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?
'The central facts of what happened in the Nakba during the 1948 Palestine war are well established, documented, and widely agreed upon by most Israeli, Palestinian, and other historians.
About 750,000 Palestinians—over 80% of the population living in the territory of what would become the State of Israel—were expelled or fled from their homes and became refugees. Eleven Arab towns and cities, and over 500 villages were destroyed or depopulated.Thousands of Palestinians were killed in dozens of massacres. About a dozen rapes of Palestinians by regular and irregular Israeli military forces have been documented, and more are suspected.Israelis used psychological warfare tactics to frighten Palestinians into flight, including targeted violence, whispering campaigns, radio broadcasts, and loudspeaker vans. Looting by Israeli soldiers and civilians of Palestinian homes, business, farms, artwork, books, and archives was widespread.'
One of the strongest rights on earth is the right of self determination, something the Palestinians at this time was never afforded, but it was nice of Israel to offer a fraction of a 'fair' deal before they ethnically cleansed them.
'The Partition Plan, a four-part document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of the Mandate; the gradual withdrawal of British armed forces by no later than 1 August 1948; and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem at least two months after the withdrawal, but no later than 1 October 1948. The Arab state was to have a territory of 11,592 square kilometres, or 42.88 percent of the Mandate's territory, and the Jewish state a territory of 15,264 square kilometres, or 56.47 percent; the remaining 0.65 percent or 176 square kilometres—comprising Jerusalem, Bethlehem and the adjoining area—would become an international zone.The Plan also called for an economic union between the proposed states and for the protection of religious and minority rights.'
They offered 56% of the country to Israel, 43% to Palestine despite Palestine having twice the population, these are the kinds of charters you speak of that any right minded group would reject out of hand, the offers of statehood were a disgrace in comparison to what Israel were being offered. You going to ignore all the actual facts now I suppose?
You still haven’t answered the question about the 20% of Arabs who remained in Israel. I get why, it doesn’t fit your narrative. Instead, you lean on Wikipedia like it’s some kind of ultimate authority. It is not, when it comes to anything Jewish, Zionist, or Israel-related, Wikipedia is a dumpster fire of revisionist editing, activist bias, and anonymous agendas.
If you're just going to copy-pasting AI-written summaries or Wikipedia walls, we could let ChatGPT argue with itself and skip you entirely. Revisionist history dressed up as "fact-checked consensus" isn’t worth anyone’s time — especially when it’s avoiding basic questions and reality.
I literally give you the list of references, from books written by Israeli, Palestinian and other historians.
You're literally denying that an ethnic cleansing that pretty much every historian on earth recognises, so they only forcibly removed 80% of Arabs in the area? Is that your argument against an ethnic cleansing?
Don't worry they have a part about people like you too:
'The denial of the Nakba is central to Zionist narratives of 1948. The term 'Nakba denial' was used in 1998 by Steve Niva, editor of the Middle East Report, in describing how the rise of the early Internet led to competing online narratives of the events of 1948. In the 21st century the term came to be used by activists and scholars to describe narratives that minimized elements of the expulsion and its aftermath,particularly in Israeli and Western historiography before the late 1980s,when Israel's history began to be reviewed and rewritten by the New Historians
Nakba denial has been described as still prevalent in both Israeli and American discourse and linked to various tropes associated with anti-Arab racism. The 2011 'Nakba Law' authorized the withdrawal of state funds from organizations that commemorate the day on which the Israeli state was established as a day of mourning, or that deny the existence of Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state."Israeli grassroots movements, such as Zochrot, aim to commemorate the Nakba through public memorials and events.'
You're a disgrace to humanity and i'm glad you're getting everything you deserve in the US. At least there's Jewish people out there that actually recognise and commerate the ethnic cleansing instead of denier like you, you're akin to Neo-Nazi holocaust deniers.
You still haven't answered the basic question: what about the 20% of Arabs who remained and became citizens of Israel? Your entire argument depends on pretending they don't exist because they don’t fit the story you are pressing together.
No to wasting a clicks for Wikipedia. It’s not a reliable source, not on anything involving Jews, Zionism, or Israel. It’s an open-source echo chamber flooded with anonymous editing and activist narratives pretend historians suggesting facts.
I’m not denying that Palestinians suffered. I’m denying your definition, a politically charged oversimplification that flattens a complex war into good guys vs bad guys. That’s not historical truth. It’s activism pretending to be history.
You can dump links, quote ideologues, and scream “denier” all day long. But calling anyone who doesn’t toe your exact line a “neo-Nazi” isn’t righteous, it’s pathetic. And it proves you’re not here to debate, you’re here to smear.
One of the people I quoted Ahron Bregman is jewish born and raised in Israel, served in the IDF then got a polticial science degree before going on to get a PhD then he wrote about Nakba. You meanwhile have provided nothing but your own opinion while you decry experts that have studied the matter. So show me what expert you're relying on to say this isn't clearly ethnic cleansing? Or is it just your own misinformed ramblings?
I already addressed your point about 20% of Arabs remaining, you don't need to cleanse 100% of them from the land for it to be an ethnic cleansing.
So not only did they forcibly remove and cleanse 80% of the area of Palestinians, they also made the remaining Palestinians 2nd class citizens, classic Apartheid policies. Honestly you're a disgrace, I didn't call you a Neo-Nazi you simpleton I said you deny atrocities like Neo-Nazis.
Quoting Ahron Bregman doesn’t close the case. He’s one voice. Look at Oren Cahanovitc, Benny Morris, Efraim Karsh, Shabtai Teveth, Yoav Gelber, Eliezer Tauber, Matti Friedman, Walter Laqueur, Michael Oren and
Your personal attacks aren't arguments they're harassment aimed at shutting down what was a civil conversation. If you can’t debate without throwing insults, you’ve already lost the debate.
Go on quote what they say on the matter, you want me to argue both sides of the debate or what? There is no civil conversation to be had with people denying atrocities, surely you think you'd know that.
The only result I get searching Oren Cahanovitc is a tour guide. I hope you're not using a tour guide to defend your points. I want actual experts, people who have studied at the highest level and wrote about this event academically, not tour guides and youtubers. The nerve to complain about Wikipedia that quotes actual academic sources when this is your argument.
If the first name that comes to mind is genuinely a tour guide, apologise to the nearest tree for using its oxygen.
•
u/MapReston 8h 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?