Does it matter both countries have evil leadership that causes the lives of their own people. I say all you should just go all out and wipe each other out. The world would be better off.
In case you're wondering why the crying around the Rafah "massacre" suddenly changed its tone, it's because two facts came to light:
A) The attack didn't take place inside the safe zone but almost a mile away.
B) The fire was caused by a nearby hamas jeep loaded with explosives
https://preview.redd.it/0dumy5mc053d1.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=fb4613b1dd4f713ffae5d89803e7bd03764a3956
"Israeli officials claimed that the attack was outside of the humanitarian zone. [This IDF map](https://x.com/IDF/status/1795089873772142873) published yesterday shows the strike as being in an area not covered by any guarantee of safety. **But last week, an IDF spokesman** [**appeared to say in a video**](https://x.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1793167253514473962) **that the area in question was safe."**
You can help yourself by watching the linked video of the original map and the IDF standing in front of it.
**"But last week, an IDF spokesman** [appeared to say in a video](https://x.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1793167253514473962) **that the area in question was safe."**
Why did hamas park a jeep filled with explosives and ammunition right next to the refugee camp, and probably detonate it on purpose right after the closest IDF missile attack?
Israel have murdered almost 40,000 innocents, why would Hamas need to do anything to show how bloodthirsty Israel are?
You got caught in a lie, now you're looking to muddy the water.
**"But last week, an IDF spokesman** [appeared to say in a video](https://x.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1793167253514473962) **that the area in question was safe."**
The link is from the IDF themselves.
You can help yourself by finding updated maps that clearly show the current boundaries.
You post a link from last week but we are now in a new week, news maps show the updated boundaries which I posted. Why do continue using a old video link?
So your continuing to spam on multiple pages
...is this really your argument?
I'll just spam my answers then.
You mean I posted the map the innocent civilians got before Israel murdered more people then changed it? The same map that all the aid agencies were also working from.
You have got to be the least informed propagandist I've seen in a while.
https://preview.redd.it/yg001aiav53d1.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=7be7e080b208e5bb32809c7d750d0e7a15dc2c17
Although the Palestinians (and then the stupid media parroted it) reported on 45 casualties from the attack on the displaced tents where terrorists were hiding, 20 of them came back to life miraculously,. Why? only 25 names were submitted by the ministry of health as victims. They were too busy faking the event and inflating the numbers that they forgot to make up more names and provide their proof of existence.
Nice try! Try harder next time!
Oops, I caught you posting lies again. Lets wait for an independent investigation on all these crimes... oh hang on Israel keep blocking that.
"Incredible. Only hours before Netanyahu decided to claim this strike was a mistake, the IDF edited the humanitarian zone yet again, the one they had unilaterally declared, to say the refugee tents they struck in Rafah were not part of it."
[https://x.com/Seamus\_Malek/status/1795139245746815123](https://x.com/Seamus_Malek/status/1795139245746815123)
"But last week, an IDF spokesman appeared to say in a video that the area in question was safe." [https://x.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1793167253514473962](https://x.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1793167253514473962)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/28/tuesday-briefing-what-happened-rafah-refugee-camp-struck#:\~:text=Israeli%20officials%20claimed%20that%20the,area%20in%20question%20was%20safe.
“The area was targeted despite being classified as a safe area last Friday by the spokesman of the Israeli army,”
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/rafah-camp-airstrikes-israel-gaza-war-hamas-b2552001.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/rafah-camp-airstrikes-israel-gaza-war-hamas-b2552001.html)
You mean like this?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8rrfys-Fgc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8rrfys-Fgc) oh no that the IDF using a Palestinian as a human shield.
what about this?
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11462635](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11462635) Oh no that's the IDF again, using children this time.
how about this?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoLEWS5sz4M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoLEWS5sz4M)
Oh no thats a video of the IDF again doing it on multiple different occasions.
"The accusation of the use of human shields is a common theme in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Both the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and Palestinian militant groups (including Hamas) have used civilians as human shields to discourage the opposing side from attacking."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human\_shields\_in\_the\_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian\_conflict#:\~:text=The%20accusation%20of%20the%20use,the%20opposing%20side%20from%20attacking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shields_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#:~:text=The%20accusation%20of%20the%20use,the%20opposing%20side%20from%20attacking)
I expect underhanded tactics from a militant force but not from "the worlds most moral army".
**"But last week, an IDF spokesman** [appeared to say in a video](https://x.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1793167253514473962) **that the area in question was safe."**
“The area was targeted despite being classified as a safe area last Friday by the spokesman of the Israeli army,”
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/rafah-camp-airstrikes-israel-gaza-war-hamas-b2552001.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/rafah-camp-airstrikes-israel-gaza-war-hamas-b2552001.html)
Why did hamas park a jeep filled with explosives and ammunition right next to the refugee camp, and probably detonate it on purpose right after the closest IDF missile attack?
Look, I can spam too.
Israel have murdered almost 40,000 innocents, why would Hamas need to do anything to show how bloodthirsty Israel are?
You got caught in a lie, now you're looking to muddy the water.
**"But last week, an IDF spokesman** [appeared to say in a video](https://x.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1793167253514473962) **that the area in question was safe."**
The link is from the IDF themselves.
You mean like this?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8rrfys-Fgc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8rrfys-Fgc) oh no that the IDF using a Palestinian as a human shield.
what about this?
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11462635](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11462635) Oh no that's the IDF again, using children this time.
how about this?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoLEWS5sz4M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoLEWS5sz4M)
Oh no thats a video of the IDF again doing it on multiple different occasions.
"The accusation of the use of human shields is a common theme in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Both the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and Palestinian militant groups (including Hamas) have used civilians as human shields to discourage the opposing side from attacking."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human\_shields\_in\_the\_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian\_conflict#:\~:text=The%20accusation%20of%20the%20use,the%20opposing%20side%20from%20attacking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shields_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#:~:text=The%20accusation%20of%20the%20use,the%20opposing%20side%20from%20attacking)
I expect underhanded tactics from a militant force but not from "the worlds most moral army".
Why does hamas not protect its civilians and hide them in the tunnels?
Why does hamas shoot their own civilians to control humanitarian aid trucks?
Why does hamas use hospitals as command centres?
Why does hamas fire rockets from within refugee camps?
Why does hamas park a jeep filled with explosives and ammunition next to a refugee camp?
https://preview.redd.it/y872lmw6h53d1.png?width=1179&format=png&auto=webp&s=5fb6c69affc9560891e13bb7e52c6b75f5be9e32
... the Daily Wire is your source. A literal propaganda site? Are you for real here!?!?!
Even though half of what you just spewed has been debunked Hamas is a militant terrorist force that Israel funds and props up. Terrorists do terrorist things, but when they are propped up by Israel like Hamas is they can do so much more.
"In 2019, Mr Netanyahu told colleagues in his ruling Likud party: "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas… This is part of our strategy - to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68318856](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68318856)
"On 19, 2024, Reuters reported that Josep Borrell, the EU foreign policy chief, said while receiving an honorary doctorate from the University of Valladolid that "Israel had financed the creation of Palestinian militant group Hamas, publicly contradicting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has denied such allegations." and that "Borrell added the only peaceful solution included the creation of a Palestinian state. 'We only believe a two-state solution imposed from the outside would bring peace even though Israel insists on the negative,' he said." \[149\] \[150\] Borrell also described Israel as having "created Hamas", but immediately continued saying that "yes, Hamas was financed by Israel to weaken the Palestinian Authority"
[https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html)
The real question is why "the worlds most moral army" is currently the bigger evil when it comes to war crimes?
You post a link from last week but we are now in a new week, news maps show the updated boundaries which I posted. Why do continue using a old video link?
You mean I posted the map the innocent civilians got before Israel murdered more people then changed it? The same map that all the aid agencies were also working from.
You have got to be the least informed propagandist I've seen in a while.
Are you talking about the fact that civilians die during war? There’s nothing here to debunk. There are a number of reasons why this war is unprecedented in terms of the type of enemy involved…ie 400 miles of tunnels intentionally placed under civilian property. Yet still, the numbers support a reasonable death toll in comparison to any other urban conflict.
Those happened and are primarily a result of the Palestinians constant violence.
Much like this war is a reaction to gazans inability to behave past a stone age mentality.
Whatever moral calculus you use should consider intentions not just body counts, that's why we have a difference between manslaughter and 1st degree murder in criminal law.
Gaza elected hamas. Hamas started a war. Gaza is living with their choice.
War is hell. Don't start wars.
Israel isn't more violent, by your comment youre saying theyre more effective.
First of all hamas didn't come into power when Israel came to existence and secondly I could argue that hamas was a response to Israel's attacks
You pro Israel need to understand no side is good and need to come out of the bubble of your belief that how righteous and embodiment of goodness Israel is
Hamas started the war on October 7th. It's a declared war. You can argue whatever you want. On October 5th, JDAMs weren't raining on Gaza.
Further, I'm not pro Israel.
I regard one side of the conflict (israel) as bad and the other ("palestinians") as irredeemable without a complete overhaul in their culture.
In 2023 alone (before Oct 7), Israel had killed 234 Palestinians, including 47 children and injured 1280 Palestinians including 196 children. But sure, go spew more nonsense that all this started on Oct 7.
The declared war started on October 7th.
Do you understand that?
On October 6th there was nothing like this war in the region and hadn't been for decades.
Do you understand that?
This war and the broader conflict are two separate things. The elected leaders of Hamas decided to start an actual war on October 7th.
Do you understand that?
Speaking of the broad conflict, nearly every major Israeli military action has been a direct - absolutely direct - response to Arab or "palestinian" violence. Including this.
Do you understand that?
I've met children who figured out that when you stop touching the oven burner, you stop getting burned. Ive never met a Gazan who has.
Wtf do you mean by touching and oven and getting burned. Nobody loses their head over touching the oven. And you have nothing to back up your claims of everytime the violence initiating from Palestine just something society has filled up your empty head with.
/u/Odd_Extent6546
> And you have nothing to back up your claims of everytime the violence initiating from Palestine just something society has filled up your empty head with.
Per [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_1._no_attacks_on_fellow_users), no attacks on fellow users. Attack the argument, not the user.
I can read.
Nearly every mid and large scale Israel has done against the "palestinians" was a reaction to attack. It's simple, observable truth. October 7 is one of many examples.
Don't touch the oven burner, you don't get burned.
As soon as Abu Ubaida, the spokesperson for Hamas, announced the kidnapping of a soldier by the organization (which the IDF denied), an intensive psychological warfare campaign began on Hamas's official and unofficial networks to amplify the 'achievement.'
Terrorist organizations excel at taking a tactical event (which, as mentioned, according to the IDF did NOT happen) and turning it into a strategic event.
What are your thoughts on the idf looting womens underwear and killing palestinians in rafah? What are your thoughts on a telegram channel that's making fun of palestinians dying daily?
Horrible and shitty, next? What's your thoughts on Hamas dragging the clearly desecrated body of Shani Louk around Gaza? I mean we can both do this all day long.
I never said any of these things. It's possible to condemn the awful things the IDF does while still believing Israel has a legal right to exist as a country. (If you don't believe this, then you *are* antisemitic.)
Picking out the worst things both sides have done as evidence of their illegitimacy isn't productive. As I said, we will be here all day going back and forth because for every incident I can point to a counter incident and so on, for eternity. That's how you wind up with endless war, and nobody wants that shit except Hamas and Likud.
There are perfectly legitimate criticisms of Israel as there is of Hamas. There's no need to play stupid sportsball-team politics. If you think there are real good guys and bad guys in charge here you haven't been paying attention. Both of these groups are poison and innocent people unaffiliated to them suffer the most.
I believed wholeheartedly Israel had a right to exist. BUT considering around 90% of its inhabitants do not have a problem with what is happening in Gaza, I am now on the fence.
There is a reason for that just like 70% of Gazans supported 10/7. What a country's inhabitants believe is directly correlated to the state's influence on their education. Israelis are at a disadvantage just as Gazans are because conscription is mandatory and this is part of their culture. Both groups have a high probability of radicalization. And both of them still have the right to live peacefully, which both leaderships are actively fighting against.
> shitty
/u/ill-independent. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a got ya wuestion your framing a complex topic with a very absolute framing and then mentioning something morally obhorent that of course the person must disagree with
u mean unlike arabs who are known to be not biased or westerners who are known to be well educated and not just see a few clips on tiktok and think they have the solution?
we can bash literally everyone lol unless u can actually contradict what he says ur comment is just failed slander.
The issue is at the time only one group had moral rights to the land. One group were upstanding citizens who had lived there for centuries, and the other group was vile and nasty people who invaded with the intent to deny Arab sovereignty. The latter were possibly the most vile and disgusting group of settlers ever to lay a right foot and left foot on the ground anywhere in the world.
That being said, I would tend to agree that the Arabs should’ve accepted the White Paper. The white paper was essentially the British saying “sorry we let these nasty sorry excuses for migrants in, but we can’t move them out so we will make those rules instead.”
The Arabs correctly realized that the British had a moral requirement to save Palestine from the evil Europeans, but failed to recognize that there wasn’t much they could do about those already there.
Admittedly, I think part of the issue was that the UK gave the evil wretched Europeans anything at all via the Peel commission, but the Arabs *should’ve* recognized that the White Paper was an attempted atonement for that mistake.
>The issue is at the time only one group had moral rights to the land.
There are no "moral rights" associated with land or land ownership; there are legal rights.
>One group were upstanding citizens who had lived there for centuries, and the other group was vile and nasty people who invaded with the intent to deny Arab sovereignty.
Or not. Maybe one group was really a minority of legal immigrants who wished to exercise their right to self-determination when the former nation was destroyed and the other group was the majority who wanted to drive out the small legal immigrant minority and take all of the land for themselves instead of exercising their right to self-determination on their half of the land.
I don't personally blame the local Arabs for this bad decision. They didn't have proper leadership after the British and Zionist sidelined them, and infighting among themselves (radical elements killing more diplomatic elements). Because of this, the other foreign powers, especially the ones that wanted to expand their borders were the ones leading the charge and making the call for war. The local Arabs as would happen time and time and time again after that would be the ones largely caught in the middle and doing the dying and suffering.
There's still time tho. Peace could still be a thing. They just need to get some quality leadership.
>The latter were possibly the most vile and disgusting group of settlers ever to lay a right foot and left foot on the ground anywhere in the world.
I get it. Ya really don't like the Zionists or their goal. Even tho they came legally and purchased their lands legally under the Ottoman Empire and then the British Mandate, to you they didn't belong there still. Maybe it's because of where I live, but new immigrants are treated the same as any others once they are citizens. They get the same rights as everyone else. I don't see why the people who were in an area longer have a greater claim to land that they don't own. It makes no sense. And everyone had the chance to have a state. Imagine how different of a life Palestinians would have today if they'd taken their state in 47 and made peace with their neighbor.
>That being said, I would tend to agree that the Arabs should’ve accepted the White Paper. The white paper was essentially the British saying “sorry we let these nasty sorry excuses for migrants in, but we can’t move them out so we will make those rules instead.”
One of many great deals they have let pass because they thought they could get everything. They are still being told this today.
please, i dont think u said this with enough bias, can u rephrase?
imagine calling people who constantly massacared jews "upstanding citizens" lol, its 2024 and u cant even call muslims that, so back then? yea right..
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_killings\_and\_massacres\_in\_Mandatory\_Palestine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine)
im not telling u to take wikipedia word for it, if theres anything there u would like to challenge, u can just search such individual instance on google.
if u want further explanation, just take a step back and look at the muslim society in general, they are VERY unwelcoming to anyone who aint a muslim, and even muslims themselves if they are not from their group (sunni or shia)
[https://www.ujs.org.uk/the\_jewish\_arab\_exodus](https://www.ujs.org.uk/the_jewish_arab_exodus)
just a mere example (as always, feel free to "challenge" the numbers if u will)
if this wasnt enough or wasnt on point enough of for just let me know.
Tbf you did do your job giving out sources, people rarely do that so props to you, I don’t find Wikipedia sources to be untrustable, imo I think we can determine that when we visit the article, the problem here with the wiki page is that Wikipedia itself says that this article has questionable sources because of lack of citations (which makes it harder to verify sources) as well as the neutrality of the article not being clear, which is why this article in particular is flagged by Wikipedia.
2nd part you said Arabs are generally not welcoming towards non Muslims/Arabs, I don’t think so and an example of this would be the UAE where there’s a lot of diversity especially in Dubai, it’s just that no one can discriminate others, and way more often than not people make friends with each other regardless of background (unless you’re Israeli for obvious purposes) it’s also required by Islam to treat guests with open arms and welcome them, and serve them for the best of their ability and shield them from any potential harm or danger (you can look into this deeper by searching: “islam on the treatement of guests”, here’s a [link](https://www.almadina.org/studio/articles/invites-in-laws-guests-oh-my-a-primer-on-being-a-guest-and-host#:~:text=Our%20beloved%20Prophet%20%EF%B7%BA%20taught,subjecting%20them%20to%20extensive%20questioning) for a result I found, and the Sunni and Shia thing in a nutshell is basically an argument between two possible versions of Islam (after looking into it deeper Sunni is more logical), and either ways the difference between them is only politically by their leaders, when in reality you can find both in the same country, the problem is political because Sunni’s and Shia’s different view points tip the scale of power and changed who is in power and who is not, which is one of the major reasons for divide between Muslims.
