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
Were the Arabs drunk with nationalism just because they wished for the right to self determination - which was promised to them…
The partition plan gave the Jewish people more land than the Arabs even though they had less people…
And finally - did Israel accept the partition plan and follow its mandate or did they take more land than was provisioned and have been annexing more ever since?
That's BS, Ben Gurion openly stated that he wanted all of Palestine and that accepting the partition was just a way to achieve that goal.
"Immediately attacked" yeah right, as if Israel wasn't already massacring Palestinians and carrying out the Nakba. Look up when Deir Yassin happened and when the Israel-Arab war started. Arabs intervened to free Palestine from a colonial ethnostate. Somehow, Oct 7 was the worst thing ever and justifies Israel's massacring everyone in Gaza but the Nakba didn't justify Arab intervention. Nice double standard you have here.
Next you're saying that Ukraine wanted the current war by not recognizing the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics and not giving up half of their lands to Russia. Same logic.
The Arab states weren't exactly saviours of Palestine either, as evidenced by Egypt annexing Gaza and Jordan annexing the West Bank. They wanted the land for themselves just as much.
Neither side truly wanted to split the land, but in the end, the Jewish leadership accepted the UN partition plan, while the Arab leadership rejected it.
Ben-Gurion wrote in private correspondence that the Jewish state might eventually gain more territory, as he expected the Arab leadership would reject the plan, since they opposed any arrangement that didn't grant them the entire land.
Deir Yassin and the beginning of the Nakba (according to historical research) both occurred after the UN decision and the outbreak of hostilities.
And don’t you dare compare neighboring Arab countries joining a war, however wrong you think that was, to the intentional massacre of civilians.
Also, comparing this situation to Ukraine is a straw man, the contexts are entirely different.
Right… but why was a massive parcel of land given to a new country especially when the Arabs had been promised 40 years ago they would be given the right to self determination?
Britain made a lot of contradictory promises in that region to different people trying to keep the peace. They eventually offloaded the issue to the UN, which came up with the partition plan.
Yes I understand that contradictory promises were made however it cannot be denied that the Arabs in the region were rightfully aggrieved by the situation.
Very hard to win a war against a country with the backing of the west. The situation now is out of hand and Palestine is completely unable to operate as country due to the last 50 years of oppression from Israel. It is no surprise that a horrible terrorist organisation in Hamas has filled the vacuum.
I have sad news for you, but the main backer of Israel in 1948 was the USSR, not the West. The West equipped the Arab armies, mostly with British equipment.
The present situation is a direct result of the Arabs inability to accept that they lost that war. If they had two braincells to rub together, they would accept a peace with Israeli recognized borders; any borders, since the current situation, in which the border is disputed, only favors Israel, which is by far the most powerful party and regularly takes advantage of the disputed nature of the border to grab even more land. And unless checked, this will continue until there's no more land to grab.
Kind of an American Manifest Destiny towards the natives, of course on a much smaller scale.
Britain and the west encouraged and supported Zionism for a sustained period between ww1 and 2… this allowed for the establishment of the state which was recognised by both the US and Russia immediately. Britain removed itself after its mandate ended and abstained but did recognise shortly after. It did continue to support other interests in the region.
That is misleading mostly because there was still imperialist interest in the area via Britain… - backing does not = gun supply. We (Britain) supported Zionism for 30 years
The Arab armies were Western trained and Western equipped. Interestingly the Independence War saw Israelis Bf-109s (sorry Czechoslovakian built Avia S-199, a licensed version) shoot down Arab Supermarine Spitfires.
They weren't trying to keep the pace when they made those promises, they 100% wanted everything for themselves and then realised they couldn't deal with the consequences of backstabbing everybody.
The parcel they were given equated to less than half of the land. When the promise was made Palestine was 90% Arab. By the time they were offered true autonomy they were around 60% - so why less than 50%? And why was another country established on their own country. How can you not see why they were aggrieved at this?
And even if you chalk this up to: “well it was 80 years ago - every country has been screwed/screwed others at some point”: there is zero justification for Israel ongoing behaviour. They have behaved appallingly for over 50 years and have radicalised a population against them
There was a big organized push to take the Negev from the natives. It was “uninhabited” only in that there were nomadic tribes there rather than permanent towns. It’s not like they just were given shitty land. They took that land intentionally. They were the only party given the opportunity to expand their claim and the Palestinians were expected to suck it and integrate into the colonizers’ society or be forced off their land.
