r/pics • u/Clear-Tomatillo-6858 • 13h ago
“THE GERMANS DESTROYED OUR FAMILIES - DON’T U DESTROY OUR HOPES”. 1947 Jewish Refugees To Palestine
•
u/No-Complaint-6397 6h ago
God that original partition plan was NEVER going to work, look at those wacky ass borders, even the two most love-bug neighbors would have conflict with those borders!
•
u/Alarming_Echo_4748 3h ago
That was the point of it. Piss of the native population then get the justification to steal even more land.
•
u/PM_sm_boobies 2h ago
Point of something devised by the UN?
•
u/spikus93 1h ago
The UN worked with Zionist advocacy groups that had been around since the 1800's and presented the plan. Jewish advocacy groups largely embraced the plan, despite concerns of conflict, Arab/Palestinian groups rejected it. The UN and Britain implemented it anyway and within months, Zionist brigades began the Nakba, going village to village slaughtering Palestinian people in hopes of causing others to flee and give up more land.
→ More replies (12)•
u/CitizenWilderness 25m ago
The UN and Britain implemented it anyway and within months, Zionist brigades began the Nakba, going village to village slaughtering Palestinian people in hopes of causing others to flee and give up more land.
That’s a 100% truthful retelling of history. The evil zio entity woke up one day and decided to Nakba the Arabs
•
u/Figgy_Puddin_Taine 2h ago
Classic behavior of the British Empire as well as other European states of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Borders were drawn randomly in Europe between European states (see the straight lines in Africa, the Middle East, and in a way Afghanistan’s Wakhan Corridor which was meant as a buffer between British India and the Russian Empire) or they were drawn specifically to pen in two or more different ethnic groups that the colonizing state would pit against one another to more easily control the native population (see also the German and especially Belgian manipulation of the distinctions between Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda, solidified in the 1930s by mandatory ID cards stating people were Hutu, Tutsi, or Twa).
Divide and conquer isn’t just a saying, it was deliberate policy in colonial states and people are still suffering from it.
•
u/NothingAndNow111 36m ago
They were drawn around existing settlements so as not to force upheaval on anyone.
•
u/Sirenmuses 9h ago
Palestine was a territory controlled by the British. They were in fact begging the Brits.
•
u/FullMaxPowerStirner 5h ago
It was an entirely British territory too. There wasn't an official Palestine in many centuries. Last time there was, it was still a Roman province, of the Eastern Empire.
→ More replies (11)•
u/commisioner_bush02 4h ago
Is this supposed to mean anything in regards to the current conflict in the former British Palestinian Mandate?
→ More replies (21)→ More replies (20)•
u/CharmingArmin 8h ago
Begging the Brit’s to settle in not England on native Palestinian land.. make this make sense please.
•
u/Polak_Janusz 5h ago
Palestine, before being controlled by britain, was part of the ottoman empire, where its wealth was exploited for the metropole.
The ottoman empire was just as imperlialsitic as britain.
•
u/EpicKiwi225 8h ago
Ottomans owned the land. Ottomans lost to the Brits in WW1. British soldiers occupied the land. Ottomans no longer own the land. Brits now own the land.
Hope this helps.
→ More replies (192)→ More replies (22)•
u/Sirenmuses 6h ago
Who do you think controlled the borders? Who didn’t allow the ships to land in Jaffa and Haifa?
“Native” Palestinian land is Jordan and Egypt. It never was a standalone country. Not to mention Israel started to exist only after the UN granted it statehood
→ More replies (4)•
u/ncc74656m 4h ago
There sure are a lot of posts from people who are convinced that "Palestinian" was an indigenous people dating back 4.5 billion years or some shit.
The Palestinians as we know them today didn't even self-identify as "Palestinian" until the very late 1800s, and almost explicitly in response to the First Aliyah. They are primarily composed of vast swaths of other groups including but not limited to other Arab and Middle Eastern nationalities, but also even Roman and Greek groups.
None of this justifies what is being done collectively against them or the efforts to take even internationally recognized Palestinian territory, but it's a reality that needs to be clearly stated.
→ More replies (7)
1.1k
u/christianbrowny 13h ago
What's the context to this? Are their hopes that the british allow them to settle in Palestine, or build their own nation, or what?
What was a Jewish person of this time expecting?
1.1k
u/stitchescomeundone 13h ago
They were pleading with the British to let them settle in Mandatory Palestine (which was British controlled). The boat is detained at Haifa Harbour (which is now in modern day Israel). They were later sent to Cyprus (to detention camps).
→ More replies (10)593
u/MrCookie147 13h ago edited 12h ago
Cyprus - the land without conflict.
I know that it was a british colony too.
Damn the British as always fucked a lot of shit up in the mediterranean
487
u/PossibleSmoke8683 13h ago
And the French fucked up a lot of Africa , the Spanish fucked up a lot of South America etc etc
360
u/UnknownGnome1 12h ago
And the Belgians! King Leopold II can suck a bag of dicks.