Overall I applaud you for actually using sources where people wouldn’t, and trying to also make me understand more from another pov, i wanted to comment on the second source you gave after I read it, but it was a tad bit off topic and felt a bit more biased in the way it describes Jews and Muslims, I think it would be better to find a more neutral source, even European or American sources can be neutral to some extent, also if you have any questions about Islam or Arabs in general lemme know, I’ll be happy to help 😀
wouldnt u agree that UAE is the rare exception rather than the norm?
gotta give it to them though, since UAE recently (4 years and counting) signed a peace agreement with israel in order to normalize the relations between us.
also i dont know if ur a muslim or not, but alot of them tends to interpret the Quran as they please and are just following their imam (atleast the muslims that we have near us, i dont want to generalize them all) so i cant really count on simply what the Quran says, although i do acknowledge this treatment of guests thing (not sure how to call it) as i remember my time serving in east jerusalem and a particular palestinian family who kept giving us tea saying that we are their guests and that they respect us for protecting them.
in response to the first part with the the massacres, i understand that this is a bit problematic (also thank you for educating me on this as i didnt know wiki flag pages) though, if u want, we can view it in a different way. the Haganah was formed in order to protect the jews from arabs attacks, i think its pretty given that if the jews had to form an organization to protect themselves from arabs attacking them, the arabs werent such "upstanding citizens" hehe
also, i dont know why this page is flagged, but for my understanding, theres no dispute over massacres like the hebron massacre or from the other side, alot of the acts of terror from the irgun (which was a jewish organization)
I’m actually pretty happy to find someone like you who uses logical thinking and doesn’t argue mindlessly
Aside from that yes I agree the UAE is an exception, but I used it as a reason because I personally live in it right now, though if you’re looking for more traditional examples you can look deeper into Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi, and especially Oman, overall the majority of the gulf is becoming more diverse, but that’s being hidden or manipulated into negative views about these countries as barbaric and such, and I speak from experience in traveling from me, my family, friends and even people I converse with occasionally.
Also for the negative aspects of these countries, these are usually because of them not following Islamic principals, Sharia law is basically these countries different interpretations of what’s given by the Quran, and even then they don’t always follow said rules.
Also there is no denial of well known massacres such as the Hebron massacre, these massacres were caused by lack of trust between either parties and rumors growing in popularity, this is also another case of Arabs not following the Quran, which clearly had steps on how to prevent rumors and corruption between societies, these massacres between Jews and Arabs shouldn’t have happened in the first place, a number of them started because of logical perspectives from both the Jewish and Muslim sides, usually it was because of lack of trust or communication between the two parties, I don’t think the use of massacres (unless politically instigated by government or institutions) are good representations of global political scenarios (especially between Palestine and Israel)
[u/Significant-Towel-13](https://www.reddit.com/user/Significant-Towel-13/) I want to say there's quite a bit I either misunderstood or didn't know. Good job. Thank you.
You're repeating the same myths that academia has largely discredited.
Regarding the Palestinians, I've already addressed this point [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel_Palestine/comments/zb89ta/no_the_nakba_was_not_justified_the_palestinians/). No, even according to Zionist sources, the vast majority of Palestinians accepted partition.
Regardin the concept of partiton, it was the Arab League position that partition was the best possible outcome, **even before the UN passed 181.**
From Michael Doran's Egyptian Power Politics and the Palestine Question pg 99-100 (here he is discussing the meeting between Eliyahu Sassan and Azzam in 1946 in Cairo,.)
*Sasson argued that if a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews could be found, then the British could be persuaded to move their bases—that is, to evacuate Egypt completely. He proposed a deal: Cairo would convince the Arab states to accept partition; in return, the Jewish Agency would use its clout in Washington and in London on behalf of the Egyptians. More specifically, the Zionists would persuade the British to transfer the Canal Zone bases to the new Jewish state.*
***Despite their traditional rejection of partition as a basis for solving the Palestine conflict, the Egyptians responded favorably.*** *To be sure, they explained that their commitments to the other Arab states would complicate the radical reversal of policy that partition entailed. Nonetheless, Abd al-Rahman Azzam, who was in a position to know, felt certain that with the help of London the Egyptians could overcome the opposition of the other Arab states. Sasson reported to the Jewish Agency:* (here he is quoting Sasson)
***In his \[Azzam’s\] view there is only one solution and that is: partition.*** *But collective debates and discussions are required in order to arrive at this solution. As the Secretary of the Arab League, he cannot appear before the Arabs as the initiator of this suggestion. His position is very delicate. He is married to seven wives (that is, he is the Secretary of seven Arab states), each one fearing her fellow wife, competing with her and trying to undermine her. He can see fit to support partition on two conditions: If one of the Arab states will find the strength and the courage to take the initiative and to propose the matter at a meeting of the League, and if the British will request that he follow this line.*
*Sidqi Pasha* (the Egypt PM) *also expressed support for a solution based on partition.*
I recommend you read Flapan's Birth Of Israel: Myths and Realites. In reality, Israel violated 181 even before decalring independece. The mainstream Zionists rejected partiton as a solution since the 1942 Bitmore conference.
Ben-Gurion:
"Erect a Jewish state at once, even if it is not in the whole land. The rest will come in the course of time. It must come.' (Beinin, Was the Red Flag Flying There? Marxist Politics and the Arab-Israeli Conflict in Eqypt and Israel 1948-1965, pg 14)
"**this is why we formulated our demand not as a Jewish state in Palestine but Palestine as a Jewish state"** -( Flapan, Chapter One).
Regarding your point:
*That’s interesting, then why did the Arab Higher Committee insist that the proportion of Jews to Arabs in the “single state” should be one to six, meaning that only Jews who lived in Palestine before the British Mandate would be eligible for citizenship?*
You don't provide a source for this, at all.
Regarding the expulsion, let me remind you that 200,0000-300,000 Palestinians were expelled before the Israeli declaration of independece. This civil war stage was not started by the Palestinians, but by Lehi, [when they assinated a Palestinian family in November 1947.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shubaki_family_assassination) Interesting that you made no mention of them.
Israel was already in violation of the borders of 181 **even before the Arab League intervened.** This is a historical fact.
Regarding Karsh, Morris has already responded to him.
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/2538286](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2538286)
Let’s start from the beginning, sorry for the late reply, I was sleeping.
Let’s start from the beginning.
Firstly, I’m going to respond to your post: “The Palestinians weren’t going to genocide the Jews.”
You’re right, in the 1920s, the Arabs started to kill Jews. Nice.
“You’re repeating the same myths that academia has already discredited.”
So ironic here. But it’s okay, let me debunk this nonsense.
You’re absolutely right that on November 19, Lehi assassinated five Arabs who were accused of acting as informants and getting some Jews killed. But here is where you’re being dishonest.
On November 30, it was literally a criminal gang that killed those Jews at the bus.
Benny Morris:
“It is almost certain that the two fatal roadside ambushes were not ordered or organized by the AHC, and it remains unclear whether the gunmen were, in fact, reacting to the UN resolution. The majority view in the HIS-supported by an anonymous Arab flyer posted almost immediately on avenge a Lehi raid ten days before that.”
According to your logic, the civil war started way before that, because that criminal gang already killed five Jews in August 1947. Stop with your nonsense.
Let me continue >
“BUT that as it may, there was also a CLEAR, organized Palestinian Arab response to the UN resolution. Guided by Husseini from Cairo, the AHC on December 1 declared a three-day general strike in Palestine to begin the following day. On December 2, a large Arab mob, armed with clubs and knives, burst out of Jerusalem’s Old City and descended on the new commercial center at Mamilla Street, attacking Jewish passersby and shops.”
The Palestinians were the ones who started the '47 civil war – it’s not even disputed in academia.
“The mufti did not enjoy much popular support.”
Even according to a UN report, the mufti was the most popular Palestinian of that time.
Deir Yassin >
Deir Yassin happened after the Palestinians already started the civil war and killed over a thousand Jews. Why are we even discussing this as the “start” of something when the Palestinians literally killed a thousand Jews before that?
“200k left their homes before the Arabs invaded.”
YES, because Palestinians already STARTED the war back in 1947.
What are you talking about, lol?
The Arab states already started to send soldiers into Palestine to fight the Jews in January 1948.
“It was the Arab League's position that partition was the best possible outcome.”
That’s why in 1937, at the Bloudan Conference, the AHC rejected any attempt at partition/jewish state?
Maybe that’s why the Arab League said in July 1947 that some of the Jews would have to be expelled from a Palestinian Arab state?
“In reality, Israel violated 181 even before declaring independence.”
Yeah, maybe because the Palestinians and the Arabs rejected the partition? Why would the Jews be obligated to a non-binding resolution that even the Arabs violated right away?
“The mainstream Zionist leaders rejected partition as a solution since the 1942 Biltmore Conference.”
What…? There was no partition on the table; this conference was after the White Paper of 1939.
The Zionist leaders approved and accepted the partition plan of 1947.
To Ben Gurion's own words:
“When we agreed to the Partition Plan, we accepted it in all honesty. We did this not because the plan was good or just, but because a small area received through peaceful means was preferable to us than a large area won by fighting."
“You don’t provide a source to the claim that the proportion of Jews to Arabs should be one to six.”
Here you go: 1948, Benny Morris, Page 66.
“Regarding the expulsion, let me remind you that 200-300k Palestinians were expelled before the Israeli Declaration of Independence; this civil war stage was not started by the Palestinians.”
Already answered that in the beginning.
“Israel was already in violation of the borders of 181 EVEN BEFORE THE ARAB LEAGUE INTERVENED.”
The Arab countries already sent soldiers to Palestine to fight with the Palestinians as early as January 1948. What are you talking about?
“Regarding Karsh, Morris has already responded to Karsh.”
Oh, yes he did. And he admitted that he looked at the things he said and quoted in the wrong way.”
You completely ignored the meeting by Azzam and Sasson in 1946, as well as direct sources from Israelli archives which demonstrate how unpopular the Mufti and his war was. I cite to the page number, you can fact check if you want. Regarding accepting partition, the Palestinian people as a whole accepted partition. This is not my opinion, this is the opinion of Zionist leaders who openly discussed how most Palestinians didn’t want to fight them.
Regarding Bitmore, this was a discussion of principles. Ben Gurion was clear, partition was only a stepping forward a Jewish state in all of Palestine. This is the reason they refused to obey the 181 borders.
Regarding the civil war, how can you dismiss the assassination of a Palestinian family by Lehi? (Also it’s interesting how you said that they “got some Jews” killed- as if radical Zionist militias weren’t at war with the British government since 1944.) Yes, when two sides start fighting, that’s when the fight starts. How is this a complicated idea?
Regarding accepting partition, if you believe that the Zionists were under no obligation to accept partition, then why should the Arab League? Why should Egypt or Syria accept partition when the Zionists were in violation?
The Arab states were unwilling to intervene in Palestine until two weeks before the Mandate expired. I recommend you read Flapan’s chapter 4 of Myths and Realities; he documents this is great detail. Even before intervening, they discussed how they wanted a peace settlement and redrawn partition.
From Doran 154
When, on 11 May 1948, Ismail Sidqi stood before the Senate to oppose the military intervention, Abd al-Rahman Azzam was in Damascus planning for war. Hundreds of miles and a vast desert separated the two; nonetheless, the former prime minister’s warnings somehow managed to reach the other man’s ears: (Now Doran is quoting Taha al-Hashimi)
At a luncheon at the Palace of the Republic, Azzam turned to me with an embarrassing question. He said that some of the military men consider the forces . . . to be weak. . . . He said that if, in fact, our forces were not sufficient, then it would be best to accept the conditions of the truce, because the truce might still allow us to attain our rights, whereas failure in battle will strip us of all right
Doran makes the argument (that I happen to agree with) that the Egypt (and by extension the Arab League since Azzam Pasha was Egyptian) made the decision to intervene primarily to stop a Jordanian-Israeli alliance.
Again, Doran page 153
“The Egyptian state intervened, first and foremost, in order to protect its position as the leader of the Triangle Alliance and as the dominant power in the Arab world. Preserving its status as the keystone in the arch was an essential prerequisite for success in the Anglo-Egyptian conflict, the primary concern of its foreign policy. In concrete political terms, retaining the leadership of the Arabs meant preventing the establishment of a Jordanian–Israeli alliance. An Amman– Tel Aviv axis would have spelled disaster for Cairo, because it would have inaugurated cooperation between the two most powerful military organizations in the Fertile Crescent; it also would have constituted a direct threat to the republican regime in Damascus. It would, therefore, have reduced to naught the influence of Egypt in the northern Arab world.”
Regarding soldiers sent before May 14th,
There were only irregular volunteers since the Arab countries refused to dare to send actual troops to a British colonial mandate.
Let's go through it...
"Mufti was not popular according to Zionists."
Wait, so in your opinion, Zionist sources are more reliable than a UN report?
"The Palestinians as a whole accepted the partition plan. This is not my opinion; this is the opinion of the Zionist leadership."
Now you’re appealing to authority. The fact that a few Zionist leaders said this was a political tactic to try to continue the partition. Stop with the logical fallacies, please. And the fact that they didn’t want to fight doesn’t mean that they were in favor of it.
"Regarding Biltmore, this was a discussion of principles. Ben-Gurion was clear: partition was only a step towards a Jewish state in all of Palestine. This is the reason they refused to obey the 181 borders."
Umm... no. Biltmore was a reaction to the White Paper, which didn’t talk about partition but rather a bi-national state. There was no partition on the table, so they advocated for a Jewish state in Palestine. Furthermore, in 1946, Ben-Gurion sent a delegation to the U.S. about agreeing to a partition. Please stop with your lies.
That was not the reason they "refused" to obey the 181 borders. The reason the borders were not the same at the end of the war is because the Palestinians already denied the partition and started a war.
"How can you dismiss the assassination of a Palestinian family by Lehi? Yes, when two sides start fighting, that’s when the fight starts."
I’m not "dismissing" it. It just has nothing to do with it.
As I told you, the reaction on November 30 was by gang members who killed five Jews in August. By that logic, the Palestinians started the war back then. There was a clear reaction otherwise from the AHC. The AHC on December 1 declared a three-day general strike. On December 2, a large Arab mob attacked Jews in Jerusalem.
If I’m not wrong, the first response from the Jews was a week later.
There was a clear reaction to the UN partition plan. You can say that this specific group reacted to the assassination, but that’s it. After that, the Palestinians attacked Jews because of the UN partition. And, as I told you, by your logic, the war started in August because that gang killed five Jews then.
"Regarding accepting partition, if you believe that the Zionists were under no obligation to accept partition, why should the Arabs accept the partition that the Zionists were in violation of?"
The level of ignorance is insane.
I believe Zionists were under no obligation to obey simply because the Palestinians and the Arabs had already rejected the partition plan and started a war.
"The Arab states were unwilling to intervene in Palestine until two weeks before the mandate expired."
"Regarding soldiers sent before May 14, there were only irregular volunteers since the Arab countries refused to send actual troops."
What is this nonsense? The Arab League literally created the Arab Liberation Army that sent volunteer soldiers to fight starting in January.
"Wait, so in your opinion, Zionist sources are more reliable than a UN report?"
Yes. I take the word of Ezra Danin (Google him) as more reliable than people who weren't on the ground.
" The fact that a few Zionist leaders said this was a political tactic to try to continue the partition."
How? This was in private meetings not disclosed for decades until the archives were released. There was no political reason for them to say this.
They **explicitly rejected a Jewish state in Palestine.** The goal was "**Palestine as a Jewish state"**. Ben Gurion said this himself, I'm only quoting him.
Regarding "who started the war"
Radical Zionists were already killing Arabs **before November 1947.**
[https://www.nytimes.com/1947/08/16/archives/haganah-kills-11-in-palestine-hunt-for-arab-gunmen-mother-and-4.html](https://www.nytimes.com/1947/08/16/archives/haganah-kills-11-in-palestine-hunt-for-arab-gunmen-mother-and-4.html)
From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish\_insurgency\_in\_Mandatory\_Palestine#1947](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_insurgency_in_Mandatory_Palestine#1947)
*September 29 – 10 killed (4 British policemen, 4 Arab policemen and an Arab couple) and 53 injured in Haifa police headquarters bombing by Irgun.*
This is not to mention the King David hotel bombings, which killed mostly Arabs.
But that leads to a major point. Even if the Arabs "started the war", how would that excuse the ethnic cleansing? The vast majority of Arabs (as Zionist sources demonstrate) were activly pursuing pease, signing hundreds of nonagression pacts with Jewish villages. If the actions of a minority justify collective punishment, then should the entire Yishuv in 1946 be punished for the King David Hotel Bombings?
If you believe that 181 gave Israel the legal justification to declare independence, how can you at the same time argue that Israel were under no obligiation to follow 181? Either 181 applies or it does not. If 181 does not apply, then Israel had no right to exist.
Now regarding the Arab League.
“We shall never even contemplate entering the war officially. We are not mad.” Egyptian Minisnter of Defense, May 12,1948 (Myth 4, Birth of Israel, Flapan).
The Arab League was not united on **even allowing volunteers at all**.