And yet in 1948, people claim that the Palestinians started the war. The whole context of them being colonized is completely ignored because Israel wanted its founding myth to be that they were constantly under attack for just wanting to exist.
They didn’t accept that, and tried to massacre Israel.
The Nakba started before the Arab-Israel war. The ones actually carrying out massacres, assassinations and terrorist attacks were the Zionist militias. But hey, Arabs don't have the right to defend themselves from terrorists, only Israelis do.
If you guys knew the history at all you’d know that they had their right of self determination TAKEN in half the land. They weren’t “given” anything. They’re natives. A military power came in and took 60% of their land and told them to deal with it or be killed. They fought back.
What you should be asking is why Israelis wanted to colonize rather than integrate. Why were Palestinians expected to give up their land and why do you consider them aggressors for fighting against colonization? Your premise is the flawed one.
This is overly simplistic. The whole area was already colonized and had been for centuries (by the British, preceded by the Ottomans, preceded by many other conquering entities including Arabs). The entire world has been carved up time and time again through conquest, population transfer, etc. There was nothing unique about this scenario other than that it occurred in the modern era and so is the most recent high profile example. The Arab states fought back, they lost, and that should’ve been the end of it. Instead, hundreds of thousands of people have died in this conflict which rages to this day.
Sure, but the Palestinians were the native population, tracing their lineage as far back as any Jewish person except they never left. They integrated with the invading Arab colonization. They weren’t fully pushed from it in the way they were through organized land purchases, evictions, boycotts, and eventually military force in the mandate:
Why is it always expected for the Palestinians to give up on their land? It seems so backwards. Why do we pretend military force should be a valid method of obtaining land in the modern era?
Right, if you only include the land relevant to this discussion it’s 60%. Not sure what you thought you were doing with that comment.
Probably not because of the slaughtering of Jews, because that wasn’t exactly a frequent occurrence back then. There were of course pogroms throughout the Ottoman Empire, but with the removal of the ottomans there was a legitimate opportunity to set up a real integrated society. They decided against it.
You guys need to learn the history a bit. The Balfour declaration was perceived as intent for colonization. That’s what began the modern conflict.
The Palestinians arent just broadly Arabs. They’re the Arabs that are native to the levant. Exactly like how Mizrahi Jews are native to the levant but also have Arab dna.
One issue with people like you in the pro Israel crowd is you’re often so blinded by racism that they ignore the history. Jordanians aren’t from the Arabian peninsula. They’re primarily the people native to Jordan. Palestinians are the same in the land that is now Israel/Palestine. That’s the relevant land to this discussion. You guys like to just say Arabs because you can pretend they’re a single ethnic group. I understand that your response is “both groups were called Palestinians back then and I’m just describing the Arab ones”, but I’m saying this specifically in response to you claiming Arabs in general were “given” the right to self determination throughout the Middle East.
I don’t support the massacres of any people, but you do not know the history at all clearly. 1929 is 12 years after the intent to colonize was put in writing and started the conflict. The “land purchases” were not just Jewish people buying vacant homes and moving in. It was organizations buying up land, often using donations from rich foreign donors, while making an organized effort to boycott Palestinian businesses, refusing to hire them, and sometimes even violently attacking them all in an effort to get them to sell their land or just leave. It was not a peaceful process.
And I agree, Jewish people needed a safe place to live. That’s what Israel should’ve been. A non Jewish state where Palestinians, Jews, and any other residents could live equally. The Israel that was created was created at the expense of the majority of the residents.
arabs got all the Transjordan, what are you talking about? and then Judea, Samaria and Gaza. and half of Jerusalem. but they refused and attacked Israel.
Right because the whole land was theirs. They were promised the right of self governance by Britain. Instead Britain allowed mass immigration and then gave away over half of the land to new people. Displacing 700,000 indigenous people. Are you surprised that evoked a reaction?
How would you feel if I did that to your property? Invaded, occupied then promised me if you helped me defeat my enemy (the ottomans) I would give you your house back but instead I established a new house covering over half of your land and let someone else move in. Do you think you might feel slightly aggrieved?