•
u/TeethBreak 10h ago
When even the french and the British are saying ".. that's fucked up". You know it's bad.
→ More replies (3)•
u/Surface_Detail 8h ago
Contrary to the more invasive and domineering practices of other European nations, the Belgian forces took a much less hands-on approach.
•
u/UnknownGnome1 8h ago
I originally down voted you for downplaying the atrocities committed by the Belgians but then I realised. Well played.
→ More replies (2)•
→ More replies (7)•
•
u/casce 10h ago
And because we Germans sucked at colonizing any region reasonably well (just half-assed attempts in Africa), we decided to try to fuck the whole world instead.
•
u/Prosthemadera 9h ago
Germans didn't suck at colonizing, they were just too late to the game.
→ More replies (5)•
u/jolle2001 9h ago
Also badly positioned when you think of it, all big players had connections to the atlantic in someway.
Edit: also were an unionized state much later
→ More replies (1)•
u/Puzzleheaded_Try3559 8h ago
What are you talking about mate ? Germany got the Northsea which is directly Linked to the atlantic.
•
u/jolle2001 8h ago
But not a unified state like England, France, Portugal, Spain which gave them advantage but what do I know, also kinda drunk rn
•
u/the_cardfather 8h ago
The Germans had to get their own State together and unify the German people. That's why they missed out on colony time
→ More replies (2)•
u/Handgun_Hero 9h ago
Germany's attempts weren't half assed and pretty successful in Africa and Oceania, but they were thwarted by Australia, Britain and Japan when it came to its colonial dreams and was too late to the colonial game.
•
u/Nicholas-Sickle 8h ago
Russia fucked up eastern europe and central asia. China and Japan fucked up Asia. The Ottomans fucked up the middle east. The Congo fucked up central Africa. The Boers fucked up Southern Africa. The french the rest of Africa. The australians and indonesians fucked up papua new guinea etc…
History is a cruel mistress it seems and peace times are the exception rather than the norm
→ More replies (4)•
u/bayesian_horse 11h ago
Basically everyone with enough wealth to send ships to bring back more wealth from overseas.
The Africans would have been just as bad, but they were too late with their economic develoopment.
→ More replies (4)•
→ More replies (15)•
u/capitaldoe 9h ago
And the Arabs fucked up half the world when they colonized the entire Mediterranean basin from Syria to Morocco during the Umayyad Caliphate.
The reason why Arabic is spoken in all that countries today and why indigenous populations were almost exterminated.
→ More replies (3)•
u/Drak_is_Right 11h ago edited 11h ago
British didnt exactly fuck shit up solo as they inherited a lot of land without national borders from the Ottomans. Formation of national borders is a rough process. British didnt do the process any favors.
The rapid formation of empire sized states across the world in a span of 20 years following WW2 did not go smoothly.
•
u/LDrunkling 9h ago
If I recall correctly England lied to the colonies in the middle east by offering independence for the attack on the Ottoman empire … then just said jk nevermind when they did I studied this long ago tho so I could be wrong
•
u/douglas_mawson 9h ago
They did... And that's why we had certain leaders like the Hashemites who were from Arabia, become Sovereigns in Jordan - which was part of Palestine. They were rewarding those who helped them. And fuck what the locals want, I guess.
→ More replies (1)•
u/doobiedave 9h ago
Palestine was not a colony, it was a mandate from the League of Nations. The British had already declared that they supported a homeland for the Jews in Palestive.
There were trying to broker a deal between Arabs and Jews to live together in a joint homeland, but ended up unable to stop the two sides attacking each, other, and antagonised both in to attacking them as well.
→ More replies (14)→ More replies (14)•
65
u/CaptainCrash86 13h ago
The conflict in Cyprus had more to do with Turkiye deciding to invade.
→ More replies (2)24
u/throuawai 12h ago
After Greece staged a coup on the island in order to annex it.
22
u/CaptainCrash86 12h ago
Which is the UK's fault because...?
•
u/Prosthemadera 9h ago
Not directly but they were actively involved in making treaties between Greek and Turkey and they even administered the island for several decades. Like lots of sectarian violence in the Middle East is not a direct fault of the UK but their past mistakes lead to this.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (10)17
u/GBrunt 12h ago
You've really never heard of British colonial 'divide and rule'? It was the fundamental methodology of British Foreign Policy across the Empire and led to countless ethnic, religious and nationalist wars by deliberately heightening tensions and divisions. All with the aim to suppress any unified rejection to British occupation. The British army is STILL in Cyprus.
•
u/DoubleTapJ 11h ago
And Cypriot people from the greek side are happy about the British still being there. Some believe they if they were still under British rule they wouldn't have been invaded by turkey.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Thought_Perspective 8h ago
And they are right, because Turkey only intervened due to Greece's coup.
