated in a letter to his son that "we must share the land with the arabs".Ben gurion wanted to share the lands, he recongised that the palestinians wouldnt just disappear. You have taken quotes and wrapped them around.
Im inclined to agree with most of them, in the right context,especially Gilbert, his book is an excellent work regarding the history of israel, its been praised from most sides.
Im not denying that the palestinians didnt lose their lands, im simply readdressing some of the enthic cleansing remarks.
"Israel’s view of itself has been challenged by new historians who claim, for example, that Arabs who fled during the War of Independence were expelled rather than left on their own accord. Indeed, there are Israeli historians revising the nation’s historical perspective. What the report failed to do, however, was to indicate that these historians represent a minority view; that the majority of Israeli scholars reject the extreme negative portrayals of Israel’s birth."
The problem is is that a number of works, including Benny Morris, Segev etc werent exactly telling the truth.Morris and others began rewriting the traditional view of israeli history, that all arabs were bad and the israelis were angels into a self-critical anaylis of israel, trying to 'expose' the truth.They have cast israel as the regional villan, bearing sole responsibility for the cycle of violence in the middle east since 1948. for some, zionism is an archaic remnant of western colonialism, eventually destined to wither away. for others it is an exploitative and aggressive movement which has brought about the Palestinian tragedy and has perpetuated the conflict with Israel's Arab neighbours.
Benny Morris has made many misleading and erroneous statements. An example of flawed conclusions was a quote by Benny Morris from the Hebrew text of Ben-Gurion's statements in a letter to his son Amos. Morris says, BG said, "We must expel Arabs and take their places" whereas, what was actually written (in Hebrew) was: "We do not wish, we do not need to expel Arabs and take their place." Morris intentionally distorted that letter as he did with others and it was not merely a mistranslation or a typographical error.
The London Economist wrote at the time of Arab flight, that the main reason the Arabs left was because of "the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit...It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades." Clearly it would have been very dangerous for the Arabs to be considered renegades by the invading Arab armies.
Edward Atiyah (then the secretary of the Arab League Office in London) described the situation by saying "This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab states and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country."(The Arabs, London 1955p.183).
Before you go any futher, perhaps you should read Efraim Karsh's:Fabricating Israeli History, the new historians. Karsh who is the director of Mediterranean Studies at King's College in London. others are Anita Shapira and read Joan Peter's "From Time Immemorial" (the newest edition - Feb, 2001 with updates and corrections)
Karsh focuses on three main issues: David Ben-Gurion's alleged endorsement of "transferring" Arabs out of the territory to become Israel, "collusion" between the Zionist movement and King 'Abdallah of Jordan to snuff out a Palestinian state, and secret British support for this joint effort. To establish his case, Karsh digs deeply into the documentary record, even going so far as to interpret crossed-out sections in Ben-Gurion's handwritten letters.
Yohanan Reshet of Ha-aretz, which is generally considered a left leaning Israeli newspaper says this about Efraim Karsh's book: "Provides dozens of proofs that the foremost new historians...are not historians but propagandists at the very best...The systematic falsification of historical facts exposed by Karsh in this astounding book is a rarity even in these days when so many falsifications are being exposed."
Menahem Ben of the Tel Aviv Weekly says, "Systematic and efficient demolition of all fundamentals fo the `new historians'revolutionary conclusions."
Morris says, "Karsh has a point. My treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, superficial."
Danial Pipes, the editor of the Middle East Quarterly calls the "scholarship" of the New Historians "pseudo-scholarship of propagandists".
Hyam Maccoby from Midstream Magazine, says that Karsh refers to "relevant documentation in English, Hebrew, and Arabic" and his research "far outweighs that of the New Historians," and "has delivered a crushing blow to them, revealing how hollow and superficial theri theses are." Of course he does - because many of these (some younger) Israeli New Historians didn't bother to consult the Arab documentation, relying strictly on the Israeli documentation - because they claimed they didn't have access - but the truth be known, they did and some of them, like Bennie Morris simply did not or could not translate the Arabic.
Norman Berdichevsky of Contemporary Review says Karsh, who used the right tools (Hebrew, Arabic, and English) with which "to demolish the `new historians' who have created the myths which dominate the airwaves and headlines of much of the media."
David Rodman of The Partisan Review says that Karsh "strips away the academic cloak with which the New Historians have wrapped themselves.. Not only has Karsh shattered the myths created by the New Historians by ripping apart their historiography, but he has also produced a very important contribution to the literature on the Arab-Israeli conflict. For in the process of debunking the debunkers, he has powerfully suppoorted the traditional interpretation of the conflict's origins."
look at http://www.danielpipes.org/reviews/199709g.shtml
for reviews on karsh.
Lets have a look at the right of return issue, the following link shows an extract from Commentary, a respected historical journal dealing with jewish historical affairs.Ive read it before so i know that the organisation prinitng it hasnt changed the tex of it.If this article simply appeared on this site i would be more spectical of its contents.
Regarding the flight of the arabs, lets look at Hafia, where the arabs fled before the fighting broke out, the social elite started an exdous, which is typical, the higher classes running away. the Arabs in beruit told the arabs there to leave. Arab propaganda also played a part. Hazem Nusseibeh, an editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service's Arabic news in 1948, admits that he and Hussein Khalidi, the secretary of the Arab Higher Committee (the representative body of the Arabs of British Palestine), fabricated atrocities in reporting about the battle at Deir Yassin "so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews." Nusseibeh said in a BBC television series (Israel and the Arabs: the 50 Year Conflict) that, "This was our biggest mistake. We did not realize how our people would react. As soon as they heard that women had been raped [a fabrication] at Deir Yassin, Palestinians fled in terror."
You can look further into this, although of course please be aware that there is bound to be some zionists out there who while take Karshs work and the debate regarding the new historians totally out of context. While conducting a search, i had to be careful, even with historical training not to be suck up by zionist propaganda.Whether searching the internet, its always best to cross reference and double check.
Regarding the collision with the King of Jordan,http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journals/details/issue/sample/a010062.pdf
The article was publsihed in the respected,Journal of Contemporary History, a well respected historical journal.
kind regards, its nice to see some historical debate.