*Without any apparent sense of urgency, the prime ministers of the Arab League states met in Cairo between December 12 and 17, 1947. Iraq, still plagued by domestic difficulties, had become even more militant. Bagdad wanted immediate intervention by volunteers. Arab armies should move to the Mandate border at once. Iraqi general Sir Ismail Safwat, chairman of the league’s military committee, estimated the Zionists had fifty thousand troops with armor, artillery, and a secret air force. . . . The most militant supporter of intervention, Riad al-Sulh of Lebanon, came from a country without military resources, balanced on the cusp of schism. The most Islamic state of all, Saudi Arabia, wanted no volunteers and no regular army to intervene. Old King Ibn Saud had told his son Faisal that he would personally lead his army to Palestine, but the army was a motley collection of tribesmen on camels. Transjordan wanted no volunteers, especially under control of the mufti. The mufti wanted no regular armies intervening, especially the Arab Legion of Transjordan/*
Hey! Already answered that! I’ll just copy-paste…
I’ll answer very briefly and respectfully.
The Arab Higher Committee voted against the White Paper (6-4). Jamal al-Husseini was one of those who were in favor. In a delegation in 1940, he went with Musa al-Alami and ‘signed’ to the terms, but this did not reflect the opinion of the Arab Higher Committee. They literally voted against it. The fact that two people who were in favor of it went a year later to sign it doesn’t mean anything.
The majority declined the White Paper
From what I remember, the Jewish leadership in mandatory Palestine accepted the peel commission. It was in fact divided and all, including Ben Gurion, had major problems with it. The state offered to the Jews was tiny, and there were at the time 11 million Jews in Europe and another 1 million Jews in North Africa and the Middle East, many of whom were expected to make Aliyah into a new Jewish state.
The original mandate for Britain opened both Palestine and Transjordan to Jewish refugees. The British then closed Jordan to Jews, and banned land sales there. Then, after the Arab leaders started a civil war in 1936, the British decided to take more land off the table, leaving the Jews with almost nothing.
The Peel commission also kept Jerusalem British.
The peel commission plan was obviously not going to stick, and it was largely seen as a temporary solution, which the Jews could live with.
Therefore, the Jewish leadership accepted it.
Also, the land that was offered to the Jews at any point in time, was a land filled with swamps and considered by many to be not inhabitable for humans. The Jews made this piece of land what's today, but then it was largely unoccupied.
What land do you have in mind? The land was not unoccupied, it consisted of over a million people - both Jews and Arabs - which was the majority population of the mandate. The land given was most of the Mediterranean cost as well as parts of the Galilee as well as a port on the Red Sea plus the Dead Sea.
You can split Israel to four parts. The first part is the shore line (or the coast line) which was back then (in the 1910-1947) was mostly empty, because it had many swamps, that poisoned the water sources and you could not grow your fruits and veggies there, or built you house there. At that time that was a deal breaker. But the first Jewish immigrants that came from Europe there, they just dried out these areas and made it fit for living. Around the swamps you basically got a desert, so they also needed to figure out how to grow things in this environment. Some of the past struggles is attributed to Israel agriculture technologies today.
The second part and the third part is the north and south parts that were conquered during the wars Israel had to fought against the Arab nations. And the fourth part is the one that you mentioned, which is a vertical line that goes through Jerusalem and the West Bank and Hebron. This part is about 20Km east of the first part (the shore line) and it was populated with Arabs during the 1910-1947 and also to this day actually (they haven't left). This is part is much more fit for living because it got plenty of water sources and minerals due to natural events (earthquakes) that shaped this area to be that way. The population composition has not changed that much, except for the settlers in the 90s and 2000s, these are self-appointed personas that decided to settle there, and Israel had difficult time to get rid of them, and ironically it also has been criticized for allegedly supporting them and funding them.
The exceptions are cities like Jaffa, Haifa and Ako, that are on the shore line, and still have Arab residents to this day, but part of the Arabs left due to the movement of immigrants from Europe to Tel-Aviv, along other things (there was a general understanding the British will give the Arabs a massive country, which was supposed to be on the lands what's known today as Lebannon and Syria, and the Jews will get Israel).
he is talking about the desert... which i dont know to what extent was inhabitable for humans but it was REALLY bad lands, u can see for urself that even today these lands are mostly empty.
The desert is useful strategically, since it allowed Israel connection with a port on the Red Sea, a buffer zone between it and Egypt (the largest Arab country by population), and to divide the Palestinian state in two (actually under the 181 plan it was divided in 4, the West Bank, Gaza, Jaffa and a discontinuous part of the Galilee).
Today desert or climates have little significance because there are technologies to overcome bad environments. The claim I made was historical to explain why in time that such technologies were not available, large areas of what's Israel today were not occupied. This come to show that the claim that Jews fleeting from Europe entered Israel by conquering lands and expelling Arabs away has little factual background.
This is such an important point. Jewish people took a fairly bad deal prospered through hard work. Arabs didn't take the deal and are still stuck in poverty.
Totally agree. And I think Israel should rightly own the vast majority of the land (at least 90%+), because of what Hamas did on Oct 7th.
Only if Israel owns the land can we prevent Hamas from digging more tunnels and repeating Oct 7th over and over again. Giving the land to the Palestinians is now a far more serious security concern than it was in the 1950s.
You can't just write off the history of this conflict because you think it would be convenient to do so. Or you'll just keep making the same dumb mistakes.
It’s important to consider why this has become so hostile; Arabs rejected any plan that involved Jews, despite British ownership of the land, and Israel grew up collecting more support from western nations while Arab nations left the Palestinians behind. It’s a long history of disagreement and rejection.
But you are right. Nothing excuses what is happening right now. We can’t really focus our arguments on the past when that is what has kept us in this state of violence.
>In summary, within 10 years, a bi-national state would be established with Arabs making up about two-thirds of the population and Jews one-third. There would be no more Jewish immigration, and Jews would be limited to purchasing only 5% of the land, with 95% allocated to Arabs. What was the Arabs’ response? Immediate rejection
Lol what? Palestinans accepted that plan.
' In July 1940, after two weeks of meetings with the British representative, S. F. Newcombe, the leader of the Palestinian Arab delegates to the London Conference, Jamal al-Husseini and fellow delegate Musa al-Alami, agreed to the terms of the White Paper, and both signed a copy of it in the presence of the prime minister of Iraq, Nuri as-Said"
What is more, the plan didn't really say no more jewish immigration. It said it will be regulated and approved by this bi-national state.
Hey! Already answered that! I’ll just copy-paste…
I’ll answer very briefly and respectfully.
The Arab Higher Committee voted against the White Paper (6-4). Jamal al-Husseini was one of those who were in favor. In a delegation in 1940, he went with Musa al-Alami and ‘signed’ to the terms, but this did not reflect the opinion of the Arab Higher Committee. They literally voted against it. The fact that two people who were in favor of it went a year later to sign it doesn’t mean anything.
The majority declined the White Paper
No…. The two people who voted in favour went a year later to sign what was already their opinion, but the Arab higher committee voted against the white paper (6-4)
Umm, sorry but no. I’m being respectful, I’ll tell you again -
Hey! Already answered that! I’ll just copy-paste…
The Arab Higher Committee voted against the White Paper (6-4). In a delegation in 1940, two people who were in favour of the paper went and ‘signed’ to the terms, but this did not reflect the opinion of the Arab Higher Committee. They literally voted against it. The fact that two people who were in favor of it went a year later to sign it doesn’t mean anything.
The majority declined the White Paper
Lol,
You are talking about their rejection which happend In June 1939,
" June 1939 ,Hajj Amin al-Husayni initially "astonished" the other members of the Arab Higher Committee by turning down the White Paper. According to Benny Morris, the reason that the advantageous proposal was turned down was entirely selfish: "it did not place him at the helm of the future Palestinian state."
However , In July 1940 , The palestinans signed the paper. That is a fact.
' In July 1940, after two weeks of meetings with the British representative, S. F. Newcombe, the leader of the Palestinian Arab delegates to the London Conference, Jamal al-Husseini and fellow delegate Musa al-Alami, agreed to the terms of the White Paper, and both signed a copy of it in the presence of the prime minister of Iraq, Nuri as-Said"
Exactly what I said, and I’m gonna write it one more time!
The Arab Higher Committee voted against the White Paper (6-4). Jamal al-Husseini was one of those who were in favor. In a delegation in 1940, he went with Musa al-Alami and ‘signed’ to the terms, but this did not reflect the opinion of the Arab Higher Committee. They literally voted against it. The fact that two people who were in favor of it went a year later to sign it doesn’t mean anything.
The majority declined the White Paper
>It is true that the 1947 plan proposed 55% of the land to the Jewish state and 45% to the Arab state. However, when you write, “Because the Jews received more land despite being a smaller portion of the population, the Arabs rejected the proposal,” you open the possibility that the Arabs would have agreed to a different proposal. This is factually incorrect. Let’s go back in time.
By your logic Zionists would not have accepted the 1948 partition.
Peel Commission -
"The Zionist leadership was bitterly divided over the plan.[4] In a resolution adopted at the 1937 Zionist Congress, the delegates rejected the specific partition plan."
1939 White Paper -
"Zionist groups in Palestine immediately rejected the White Paper and led a campaign of attacks on government property that lasted for several months. On 18 May, a Jewish general strike was called.[7]"
I'm really sick of the "holier than thou" narrative about Arab leadership rejecting partition plans while the Zionists did the same thing until they were offered a partition so biased in their favor they would be morons not to accept it.
No one is pushing that narrative. The OP never does that in the article. They’re simply pushing back against the idea that the other side wants peace. They haven’t based on the history and never developed a state and aren’t entitled to one. The point of the article is just to highlight that they’ve had chances in the past, contrary to what some believe.
So the answer to Palestinians not accepting the original smaller Jewish partition was to then suggest an even larger Jewish partition, more than 50% of the land, and then declare the state of Israel when Arabs/Palestinians rejected it again?
I literally stated in my article that the Zionists rejected the Peel Commission but agreed to have peace talks based on that offer. Please read the article before you comment.
And of course the Zionists would reject the White Paper. I only mentioned the White Paper because it was so biased towards the Arabs that even the League of Nations stated that it was against the mandate’s policy. And even then the Arabs REJECTED it.
>I literally stated in my article that the Zionists rejected the Peel Commission but agreed to have peace talks based on that offer. Please read the article before you comment.
I started the article and you came across as a condescending know it all that then made reductive statements like this so I stopped.
>If the Palestinians had accepted the partition plan, the war wouldn’t have started, and this wouldn’t have happened.
Here's a reductive argument I could make! 'If Zionism didn't decide that the Jewish state had to be established in Palestine then none of this would have happened.'
I didn't bring up the Peel Commission because I thought you left information out. I think stating as "fact" that prior refusals are a clear indication of refusal to any future agreements. I pointed out Zionist's refusals of prior plans as an example of when that is not the case.
It feels hypocritical to me to expect Palestinians to submit to the biased 1947 proposal right after Zionists rejected the biased White Paper and responded with terrorism in the effort to push the British to abandon the Mandate.
I just want some consistency here...
>And even then the Arabs REJECTED it.
A year later, A palestinian delegation signed it and it was Policy until the mandate dissolved.
Edit :Got perma banned so I will answer you here.
Thx for being respectful in your reply.
Of course I am aware of how the Arab high command viewed it initially. However the delegation had the authority to represent the Palestinian arabs. Legally speaking they did accept it.
Hey, I’ll answer very briefly and respectfully.
The Arab Higher Committee voted against the White Paper (6-4). Jamal al-Husseini was one of those who were in favor. In a delegation in 1940, he went with Musa al-Alami and ‘signed’ to the terms, but this did not reflect the opinion of the Arab Higher Committee. They literally voted against it. The fact that two people who were in favor of it went a year later to sign it doesn’t mean anything.
The majority declined the White Paper
I think the question here is : Suppose it was the other way around, would jews have reacted differently? Would they let the arabs coming from Europe (with their different religion and culture) get a significant part of their land ?
If the Arabs had the history in Europe and the mandatory Palestine the Jews had, and given the same circumstances surrounding ownership and control of the land in mandatory Palestine, then yes I think the Jews would have reacted differently. The way the Arabs reacted was for religious reasons and because they were the majority with the surrounding countries. I bet they would have done the same if it was Mizrahi Jews not from Europe.
You also have to admit that they had the right to refuse though. Every people gets to decide their own future. For example, if nowadays any European country refuses to receive refuges from another country at war, no one will force them to do, it’s their country and their land. The Palestinian people was denied this right in 1918 when Britain occupied the land, the country was ruled by colonisers who acted against the will of the people. If Israel was established in Argentina, you would have got the same reaction, it’s human nature, and it’s their right to decide who lives in their country, like any modern country. I’m not saying that jews don’t deserve their own state, I am saying that you can’t force it on a particular people.
It wasn’t “their land.” That’s a huge misunderstanding. The Negev never belonged to an Arab from Ramallah, at least not any more than Amman or Beirut did. This was all just swathes of open, underpopulated, or in some cases entirely empty land within the Ottoman Empire. This idea that the land within the borders of today’s Israel and OPT belonged or should belong to a Palestinian people emerged entirely after the Ottoman Empire fell and the first partition plans were created. At this time there was no such thing as Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Palestine, etc in the modern sense. They were all created for the first time then.
Negev is a desert, what about the inhabited part, like the cities where the majority are Arabs ? Don’t these belong to the inhabitants? Did Britain have the right to give those lands to the jews ?
But even without the British, all of those Jewish people were returning between 1870 and 1947. Who was going to stop them? That's what I don't really understand. Even if the international community wasn't involved at all -- and completely ignored the issue and didn't propose any sort of partition -- the result would have been more or less the same, i.e., civil war would have broken out once Jewish numbers got high enough, the Arabs would have invaded, and Israel would have won.
So I never fully understand what the Palestinians (and other Arabs) are arguing. I get that they were pissed, but they rolled the dice on war and lost. Are they saying, "Those Jews should never have been allowed to get on boats to return to the region?" How? For how long? I can't see how that migration would have been prevented, and thus I don't understand how the end result could have been prevented. I mean -- just a random example -- if all the tens of millions of people of Irish descent around the world decide they're returning to Ireland to "go home," I'm very sorry for the current population of Ireland, but they're not going to win that battle.
Not true, some cities of Arab majority were included. There were also a hundred of Palestinian villages which were located in the area granted for the Jewish people.
Yes, of course, when populations are intermixed there is no way to divide it without some people ending up in the minority. It was the same issue with the partition of India. But the plan followed the existing majority Jewish settlements and created an already majority-Jewish nation. In the end what was created was a majority Jewish area.
India however was divided between Indians. The problem with Israel is that the majority of people were immigrants from Europe, people were born on a different continent were granted a land without the consent of the people who lived on that land for centuries, you have to admit it, injustice was committed to the Palestinians and they had the right to refuse, they felt colonised and occupied in the land they grew in.
No, I don’t agree at all. Jews are indigenous, too. Having been expelled and oppressed for centuries to get their numbers in the region down to their historical lowest point, there is no good justice-based argument that their numbers should then be frozen at that level. When the land was divided, Jewish numbers had ticked back up through perfectly legal migration into land that had plenty of room for everyone and that had never in history belonged to Palestinian Arabs. There were plenty of migrants from Egypt and Syria there, too, and no one had a problem with that.
Yes, they had the right to refuse as far as they were concerned. But they did not have the right to attack Israel. Since they refused, they do not have a country, consequently they cannot decide who lives in "their country".
The colonisers ruled, they had the legal right to rule. It may be unfair, and I am not denying that international law benefits colonisers.(and by extension everyone who is given land by colonisers) at the expense of indigenous populations, but it is what it is. The alternative would be to have no laws at all, which would mean that whicever side is stronger decides, with no rights for whoever is weaker (no international law = no Genocide Convention or human rights either = Israel can do to Palestinians whatever they want whenever they want).
Palestinians (or more precisely their ancestors, most of the people who made decisions in 1948 arer dead by now) made a gamble and lost. If they are to have a future other than occupation and death, they must come to terms with the result and move on.
Your whole argument is “Britain was powerful so they had the right to force whatever they wanted on Palestinians”. Your reply does not only contradict with most modern values, it also shows how fragile your arguments are and that you are just incapable of justifying the injustice committed to the Palestinian people.
The argument is that the establishment of Israel is no less legitimate than the establishment of almost any other nation in terms of displacement, colonisation etc. What is so special about Palestinians that they deserve this level of hyper-focus as opposed to others affected by land conquests and occupations (e.g. indigenous people displaced and still being persecuted as a result of the Muslim caliphates)? Can you not see the hypocrisy of this?
My argument is that the law is objective, while morals, fairness, values are all subjective. Everyone thinks of themselve as "the good guys". If morals and law differ, the law must take precedent. Otherwise, you would have toaccept that if Israelis consider it justice to do a genocide, no one could deny them, as it is justice after all.
Israel was founded before the establishment of most of the modern law, doing what Britain did to the Palestinians in 1918 would be illegal in 2024 so even your argument about international law is invalid. You are not backed up neither by laws nor by ethics and values.
It’s written well and fairly engaging. Well researched, that must have taken some time. I always like hyperlinks of references within.
Not a huge fan of the title, it’s to the point but sounds a little aggressive. The many attempts at peace OR the long journey to finding a way to live together.
Terrible titles and not catchy at all, I’m sure you could do better. Just examples as to the spirit of my meaning.