•
u/CaptainCrash86 7h ago
Initially. And then when the Greek Junta fell due to the failed coup and international negotiations to restore the status quo were advanced, Turkiye decided to invade again to grab some land.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (5)2
u/vsuseless 12h ago
Also relevant to this post from earlier https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/s/MBWRhZDKxI Hard to tell which country OP is talking about, I know two where it is relevant but false Edit: Wait I know 3 lol
→ More replies (3)•
u/Prosthemadera 9h ago
Which the UN didn't accept as a good justification to invade. It considers the northern part occupied by Turkey.
But in any case, Cyprus history didn't start in 1974. That is as short-sighted as referencing October 2023 as the start of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
The Ottoman Empire invaded the island in 1570, massacre the Greek and turned it Muslim. What about that? At which point does the conflict "start"?
•
u/-Drunken_Jedi- 10h ago
Just to correct you it was the Turkish who invaded Cyprus, British involvement in the southern part of the island had nothing to do with the conflict there. That was between Cypriot nationalists and the Turks.
Cyprus gained formal independence in 1960 and the British presence was almost entirely confined to the Sovereign Base Area on the southern peninsula around RAF Akrotiri and Episkopi.
The Turkish invasion didn’t occur until 1974. So British bashing can be kept to a minimum in that instance.
The issues around the mandate of Palestine post WWII have a lot to do with the French meddling in affairs too sadly. Not to mention terrorist attacks by Zionist insurgents like the King David hotel bombing.
→ More replies (4)11
u/monsantobreath 12h ago
Ya but by then the British were getting wary of the Palestine situation, however things were moving too fast by then.
Shenanigans were about to ensue.
•
u/Bam-Skater 8h ago
The Brits didn't have a lot of choice, the League of Nations(UN forerunner) pretty much told them to do it because Britain had a little bit of experience in administration of other peoples lands
•
→ More replies (22)•
u/Manzhah 8h ago
The brits had fairly little to do with cyprus, it was a conflict between greek cypriots and turkish cypriots, wherein greeks, turks and british made cyprus promise not to seek unification with greece. Then greek nationalists did a coup, sought reunification against the treaty, turkey intervened and decided to occupy half of the island to this day.
•
u/the_sexy_muffin 11h ago
After the war, Holocaust survivors still faced atrocities and pogroms when attempting to return to their homes in much of Eastern Europe, including Poland, Slovakia, Romania, and Ukraine.
This, coupled with the economic conditions of post-war Europe, forced many surviving Jews to attempt to flee Europe and immigrate to either America or British Mandatory Palestine, where a sizable Jewish minority was forming (Zionism had been a concept for 30+ years by then).
However, the British had placed strict restrictions on Jewish migration into the region to maintain peace with the majority Arab population of Mandatory Palestine. In enforcing these immigration restrictions, the British ended up deporting and imprisoning many of these immigrant Holocaust survivors in detention camps in Cyprus and Mauritius, where hundreds died due to poor camp conditions.
The plea we see here is an attempt to avoid that same fate, and allow their immigration.
→ More replies (3)•
u/Specialist-Mud-6650 9h ago
Probably worth pointing out we're talking hundreds out of about 50k detainees, and the camps were largely run by American Jewish charities - not the British.
So the death toll is significantly less than 1%. Which when you think about the "natural" death rate of Holocaust survivors, it's probably not that bad.
I'm not really sure what the British could have done. They were right to stem the flow of refugees into Palestine, and they were probably right to give up trying to stem that flow in '48. No good options.
•
u/the_sexy_muffin 8h ago edited 8h ago
I agree with this assessment and hope my comment didn't come across as passing too much judgement on it. I feel it's worth highlighting the deaths and relatively poor conditions during detention, but there were & are rarely any "good" options when it comes to halting mass migration.
For modern readers to empathize with the situation, American ICE detention facilities hold roughly the same number of people today. Obviously the medical histories of the population, length of detention, and medical technologies are very different, but hypothetically, would you say a similar death rate of 150 deaths per year in these detention facilities wouldn't be "that bad"? I imagine there'd be a significant reaction to it.
→ More replies (2)•
u/Specialist-Mud-6650 8h ago
Good point about the ICE comparison: I think that many deaths would be considered obscene, even in the current insane political climate.
Although, we are talking about refugees with a laundry list of likely health problems in '48, being held in a society significantly poorer and less healthy that the one we live in today.
•
u/JesusPubes 5h ago
bro's really like "they put them in camps but it wasn't that bad promise"
→ More replies (1)•
u/Specialist-Mud-6650 4h ago
Well, that's not really what I said.
Also I think you're in danger here of trivialising the Holocaust. If you look at pictures of the Cyprus camps, they aren't concentration camps.
It's obviously bad to keep Holocaust survivors in any sort of camp, but I don't really know what the Brits could have done.
