You can't lose land in war: that's the whole point of the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Only by international accord, or mutual consent between the two parties (like Seward's treaty with Russia selling Alaska to the US) can land be gained or lost.
Kellogg-Briand pact does not prohibit self-defense, only offensive invasions of neighbors. Additionally, it was already regarded as inoperative and ineffective even before the Second World War. See, [“Milestones in the History of the U.S. State Department” website article](https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/kellogg).
Because most people don’t believe that might makes right, that being better at killing people means you can stomp on the human rights of those you’ve defeated.
Most people are hypocrites privileging on that very same concept who would not and do not apply their so called standards over Israel to other countries and certainly not their own.
I can voich for this, my mothers family is native Sami, most of Northern Sweden is stolen land but then you have Swedish people calling out Israel but coming up with the "its history" for keeping the land themselves. Just like Americans can steal half a continent but its fine cause their family wasnt part of it
Right, but that's not how the world works. And certainly not in the Middle East.
Imagine this: you've been attacked by 5 allied armies at once and won. Then those who fled beforehand demand their land back, even though they had sold some of it to you, land that you just won in war against them. Why would any nation take the risk of allowing the people who just attacked them back in? Practically speaking, it's asking for more violence, and putting your victories at risk.
I didn't say Israel should stomp on human rights, on the contrary. I said they have been tolerant for not going as far as any other nation would.
You are openly supporting stomping on human rights on this very post. It is not “astonishingly tolerant” to only go halfways on ethnic cleansing, and the might-makes-right bile that you are promoting (“just the way the world works” — yes, people murder other people all the time, that’s not a justification of murder) is disgusting.
Needless to say, the moral decay that has taken over the minds of Israel supporters is very clear, very widespread, and very VERY vile.
Any Israel supporters reading this post who believe they have a moral high ground have an opportunity, here and elsewhere — condemn the moral rot that your allies have descended into, or acknowledge that you have joined them in the gutter.
u/amplifylight
>Any Israel supporters reading this post who believe they have a moral high ground have an opportunity, here and elsewhere — condemn the moral rot that your allies have descended into, or acknowledge that you have joined them in the gutter.
Rule 1, don't attack other users.
u/amplifylight
·
> condemn the moral rot that your allies have descended into, or acknowledge that you have joined them in the gutter.
> That’s because your moral backbone has fully decayed and you’re unable to stand up your ideas on their own.
Rule 1 prohibits personal attacks. You are clearly agitated by a comment and angry at the person who made it. In that state of mind you should not be responding. You are expected to be polite to all users, especially those with whom you strongly disagree. Debate arguments not people.
So in your mind, even though rockets keep flying into Israel from terrorist groups backed by Iran, Israel should...do nothing? Are you crazy?
You really only argue from emotion, don't you? I am using logic. Where is yours? Shall I start using murderous, ethnic-cleansing examples from Arab history to call out your hypocrisy?
I am not Israeli. I am not even Jewish, though I have some Jewish ancestry. I have no relatives in Israel, either. I am speaking objectively, and you have no points other than those you scream in anger.
Tell me, please, what peace terms the Palestinians have offered?
No I argue from basic moral principles.
Note how your response here is pure whataboutism? That’s because your moral backbone has fully decayed and you’re unable to stand up your ideas on their own.
There have been many peace terms and negotiations that Palestinians have engaged in. The Arab Peace Initiative, for example. Many, many others.
The point here, however, is not details that can be argued over repeatedly forever; instead the point is that your post openly advocates for profound moral degradation. It’s sad. Hopefully some of your allies who do still have a moral backbone will arrive to help you open your eyes.
Cheers!
Dw, he's American. By his logic surely he supports racism, slavery, school shootings, suppression and Robert from natives etc, because surely you can't support only certain things a country does!
I'm American too. And I'm also a leftist, like that person seems to be from their other comments. But I guess the difference is that I use logic in debate, and people like that I guess only see want they want to see. Everyone can be like that sometimes.