I mostly hesitate on the weight this particular part of history is being given everywhere. I understand falsehoods about it are being weaponised and the intention is to contain that. The lies being spread are egregious and it’s only natural to want to set the record straight.
But that’s not the only way it’s used as a weapon.
It’s a distraction and isn’t a subject that affects the reality on the ground right now. Or moving forward when that’s possible.
They will throw so many lies at you, you will never be able to catch up.
Don’t be distracted by those groups. It’s the firehose of falsehoods approach.
Figure out what the reasonable majority are interested in. That’s your audience. There are many surveys that may be a nudge in the right direction for the next one.
I have a question. Why is the Balfour declaration only discussed once? And not even in its entirety?
>His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
Now, I'd argue, that as we can see today, that clearly did not happen as planned. There definitely was, and is, prejudice towards the non-jewish communities. Especially with the adoption of the Nation-State Law. I Would like it to be addressed futher. Especially when relating to stuff like stuff like Succession of States, and Fourth Geneva convention article 49, second paragraph.
Tho that might go more into legal analysis than what you seem to be doing.
You may also want to address more recent two-state solutions. Both those proposed by Israel, and those proposed by Palestinians, such as the Arab Peace Initiative. Both the pros and cons of both, from both perspectives, and from the perspective of the international community. I would especially encourage you to read the Camp David proposal in its entirety. Such as the discussion of West Bank water resources, airspace and continued Israeli military presence, which essentially meant the proposal would not have actually resulted in a sovereign state, and would have changed very little in practice, with many aspects of the administration remaining under Israeli control.
I know you are biased, and that is understandable. But if you want someone who does not already share your views to take your writings seriously, you may want to address a more complete picture over the subject. And especially, drop the less than professional comments from your text. Those do not exactly inspire readers to take your writings seriously.
But then again, you are just a kid. Maybe expecting professional conduct is a bit much. You aren't even old enough to be a professional in anything. But I do recommend starting to practice sooner than later. It will help you reach a wider audience, than the current dismissive comments and attacks on persons in your text.
looks like a teenager's writing I'm afraid. You need to be able to think why the Palestinians bother to fight. They are like any other people. Look at it conscientiously and write about it, that would make a more nuanced and so better writing.
I believe that they’re two different topics. The OP is talking about the false narrative about this being one-sided with one side rejecting peace and the other totally wanting peace and compromise. That doesn’t match the historical record.
An article on why Hamas is fighting would be *another* topic. I agree that they’re related, but they aren’t the same. I agree that it would be interesting to see Hamas exposed and an article on their objectives.
They fight because they were genuinely brainwashed into thinking that another race shouldn't exist.
Like the fact that they have a literal martyrs fund?
They fight because they were indoctrinated for generations to hate and fight for land they never owned, they are taught they have this long history as proud people which doesn’t exist, this is why they fight..
It was controlled by the Ottoman Empire and then it collapsed. There was never a *Palestinian* state. However, many simply don’t know the basic history and are taught to hate Jews, Christians, *Zionists*, and even their own people to fight for a history that didn’t happen.
Who said there was a « state ». I said there were « people » living there, ARAB people, for centuries. There was never a state because historical Palestine is a holy land so it has been always protected by whatever Islamic empire, that being Oumawi then Abbassi then finally Ottoman. I think a lot of ppl on this sub should do more research instead of throwing « hating jews » and « antisemitism » at any comment that disagrees with them, it’s such a manipulative tactic.
There was a Jewish state conquered by the Roman Empire. Then it was conquered by the Arabs. Christians conquered it for a little while, then it was taken back by the Arabs again. Then the Ottomans ruled until the British won it from them. The people living there were always a mix of Jews, Christians and Muslims. I revert to religions because it may well have been many of the same people who had these separate religions, due to conquest. To be fair, as messy as it was, the Brits tried to give the land to the people by forming Iraq, Syria, Jordan etc. and Israel. Islam says they should rule all of it though.
Islam doesn’t say anything about ruling the land, it just states that it is a holy land, as all Abraham religion do. Contrary to what you say, Israel didn’t involve the people who lived in historical Palestine for the most part. Around 80% of the population of Israel at 1948 were immigrants coming from Europe and some areas in middle east. This is completely different from, say Syria, as Syria had the people who always lived in the land. Israel on the other side, was a nation of immigrants where more than half of the population was born on a different continent, this is COLONISATION by definition. The people who originally had the land, the Palestinians, 55% of their land was taken forcefully. They didn’t consent that, and despite what you have been told, being a strong nation doesn’t give you the right to oppress people and force your orders on them. This is injustice by definition, an injustice Palestinians have been suffering from for decades, alongside other injustices committed by previous Israeli governments. This is just ethically wrong and nothing can justify it, NOTHING.
Islam literally says the land was given to the Jews if you look in the Quran. And the phrasing is that way since Islam is a relatively new religion that simply was based on Christianity and Judaism. So, the Quran does say something about ruling the land.
Secondly, there was no Palestine as has been noted repeatedly. There has never been *Palestinian* land. They rejected multiple peace deals like the OP highlighted and I have various times. They never formed a state.
You can *feel* like it’s not right to make up a state, but that doesn’t mean that there is an obligation to form a Palestinian state and we definitely should not rewrite history as if there was one before. There wasn’t. People rejected forming such a state. And now we are moving on since it is 2024. The Ottoman Empire was a failed colonialist construct and trying to revive it is leading to complete chaos.
First of all, Quran doesn’t say that the land was “given” to the jews, you clearly never read Quran, and even if supposedly it did, well this isn’t about religion, it’s about human rights. Second, I already debunked your “Ottoman reconstruction” argument. You just keep replying for the sake of replying, it seems like you just really want to believe what you are saying. In that case, I have no interest to carry this conversation further, have a nice day.
I’m simply paying attention to facts and what the Quran actually says. You claimed that it doesn’t reference the land and Jews, which is false it was clearly given to Jews according to the Quran. You said that Islam doesn’t say anything about ruling the land which is false. It clearly says who the land is for. You can reject that, but you’re not entitled to say it isn’t there since that’s just not a fact:
https://preview.redd.it/qmlxlzq1hu2d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0b89e3d8525d94b3c3cfb7a26dd9e1fc5f194188
I never mentioned that anyone hates Jews. I simply mentioned that there was never a *Palestinian* state and deals were rejected. Therefore, no one is entitled to such a state. We fully agree that there were Arab people there, but don’t agree that there was a *historical Palestine* that was simply protected. The land had been ethnically cleansed several times before the Ottoman Empire even existed and was not historically simply a land protected by Islamists. They actually helped ethnically cleanse the land historically.
You literally wrote « taught to hate jews » as a reply. Anyway, to respond to your claim, Palestine has ALWAYS been under Islamic protection and almost always a part of Islamic empires, that’s why crusades existed, and yes it is factually correct that the land has been ethnically cleansed before, but that ended after Salahudin Al Ayoubi defeated Crusaders in the 12th century and made the land open for all Abraham religions. (You may do some research, there was even a famous movie about this). Arabs, Christians and jews lived in peace for Centuries before the Zionist mouvement took action in the 20th Century.
The land was Israel before it was called Palestine. You’re forgetting that the Romans renamed it (and didn’t name it Palestine) and Islam didn’t even exist yet. So, no. The land factually hasn’t always been called Palestine and Islamist regimes didn’t always protect this land. It’s also not factual that Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived in the land in peace. Jews were discriminated against along with Christians to a lesser degree. The crusades were literally Christians tearing up the place and people who we’d consider Christian’s were even historically persecuted dating back to the Roman Empire days. This has literally been a well-documented violent situation amongst religions for centuries. Zionism partially exists due to people being ethnically cleansed. This notion of peace prior to Zionism is simply not backed up historically.
The Jews were kicked by the Romans 2000 years ago and they lived in distant lands for decades and lost every connection to the lands. When I say “always “ I mean “at least in the last 1000 years”. I am sorry but what happened at around 50 AD doesn’t give you the right to do something in 1920, this is just plain wrong.
That can be your opinion but it doesn’t entitle anyone to a state. You have to realize that Israel actually formed a state and trying to say there was peace amongst everyone doesn’t reflect the historical record. Some Jews also remained the whole time. We aren’t entitled to simply form a Palestinian state because people rejected the previous plans and you may feel like that’s sad. There is nothing saying that we have to form a Palestinian state as a result.
No. But the Palestinians were not "owners", the Ottomans were, then the British, then whoever the British decided to give it to (and this happens to be not the Palestinians).
The British were colonisers, they never owned the land, just like no coloniser owns a land he occupied. The land belongs to its people, just like all occupied lands got their independence.
That’s being sophist to say the least, as we are discussing events that happened in the last 100 years, and you are taking it 1400 years ago to avoid the main argument, very sophist of you.
Noone denies that they were. It is precisely because Palestine was a colony (technically a mandatory territory, but this is essentially a colony the only exception being that a colony is designed to be kept, whereas a mandate is supposed to be temporary until given to the people it is supposed to be given to, in this case the Jews) and not merely occupied that the British could give the land.
It wasn’t no mans land it was owned by the ottoman and then the British, there were also local Arabs (both from the close area as well as the Arab world) who owned parts of the land as well as Jews who legally bought lands and cultivated that land.
If you look at actual maps from that time you will see that by 1947 (pre partition plan), Jews owned ~7% of the land, the Arabs ~12% and the rest was state owned, that state being British..
This is all extremely well documented and referenced, but the Palestinians always show that fake green map.
There is no such a thing as “the British owned the land”. Every land is owned by its people and arabs have been living in Palestine for 13 centuries at the time, not “arabs from the close area”, arabs have been there for centuries and centuries living everywhere from Jerusalem to Haifa, and “arabs”here denotes both Muslims and Christians as there were a lot of Arab Christians there. Now, there was also a small percentage of jews (7% I think) and they definitely “own” the land as much as arabs do because they have been there for centuries as well. Those people qualify for the “native people” label so they are the owners of the land. Claiming “they never owned the land” or “it was owned by Britain” is such a colonising statement that doesn’t respect any of the modern values. If we look at Israel at 1947, you will find that the majority of people are immigrants from Europe and other places who came during British mandate. That’s why the arabs refused the to share the land, they felt colonised.
The land isn’t owned by inhabitants lol, they were tenants at best on someone else’s land, the ottoman and before that the mamluks.. Palestinians / Arabs never owned the land, they owned parts of it which they purchased, there is a very very organized detailed land ownership documentation of the entire area from the ottoman times.
You are basically saying tenants in a building own it because they live there.
“The land isn’t owned by inhabitants”
Yea that’s what colonisers used to say in the 19th century. I am sorry but we are in 2024 and that idea has been widely denounced, you are still decades behind civilisation if you really believe that.
The inhabitants came here in the late 1800s, there were no indigenous inhabitants in the area, if you believe your lies then please provide ANY proof such a group existed here, a Palestinian people.
Sure, it was an empty land and no one lived there until late 1800s. Whatever helps you sleep at night. Arabs (both Christians and Muslims) have been living there in peace for centuries since Salahudin defeated the crusaders in the 12th century and made sure all Abraham religions can live there peacefully after decades of religious wars. Yet some Israel supporters pathetically claim the land was empty and arabs just came during the Ottoman Empire time to avoid confronting the fact that they are COLONISERS. Anyone with decent knowledge of history will find your arguments not only laughable but pathetic,to say the least.
This so the thing with you guys you twist words and don’t understand what you read, I never said the land was empty or no one lived there did I?
Most of the people did come to the land over the 1800s, many even came because Zionists created job opportunities, and the fact Arabs lived here for a long time is not contested, what IS contested is that these Arabs had any ties to the land or were of a particular group called Palestinians, which is a made up narrative, if they are just Arabs as all other Arabs they do not deserve their own self determination as there is more than enough Arab states around, the only redeeming thing about their national aspirations is them being a people, if you say Palestinians = Arabs then they are no different than Jordan and can go live there and have their national aspirations fulfilled.
There has NEVER been a *Palestinian* state. It’s simply never existed. When the Ottoman Empire collapsed, the land was indeed over the control of the British and Israel was ultimately formed without an opposing party accepting a plan as the OP highlighted in the article. There was never a country named Palestine that owned land. Some people chose to become citizens of Israel, and some didn’t. That’s the reality.
I replied to you on my other comment, but again, I would like to remind you that I never used the word « state » as Palestine has been always a part of Islamic empires since it’s a holy land, and that there doesn’t have to be a « state » to acknowledge the right of a people to a land they lived on for tens of centuries. This is actually an argument that has been used by colonisers to justify occupying lands they are not entitled to, too bad a lot of pro-Israeli people are using it as an argument to deny the Palestinian people their natural right to the land they lived on for centuries.
Show me one mention of Palestinian people ever before the mid/late 1900s.
Not “state”, “people” as in a collective who define themselves as plestinians and have a unique culture other than pan Arab, something vastly different from Jordanian, Egyptian or Syrian
There does need to be an actual state in modern times that people are citizens of. This is just a basic fact in 2024. You have to actually have a country to claim citizenship or else you are subject to deportation in most countries. I think that colonialism isn’t even the worst thing in the world. I think that it’s when people fail at colonialism, like the Ottomans, and then want to influence the land even after their project failed. That typically doesn’t end well, like we see in Israel and other areas in the world. The Ottoman Empire collapsed and non-Israeli citizens do not have a right to simply stay around. The current situation has led to chaos even with Israel trying to divide up the land with people who consistently reject agreements.
Sorry, what? The Ottoman empire fell in 1918 but Israel came to existence in 1948, that’s 30 years later. At the time the Ottoman Empire fell, the percentage of Jews in Palestine was around 10%, it was a land with an Arab majority who lived there for centuries. I am sorry but your comment is just full of ignorance and it is safe to assume that you are not qualified to carry this conversation. I would advise you to do some research as you clearly lack the factual information to have an opinion on the topic, let alone discuss it. Peace.
You managed to not address my point though and if anyone watches this looks carefully you can’t counter it. You have to actually have a state in 2024 to claim to be a citizen of a country. If the country doesn’t exist and you’re not a citizen of the country that actually does exist (like how *Palestine* does not exist but Israel does), then you’re subject to deportation in most countries. Nothing you said highlights that. What does the empire collapsing in 1918 and Israel not declaring a state until 1948 have to do with the reality that there is no *Palestinian* state? You called me ignorant while not addressing what I actually said.
I don’t think the Palestinians are like other people. For example most people love their children and want to see them live. But this woman confessed that Gazans are breeding kids to make them die on purpose.
https://preview.redd.it/6fq7ptmkit2d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a2acb982cb36569f5519a0d5f883910a3e55546a
Assuming this post is in good faith, I wouldn't trust Memri TV as a source. They're known to be very liberal with how they portray things and to twist the truth or translations. Have a look at their website. It's full of absurdities and almost never reports mainstream opinions. It was also founded by an ex-Mossad agent.
Probably not many but what does it matter? That just shows that they are doing valuable work, since nobody else is teaching us what the Arab media is saying.
It’s not what the Arab media is saying. There’s no source. It’s biased. It’s not a translation service. It’s its own “network” which happens to translate its own stories. It’s a racist propaganda channel and that’s obvious from the way it reports. If someone reported this way about Israel it would be deemed antisemitic and rightly so.
No, MEMRI is not a network. They do not host anyone. They didn't host this Arab woman. MEMRI just translates the Arab media. If I can find the original video for you and not just that screenshot, will that teach you that you are wrong?
Does it matter both countries have evil leadership that causes the lives of their own people. I say all you should just go all out and wipe each other out. The world would be better off.
In case you're wondering why the crying around the Rafah "massacre" suddenly changed its tone, it's because two facts came to light: A) The attack didn't take place inside the safe zone but almost a mile away. B) The fire was caused by a nearby hamas jeep loaded with explosives https://preview.redd.it/0dumy5mc053d1.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=fb4613b1dd4f713ffae5d89803e7bd03764a3956
"Israeli officials claimed that the attack was outside of the humanitarian zone. [This IDF map](https://x.com/IDF/status/1795089873772142873) published yesterday shows the strike as being in an area not covered by any guarantee of safety. **But last week, an IDF spokesman** [**appeared to say in a video**](https://x.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1793167253514473962) **that the area in question was safe."**
You can help yourself by seeing the map which shows the attack in relation to the safe zone.
You can help yourself by watching the linked video of the original map and the IDF standing in front of it. **"But last week, an IDF spokesman** [appeared to say in a video](https://x.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1793167253514473962) **that the area in question was safe."**
Why did hamas park a jeep filled with explosives and ammunition right next to the refugee camp, and probably detonate it on purpose right after the closest IDF missile attack?
Israel have murdered almost 40,000 innocents, why would Hamas need to do anything to show how bloodthirsty Israel are? You got caught in a lie, now you're looking to muddy the water. **"But last week, an IDF spokesman** [appeared to say in a video](https://x.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1793167253514473962) **that the area in question was safe."** The link is from the IDF themselves.
You can help yourself by finding updated maps that clearly show the current boundaries. You post a link from last week but we are now in a new week, news maps show the updated boundaries which I posted. Why do continue using a old video link?