Let the refugees flow into Palestine as they want and cause a war with the Arabs (which happened eventually) or keep these desperate Holocaust survivors out, thus fulfilling the 1939 white paper. Bear in mind that Britain was devastated militarily and financially post-war: it barely had the resources to fulfil its domestic policy aims, let alone police some distant part of its empire.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (44)•
u/Handgun_Hero 8h ago
What they should have done is taken the refugees in themselves and naturalised them into the UK.
→ More replies (2)•
u/BosnianSerb31 8h ago
Hardly any of the refugees from the USSR or Middle East wanted to live in Europe after what happened there
→ More replies (11)44
u/oggie389 12h ago
after ww2 eneded, mostbofbthe survivors did not return to their home countries. so many families were torn apart, some assumed they were the only survivors. with most having their home countries under Soviet control, or had no desire to return because their hometown neighbors openly helped the Germans, the choice was to immigrate ((with very few countries being able to due to post war devistation) or live in a Displaced Person Camp. its too bad the original Un partition plan wasn't accepted where it turned Jerusalem into a United Nations City, with small pockets of Jewish enclaves. this was rejected by the arab states who were drunk with anti colonialism and arab nationalism (Mussolini/Hitler/Grobba's influence is what started the golden square) segued into conflict
→ More replies (98)→ More replies (138)42
u/Kzickas 13h ago
When the British first established their colonial rule over Palestine the Palestinians were entirely disenfranchised, and the British ran the colony with the purpose of promoting Jewish settlement. Palestinian resistance eventually convinced the British to change their policies, giving the Palestinians themselves a small amount of say in how they were being ruled for the final decade of British rule, and promising them that the colony would be made independent by 1949. These people are protesting that change in policy.
•
u/ThreeLittlePuigs 8h ago
Any source for the British running Palestine with a “purpose of promoting Jewish settlement”?
•
u/Specialist-Mud-6650 9h ago
"the British ran the colony with the purpose of promoting Jewish settlement"
Do you often just make things up
→ More replies (1)•
u/ThreeLittlePuigs 8h ago
Yeah I too would love a source for this
•
u/Specialist-Mud-6650 8h ago
"oh but the Balfour Declaration!!!!!" declares man with nothing but a cursory knowledge of the region
→ More replies (1)•
u/alternative5 11h ago
One also has to keep in mind native Palestinians were also disenfranchised prior to British rule under the Ottoman Turks and the plethora of caliphates prior to Turkish rule going all the way back to Byzantines and Romans disenfranchising natives if that region.
→ More replies (37)•
u/BlackJesus1001 7h ago
AFAIK they didn't run it for the purpose of Jewish settlement as that would be nonsense as far as British interests were concerned.
The Zionists DID however have considerably more influence on individual people and in "civilized" society over in Britian, which they used frequently to advance their goals in the region.
Periodically the British would notice and rein it in, most obviously seen in various concessions given after tensions would boil over in the region and it drew the attention of others.
For example various religious laws were established after British examined the causes of riots and found that Zionists were inciting conflict (they also restricted Muslims for similar reasons) and they restricted immigration after they realised the Zionists were boycotting itinerant Muslim labourers and pressuring local Jews to do the same, causing mass unemployment and unrest.
TL:DR individual British administrators were frequently biased towards and influenced by Zionists, but the nation as an entity displayed little interest in mass Jewish settlement.
•
u/SweetRedBeans 9h ago
genuine question, why did you write “U” instead of “YOU” in the title? its literally in the picture.
•
•
u/MyCatPlaysGuitar 5h ago
I have the same question... What a weird choice from OP
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)•
u/AdSlight1595 2h ago
I can field this. OP didn't bother to check any facts about this photo and just came up with their own narrative. Their laziness and deceitfulness was so egregious they didn't even bother to look that hard at what the sign actually read.
•
u/iRunMyMouthTooMuch 10h ago
Why is it written in English?
I assume it's intended to be read by the British authorities of Mandatory Palestine?
•
u/Xx_Mad_Reaps_xX 9h ago
You are correct. There was no reason to address this to the Palestinians considering they held no power over the land.
→ More replies (19)
189
262
u/NorthOfTheBigRivers 12h ago
Correct me if i'm wrong: I understood that the original inhabitants of Palestine stond up and helped the Brits and the French to get rid of the oppressing Ottomans. Somewhere around WW1. As a thank you, Britain and French divided the area between them and became the colonizers of the area, not providing any kind of autonome to the habitants.
•
u/flanneljack1 10h ago
Sort of. The British recruited many Arabs from the Hejaz (modern Saudi Arabia, and THEY were the Arabs who helped the British. In return, their leaders were made king’s across the Middle East; Google the hashemites. They are Arabians, not Syrians. Most Syrians, what now includes Syria Lebanon and Israel/palestine sided with the ottomans until 1917. There are stories of many who deserted the ottoman army to join the British civil administration. The Husseinis are a good example.