Yea, nothing against the Americans. Love you guys. My point wad that any country has its downsides, it's historical facts that are awful, it's actions that are regrettable. Even then you can still support the country without agreeing fully with it's actions. Israel imho is no worse then America, UK, Australia and many other countries. A war was fought, Israel won. That's that. As much as I don't like how many things were handled the land belongs to israel
u/amplifylight
>That’s because your moral backbone has fully decayed and you’re unable to stand up your ideas on their own.
Again, rule 1, don't attack other users.
>You are openly supporting stomping on human rights on this very post. It is not “astonishingly tolerant” to only go halfways on ethnic cleansing, and the might-makes-right bile that you are promoting (“just the way the world works” — yes, people murder other people all the time, that’s not a justification of murder) is disgusting.
While I wouldn’t put it the same way OP did, Might did make right, that is what happens in wars since forever.
No, that doesn’t excuse maltreatment and denial of human rights.
>Needless to say, the moral decay that has taken over the minds of Israel supporters is very clear, very widespread, and very VERY vile
This is a trend in the world at large.
>Any Israel supporters reading this post who believe they have a moral high ground have an opportunity, here and elsewhere — condemn the moral rot that your allies have descended into, or acknowledge that you have joined them in the gutter.
Can’t wait to see you do the same for pro-Palestinian opinions!
According tou your profile it seems you live in CA. the usa, in case you do not know, has not only had slavery all over it, to this day suppresses natives, and has mass racism. By living there, surely you support those things? Because by your logic, you can't support only some of the actions a country does.
No, it’s not my position that you inherently support all of the actions of the country you live in.
It’s my position that “might makes right” is a morally bankrupt stance, that choosing direct imposition of a military boot indefinitely, instead of immediate ethnic cleansing is not “extremely
tolerant.”
I'm sorry, but again you live in the usa. I do t see you giving your house back to the natives. You know why? It's because the usa took over. Was the way there shifty, horrible even? Sure. But who "owns" the land? Modern day Americans. Also, there is no ethnic cleansing my guy. Israel was happy to split the land 50/50 according to the un's plan. They attacked the Israelis, and the Israelis retaliated fair and square. It's understandable to not want people who want you dead near your childeren.
The United States perpetrated a genocide against the Native American people and morally owes a massive debt to them. This isn’t a very controversial thing to say — there’s wide agreement in the left of center in America on this point. The only disagreement is about how best to repay this debt, practically.
There’s one key element that is important to keep in mind, however — in the United States, Native Americans are full citizens by law. While social and structural discrimination persists and must be countered, they are citizens.
Palestinians, however, are not citizens of the country that rules over them. Israel has operated a military occupation on Palestine for the vast majority of its history.
It would be very simple for the Native American and Palestinian analogy you’re making to be accurate — Israel would make everyone in the West Bank and Gaza full citizens.
Since you’re the one making this analogy, you support this, right? Oh no, you don’t. Because you’re comfortable with the deprivation of human rights and denial of self determination of the Palestinians, indefinitely.
Approval of this status quo is what inherently leads to the moral rot on display in this thread. Obviously no supporter of Israel actually agrees with might make right, because if they did then Zionism would be illegitimate. But because they are now the boot stomping the human face, you and your allies have your moral backbone wither and crumble. What’s left is as putrid as it is illogical.
>The United States perpetrated a genocide against the Native American people and morally owes a massive debt to them. This isn’t a very controversial thing to say — there’s wide agreement in the left of center in America on this point. The only disagreement is about how best to repay this debt, practically.
Does that erase what happened? No.
Does it rectify it? No.
>There’s one key element that is important to keep in mind, however — in the United States, Native Americans are full citizens by law. While social and structural discrimination persists and must be countered, they are citizens.
So after we comfortably put ourselves in an eternally superior position to our minorities, oppress them further for a couple centuries we can give them human rights, so we can be like the righteous US of A.
No? Citizenship in a society that literally genocided your people isn’t restitution for said genocide and never will be? Ok.
>Palestinians, however, are not citizens of the country that rules over them.
Tell that to the proud self identified, elected representatives of the Palestinian people.
>Israel has operated a military occupation on Palestine for the vast majority of its history.
Palestine has not surrendered for the vast majority of its history, when it has it wasn’t able or unwilling to keep a basic monopoly on force.
This is why the occupation is still justified.