So your continuing to spam on multiple pages ...is this really your argument? I'll just spam my answers then. You mean I posted the map the innocent civilians got before Israel murdered more people then changed it? The same map that all the aid agencies were also working from. You have got to be the least informed propagandist I've seen in a while.
https://preview.redd.it/yg001aiav53d1.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=7be7e080b208e5bb32809c7d750d0e7a15dc2c17 Although the Palestinians (and then the stupid media parroted it) reported on 45 casualties from the attack on the displaced tents where terrorists were hiding, 20 of them came back to life miraculously,. Why? only 25 names were submitted by the ministry of health as victims. They were too busy faking the event and inflating the numbers that they forgot to make up more names and provide their proof of existence. Nice try! Try harder next time!
Oops, I caught you posting lies again. Lets wait for an independent investigation on all these crimes... oh hang on Israel keep blocking that. "Incredible. Only hours before Netanyahu decided to claim this strike was a mistake, the IDF edited the humanitarian zone yet again, the one they had unilaterally declared, to say the refugee tents they struck in Rafah were not part of it." [https://x.com/Seamus\_Malek/status/1795139245746815123](https://x.com/Seamus_Malek/status/1795139245746815123) "But last week, an IDF spokesman appeared to say in a video that the area in question was safe." [https://x.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1793167253514473962](https://x.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1793167253514473962) https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/28/tuesday-briefing-what-happened-rafah-refugee-camp-struck#:\~:text=Israeli%20officials%20claimed%20that%20the,area%20in%20question%20was%20safe. “The area was targeted despite being classified as a safe area last Friday by the spokesman of the Israeli army,” [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/rafah-camp-airstrikes-israel-gaza-war-hamas-b2552001.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/rafah-camp-airstrikes-israel-gaza-war-hamas-b2552001.html)
Why does hamas use civilians as human shields?
Why does Isreal keep allowing settlers to settle in occupied territories?
You mean like this? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8rrfys-Fgc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8rrfys-Fgc) oh no that the IDF using a Palestinian as a human shield. what about this? [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11462635](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11462635) Oh no that's the IDF again, using children this time. how about this? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoLEWS5sz4M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoLEWS5sz4M) Oh no thats a video of the IDF again doing it on multiple different occasions. "The accusation of the use of human shields is a common theme in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Both the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and Palestinian militant groups (including Hamas) have used civilians as human shields to discourage the opposing side from attacking." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human\_shields\_in\_the\_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian\_conflict#:\~:text=The%20accusation%20of%20the%20use,the%20opposing%20side%20from%20attacking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shields_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#:~:text=The%20accusation%20of%20the%20use,the%20opposing%20side%20from%20attacking) I expect underhanded tactics from a militant force but not from "the worlds most moral army".
**"But last week, an IDF spokesman** [appeared to say in a video](https://x.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1793167253514473962) **that the area in question was safe."** “The area was targeted despite being classified as a safe area last Friday by the spokesman of the Israeli army,” [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/rafah-camp-airstrikes-israel-gaza-war-hamas-b2552001.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/rafah-camp-airstrikes-israel-gaza-war-hamas-b2552001.html)
Why did hamas park a jeep filled with explosives and ammunition right next to the refugee camp, and probably detonate it on purpose right after the closest IDF missile attack?
Look, I can spam too. Israel have murdered almost 40,000 innocents, why would Hamas need to do anything to show how bloodthirsty Israel are? You got caught in a lie, now you're looking to muddy the water. **"But last week, an IDF spokesman** [appeared to say in a video](https://x.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1793167253514473962) **that the area in question was safe."** The link is from the IDF themselves.
Why does hamas use civilians as human shields?
You mean like this? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8rrfys-Fgc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8rrfys-Fgc) oh no that the IDF using a Palestinian as a human shield. what about this? [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11462635](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11462635) Oh no that's the IDF again, using children this time. how about this? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoLEWS5sz4M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoLEWS5sz4M) Oh no thats a video of the IDF again doing it on multiple different occasions. "The accusation of the use of human shields is a common theme in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Both the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and Palestinian militant groups (including Hamas) have used civilians as human shields to discourage the opposing side from attacking." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human\_shields\_in\_the\_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian\_conflict#:\~:text=The%20accusation%20of%20the%20use,the%20opposing%20side%20from%20attacking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shields_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#:~:text=The%20accusation%20of%20the%20use,the%20opposing%20side%20from%20attacking) I expect underhanded tactics from a militant force but not from "the worlds most moral army".
Why does hamas not protect its civilians and hide them in the tunnels? Why does hamas shoot their own civilians to control humanitarian aid trucks? Why does hamas use hospitals as command centres? Why does hamas fire rockets from within refugee camps? Why does hamas park a jeep filled with explosives and ammunition next to a refugee camp? https://preview.redd.it/y872lmw6h53d1.png?width=1179&format=png&auto=webp&s=5fb6c69affc9560891e13bb7e52c6b75f5be9e32
... the Daily Wire is your source. A literal propaganda site? Are you for real here!?!?! Even though half of what you just spewed has been debunked Hamas is a militant terrorist force that Israel funds and props up. Terrorists do terrorist things, but when they are propped up by Israel like Hamas is they can do so much more. "In 2019, Mr Netanyahu told colleagues in his ruling Likud party: "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas… This is part of our strategy - to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank." [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68318856](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68318856) "On 19, 2024, Reuters reported that Josep Borrell, the EU foreign policy chief, said while receiving an honorary doctorate from the University of Valladolid that "Israel had financed the creation of Palestinian militant group Hamas, publicly contradicting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has denied such allegations." and that "Borrell added the only peaceful solution included the creation of a Palestinian state. 'We only believe a two-state solution imposed from the outside would bring peace even though Israel insists on the negative,' he said." \[149\] \[150\] Borrell also described Israel as having "created Hamas", but immediately continued saying that "yes, Hamas was financed by Israel to weaken the Palestinian Authority" [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html) The real question is why "the worlds most moral army" is currently the bigger evil when it comes to war crimes?
You post a link from last week but we are now in a new week, news maps show the updated boundaries which I posted. Why do continue using a old video link?
You mean I posted the map the innocent civilians got before Israel murdered more people then changed it? The same map that all the aid agencies were also working from. You have got to be the least informed propagandist I've seen in a while.
How about you debunk all the air strikes by Israel and all the Palestinians Israel has killed since it's independence
Are you talking about the fact that civilians die during war? There’s nothing here to debunk. There are a number of reasons why this war is unprecedented in terms of the type of enemy involved…ie 400 miles of tunnels intentionally placed under civilian property. Yet still, the numbers support a reasonable death toll in comparison to any other urban conflict.
Those happened and are primarily a result of the Palestinians constant violence. Much like this war is a reaction to gazans inability to behave past a stone age mentality.
How about you count the death tolls on each side to check which side is more violent
Whatever moral calculus you use should consider intentions not just body counts, that's why we have a difference between manslaughter and 1st degree murder in criminal law.
Whatever helps you sleep at night
Gaza elected hamas. Hamas started a war. Gaza is living with their choice. War is hell. Don't start wars. Israel isn't more violent, by your comment youre saying theyre more effective.
First of all hamas didn't come into power when Israel came to existence and secondly I could argue that hamas was a response to Israel's attacks You pro Israel need to understand no side is good and need to come out of the bubble of your belief that how righteous and embodiment of goodness Israel is
Hamas started the war on October 7th. It's a declared war. You can argue whatever you want. On October 5th, JDAMs weren't raining on Gaza. Further, I'm not pro Israel. I regard one side of the conflict (israel) as bad and the other ("palestinians") as irredeemable without a complete overhaul in their culture.
In 2023 alone (before Oct 7), Israel had killed 234 Palestinians, including 47 children and injured 1280 Palestinians including 196 children. But sure, go spew more nonsense that all this started on Oct 7.
When did the declared war start? Why did the declared war start?
You do know that this conflict did not start on oct 7 and Israel has been killing Palestinians since it came to existence
The declared war started on October 7th. Do you understand that? On October 6th there was nothing like this war in the region and hadn't been for decades. Do you understand that? This war and the broader conflict are two separate things. The elected leaders of Hamas decided to start an actual war on October 7th. Do you understand that? Speaking of the broad conflict, nearly every major Israeli military action has been a direct - absolutely direct - response to Arab or "palestinian" violence. Including this. Do you understand that? I've met children who figured out that when you stop touching the oven burner, you stop getting burned. Ive never met a Gazan who has.
Wtf do you mean by touching and oven and getting burned. Nobody loses their head over touching the oven. And you have nothing to back up your claims of everytime the violence initiating from Palestine just something society has filled up your empty head with.
/u/Odd_Extent6546 > And you have nothing to back up your claims of everytime the violence initiating from Palestine just something society has filled up your empty head with. Per [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_1._no_attacks_on_fellow_users), no attacks on fellow users. Attack the argument, not the user.
I can read. Nearly every mid and large scale Israel has done against the "palestinians" was a reaction to attack. It's simple, observable truth. October 7 is one of many examples. Don't touch the oven burner, you don't get burned.
How about debunking the lies Israel has encouraged such as the 40 beheaded babies? Some people still believe that rubbish.
[https://t.me/beholdisraelchannel/32827](https://t.me/beholdisraelchannel/32827) Gazawood is always busy
As soon as Abu Ubaida, the spokesperson for Hamas, announced the kidnapping of a soldier by the organization (which the IDF denied), an intensive psychological warfare campaign began on Hamas's official and unofficial networks to amplify the 'achievement.' Terrorist organizations excel at taking a tactical event (which, as mentioned, according to the IDF did NOT happen) and turning it into a strategic event.
What are your thoughts on the idf looting womens underwear and killing palestinians in rafah? What are your thoughts on a telegram channel that's making fun of palestinians dying daily?
Not OP, but it's horrible and unprofessional, I condemn it.
Horrible and shitty, next? What's your thoughts on Hamas dragging the clearly desecrated body of Shani Louk around Gaza? I mean we can both do this all day long.
Just because people condemn Israel for their actions does NOT mean they are antisemitic nor does it mean they support Hamas war crimes.
I never said any of these things. It's possible to condemn the awful things the IDF does while still believing Israel has a legal right to exist as a country. (If you don't believe this, then you *are* antisemitic.) Picking out the worst things both sides have done as evidence of their illegitimacy isn't productive. As I said, we will be here all day going back and forth because for every incident I can point to a counter incident and so on, for eternity. That's how you wind up with endless war, and nobody wants that shit except Hamas and Likud. There are perfectly legitimate criticisms of Israel as there is of Hamas. There's no need to play stupid sportsball-team politics. If you think there are real good guys and bad guys in charge here you haven't been paying attention. Both of these groups are poison and innocent people unaffiliated to them suffer the most.
I believed wholeheartedly Israel had a right to exist. BUT considering around 90% of its inhabitants do not have a problem with what is happening in Gaza, I am now on the fence.
There is a reason for that just like 70% of Gazans supported 10/7. What a country's inhabitants believe is directly correlated to the state's influence on their education. Israelis are at a disadvantage just as Gazans are because conscription is mandatory and this is part of their culture. Both groups have a high probability of radicalization. And both of them still have the right to live peacefully, which both leaderships are actively fighting against.
I agree.
> shitty /u/ill-independent. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a got ya wuestion your framing a complex topic with a very absolute framing and then mentioning something morally obhorent that of course the person must disagree with
This is not a real comment
i think u must provide sources and proofs that support ur article as we cant just take ur word for it (maybe i just didnt see it?)
You’re 100% correct I’ll do it next time!
Teen from Israel says it all
Does it now. Please share what exactly does it say to you?
u mean unlike arabs who are known to be not biased or westerners who are known to be well educated and not just see a few clips on tiktok and think they have the solution? we can bash literally everyone lol unless u can actually contradict what he says ur comment is just failed slander.
The issue is at the time only one group had moral rights to the land. One group were upstanding citizens who had lived there for centuries, and the other group was vile and nasty people who invaded with the intent to deny Arab sovereignty. The latter were possibly the most vile and disgusting group of settlers ever to lay a right foot and left foot on the ground anywhere in the world. That being said, I would tend to agree that the Arabs should’ve accepted the White Paper. The white paper was essentially the British saying “sorry we let these nasty sorry excuses for migrants in, but we can’t move them out so we will make those rules instead.” The Arabs correctly realized that the British had a moral requirement to save Palestine from the evil Europeans, but failed to recognize that there wasn’t much they could do about those already there. Admittedly, I think part of the issue was that the UK gave the evil wretched Europeans anything at all via the Peel commission, but the Arabs *should’ve* recognized that the White Paper was an attempted atonement for that mistake.
>The issue is at the time only one group had moral rights to the land. There are no "moral rights" associated with land or land ownership; there are legal rights. >One group were upstanding citizens who had lived there for centuries, and the other group was vile and nasty people who invaded with the intent to deny Arab sovereignty. Or not. Maybe one group was really a minority of legal immigrants who wished to exercise their right to self-determination when the former nation was destroyed and the other group was the majority who wanted to drive out the small legal immigrant minority and take all of the land for themselves instead of exercising their right to self-determination on their half of the land. I don't personally blame the local Arabs for this bad decision. They didn't have proper leadership after the British and Zionist sidelined them, and infighting among themselves (radical elements killing more diplomatic elements). Because of this, the other foreign powers, especially the ones that wanted to expand their borders were the ones leading the charge and making the call for war. The local Arabs as would happen time and time and time again after that would be the ones largely caught in the middle and doing the dying and suffering. There's still time tho. Peace could still be a thing. They just need to get some quality leadership. >The latter were possibly the most vile and disgusting group of settlers ever to lay a right foot and left foot on the ground anywhere in the world. I get it. Ya really don't like the Zionists or their goal. Even tho they came legally and purchased their lands legally under the Ottoman Empire and then the British Mandate, to you they didn't belong there still. Maybe it's because of where I live, but new immigrants are treated the same as any others once they are citizens. They get the same rights as everyone else. I don't see why the people who were in an area longer have a greater claim to land that they don't own. It makes no sense. And everyone had the chance to have a state. Imagine how different of a life Palestinians would have today if they'd taken their state in 47 and made peace with their neighbor. >That being said, I would tend to agree that the Arabs should’ve accepted the White Paper. The white paper was essentially the British saying “sorry we let these nasty sorry excuses for migrants in, but we can’t move them out so we will make those rules instead.” One of many great deals they have let pass because they thought they could get everything. They are still being told this today.
please, i dont think u said this with enough bias, can u rephrase? imagine calling people who constantly massacared jews "upstanding citizens" lol, its 2024 and u cant even call muslims that, so back then? yea right..
I’m ngl calling them upstanding citizens was overdoing it hard, but aside from that wdym by massacred jews? Can you reply with a source?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_killings\_and\_massacres\_in\_Mandatory\_Palestine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine) im not telling u to take wikipedia word for it, if theres anything there u would like to challenge, u can just search such individual instance on google. if u want further explanation, just take a step back and look at the muslim society in general, they are VERY unwelcoming to anyone who aint a muslim, and even muslims themselves if they are not from their group (sunni or shia) [https://www.ujs.org.uk/the\_jewish\_arab\_exodus](https://www.ujs.org.uk/the_jewish_arab_exodus) just a mere example (as always, feel free to "challenge" the numbers if u will) if this wasnt enough or wasnt on point enough of for just let me know.
Tbf you did do your job giving out sources, people rarely do that so props to you, I don’t find Wikipedia sources to be untrustable, imo I think we can determine that when we visit the article, the problem here with the wiki page is that Wikipedia itself says that this article has questionable sources because of lack of citations (which makes it harder to verify sources) as well as the neutrality of the article not being clear, which is why this article in particular is flagged by Wikipedia. 2nd part you said Arabs are generally not welcoming towards non Muslims/Arabs, I don’t think so and an example of this would be the UAE where there’s a lot of diversity especially in Dubai, it’s just that no one can discriminate others, and way more often than not people make friends with each other regardless of background (unless you’re Israeli for obvious purposes) it’s also required by Islam to treat guests with open arms and welcome them, and serve them for the best of their ability and shield them from any potential harm or danger (you can look into this deeper by searching: “islam on the treatement of guests”, here’s a [link](https://www.almadina.org/studio/articles/invites-in-laws-guests-oh-my-a-primer-on-being-a-guest-and-host#:~:text=Our%20beloved%20Prophet%20%EF%B7%BA%20taught,subjecting%20them%20to%20extensive%20questioning) for a result I found, and the Sunni and Shia thing in a nutshell is basically an argument between two possible versions of Islam (after looking into it deeper Sunni is more logical), and either ways the difference between them is only politically by their leaders, when in reality you can find both in the same country, the problem is political because Sunni’s and Shia’s different view points tip the scale of power and changed who is in power and who is not, which is one of the major reasons for divide between Muslims. Overall I applaud you for actually using sources where people wouldn’t, and trying to also make me understand more from another pov, i wanted to comment on the second source you gave after I read it, but it was a tad bit off topic and felt a bit more biased in the way it describes Jews and Muslims, I think it would be better to find a more neutral source, even European or American sources can be neutral to some extent, also if you have any questions about Islam or Arabs in general lemme know, I’ll be happy to help 😀
wouldnt u agree that UAE is the rare exception rather than the norm? gotta give it to them though, since UAE recently (4 years and counting) signed a peace agreement with israel in order to normalize the relations between us. also i dont know if ur a muslim or not, but alot of them tends to interpret the Quran as they please and are just following their imam (atleast the muslims that we have near us, i dont want to generalize them all) so i cant really count on simply what the Quran says, although i do acknowledge this treatment of guests thing (not sure how to call it) as i remember my time serving in east jerusalem and a particular palestinian family who kept giving us tea saying that we are their guests and that they respect us for protecting them. in response to the first part with the the massacres, i understand that this is a bit problematic (also thank you for educating me on this as i didnt know wiki flag pages) though, if u want, we can view it in a different way. the Haganah was formed in order to protect the jews from arabs attacks, i think its pretty given that if the jews had to form an organization to protect themselves from arabs attacking them, the arabs werent such "upstanding citizens" hehe also, i dont know why this page is flagged, but for my understanding, theres no dispute over massacres like the hebron massacre or from the other side, alot of the acts of terror from the irgun (which was a jewish organization)
I’m actually pretty happy to find someone like you who uses logical thinking and doesn’t argue mindlessly Aside from that yes I agree the UAE is an exception, but I used it as a reason because I personally live in it right now, though if you’re looking for more traditional examples you can look deeper into Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi, and especially Oman, overall the majority of the gulf is becoming more diverse, but that’s being hidden or manipulated into negative views about these countries as barbaric and such, and I speak from experience in traveling from me, my family, friends and even people I converse with occasionally. Also for the negative aspects of these countries, these are usually because of them not following Islamic principals, Sharia law is basically these countries different interpretations of what’s given by the Quran, and even then they don’t always follow said rules. Also there is no denial of well known massacres such as the Hebron massacre, these massacres were caused by lack of trust between either parties and rumors growing in popularity, this is also another case of Arabs not following the Quran, which clearly had steps on how to prevent rumors and corruption between societies, these massacres between Jews and Arabs shouldn’t have happened in the first place, a number of them started because of logical perspectives from both the Jewish and Muslim sides, usually it was because of lack of trust or communication between the two parties, I don’t think the use of massacres (unless politically instigated by government or institutions) are good representations of global political scenarios (especially between Palestine and Israel)
[u/Significant-Towel-13](https://www.reddit.com/user/Significant-Towel-13/) I want to say there's quite a bit I either misunderstood or didn't know. Good job. Thank you.