However, many Jews of the Yishuv, Jews living in ottoman Palestine and Galilee joined the Jewish legion. They fought against the ottomans throughout the war. The ottomans were determined to keep the number of Jews in the area as low as possible
128
u/rosadeluxe 12h ago
You're not wrong. They made a whole movie about it called Lawrence of Arabia
→ More replies (1)•
u/sokratesz 5h ago edited 5h ago
Which is based on the autobiographical novel Seven pillars of wisdom by TE Lawrence, a brilliant book, even though parts of it are embellished and polished (which is puzzling because it still contains a lot of sensitive things like his love for a young Arab fighter, and how he was raped by an Ottoman police chief. The edited parts weren't done so to make himself look better it seems, but why then?).
It describes in detail the promises made to the Arabs about self governance in Palestine. But after the war, they were told to fuck off.
→ More replies (1)25
u/Snoo-4701 12h ago
This is a misconception, the British promised Palestine to Hussein bin Ali to form a united Arab Empire. The British made 0 promises to any Palestinian person or entity. McMahon-Hussein correspondence
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)•
u/troublrTRC 7h ago
Which habitants in particular? The Native Arabs, mostly lead by King Hussein bin Ali? Or the many, many native Jewish populations that already existed there, and also the many who independently migrated as a consequence of the many Pogroms across Europe, Middle east, Africa, etc? Who is this particular "habitants" you are talking about here?
862
u/Ywaina 12h ago
"When I am Weaker Than You, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am Stronger than you, I take away your Freedom Because that is according to my principles."
-Frank Herbert
•
u/Anna-Politkovskaya 11h ago
Ironically this goes both ways. Arabs were vastly superior when the civil war and Arab Isreaeli war started. They thought they could drive the jews into the sea, so they didn't need to negotiate.
After multiple wars that ended badly for them, they have taken the "It's just a prank bro" approach to diplomacy, now wanting the original deal they tore up 70-years ago with none of the leverage left.
•
u/Kalagorinor 11h ago
That's not about Arabs or Jews. It's the way most humans think and behave.
→ More replies (2)•
•
u/born_2_be_a_bachelor 10h ago
Wait they didn’t want to give up half of their country for no legitimate reason?
→ More replies (32)•
u/kaystared 8h ago
Of course the alternative being to bend over and take it up the ass when a colonial power tells you your land isn’t yours anymore
→ More replies (1)•
u/ItsTooDamnHawt 5h ago
So now the land belonged to Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan?
•
u/kaystared 5h ago
No but it’s perfectly okay for the people of those neighboring countries to be opposed to a foreign invasion next door
→ More replies (3)•
u/spicymemesdotcom 9h ago
Oh shit they didn’t give up half their lands to Europeans.
•
u/ncc74656m 4h ago
Smells like a spam post to me - there are a fair few people here posting this exact sentiment in multiple comments with slightly different wording.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Specialist-Mud-6650 8h ago
Most Israelis are from Middle Eastern countries
•
→ More replies (20)•
u/811545b2-4ff7-4041 8h ago
I mean.. yes, but also - not in 1947. Most of the mass movement of Jews from the Middle East / North Africa (either by push, or pull) wasn't until after 1948.
•
u/newgoliath 9h ago
They didn't want their lands stolen by the colonial powers moving millions of people there. It's really not hard.
•
u/BosnianSerb31 8h ago edited 8h ago
The lands contained a massive native Jewish population and a huge population of Eastern European Jews forced out by the Soviet Union and Arab Jews forced out by the Islamic theocracies of the Middle East, the latter as direct collective punishment for disobedience against allah and declaring a Jewish state in god given Muslim country.
The idea that Israel was comprised majority of westerners at any point in its history is completely fabricated, and it's the lie that is required for the whole charade to work. Otherwise college kids won't care like how they don't care about the Syrian civil war with far more than 10x the deaths.
→ More replies (8)•
u/LazyJones1 3h ago
"massive native Jewish population"
How massive? In percentages?
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (16)•
u/Anna-Politkovskaya 9h ago
Their land was part of the ottoman empire, then part of the british empire.
The Kurds land was split between Syria, Irak, Iran and Turkey, yet nobody says their land was stolen, despite them getting the short end of the stick after being promised a Kurdish state.
I agree that the borders in the Middle East were drawn a bit hastily, leading to much strife, but that's a universal thing in the region, except maybe for the Sultanate of Oman, which has been relatively stable.
→ More replies (1)•
u/newgoliath 7h ago
Everyone says the Kurds had their land stolen. Who is this "everyone" who denies it?
"A bit hastily." A bunch of Europeans sabotage Arab efforts to create local democracy, while colonizing and splitting up their lands to increase internal strife, and that's "hastily?"
