Who is to blame...Middle East conflict?

The case of the Arabs in Palestine was based on the principles of international justice; it was that of a people which desired to live in undisturbed possession of the country where Providence and history had placed it. One thing was clear; it was the sacred duty of the Arabs of Palestine to defend their country against all aggression. The Zionists were conducting an aggressive campaign with the object of securing by force a country, which was not theirs by birthright. Thus there was self-defence on one side and on the other, aggression. The raison d’etre of the United Nations was to assist self-defence against aggression. The claim of the Zionists had no legal or moral basis. Their case was based on the association of Jews with Palestine over 2000 years before. On that basis the Arabs would have better claim to those territories in other parts of the world such as Spain or parts of France, Turkey, Russia or Afghanistan, which they inhibited in the past. Once Palestine was found to be entitled to independence, the United Nations was not legally competent to decide or to impose the constitutional organization of Palestine, since such action would amount to interference with the internal matters of an independent nation.

Testimony on the Palestinian Arab reaction to the UNSCOP proposals, 29th Sep. 1947



Source B



Source D

For decades the British denied that they had been warned [about the King David Hotel bombing]. In 1979, however, a member of the British Parliament introduced evidence that the Irgun had indeed issued a warning. He offered the testimony of a British officer who heard other officers in the King David Hotel bar joking about a Zionist threat to the headquarters. The officer who overheard the conversation immediately left the hotel and survived. The Haganah radio later broadcast a report that on receiving the warning Sir John Shaw, the Chief Secretary of the British administration, had said “I give orders here. I don’t take orders from Jews” and insisted that no-one leave the building.

Richie Ovendale, The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Wars, 2004



Source E

No newspaper would entertain a letter promoting Holocaust denial, yet it does seem that Nakba denial is acceptable. True, the Holocaust, the murder of six million Jews, is not comparable to the Nakba, the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians. However both Holocaust denial and Nakba denial have the same aim – to deny a racist crime in the past so that present day crimes may be excused.

Every serious historian of the past 20 years … has accepted that Plan Dalet (or Plan D) was an order for ethnic cleansing. This plan was actually adopted in March 1948, two months before any Arab army declared war on Israel, and the Zionist forces had ethnically cleansed over 300,000 Arabs before this war started.

An earlier correspondent … fails to mention why Israel did not, and does not, allow any of these ethnically cleansed people back to their own land in defiance of international law and human rights…..

David Landy, a Jewish historian critical of Israel, writing in the Irish Times, 2008



Source F

There was no Zionist plan or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of “ethnic cleansing”. Plan Dalet (or Plan D) of March 10 1948 ... was the master plan of the Haganah – the Jewish military force that became the IDF – to counter the expected pan-Arab assault on the emergent Jewish state. That's what it explicitly states and that's what it was. And the invasion of the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq duly occurred, on May 15 1948 (the date of Israel's declaration of independence).

It is true that Plan D gave the regional commanders carte blanche to occupy and garrison or expel and destroy Arab villages along and behind the front lines and the anticipated Arab armies' invasion routes. And it is also true that mid-way in the 1948 war the Israeli leaders decided to bar the return of the refugees (those “refugees” who had just assaulted the Jewish community), viewing them as a potential fifth column and threat to the Jewish state's existence. I for one cannot fault their fears or logic.

I would recommend that Landy reads some history books, and become acquainted with the facts, not recycle shopworn Arab propaganda.

what do you think of these sources?Who is to blame...Middle East conflict?
Tldr.

All I know is that before Palestine was acquisitioned by Allied forces and European Jews moved in, the Hebrews and Arabs inhabiting the region lived more or less peacefully together.Who is to blame...Middle East conflict?
I personally blame a prophet called Mohamed and another guy called Jesus. Religion causes pretty much all wars.Who is to blame...Middle East conflict?
All are to blame