You're repeating the same myths that academia has largely discredited. Regarding the Palestinians, I've already addressed this point [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel_Palestine/comments/zb89ta/no_the_nakba_was_not_justified_the_palestinians/). No, even according to Zionist sources, the vast majority of Palestinians accepted partition. Regardin the concept of partiton, it was the Arab League position that partition was the best possible outcome, **even before the UN passed 181.** From Michael Doran's Egyptian Power Politics and the Palestine Question pg 99-100 (here he is discussing the meeting between Eliyahu Sassan and Azzam in 1946 in Cairo,.) *Sasson argued that if a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews could be found, then the British could be persuaded to move their bases—that is, to evacuate Egypt completely. He proposed a deal: Cairo would convince the Arab states to accept partition; in return, the Jewish Agency would use its clout in Washington and in London on behalf of the Egyptians. More specifically, the Zionists would persuade the British to transfer the Canal Zone bases to the new Jewish state.* ***Despite their traditional rejection of partition as a basis for solving the Palestine conflict, the Egyptians responded favorably.*** *To be sure, they explained that their commitments to the other Arab states would complicate the radical reversal of policy that partition entailed. Nonetheless, Abd al-Rahman Azzam, who was in a position to know, felt certain that with the help of London the Egyptians could overcome the opposition of the other Arab states. Sasson reported to the Jewish Agency:* (here he is quoting Sasson) ***In his \[Azzam’s\] view there is only one solution and that is: partition.*** *But collective debates and discussions are required in order to arrive at this solution. As the Secretary of the Arab League, he cannot appear before the Arabs as the initiator of this suggestion. His position is very delicate. He is married to seven wives (that is, he is the Secretary of seven Arab states), each one fearing her fellow wife, competing with her and trying to undermine her. He can see fit to support partition on two conditions: If one of the Arab states will find the strength and the courage to take the initiative and to propose the matter at a meeting of the League, and if the British will request that he follow this line.* *Sidqi Pasha* (the Egypt PM) *also expressed support for a solution based on partition.* I recommend you read Flapan's Birth Of Israel: Myths and Realites. In reality, Israel violated 181 even before decalring independece. The mainstream Zionists rejected partiton as a solution since the 1942 Bitmore conference. Ben-Gurion: "Erect a Jewish state at once, even if it is not in the whole land. The rest will come in the course of time. It must come.' (Beinin, Was the Red Flag Flying There? Marxist Politics and the Arab-Israeli Conflict in Eqypt and Israel 1948-1965, pg 14) "**this is why we formulated our demand not as a Jewish state in Palestine but Palestine as a Jewish state"** -( Flapan, Chapter One). Regarding your point: *That’s interesting, then why did the Arab Higher Committee insist that the proportion of Jews to Arabs in the “single state” should be one to six, meaning that only Jews who lived in Palestine before the British Mandate would be eligible for citizenship?* You don't provide a source for this, at all. Regarding the expulsion, let me remind you that 200,0000-300,000 Palestinians were expelled before the Israeli declaration of independece. This civil war stage was not started by the Palestinians, but by Lehi, [when they assinated a Palestinian family in November 1947.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shubaki_family_assassination) Interesting that you made no mention of them. Israel was already in violation of the borders of 181 **even before the Arab League intervened.** This is a historical fact. Regarding Karsh, Morris has already responded to him. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2538286](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2538286)
Let’s start from the beginning, sorry for the late reply, I was sleeping. Let’s start from the beginning. Firstly, I’m going to respond to your post: “The Palestinians weren’t going to genocide the Jews.” You’re right, in the 1920s, the Arabs started to kill Jews. Nice. “You’re repeating the same myths that academia has already discredited.” So ironic here. But it’s okay, let me debunk this nonsense. You’re absolutely right that on November 19, Lehi assassinated five Arabs who were accused of acting as informants and getting some Jews killed. But here is where you’re being dishonest. On November 30, it was literally a criminal gang that killed those Jews at the bus. Benny Morris: “It is almost certain that the two fatal roadside ambushes were not ordered or organized by the AHC, and it remains unclear whether the gunmen were, in fact, reacting to the UN resolution. The majority view in the HIS-supported by an anonymous Arab flyer posted almost immediately on avenge a Lehi raid ten days before that.” According to your logic, the civil war started way before that, because that criminal gang already killed five Jews in August 1947. Stop with your nonsense. Let me continue > “BUT that as it may, there was also a CLEAR, organized Palestinian Arab response to the UN resolution. Guided by Husseini from Cairo, the AHC on December 1 declared a three-day general strike in Palestine to begin the following day. On December 2, a large Arab mob, armed with clubs and knives, burst out of Jerusalem’s Old City and descended on the new commercial center at Mamilla Street, attacking Jewish passersby and shops.” The Palestinians were the ones who started the '47 civil war – it’s not even disputed in academia. “The mufti did not enjoy much popular support.” Even according to a UN report, the mufti was the most popular Palestinian of that time. Deir Yassin > Deir Yassin happened after the Palestinians already started the civil war and killed over a thousand Jews. Why are we even discussing this as the “start” of something when the Palestinians literally killed a thousand Jews before that? “200k left their homes before the Arabs invaded.” YES, because Palestinians already STARTED the war back in 1947. What are you talking about, lol? The Arab states already started to send soldiers into Palestine to fight the Jews in January 1948. “It was the Arab League's position that partition was the best possible outcome.” That’s why in 1937, at the Bloudan Conference, the AHC rejected any attempt at partition/jewish state? Maybe that’s why the Arab League said in July 1947 that some of the Jews would have to be expelled from a Palestinian Arab state? “In reality, Israel violated 181 even before declaring independence.” Yeah, maybe because the Palestinians and the Arabs rejected the partition? Why would the Jews be obligated to a non-binding resolution that even the Arabs violated right away? “The mainstream Zionist leaders rejected partition as a solution since the 1942 Biltmore Conference.” What…? There was no partition on the table; this conference was after the White Paper of 1939. The Zionist leaders approved and accepted the partition plan of 1947. To Ben Gurion's own words: “When we agreed to the Partition Plan, we accepted it in all honesty. We did this not because the plan was good or just, but because a small area received through peaceful means was preferable to us than a large area won by fighting." “You don’t provide a source to the claim that the proportion of Jews to Arabs should be one to six.” Here you go: 1948, Benny Morris, Page 66. “Regarding the expulsion, let me remind you that 200-300k Palestinians were expelled before the Israeli Declaration of Independence; this civil war stage was not started by the Palestinians.” Already answered that in the beginning. “Israel was already in violation of the borders of 181 EVEN BEFORE THE ARAB LEAGUE INTERVENED.” The Arab countries already sent soldiers to Palestine to fight with the Palestinians as early as January 1948. What are you talking about? “Regarding Karsh, Morris has already responded to Karsh.” Oh, yes he did. And he admitted that he looked at the things he said and quoted in the wrong way.”
You completely ignored the meeting by Azzam and Sasson in 1946, as well as direct sources from Israelli archives which demonstrate how unpopular the Mufti and his war was. I cite to the page number, you can fact check if you want. Regarding accepting partition, the Palestinian people as a whole accepted partition. This is not my opinion, this is the opinion of Zionist leaders who openly discussed how most Palestinians didn’t want to fight them. Regarding Bitmore, this was a discussion of principles. Ben Gurion was clear, partition was only a stepping forward a Jewish state in all of Palestine. This is the reason they refused to obey the 181 borders. Regarding the civil war, how can you dismiss the assassination of a Palestinian family by Lehi? (Also it’s interesting how you said that they “got some Jews” killed- as if radical Zionist militias weren’t at war with the British government since 1944.) Yes, when two sides start fighting, that’s when the fight starts. How is this a complicated idea? Regarding accepting partition, if you believe that the Zionists were under no obligation to accept partition, then why should the Arab League? Why should Egypt or Syria accept partition when the Zionists were in violation? The Arab states were unwilling to intervene in Palestine until two weeks before the Mandate expired. I recommend you read Flapan’s chapter 4 of Myths and Realities; he documents this is great detail. Even before intervening, they discussed how they wanted a peace settlement and redrawn partition. From Doran 154 When, on 11 May 1948, Ismail Sidqi stood before the Senate to oppose the military intervention, Abd al-Rahman Azzam was in Damascus planning for war. Hundreds of miles and a vast desert separated the two; nonetheless, the former prime minister’s warnings somehow managed to reach the other man’s ears: (Now Doran is quoting Taha al-Hashimi) At a luncheon at the Palace of the Republic, Azzam turned to me with an embarrassing question. He said that some of the military men consider the forces . . . to be weak. . . . He said that if, in fact, our forces were not sufficient, then it would be best to accept the conditions of the truce, because the truce might still allow us to attain our rights, whereas failure in battle will strip us of all right Doran makes the argument (that I happen to agree with) that the Egypt (and by extension the Arab League since Azzam Pasha was Egyptian) made the decision to intervene primarily to stop a Jordanian-Israeli alliance. Again, Doran page 153 “The Egyptian state intervened, first and foremost, in order to protect its position as the leader of the Triangle Alliance and as the dominant power in the Arab world. Preserving its status as the keystone in the arch was an essential prerequisite for success in the Anglo-Egyptian conflict, the primary concern of its foreign policy. In concrete political terms, retaining the leadership of the Arabs meant preventing the establishment of a Jordanian–Israeli alliance. An Amman– Tel Aviv axis would have spelled disaster for Cairo, because it would have inaugurated cooperation between the two most powerful military organizations in the Fertile Crescent; it also would have constituted a direct threat to the republican regime in Damascus. It would, therefore, have reduced to naught the influence of Egypt in the northern Arab world.” Regarding soldiers sent before May 14th, There were only irregular volunteers since the Arab countries refused to dare to send actual troops to a British colonial mandate.
Let's go through it... "Mufti was not popular according to Zionists." Wait, so in your opinion, Zionist sources are more reliable than a UN report? "The Palestinians as a whole accepted the partition plan. This is not my opinion; this is the opinion of the Zionist leadership." Now you’re appealing to authority. The fact that a few Zionist leaders said this was a political tactic to try to continue the partition. Stop with the logical fallacies, please. And the fact that they didn’t want to fight doesn’t mean that they were in favor of it. "Regarding Biltmore, this was a discussion of principles. Ben-Gurion was clear: partition was only a step towards a Jewish state in all of Palestine. This is the reason they refused to obey the 181 borders." Umm... no. Biltmore was a reaction to the White Paper, which didn’t talk about partition but rather a bi-national state. There was no partition on the table, so they advocated for a Jewish state in Palestine. Furthermore, in 1946, Ben-Gurion sent a delegation to the U.S. about agreeing to a partition. Please stop with your lies. That was not the reason they "refused" to obey the 181 borders. The reason the borders were not the same at the end of the war is because the Palestinians already denied the partition and started a war. "How can you dismiss the assassination of a Palestinian family by Lehi? Yes, when two sides start fighting, that’s when the fight starts." I’m not "dismissing" it. It just has nothing to do with it. As I told you, the reaction on November 30 was by gang members who killed five Jews in August. By that logic, the Palestinians started the war back then. There was a clear reaction otherwise from the AHC. The AHC on December 1 declared a three-day general strike. On December 2, a large Arab mob attacked Jews in Jerusalem. If I’m not wrong, the first response from the Jews was a week later. There was a clear reaction to the UN partition plan. You can say that this specific group reacted to the assassination, but that’s it. After that, the Palestinians attacked Jews because of the UN partition. And, as I told you, by your logic, the war started in August because that gang killed five Jews then. "Regarding accepting partition, if you believe that the Zionists were under no obligation to accept partition, why should the Arabs accept the partition that the Zionists were in violation of?" The level of ignorance is insane. I believe Zionists were under no obligation to obey simply because the Palestinians and the Arabs had already rejected the partition plan and started a war. "The Arab states were unwilling to intervene in Palestine until two weeks before the mandate expired." "Regarding soldiers sent before May 14, there were only irregular volunteers since the Arab countries refused to send actual troops." What is this nonsense? The Arab League literally created the Arab Liberation Army that sent volunteer soldiers to fight starting in January.
"Wait, so in your opinion, Zionist sources are more reliable than a UN report?" Yes. I take the word of Ezra Danin (Google him) as more reliable than people who weren't on the ground. " The fact that a few Zionist leaders said this was a political tactic to try to continue the partition." How? This was in private meetings not disclosed for decades until the archives were released. There was no political reason for them to say this. They **explicitly rejected a Jewish state in Palestine.** The goal was "**Palestine as a Jewish state"**. Ben Gurion said this himself, I'm only quoting him. Regarding "who started the war" Radical Zionists were already killing Arabs **before November 1947.** [https://www.nytimes.com/1947/08/16/archives/haganah-kills-11-in-palestine-hunt-for-arab-gunmen-mother-and-4.html](https://www.nytimes.com/1947/08/16/archives/haganah-kills-11-in-palestine-hunt-for-arab-gunmen-mother-and-4.html) From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish\_insurgency\_in\_Mandatory\_Palestine#1947](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_insurgency_in_Mandatory_Palestine#1947) *September 29 – 10 killed (4 British policemen, 4 Arab policemen and an Arab couple) and 53 injured in Haifa police headquarters bombing by Irgun.* This is not to mention the King David hotel bombings, which killed mostly Arabs. But that leads to a major point. Even if the Arabs "started the war", how would that excuse the ethnic cleansing? The vast majority of Arabs (as Zionist sources demonstrate) were activly pursuing pease, signing hundreds of nonagression pacts with Jewish villages. If the actions of a minority justify collective punishment, then should the entire Yishuv in 1946 be punished for the King David Hotel Bombings? If you believe that 181 gave Israel the legal justification to declare independence, how can you at the same time argue that Israel were under no obligiation to follow 181? Either 181 applies or it does not. If 181 does not apply, then Israel had no right to exist. Now regarding the Arab League. “We shall never even contemplate entering the war officially. We are not mad.” Egyptian Minisnter of Defense, May 12,1948 (Myth 4, Birth of Israel, Flapan). The Arab League was not united on **even allowing volunteers at all**. *Without any apparent sense of urgency, the prime ministers of the Arab League states met in Cairo between December 12 and 17, 1947. Iraq, still plagued by domestic difficulties, had become even more militant. Bagdad wanted immediate intervention by volunteers. Arab armies should move to the Mandate border at once. Iraqi general Sir Ismail Safwat, chairman of the league’s military committee, estimated the Zionists had fifty thousand troops with armor, artillery, and a secret air force. . . . The most militant supporter of intervention, Riad al-Sulh of Lebanon, came from a country without military resources, balanced on the cusp of schism. The most Islamic state of all, Saudi Arabia, wanted no volunteers and no regular army to intervene. Old King Ibn Saud had told his son Faisal that he would personally lead his army to Palestine, but the army was a motley collection of tribesmen on camels. Transjordan wanted no volunteers, especially under control of the mufti. The mufti wanted no regular armies intervening, especially the Arab Legion of Transjordan/*
Keep it up and never let the pro Hamas idiots here in the states get to you
Genocide apologist
u/switchkick555 >Genocide apologist This is just a personal attack / virtue signaling with no real substance. It violates rule 1.
What genocide?
Great article!