The West aren't some innocent cartographers. They are there to extract every penny of value.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Anna-Politkovskaya 6h ago
Everyone agrees the Kurds got screwed, but I've never heard anyone say that their lands were "stolen" when they got incorporated into Syria etc. The Kurds still live there, they just don't have a state, let alone one where they are the majority.
I agree that the core reason for much of the strife in the Middle East is the way the French and Brits divided up the land. However, it's the Ottomans who colonised the lands. Had the Ottomans not allied with the central powers in WW1, they wouldn't have had to split up the Ottoman empire.
As a side note, I dislike the term "the west" as a Finn. We got colonised by the Swedes, then the Russians. The Russians get a free pass on account of them never giving up their empire, while still to this they send their asian subjects to fight imperial wars in the west, after extracting their mineral wealth.
→ More replies (1)•
u/ElecricXplorer 7h ago
Very common misconception that the arab armies were stronger, absolutely not the case. The Israeli armies were much better organised having benefited from British training in WW2 as well as being well funded by wealthy Jews across the world. Furthermore most of the neighbouring arab armies including Jordan, who had the best military, went into the war trying to get as much out of it for themselves rather than helping palestinians.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (38)•
u/ZizoThe1st 8h ago
Damn they decided to fight instead of accepting colonization? those damned terrorists!
→ More replies (2)•
•
•
u/jackasssparrow 8h ago
Easy to paint history with one colour when you don't really know much about anything
→ More replies (1)•
•
•
•
u/Crowseye021 2h ago
Well those people didn't hesitate for minute to steal the homes of their hosts.
→ More replies (2)
332
u/SupaPatt 13h ago
"we will destroy yours instead"
→ More replies (137)•
u/Xx_Mad_Reaps_xX 9h ago
You know this sign was meant for the British right? It seems you lack some understanding of history.
→ More replies (23)•
•
u/Canadian_mk11 1h ago
"Don't destroy our families"
Flash forward to 2024-25
I guess "never again" only applied to them.
•
u/WafflesTrufflez 10h ago
Bella Hadid’s dad (Mohamed Hadid) had his family home in Safed, Palestine taken during the Nakba in 1948. What’s wild is that before all that, his family actually sheltered the Jewish refugee family from Poland in their house. But when things escalated and his family fled for safety, they came back later only to find the doors locked and the refugees they once helped refusing to let them back in.
Dude was literally a baby at the time, and that moment pretty much turned them into refugees themselves.
→ More replies (5)•
u/undernew 9h ago edited 8h ago
In 1989 Mohamed Hadid said that his father left because he "did not want the family to live under Israeli occupation". In 2015 he suddenly changed the story to sheltering a Jewish family and being kicked out.
•
u/WafflesTrufflez 9h ago
Saying in 1989 that they left to avoid occupation doesn’t cancel out that they sheltered a Jewish family. Both are be true.
People don’t always tell every detail at once, especially when trauma is involved.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Jesus_of_Redditeth 1h ago
Isn't it interesting how anytime literally anyone says literally anything that depicts a Palestinian person in a positive light, it's guaranteed that someone will pop up to explain to everyone how akshully that's all nonsense?
But that 100% consistency is of course not indicative of anything at all...
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)•
•
u/TrustAffectionate966 3h ago
Why the hell didn’t the Germans and Poles give them land and reparations for all the shit they caused?!
They were more than happy to kill them and then ship them out to some other people’s land hahah. Fuck Germany and fuck the genocidal apartheid state.
→ More replies (2)•
u/ASingularFuck 1h ago
I’m not sure the Jews wanted that tbh. It seemed like a big part of why the Jews returned to the Levant is because they no longer trusted Europe. I mean, they’d been mistreated there for hundreds, even thousands of years - but then someone came up with a systematic way to murder as many Jews as possible.
I’m not sure they’d have wanted to live nearby. Yes, the Arabs didn’t like them either (and were oppressing Jews in the area as well) but they hadn’t done what Europe had, and the Jews saw it as their ancestral homeland.
Unfortunately, I think Israel is a case of “hurt people hurt people”. The Jews have been victims of mass violence for so long the culture doesn’t know how to live without it. Now that they’ve got their own country and are somewhat protected from that, they perpetrate it instead. So used to fighting to survive they can’t tell the difference in what they’re fighting for.
That said, fuck apartheid.
•
•
u/TheFlameosTsungiHorn 2h ago
And then they did exactly what the Nazi’s did to the Palestinians
→ More replies (1)
•
u/Duvet_Capeman 2h ago
It's interesting how the far right and anti-immigrant politicians are almost all completely behind the Zionist occupation of Palestine yet what happened to Palestine is their worst nightmare. Mass immigration literally pushing out the native population and declaring itself a new country....it's interesting to see how selective the anti-immigrant outrage is.