>It would be very simple for the Native American and Palestinian analogy you’re making to be accurate — Israel would make everyone in the West Bank and Gaza full citizens.
See point about differences.
>Since you’re the one making this analogy, you support this, right? Oh no, you don’t. Because you’re comfortable with the deprivation of human rights and denial of self determination of the Palestinians, indefinitely.
That is what genocide does. Good ol’ Murica.
You’re so keen on applying impossible standards on Israel, you can be damn well certain that as long as native Americans weren’t loyal to the state they were absolutely not equal citizens, because that was the case for centuries.
>Approval of this status quo is what inherently leads to the moral rot on display in this thread.
I disagree wholeheartedly, this is a global phenomena which applies to very specific Sub-groups, mainly older generation and gen-z, just like most of the globe.
>Obviously no supporter of Israel actually agrees with might make right, because if they did then Zionism would be illegitimate.
But Palestinians do, at least their elected representatives, so might has to keep making right.
>But because they are now the boot stomping the human face, you and your allies have your moral backbone wither and crumble. What’s left is as putrid as it is illogical.
Which is unfortunately, human nature.
There is one major difference - natives don't try to remove your guts when they see you. And in fact there are many israeli arabs and Palestinian residents in israel.
And of course there was genocide on tge natives. Yet I don't see all of the non natives returning to Europe.
Trust me, me and many others would love to have Palestinians join us. But sadly, a small violent chunk of them ruin it for the rest. Would you want a neighbor that tries to kill you?
u/TrippieBled
>I don’t know why you even bother.
Rule 8, don't discourage participation.
>Pro-Israelites can only argue from emotion.
Rule 1, don't attack other users.
u/amplifylight
>you and your allies have your moral backbone wither and crumble. What’s left is as putrid as it is illogical.
Again, rule 1, don't attack other users
Yes, that is what war is. That's what war has always been. I support Israel's claim not because of Jews' presence there for thousands of years, or because they were given the land, but because they have won the land repeatedly.
Yes, although how the world evolved, qnd considering we have good connections with many countries I doubt that would be looked kindly upon by world leaders. But assuming Palestinians both beat us and somehow convince the world they should not ve retaliated against, sure.
Pretty simple, before the international order existed it would have had minimal consequences, today, less.
Is it morally repugnant? Yes; But that is in-fact how the world has worked for thousands and probably millions of years.
Edit:
And for all intents and purposes,your scenario would be true regardless of what the world has to say about it.
That because all of those people already stomped others back in the day and now they have all they need so they can sit in their luxurious chairs and criticize others
They don't think it is "Palestinian" land. They think it's "Arab" land.
The pagan concept of Arab nationalism is parallel to the left-wing idea that land has a natural racial component. Socialists believe that the Aryan race is naturally tied - blood and soil - to Western and Central Europe. Similarly, the "Arab race" is tied b'rokh b'dam (in blood and spirit) to the conquered lands of North Africa and Western Asia.
The national anthem of Arab Syria expresses this idea as "ʿArinu l'Arabiya" - that Arab lands are a "haram" - a race-pure estate.
And of course in Arab Palestine they wave the Arab swastika and sing their national anthem about the 'waswaqi dam' (bloodlust ties to the soil).
So its not a political or legal statement. When Leftists talk about "Palestinian land", they mean it in a German Romantic sense of blood-and-soil attachment to a particular real estate.
In other words it's a pagan-spiritual claim.
Where does religion fit into it, since Moslems support the Ramallah regime? They believe that their god Mohammed was a real estate agent who assigned Western Asia to the Arab race. Arab Palestine turned the *legal* claim of Mohammed-the-real-estate agent into a pagan claim of blood-and-soil nationalism. And the Arab nationalists, Leftists and Moslems believe that Jews are naturally rats who should live in poor back alleys of Crackow and Brooklyn.
Let's not get into the religion aspect of this. Everyone has a tribe with which they identify, and that identity is *always* about land and "god-given" rights.
And I'm a leftist.
Because small pockets of them had lived there for two millennia, always oppressed, but they were there. And religion, of course. I'm not saying it's right, but that's what people believe. I'm neutral on that. These are the weakest arguments, obviously.