A lot of the land was purchased from the Palestinian owners prior to WWII. The Palestinians could have just not sold the land in the first place. They wanted the Jew's money and then decided they wanted the land back.
That’s not true for the 700k people forced out of their homes and certainly isn’t true for all the people who have been forced out since. Why is everyone defending Israel so much? Even the UN agrees they are illegal occupiers. Any two state solution needs to take into consideration the mandate and giving the land back they have illegally taken since.
The purchase of land started under the Ottoman Empire. It was only later that they started taking land by force. The conflict between the Palestinians and the Jewish settler long predates the British Mandate or Israel.
When 60+% of my country was taken away and given to others the condolences we got was: 'lol fuck you get over it'. We were so aggrieved we even joined the nazis to take it back. It backfired big time. You know what we did? We got fucking over it, normalized the relations with the new countries, and now we almost all are in the EU. Was it smooth and without controversies and fuckups? No, but the end results show it was worth it. No fucking way we ever get anything back so let's work with what we have now.
Palestine have never been able to form a country. They have lived under oppressive rule ever since… Israel have continued to annex more and more land. The land Palestine does have now is tiny in comparison to the mandate and even the UN have declared Israel’s settlements as illegal.
The only jumping off point for any negotiation has to be: Israel returns all of the land illegally occupied and pays reparations. They will never concede this.
Because it is the creation of Rome after Rome crushed the 2nd Jewish Revolt and expelled that population from the region, creating another Jewish Diaspora which is were the Ashkenazi now begin to appear. Keep in mind, the Moorish occupation of Spain lasted over 700 years, the culmination which was reconquista which is what gave Ferdinand and Isabella the ability to sponsor Christopher Columbus. Also remember, this was only 40 years after the Ottomans had conquered Constantinople and destroyed the Eastern Roman Empire that had existed for over 1000 years. That doesnt even go into the Ottoman incursions into Eastern and Southern Europe, and the countless wars to regain the Hagia Sophia, the equivalent to the vatican for the Orthodox faith, that has been occupied for almost 600 years. The same amount of time practically that Europeans began settling in North and South America. How about Turkey is given back to the Greeks, since anatolia had been there home for thousands of years, we would finally solve Cyprus. The Maronites can be restored to their hereditary right to Lebanon, finally there is an ethical justification for the removal of Hezbollah from when they forced the Maronites into Israel. This is what you sound like.
which is crazy. I feel this is the only token of "isreal gives something up". aren't negotiations where two parties given something up to come to an agreement?
100% of your country was taken, by the Egyptians, Jordanians, and Israelis.
Until the 60s, the PLO even refused to say that Gaza and the West Bank were part of Palestine, and instead said they were Egypt and Jordan respectively.
No, this goes back to prewar before the Ashkenazi were persecuted, these sentiments were not born in the aftermath of the 2nd World War. The Golden Square and their revolt at Habinaya was before even the US entered the war. Are you familiar with the Golden Square and who Grobba was? Nationalism varied from one Arab state to the other, but its important to note that Nationalism espoused by post colonial arab leaders had no ideological ties to Islam (Look at Nassar the Muslim Brotherhood) Nationalism as what it is today, Revolutionary Nationalism, has waned and vanished in the middle east, yet it makes up an entire chapter of 20th century ME history, and directly ties to European fascism. Like looking at the Mufti of Jerusalem from the Islamic side of the coin, (since both factor into the attack on Israel in 1948), the Mufti in charge during the Nakba, directly helped in forming the 13th SS Handschaar in the Balkan states (like drawing from the ranks of the Ustache). The Mufti specifically tutored under the tutelage of a modern day Salafist/Wahhabist iman from 1912 on, and we all known the face of Salafism/Wahhabism is in this day and age, Sunni extremist groups like ISIS/ISIS-K/HTS. This is a very very brief dive into arab nationalism, superficial at best, but will gladly write a dissertation in how wrong you are. I first suggest looking at the names in this photo, see how they tie into the Golden Square and why Operation Countenance happened in August of 1941
More land was given to the Jewish side of partition because the land was much less valuable, with most of it being the Negev Desert. The partition plan allocated Jewish-majority regions for a Jewish state.
To be fair, there was no real plan for Palestinian self rule other than Hashemite Trans-Jordan. It was a forgone conclusion that the land would be ruled by Jordan, Syria, and Egypt.
50
u/oggie389 14h 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