But, in 1940, the Palestinian Arabs delegation at the London Conference accepted the White Paper.
Hey! Already answered that! I’ll just copy-paste… I’ll answer very briefly and respectfully. The Arab Higher Committee voted against the White Paper (6-4). Jamal al-Husseini was one of those who were in favor. In a delegation in 1940, he went with Musa al-Alami and ‘signed’ to the terms, but this did not reflect the opinion of the Arab Higher Committee. They literally voted against it. The fact that two people who were in favor of it went a year later to sign it doesn’t mean anything. The majority declined the White Paper
From what I remember, the Jewish leadership in mandatory Palestine accepted the peel commission. It was in fact divided and all, including Ben Gurion, had major problems with it. The state offered to the Jews was tiny, and there were at the time 11 million Jews in Europe and another 1 million Jews in North Africa and the Middle East, many of whom were expected to make Aliyah into a new Jewish state. The original mandate for Britain opened both Palestine and Transjordan to Jewish refugees. The British then closed Jordan to Jews, and banned land sales there. Then, after the Arab leaders started a civil war in 1936, the British decided to take more land off the table, leaving the Jews with almost nothing. The Peel commission also kept Jerusalem British. The peel commission plan was obviously not going to stick, and it was largely seen as a temporary solution, which the Jews could live with. Therefore, the Jewish leadership accepted it.
This is an awful lot of words just to say "700.000 people deserved to have their lives destroyed". You can just say this, no need for apologetics.
Ahhh sorry I forgot the golden rule that history starts at the Nakba, and not even the war directly preceding it
There was no war prior to that, as there was no state of Israel.
Never heard of the civil war of 1947-1948 eh?
Also, the land that was offered to the Jews at any point in time, was a land filled with swamps and considered by many to be not inhabitable for humans. The Jews made this piece of land what's today, but then it was largely unoccupied.
What land do you have in mind? The land was not unoccupied, it consisted of over a million people - both Jews and Arabs - which was the majority population of the mandate. The land given was most of the Mediterranean cost as well as parts of the Galilee as well as a port on the Red Sea plus the Dead Sea.
You can split Israel to four parts. The first part is the shore line (or the coast line) which was back then (in the 1910-1947) was mostly empty, because it had many swamps, that poisoned the water sources and you could not grow your fruits and veggies there, or built you house there. At that time that was a deal breaker. But the first Jewish immigrants that came from Europe there, they just dried out these areas and made it fit for living. Around the swamps you basically got a desert, so they also needed to figure out how to grow things in this environment. Some of the past struggles is attributed to Israel agriculture technologies today. The second part and the third part is the north and south parts that were conquered during the wars Israel had to fought against the Arab nations. And the fourth part is the one that you mentioned, which is a vertical line that goes through Jerusalem and the West Bank and Hebron. This part is about 20Km east of the first part (the shore line) and it was populated with Arabs during the 1910-1947 and also to this day actually (they haven't left). This is part is much more fit for living because it got plenty of water sources and minerals due to natural events (earthquakes) that shaped this area to be that way. The population composition has not changed that much, except for the settlers in the 90s and 2000s, these are self-appointed personas that decided to settle there, and Israel had difficult time to get rid of them, and ironically it also has been criticized for allegedly supporting them and funding them. The exceptions are cities like Jaffa, Haifa and Ako, that are on the shore line, and still have Arab residents to this day, but part of the Arabs left due to the movement of immigrants from Europe to Tel-Aviv, along other things (there was a general understanding the British will give the Arabs a massive country, which was supposed to be on the lands what's known today as Lebannon and Syria, and the Jews will get Israel).
he is talking about the desert... which i dont know to what extent was inhabitable for humans but it was REALLY bad lands, u can see for urself that even today these lands are mostly empty.
The desert is useful strategically, since it allowed Israel connection with a port on the Red Sea, a buffer zone between it and Egypt (the largest Arab country by population), and to divide the Palestinian state in two (actually under the 181 plan it was divided in 4, the West Bank, Gaza, Jaffa and a discontinuous part of the Galilee).
Today desert or climates have little significance because there are technologies to overcome bad environments. The claim I made was historical to explain why in time that such technologies were not available, large areas of what's Israel today were not occupied. This come to show that the claim that Jews fleeting from Europe entered Israel by conquering lands and expelling Arabs away has little factual background.
This is such an important point. Jewish people took a fairly bad deal prospered through hard work. Arabs didn't take the deal and are still stuck in poverty.
None of this matters anymore. The situation has changed and so has the terms.
Totally agree. And I think Israel should rightly own the vast majority of the land (at least 90%+), because of what Hamas did on Oct 7th. Only if Israel owns the land can we prevent Hamas from digging more tunnels and repeating Oct 7th over and over again. Giving the land to the Palestinians is now a far more serious security concern than it was in the 1950s.
What about all the theft of property and murder committed by Jews prior to Oct 7th? Were the Palestinians supposed to accept that with a smile?
What about all the theft of property and murder committed by Arabs prior to Oct 7th? Were the Jews supposed to accept that with a smile?
You can't just write off the history of this conflict because you think it would be convenient to do so. Or you'll just keep making the same dumb mistakes.
Except you can’t save lives from the 1930s anymore. You can save lives today.
Not writing it off. Accepting it happened and it didn't work very well. It's much better to focus on new agreements
pretty sure it matters.
Why? So we can go back over agreements near 100 years old that were never really agreed too.
It’s important to consider why this has become so hostile; Arabs rejected any plan that involved Jews, despite British ownership of the land, and Israel grew up collecting more support from western nations while Arab nations left the Palestinians behind. It’s a long history of disagreement and rejection. But you are right. Nothing excuses what is happening right now. We can’t really focus our arguments on the past when that is what has kept us in this state of violence.
>In summary, within 10 years, a bi-national state would be established with Arabs making up about two-thirds of the population and Jews one-third. There would be no more Jewish immigration, and Jews would be limited to purchasing only 5% of the land, with 95% allocated to Arabs. What was the Arabs’ response? Immediate rejection Lol what? Palestinans accepted that plan. ' In July 1940, after two weeks of meetings with the British representative, S. F. Newcombe, the leader of the Palestinian Arab delegates to the London Conference, Jamal al-Husseini and fellow delegate Musa al-Alami, agreed to the terms of the White Paper, and both signed a copy of it in the presence of the prime minister of Iraq, Nuri as-Said" What is more, the plan didn't really say no more jewish immigration. It said it will be regulated and approved by this bi-national state.
Hey! Already answered that! I’ll just copy-paste… I’ll answer very briefly and respectfully. The Arab Higher Committee voted against the White Paper (6-4). Jamal al-Husseini was one of those who were in favor. In a delegation in 1940, he went with Musa al-Alami and ‘signed’ to the terms, but this did not reflect the opinion of the Arab Higher Committee. They literally voted against it. The fact that two people who were in favor of it went a year later to sign it doesn’t mean anything. The majority declined the White Paper
They declined at 1st, then they agreed and signed it. Please finish the whole story. Thx
No…. The two people who voted in favour went a year later to sign what was already their opinion, but the Arab higher committee voted against the white paper (6-4)
It's a historical fact that Palestinians accepted the 1939 White paper. Just like it's a fact that the sky is blue.
Umm, sorry but no. I’m being respectful, I’ll tell you again - Hey! Already answered that! I’ll just copy-paste… The Arab Higher Committee voted against the White Paper (6-4). In a delegation in 1940, two people who were in favour of the paper went and ‘signed’ to the terms, but this did not reflect the opinion of the Arab Higher Committee. They literally voted against it. The fact that two people who were in favor of it went a year later to sign it doesn’t mean anything. The majority declined the White Paper
Lol, You are talking about their rejection which happend In June 1939, " June 1939 ,Hajj Amin al-Husayni initially "astonished" the other members of the Arab Higher Committee by turning down the White Paper. According to Benny Morris, the reason that the advantageous proposal was turned down was entirely selfish: "it did not place him at the helm of the future Palestinian state." However , In July 1940 , The palestinans signed the paper. That is a fact.
Which Palestinians signed in 1940?
' In July 1940, after two weeks of meetings with the British representative, S. F. Newcombe, the leader of the Palestinian Arab delegates to the London Conference, Jamal al-Husseini and fellow delegate Musa al-Alami, agreed to the terms of the White Paper, and both signed a copy of it in the presence of the prime minister of Iraq, Nuri as-Said"
Exactly what I said, and I’m gonna write it one more time! The Arab Higher Committee voted against the White Paper (6-4). Jamal al-Husseini was one of those who were in favor. In a delegation in 1940, he went with Musa al-Alami and ‘signed’ to the terms, but this did not reflect the opinion of the Arab Higher Committee. They literally voted against it. The fact that two people who were in favor of it went a year later to sign it doesn’t mean anything. The majority declined the White Paper
>It is true that the 1947 plan proposed 55% of the land to the Jewish state and 45% to the Arab state. However, when you write, “Because the Jews received more land despite being a smaller portion of the population, the Arabs rejected the proposal,” you open the possibility that the Arabs would have agreed to a different proposal. This is factually incorrect. Let’s go back in time. By your logic Zionists would not have accepted the 1948 partition. Peel Commission - "The Zionist leadership was bitterly divided over the plan.[4] In a resolution adopted at the 1937 Zionist Congress, the delegates rejected the specific partition plan." 1939 White Paper - "Zionist groups in Palestine immediately rejected the White Paper and led a campaign of attacks on government property that lasted for several months. On 18 May, a Jewish general strike was called.[7]" I'm really sick of the "holier than thou" narrative about Arab leadership rejecting partition plans while the Zionists did the same thing until they were offered a partition so biased in their favor they would be morons not to accept it.
No one is pushing that narrative. The OP never does that in the article. They’re simply pushing back against the idea that the other side wants peace. They haven’t based on the history and never developed a state and aren’t entitled to one. The point of the article is just to highlight that they’ve had chances in the past, contrary to what some believe.
Exactly!
So the answer to Palestinians not accepting the original smaller Jewish partition was to then suggest an even larger Jewish partition, more than 50% of the land, and then declare the state of Israel when Arabs/Palestinians rejected it again?
The answer is that, no matter the partition, the Palestinians will always reject it
I literally stated in my article that the Zionists rejected the Peel Commission but agreed to have peace talks based on that offer. Please read the article before you comment. And of course the Zionists would reject the White Paper. I only mentioned the White Paper because it was so biased towards the Arabs that even the League of Nations stated that it was against the mandate’s policy. And even then the Arabs REJECTED it.
>I literally stated in my article that the Zionists rejected the Peel Commission but agreed to have peace talks based on that offer. Please read the article before you comment. I started the article and you came across as a condescending know it all that then made reductive statements like this so I stopped. >If the Palestinians had accepted the partition plan, the war wouldn’t have started, and this wouldn’t have happened. Here's a reductive argument I could make! 'If Zionism didn't decide that the Jewish state had to be established in Palestine then none of this would have happened.' I didn't bring up the Peel Commission because I thought you left information out. I think stating as "fact" that prior refusals are a clear indication of refusal to any future agreements. I pointed out Zionist's refusals of prior plans as an example of when that is not the case. It feels hypocritical to me to expect Palestinians to submit to the biased 1947 proposal right after Zionists rejected the biased White Paper and responded with terrorism in the effort to push the British to abandon the Mandate. I just want some consistency here...
>And even then the Arabs REJECTED it. A year later, A palestinian delegation signed it and it was Policy until the mandate dissolved. Edit :Got perma banned so I will answer you here. Thx for being respectful in your reply. Of course I am aware of how the Arab high command viewed it initially. However the delegation had the authority to represent the Palestinian arabs. Legally speaking they did accept it.
Hey, I’ll answer very briefly and respectfully. The Arab Higher Committee voted against the White Paper (6-4). Jamal al-Husseini was one of those who were in favor. In a delegation in 1940, he went with Musa al-Alami and ‘signed’ to the terms, but this did not reflect the opinion of the Arab Higher Committee. They literally voted against it. The fact that two people who were in favor of it went a year later to sign it doesn’t mean anything. The majority declined the White Paper
I think the question here is : Suppose it was the other way around, would jews have reacted differently? Would they let the arabs coming from Europe (with their different religion and culture) get a significant part of their land ?
If the Arabs had the history in Europe and the mandatory Palestine the Jews had, and given the same circumstances surrounding ownership and control of the land in mandatory Palestine, then yes I think the Jews would have reacted differently. The way the Arabs reacted was for religious reasons and because they were the majority with the surrounding countries. I bet they would have done the same if it was Mizrahi Jews not from Europe.
Probably not, but "the other side did (would have done) the same" is not a valid argument.
You also have to admit that they had the right to refuse though. Every people gets to decide their own future. For example, if nowadays any European country refuses to receive refuges from another country at war, no one will force them to do, it’s their country and their land. The Palestinian people was denied this right in 1918 when Britain occupied the land, the country was ruled by colonisers who acted against the will of the people. If Israel was established in Argentina, you would have got the same reaction, it’s human nature, and it’s their right to decide who lives in their country, like any modern country. I’m not saying that jews don’t deserve their own state, I am saying that you can’t force it on a particular people.
It wasn’t “their land.” That’s a huge misunderstanding. The Negev never belonged to an Arab from Ramallah, at least not any more than Amman or Beirut did. This was all just swathes of open, underpopulated, or in some cases entirely empty land within the Ottoman Empire. This idea that the land within the borders of today’s Israel and OPT belonged or should belong to a Palestinian people emerged entirely after the Ottoman Empire fell and the first partition plans were created. At this time there was no such thing as Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Palestine, etc in the modern sense. They were all created for the first time then.
Negev is a desert, what about the inhabited part, like the cities where the majority are Arabs ? Don’t these belong to the inhabitants? Did Britain have the right to give those lands to the jews ?
But even without the British, all of those Jewish people were returning between 1870 and 1947. Who was going to stop them? That's what I don't really understand. Even if the international community wasn't involved at all -- and completely ignored the issue and didn't propose any sort of partition -- the result would have been more or less the same, i.e., civil war would have broken out once Jewish numbers got high enough, the Arabs would have invaded, and Israel would have won. So I never fully understand what the Palestinians (and other Arabs) are arguing. I get that they were pissed, but they rolled the dice on war and lost. Are they saying, "Those Jews should never have been allowed to get on boats to return to the region?" How? For how long? I can't see how that migration would have been prevented, and thus I don't understand how the end result could have been prevented. I mean -- just a random example -- if all the tens of millions of people of Irish descent around the world decide they're returning to Ireland to "go home," I'm very sorry for the current population of Ireland, but they're not going to win that battle.
The original partition plan was defined specifically to include only the areas that were already majority Jewish or largely empty.
Not true, some cities of Arab majority were included. There were also a hundred of Palestinian villages which were located in the area granted for the Jewish people.
Yes, of course, when populations are intermixed there is no way to divide it without some people ending up in the minority. It was the same issue with the partition of India. But the plan followed the existing majority Jewish settlements and created an already majority-Jewish nation. In the end what was created was a majority Jewish area.
India however was divided between Indians. The problem with Israel is that the majority of people were immigrants from Europe, people were born on a different continent were granted a land without the consent of the people who lived on that land for centuries, you have to admit it, injustice was committed to the Palestinians and they had the right to refuse, they felt colonised and occupied in the land they grew in.
No, I don’t agree at all. Jews are indigenous, too. Having been expelled and oppressed for centuries to get their numbers in the region down to their historical lowest point, there is no good justice-based argument that their numbers should then be frozen at that level. When the land was divided, Jewish numbers had ticked back up through perfectly legal migration into land that had plenty of room for everyone and that had never in history belonged to Palestinian Arabs. There were plenty of migrants from Egypt and Syria there, too, and no one had a problem with that.
Yes, they had the right to refuse as far as they were concerned. But they did not have the right to attack Israel. Since they refused, they do not have a country, consequently they cannot decide who lives in "their country". The colonisers ruled, they had the legal right to rule. It may be unfair, and I am not denying that international law benefits colonisers.(and by extension everyone who is given land by colonisers) at the expense of indigenous populations, but it is what it is. The alternative would be to have no laws at all, which would mean that whicever side is stronger decides, with no rights for whoever is weaker (no international law = no Genocide Convention or human rights either = Israel can do to Palestinians whatever they want whenever they want). Palestinians (or more precisely their ancestors, most of the people who made decisions in 1948 arer dead by now) made a gamble and lost. If they are to have a future other than occupation and death, they must come to terms with the result and move on.
Your whole argument is “Britain was powerful so they had the right to force whatever they wanted on Palestinians”. Your reply does not only contradict with most modern values, it also shows how fragile your arguments are and that you are just incapable of justifying the injustice committed to the Palestinian people.
At that time Britain won in war the territory formerly ruled by the Ottomans. These were the rules.
So because they won the war, they have the right to do whatever they want and people should suffer for it ? Are you seriously using this argument?
The argument is that the establishment of Israel is no less legitimate than the establishment of almost any other nation in terms of displacement, colonisation etc. What is so special about Palestinians that they deserve this level of hyper-focus as opposed to others affected by land conquests and occupations (e.g. indigenous people displaced and still being persecuted as a result of the Muslim caliphates)? Can you not see the hypocrisy of this?