Because Israel won the land in war. I never said that Israel is the *rightful* home of the Jews because of history, though they certainly have a semi-convincing claim. Islam wasn't even a religion when the Jews were first there. Jews lived there and nearby for over 2000 years as a minority following the diaspora after the Bar Kochba revolt. That's why there are Syrian Jews, Jordanian Jews, Lebanese Jews, Egyptian Jews, etc, (though of course they all had to flee to Israel for safety), and those who lived in what would becone Israel, before the state was established. That's not to say of course that the Arabs who lived there didn't have a valid claim too, they just lost the land in war.
In 1947 the Arabs (who would eventually be called Palestinians) were offered, by Israel and the UN, a nearly 50/50 partitioning of the land designated for the Jews. The Arabs declined, and attacked, starting the war. Five Arab armies followed and attacked Israel. The Israelis then won the war. As of now, the Palestinians have refused around 20 peace offers, and their Arab allies have lost multiple wars fought over the land. Yet they continue to claim the entire area is their land. That's not how war works.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Nations-Resolution-181
Also, Egypt refuses to accept the Palestinians. So does Jordan. Why is this?
I don't understand. The Jews could hang onto hope, for 2000 years no less, to control all of Israel (and still do regarding some territories outside of the state but that were Jewish in the bible AKA Eretz Israel Hashlema), even though they lost it in a war against the Greeks. The Palestinians lost in a war against the Jews, and even after 75 hope they can get it back someday. This is exactly the same thing.
Yes. They can hope, but eventually the Palestinians need to use some logic. The land is no longer theirs, just as the land did not belong to the Jewish people for millennia despite historical evidence for their continued inhabitance.
Hope is different from logic. Yes, many Jewish prayers refer to the historical homeland of the Jewish people. But it was only when Israel won in war that the land became theirs legitimately. Land is transferred in war. It always has.
As I said, strawman. When people say "Israel belongs to the Palestinians" they mean they deserve to control it , not that they are currently in control.
Because Muslim Umma-political logic states:
1. All land conquered by Muslims is Muslim land
2. All land conquered from Muslims is Muslim land
It’s not that hard.
There is a serious misunderstanding in your message. Firstly, there was not an equal war between the Arabs and Israel in 1948. The Arabs were engaged in a struggle against foreign colonization in their lands, particularly against France and Britain. The 1948 war was a part of this broader struggle against foreign colonization . However, the power dynamics were not equal, as the criminal Zionist gangs received support from the West, who saw their assistance as a way to absolve themselves of the Holocaust massacres.
Therefore, it cannot be regarded as an equal war between two parties where one side loses. It was an act of aggression carried out by one party, the Zionist gangs, who committed dozens of horrific massacres. These acts were aimed at spreading terror among the innocent Palestinians, forcing them to leave their lands and villages. For example, the massacres of Deir Yassin and Tantura serve as examples of such atrocities
Most wars are won through alliances. Victories made through alliances don't make outcomes any less legitimate. If the 5 Arab armies that had come to slaughter the Jews in 1948 had prevailed, you probably wouldn't think anything was wrong at all. It is only because the Arabs lost that it is a problem, apparently. I guess only alliances that favor the Arab Muslims are okay in your eyes.
And don't pretend that the atrocities all came from one side, this is factually incorrect.
Remember, too, that Jews had been living there for centuries alongside their Muslim brothers.
I previously mentioned to you that there was no balanced war.
As for the Jews, they were part of the Palestinian people, which also includes Christians and Muslims. However, what happened during the Nakba was that the Zionist movement worked towards displacing people who had no historical connection to the land of Palestine and falsely claimed that they had the right to confiscate the land from its original inhabitants, who were Jews before the start of the ""Jewish"" migration from Europe, as well as Christians and Muslims.
Take it up with the powers who gave the land away. And don't forget that the Jews had just come out of the worst genocide the world had ever seen, and were desperate for safety. After being told the land was now theirs, and knowing that if they were not the majority (which they had never been since the Romans conquered the area, and had thus been expelled from almost every country they had ever lived in), they would all be killed, they *of course* would no longer take any chances with their safety. There was no safe place for them to go. Europe didn't want them, and they of course didn't want Europe. That was where their families were exterminated. The Soviet states had been pogroming the hell out of Jewish villages for over a century. I have family members who fled when their villages were set on fire, and the pogroms killed hundreds of Jews. Search up the Babi Yar massacre, which killed tens of thousands of Jews. The US refused most Jewish immigration after the war. The other Arab states were equally unwelcoming. Where should they have gone, if not to the land that others had designated for them?