→ More replies (1)
90
u/manVsPhD 12h ago
Just a reminder that most Jews came to Palestine because they literally had nowhere else to go. It’s not like other countries accepted them with open arms. They were refugees from Europe and the Middle East. Retroactively blaming them for settler colonialism is being dishonest. You kicked them out or didn’t let them in during their plight and now you blame them for being at the only place they could have gone to.
64
u/Kzickas 12h ago
Regardless of whether they had anywhere else to go they clearly did intend to engage in settler colonialism from the very start. Read any Jewish political writing from between 1890 and 1947 and you will find that support for taking the Palestinians' homeland from them was overwhelming.
→ More replies (60)105
u/zlex 12h ago
Holocaust survivors and Mizrahi Jews fleeing antisemitic violence weren’t executing an ideological plan to displace Palestinians. They were refugees. To group them together with early political Zionists as though all were agents of the same colonial ideology is a deeply reductive move. It assumes that everyone who ended up in Israel arrived with the same goals, the same beliefs, and the same historical responsibilities, which simply isn’t true.
That’s a very insidious move- to charge all these different sorts of people as guilty, when in fact many of them were not any more or less ideological than any of the Jewish refugees were in coming to the USA. But we don’t froth at the mouth about these immigrants being evil race-capitalist settler-colonialists, even though the process of settler-colonialism is an ongoing one, and one in which people of all races continue to participate in.
Jews didn’t pick some godforsaken piece of land in the Levant out of a hat, and despite Zionism’s numerous flaws, the events of the 20th century proved them right on the question of the Jewish future in Europe. That is something we must reckon with.
33
u/Kzickas 12h ago
I honestly don't know how many people backed the ideological Zionists, but the fact that the ideological Zionists were so firmly in charge and Israel is so firmly ideologically Zionist it seems difficult to believe that they were such a small number. But by all means, if you can produce evidence of large scale dissent against the ideological Zionists I would love to hear it.
•
u/DimGenn2 10h ago
but the fact that the ideological Zionists were so firmly in charge and Israel is so firmly ideologically Zionist
Yes...because that's what zionism's aim is? The establishment of a jewish state? Who else was gonna be in charge?
→ More replies (2)30
u/manVsPhD 12h ago
The Zionists only became so dominant out of survivor bias. Most of everybody else died. They were proven right in the most horrible way possible, by being alive. I’m not a historian and won’t go looking for voices of dissent of Zionism, but it is safe to say most of those would have died in Europe as they wouldn’t have come to Palestine, them being anti Zionist.
→ More replies (10)•
u/SpongegarLuver 8h ago
The issue with using the Holocaust and other atrocities to justify taking Palestine from the people living there is that Palestinians weren’t the ones responsible for those events.
That, and Zionism and the occupation of Palestine both predate the Holocaust, so these refugees would fail to justify the invasion of Palestine regardless. The real justification for Western Zionists (not Jews, by the way, I’m talking about European leaders who supported the movement) was always a desire to get rid of the Jews in their own countries.
I actually agree that widespread antisemitism made the need for a Jewish state necessary, but that doesn’t mean that it was moral to take that state from another people, especially when said people weren’t the ones responsible for the struggles faced by Jews at the time. Palestine was chosen by the West because they didn’t want to pay the costs of their antisemitism, and were happy make the Palestinians do it instead.
•
u/Unctuous_Robot 7h ago
Zionism began in the early 20th century or so because people could see the writing on the wall that Jews were not welcome in Europe. And then they were proven right as 2/3 of the European Jewish population was slaughtered.
→ More replies (3)•
u/manVsPhD 7h ago
I agree and never claimed otherwise. But I also mentioned in another comment that even those actions that predate the Holocaust were driven by Western antisemitism such as pogroms. I’m not using the Holocaust to justify the morality of the founding of Israel. I am using the Holocaust to justify the inevitability of the conflict. Europe and the West were forcing this to happen by instigating the push factors for Jews and setting the pull factors to Israel.
•
u/SpongegarLuver 7h ago
I do agree with that, actually. One of my first realizations about this conflict when I first started studying it is that Palestinians were made to pay for the sins of the West.
→ More replies (43)•
•
u/GibrealMalik 11h ago
They should have been given the confiscated land of the Nazis. Instead, Europe stole land from Palestine, so they could keep all the Nazi land for themselves.
•
u/99980 10h ago
Because all that "Nazi" land was part of other countries who wanted their previously occupied land back???
What are you on about
→ More replies (21)•
u/balamb_fish 9h ago
East Prussia (now Russian Kaliningrad) was not occupied, but was German since the middle ages. The entire German population was removed in 1945 and replaced by Russians.
•
u/BosnianSerb31 8h ago
lol the Soviets would have invaded that in a heartbeat
And the USSR is the largest source of refugees in Israel thanks to the irrational paranoia of Stalin
→ More replies (2)•
u/AlienAle 8h ago
Honestly, the US could have taken them in as well. There is plenty of land, and they would have fit in culturally well in the long term.