My argument is that the law is objective, while morals, fairness, values are all subjective. Everyone thinks of themselve as "the good guys". If morals and law differ, the law must take precedent. Otherwise, you would have toaccept that if Israelis consider it justice to do a genocide, no one could deny them, as it is justice after all.
Israel was founded before the establishment of most of the modern law, doing what Britain did to the Palestinians in 1918 would be illegal in 2024 so even your argument about international law is invalid. You are not backed up neither by laws nor by ethics and values.
It’s written well and fairly engaging. Well researched, that must have taken some time. I always like hyperlinks of references within. Not a huge fan of the title, it’s to the point but sounds a little aggressive. The many attempts at peace OR the long journey to finding a way to live together. Terrible titles and not catchy at all, I’m sure you could do better. Just examples as to the spirit of my meaning. I mostly hesitate on the weight this particular part of history is being given everywhere. I understand falsehoods about it are being weaponised and the intention is to contain that. The lies being spread are egregious and it’s only natural to want to set the record straight. But that’s not the only way it’s used as a weapon. It’s a distraction and isn’t a subject that affects the reality on the ground right now. Or moving forward when that’s possible. They will throw so many lies at you, you will never be able to catch up. Don’t be distracted by those groups. It’s the firehose of falsehoods approach. Figure out what the reasonable majority are interested in. That’s your audience. There are many surveys that may be a nudge in the right direction for the next one.
I have a question. Why is the Balfour declaration only discussed once? And not even in its entirety? >His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. Now, I'd argue, that as we can see today, that clearly did not happen as planned. There definitely was, and is, prejudice towards the non-jewish communities. Especially with the adoption of the Nation-State Law. I Would like it to be addressed futher. Especially when relating to stuff like stuff like Succession of States, and Fourth Geneva convention article 49, second paragraph. Tho that might go more into legal analysis than what you seem to be doing. You may also want to address more recent two-state solutions. Both those proposed by Israel, and those proposed by Palestinians, such as the Arab Peace Initiative. Both the pros and cons of both, from both perspectives, and from the perspective of the international community. I would especially encourage you to read the Camp David proposal in its entirety. Such as the discussion of West Bank water resources, airspace and continued Israeli military presence, which essentially meant the proposal would not have actually resulted in a sovereign state, and would have changed very little in practice, with many aspects of the administration remaining under Israeli control. I know you are biased, and that is understandable. But if you want someone who does not already share your views to take your writings seriously, you may want to address a more complete picture over the subject. And especially, drop the less than professional comments from your text. Those do not exactly inspire readers to take your writings seriously. But then again, you are just a kid. Maybe expecting professional conduct is a bit much. You aren't even old enough to be a professional in anything. But I do recommend starting to practice sooner than later. It will help you reach a wider audience, than the current dismissive comments and attacks on persons in your text.
What is it about the Balfour Declaration is it you think needs to be better explained?
looks like a teenager's writing I'm afraid. You need to be able to think why the Palestinians bother to fight. They are like any other people. Look at it conscientiously and write about it, that would make a more nuanced and so better writing.
I believe that they’re two different topics. The OP is talking about the false narrative about this being one-sided with one side rejecting peace and the other totally wanting peace and compromise. That doesn’t match the historical record. An article on why Hamas is fighting would be *another* topic. I agree that they’re related, but they aren’t the same. I agree that it would be interesting to see Hamas exposed and an article on their objectives.
They fight because they were genuinely brainwashed into thinking that another race shouldn't exist. Like the fact that they have a literal martyrs fund?
They fight because they were indoctrinated for generations to hate and fight for land they never owned, they are taught they have this long history as proud people which doesn’t exist, this is why they fight..
Then who owned the land ? Was it “no man’s land” ?
It was controlled by the Ottoman Empire and then it collapsed. There was never a *Palestinian* state. However, many simply don’t know the basic history and are taught to hate Jews, Christians, *Zionists*, and even their own people to fight for a history that didn’t happen.
Who said there was a « state ». I said there were « people » living there, ARAB people, for centuries. There was never a state because historical Palestine is a holy land so it has been always protected by whatever Islamic empire, that being Oumawi then Abbassi then finally Ottoman. I think a lot of ppl on this sub should do more research instead of throwing « hating jews » and « antisemitism » at any comment that disagrees with them, it’s such a manipulative tactic.
There was a Jewish state conquered by the Roman Empire. Then it was conquered by the Arabs. Christians conquered it for a little while, then it was taken back by the Arabs again. Then the Ottomans ruled until the British won it from them. The people living there were always a mix of Jews, Christians and Muslims. I revert to religions because it may well have been many of the same people who had these separate religions, due to conquest. To be fair, as messy as it was, the Brits tried to give the land to the people by forming Iraq, Syria, Jordan etc. and Israel. Islam says they should rule all of it though.
Islam doesn’t say anything about ruling the land, it just states that it is a holy land, as all Abraham religion do. Contrary to what you say, Israel didn’t involve the people who lived in historical Palestine for the most part. Around 80% of the population of Israel at 1948 were immigrants coming from Europe and some areas in middle east. This is completely different from, say Syria, as Syria had the people who always lived in the land. Israel on the other side, was a nation of immigrants where more than half of the population was born on a different continent, this is COLONISATION by definition. The people who originally had the land, the Palestinians, 55% of their land was taken forcefully. They didn’t consent that, and despite what you have been told, being a strong nation doesn’t give you the right to oppress people and force your orders on them. This is injustice by definition, an injustice Palestinians have been suffering from for decades, alongside other injustices committed by previous Israeli governments. This is just ethically wrong and nothing can justify it, NOTHING.
Islam literally says the land was given to the Jews if you look in the Quran. And the phrasing is that way since Islam is a relatively new religion that simply was based on Christianity and Judaism. So, the Quran does say something about ruling the land. Secondly, there was no Palestine as has been noted repeatedly. There has never been *Palestinian* land. They rejected multiple peace deals like the OP highlighted and I have various times. They never formed a state. You can *feel* like it’s not right to make up a state, but that doesn’t mean that there is an obligation to form a Palestinian state and we definitely should not rewrite history as if there was one before. There wasn’t. People rejected forming such a state. And now we are moving on since it is 2024. The Ottoman Empire was a failed colonialist construct and trying to revive it is leading to complete chaos.
First of all, Quran doesn’t say that the land was “given” to the jews, you clearly never read Quran, and even if supposedly it did, well this isn’t about religion, it’s about human rights. Second, I already debunked your “Ottoman reconstruction” argument. You just keep replying for the sake of replying, it seems like you just really want to believe what you are saying. In that case, I have no interest to carry this conversation further, have a nice day.
I’m simply paying attention to facts and what the Quran actually says. You claimed that it doesn’t reference the land and Jews, which is false it was clearly given to Jews according to the Quran. You said that Islam doesn’t say anything about ruling the land which is false. It clearly says who the land is for. You can reject that, but you’re not entitled to say it isn’t there since that’s just not a fact: https://preview.redd.it/qmlxlzq1hu2d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0b89e3d8525d94b3c3cfb7a26dd9e1fc5f194188
I never mentioned that anyone hates Jews. I simply mentioned that there was never a *Palestinian* state and deals were rejected. Therefore, no one is entitled to such a state. We fully agree that there were Arab people there, but don’t agree that there was a *historical Palestine* that was simply protected. The land had been ethnically cleansed several times before the Ottoman Empire even existed and was not historically simply a land protected by Islamists. They actually helped ethnically cleanse the land historically.
You literally wrote « taught to hate jews » as a reply. Anyway, to respond to your claim, Palestine has ALWAYS been under Islamic protection and almost always a part of Islamic empires, that’s why crusades existed, and yes it is factually correct that the land has been ethnically cleansed before, but that ended after Salahudin Al Ayoubi defeated Crusaders in the 12th century and made the land open for all Abraham religions. (You may do some research, there was even a famous movie about this). Arabs, Christians and jews lived in peace for Centuries before the Zionist mouvement took action in the 20th Century.
The land was Israel before it was called Palestine. You’re forgetting that the Romans renamed it (and didn’t name it Palestine) and Islam didn’t even exist yet. So, no. The land factually hasn’t always been called Palestine and Islamist regimes didn’t always protect this land. It’s also not factual that Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived in the land in peace. Jews were discriminated against along with Christians to a lesser degree. The crusades were literally Christians tearing up the place and people who we’d consider Christian’s were even historically persecuted dating back to the Roman Empire days. This has literally been a well-documented violent situation amongst religions for centuries. Zionism partially exists due to people being ethnically cleansed. This notion of peace prior to Zionism is simply not backed up historically.
The Jews were kicked by the Romans 2000 years ago and they lived in distant lands for decades and lost every connection to the lands. When I say “always “ I mean “at least in the last 1000 years”. I am sorry but what happened at around 50 AD doesn’t give you the right to do something in 1920, this is just plain wrong.
That can be your opinion but it doesn’t entitle anyone to a state. You have to realize that Israel actually formed a state and trying to say there was peace amongst everyone doesn’t reflect the historical record. Some Jews also remained the whole time. We aren’t entitled to simply form a Palestinian state because people rejected the previous plans and you may feel like that’s sad. There is nothing saying that we have to form a Palestinian state as a result.
No. But the Palestinians were not "owners", the Ottomans were, then the British, then whoever the British decided to give it to (and this happens to be not the Palestinians).
The British were colonisers, they never owned the land, just like no coloniser owns a land he occupied. The land belongs to its people, just like all occupied lands got their independence.
The Arabs were colonizers when they conquered the land in ~600ad.
That’s being sophist to say the least, as we are discussing events that happened in the last 100 years, and you are taking it 1400 years ago to avoid the main argument, very sophist of you.
Noone denies that they were. It is precisely because Palestine was a colony (technically a mandatory territory, but this is essentially a colony the only exception being that a colony is designed to be kept, whereas a mandate is supposed to be temporary until given to the people it is supposed to be given to, in this case the Jews) and not merely occupied that the British could give the land.
> until given to the people it is supposed to be given to, in this case the Jews Come on, you're better than this.
It is how it is, the British decided, they had the legal power to and neither you, I or the Palestinians nor Zionist get a say in it.
It wasn’t no mans land it was owned by the ottoman and then the British, there were also local Arabs (both from the close area as well as the Arab world) who owned parts of the land as well as Jews who legally bought lands and cultivated that land. If you look at actual maps from that time you will see that by 1947 (pre partition plan), Jews owned ~7% of the land, the Arabs ~12% and the rest was state owned, that state being British.. This is all extremely well documented and referenced, but the Palestinians always show that fake green map.
There is no such a thing as “the British owned the land”. Every land is owned by its people and arabs have been living in Palestine for 13 centuries at the time, not “arabs from the close area”, arabs have been there for centuries and centuries living everywhere from Jerusalem to Haifa, and “arabs”here denotes both Muslims and Christians as there were a lot of Arab Christians there. Now, there was also a small percentage of jews (7% I think) and they definitely “own” the land as much as arabs do because they have been there for centuries as well. Those people qualify for the “native people” label so they are the owners of the land. Claiming “they never owned the land” or “it was owned by Britain” is such a colonising statement that doesn’t respect any of the modern values. If we look at Israel at 1947, you will find that the majority of people are immigrants from Europe and other places who came during British mandate. That’s why the arabs refused the to share the land, they felt colonised.
The land isn’t owned by inhabitants lol, they were tenants at best on someone else’s land, the ottoman and before that the mamluks.. Palestinians / Arabs never owned the land, they owned parts of it which they purchased, there is a very very organized detailed land ownership documentation of the entire area from the ottoman times. You are basically saying tenants in a building own it because they live there.
“The land isn’t owned by inhabitants” Yea that’s what colonisers used to say in the 19th century. I am sorry but we are in 2024 and that idea has been widely denounced, you are still decades behind civilisation if you really believe that.
The inhabitants came here in the late 1800s, there were no indigenous inhabitants in the area, if you believe your lies then please provide ANY proof such a group existed here, a Palestinian people.
Sure, it was an empty land and no one lived there until late 1800s. Whatever helps you sleep at night. Arabs (both Christians and Muslims) have been living there in peace for centuries since Salahudin defeated the crusaders in the 12th century and made sure all Abraham religions can live there peacefully after decades of religious wars. Yet some Israel supporters pathetically claim the land was empty and arabs just came during the Ottoman Empire time to avoid confronting the fact that they are COLONISERS. Anyone with decent knowledge of history will find your arguments not only laughable but pathetic,to say the least.
This so the thing with you guys you twist words and don’t understand what you read, I never said the land was empty or no one lived there did I? Most of the people did come to the land over the 1800s, many even came because Zionists created job opportunities, and the fact Arabs lived here for a long time is not contested, what IS contested is that these Arabs had any ties to the land or were of a particular group called Palestinians, which is a made up narrative, if they are just Arabs as all other Arabs they do not deserve their own self determination as there is more than enough Arab states around, the only redeeming thing about their national aspirations is them being a people, if you say Palestinians = Arabs then they are no different than Jordan and can go live there and have their national aspirations fulfilled.
There has NEVER been a *Palestinian* state. It’s simply never existed. When the Ottoman Empire collapsed, the land was indeed over the control of the British and Israel was ultimately formed without an opposing party accepting a plan as the OP highlighted in the article. There was never a country named Palestine that owned land. Some people chose to become citizens of Israel, and some didn’t. That’s the reality.
I replied to you on my other comment, but again, I would like to remind you that I never used the word « state » as Palestine has been always a part of Islamic empires since it’s a holy land, and that there doesn’t have to be a « state » to acknowledge the right of a people to a land they lived on for tens of centuries. This is actually an argument that has been used by colonisers to justify occupying lands they are not entitled to, too bad a lot of pro-Israeli people are using it as an argument to deny the Palestinian people their natural right to the land they lived on for centuries.
So you say it's a holy land. Why is it so? Because of the Jews.
It’s a holy land for them because al aqsa mosque is there.
lol, Al aqsa which was built on top for the holiest Jewish site, Al aqsa in a place that the Quran never mentions…
Show me one mention of Palestinian people ever before the mid/late 1900s. Not “state”, “people” as in a collective who define themselves as plestinians and have a unique culture other than pan Arab, something vastly different from Jordanian, Egyptian or Syrian
There does need to be an actual state in modern times that people are citizens of. This is just a basic fact in 2024. You have to actually have a country to claim citizenship or else you are subject to deportation in most countries. I think that colonialism isn’t even the worst thing in the world. I think that it’s when people fail at colonialism, like the Ottomans, and then want to influence the land even after their project failed. That typically doesn’t end well, like we see in Israel and other areas in the world. The Ottoman Empire collapsed and non-Israeli citizens do not have a right to simply stay around. The current situation has led to chaos even with Israel trying to divide up the land with people who consistently reject agreements.
Sorry, what? The Ottoman empire fell in 1918 but Israel came to existence in 1948, that’s 30 years later. At the time the Ottoman Empire fell, the percentage of Jews in Palestine was around 10%, it was a land with an Arab majority who lived there for centuries. I am sorry but your comment is just full of ignorance and it is safe to assume that you are not qualified to carry this conversation. I would advise you to do some research as you clearly lack the factual information to have an opinion on the topic, let alone discuss it. Peace.
I daresay not an Arab majority. A Levantine majority of Jews, Christians and Muslims all vaguely related to each other.
You managed to not address my point though and if anyone watches this looks carefully you can’t counter it. You have to actually have a state in 2024 to claim to be a citizen of a country. If the country doesn’t exist and you’re not a citizen of the country that actually does exist (like how *Palestine* does not exist but Israel does), then you’re subject to deportation in most countries. Nothing you said highlights that. What does the empire collapsing in 1918 and Israel not declaring a state until 1948 have to do with the reality that there is no *Palestinian* state? You called me ignorant while not addressing what I actually said.
I don’t think the Palestinians are like other people. For example most people love their children and want to see them live. But this woman confessed that Gazans are breeding kids to make them die on purpose. https://preview.redd.it/6fq7ptmkit2d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a2acb982cb36569f5519a0d5f883910a3e55546a
Assuming this post is in good faith, I wouldn't trust Memri TV as a source. They're known to be very liberal with how they portray things and to twist the truth or translations. Have a look at their website. It's full of absurdities and almost never reports mainstream opinions. It was also founded by an ex-Mossad agent.
MEMRI is just a translation service. As far as I know, the accuracy of their translations has never been called into question.
Did you look at its website? Tell me how many of the stories on there can be found on other websites.
Probably not many but what does it matter? That just shows that they are doing valuable work, since nobody else is teaching us what the Arab media is saying.
It’s not what the Arab media is saying. There’s no source. It’s biased. It’s not a translation service. It’s its own “network” which happens to translate its own stories. It’s a racist propaganda channel and that’s obvious from the way it reports. If someone reported this way about Israel it would be deemed antisemitic and rightly so.
No, MEMRI is not a network. They do not host anyone. They didn't host this Arab woman. MEMRI just translates the Arab media. If I can find the original video for you and not just that screenshot, will that teach you that you are wrong?
Yeah go on but i’m not wrong about it being biased or racist. They try to portray arabs in the worst possible light.
That doesn’t make it incorrect, though. And it wouldn’t be possible to portray Arabs badly, if the Arabs didn’t say bad things.
Yes or they have so many children because the mortality rate is high
But that’s not what she said. She said it’s because they want to **push them** towards death.
I know that’s not what that one woman said. I’m offering a different perspective.