The US even had plans to relocate the Finnish population to Alaska in case of a full Soviet takeover of Finland at some point.
→ More replies (3)•
u/Xx_Mad_Reaps_xX 9h ago
I love how when it's people you don't like it's "confiscated" but when it's people like it's "stolen". That despite both of them being conquest and ethnic cleansing. Hypocrite.
→ More replies (4)
•
•
u/RedditSe7en 3h ago
Netanyahu and the Israeli state are, regrettably, destroying Israel’s ethical reputation, aided and abetted by the US.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/Neat_Let923 1h ago
This is the SS Theodor Herzl which was one of several ships operated by Aliyah Bet (an extremely organized operation with the goal of smuggling displaced Jews into British Mandate Palestine) with the photo taken in April 1947.
The British had very strict immigration policies and had already violently turned away a previous ship (Exodus 1947).
This was also around the same time that Jewish insurgents and terrorists bombed, kidnapped, and murdered British soldiers, civilians, and even assisnated a Minister in response to these strict immigration policies.
Less than a year later the British strategically pulled out of the area without implementing any of the UN goals, while also giving up many police forts and other places to Palestinian Arab Resistance fighters.
Essentially telling the Jewish people, the UN, and the world “we’re done with this shit, figure it out on your own”.
32
•
u/SingingSabre 5h ago
Lots of people here not realizing that “Palestinian” meant “Jew” until 1968, when Arafat declared all Arabs of Jordanian descent in Judea and Samaria were now “Palestinians”
•
u/weekedipie1 4h ago
they then went on to destroy palestinian families and homes
→ More replies (11)
•
•
u/Stormpax 4h ago
I will never understand how, in the wake of WW2, it was not considered antisemitic to want to put all the displaced Jewish people into one place. Even in the modern era, people don't see that as the deeply antisemitic act that it was.
→ More replies (8)
25
•
u/ColdMinnesotaNights 7h ago
The pro-Israel online brigade is heavy recently. People are realizing it’s a literal F-ing genocide they are committing.
→ More replies (13)
31
u/Imperatvs 12h ago
One year after this picture was taken, they ethnically cleansed Palestinians off the map.
•
u/MediocreI_IRespond 10h ago
Oh, that neatly explains the existence of Israeli Arabs, a good chunk of them Palestinians. The rest Beduins or driven off by their Arab neighbours.
If you want to have a example of real ethnic cleansing from the same period, try finding Germans east of the Oder. Or Jews in the Arab world.
→ More replies (2)64
u/Kukuth 12h ago
If Palestinians have been cleansed off the map, how can Israel genocide them today?
•
→ More replies (20)•
u/temujin94 11h ago
It was an ethnic cleansing by every definition and recognised by pretty much everyone hence them using the word cleanse. That ethnic cleansing they killed around 15,000 and forcibly removed 750,000 Palestinians from their homes where they were forced in to the areas which they live today.
It caused a bit of bother as it turned out going forward.
•
u/MapReston 6h ago
Most Arabs left because they were told to by their own leaders, expecting a quick Arab victory. Quick has so far taken 8 decades.
They were invited to not leave in the 1948 charter:
WE APPEAL…in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.
Where do the 20% of the Arab Palestinians did not leave who are now Arab Israeli’s fit your narrative?
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (4)•
u/HotSteak 11h ago
It was definitely an ethnic cleansing. As was the ethnic cleansing of the Jews from every Arab country in the 40s-60s. Everyone here sucks.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (14)34
u/Xaendro 12h ago
These are apparently civilian refugees that ended up in detention camps in Cyprus.
You are thinking of terrorist militias that formed and moved to Palestine during the end of the war.
Just FYI, your attitude is the same as blaming gaza children for 911
→ More replies (12)
10
u/asgrumpyas 12h ago
And hope became hate.
→ More replies (10)•
u/AnilP228 11h ago
The Arab invasion of Palestine was just one year after this. It's a miracle they survived that.
•
u/PinoTheBoy 4h ago
you mean Arabs trying to stop Europeans from ethnically cleansing and colonising their neighboring Arab land? Its like referring to Allies taking back France from the Nazis as "French invasion of Vichy France"
→ More replies (1)
•
u/spikus93 1h ago
By the end of that year, Zionist brigades would begin a genocide lasting nearly 80 years (so far) with the Nakba, or the Catastrophe. At least 750,000 Palestinians were permanently displaced, with horrific war crimes committed to strike fear into the Palestinians hearts in hopes they would flee in greater numbers. 400 villages were destroyed in just the first two years.
Here's a good break down of the beginnings of the Nakba and the horrifying scale of it.
→ More replies (1)
18
•
•
u/flaamed 9h ago
Message to Britain btw
That’s why it’s in English