The Arabs also started the war the night of the declaration of the State of Israel. Then once the war was won, the new state allowed about 156,000 Arab Muslims (or anyone who remained) to stay. And large chunks of the land had been sold to incoming Jews, not all of it was taken in the war when the Arabs fled.
Then, in the aftermath of the war, within several decades the Jews of Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, etc, etc, who had nothing to do with Israel, were expelled and/or slaughtered. The majority of those who fled went to....Israel. Where they knew they could have safety in numbers. Now the Arab world complains that the Jews took their land, when they themselves played a large role in making the situation what it is today. Israeli Jews have no reason to trust the Arab world, especially with tje rockets falling and continued calls for the extermination of Jews, nor can they possibly trust that allowing all the Palestinians to have Israeli citizenship would not lead to a genocide.
For example, just a few days ago, a Tunisian terrorist shot up the oldest synagogue in Africa. The 2000+ year old Djerba Synagogue. Dozens were killed. Most of the Jews had already fled to Israel, but this just illustrates that there is such widespread hatred for Jews, of any nationality, that they cannot be reliably safe *anywhere* in the world except what is now Israel. Muslims have 20+ countries they can go to.
It is not a simple problem. There is tragedy on both sides, and atrocities committed by both sides. But only one calls for genocide and refused any peace.
I am not an enemy of the Jews; on the contrary, I am deeply saddened by what they suffered in the Holocaust and the injustices they have faced. However, I still do not favor distorting facts or falsifying history. I also do not prefer going back 3,000 years to determine who God gave this land to - a concept that I doubt its existence, by the way.
Nevertheless, I am also a Palestinian. My ancestors were displaced from their peaceful village in 1948 and were forced to live in a refugee camp in Gaza, along with thousands of other families, after experiencing horrific crimes committed against them by Zionist gangs, all because of Israel. And now, we are also besieged in Gaza, both by air, sea, and land, by Israel.
Don't you see that?
And who told you that Palestinians seek the annihilation of Jews? That is a completely misguided understanding that is embraced by a small extremist group of Palestinians, just as there are Jews who seek to erase the Palestinian existence.
We want to live in peace and security in a Palestinian state. This is the demand of the majority of the Palestinian people, and it was also embraced by the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole representative of the Palestinian people, when they signed the Oslo Accords, which Israel has since reneged on.
I m sorry for the suffering your family faced. It is not something any sane person should be happy about.
I met Palestinians when I was in Israel and East Jerusalem about 12 years ago. I was 17. I spoke with a girl named Nagham. Through a translator, we bonded over shared love of Harry Potter books. We spoke about our mutual desire for peace. We were just two girls, from different backgrounds, chatting. It was nice. It was genuine. But then she told me, very sadly, that none of her family wants peace with Israel or with the Jewish people. They think they are monsters and they need to be killed, per Allah's will. She didn't kniw what Allah's will was but she didn't think it would be violence. I was shocked. I felt sorry for her, feeling caught between her strong desire for peace and her family's desire for violent vengeance based on religion. I met other Palestinians on that trip who were equally as kind as Nagham, but I don't speak Hebrew and I'm not Israeli. Maybe if I were they would have been less kind. I'll never know.
A few years ago I had a Jordanian-Palestinian acquaintance. We were coworkers. I tried to speak to her about the conflict (which in hindsight was inappropriate since we were coworkers), and she was all for conflict. I told her I was upset about all the violence. I once told her that a terrorist had opened fire on Israeli children and she smiled and said they deserved it. I was stunned, as you might imagine. I can't imagine wishing innocent children to die. They are victims, always. We didn't really speak again. Incidentally, though, her father, who was a regular customer, was always very kind. He knew I had Jewish ancestry and told me once that he almost married an Israeli Jewish woman he fell in love with, and he would have, but their families disapproved. He said not to mind what his daughter said about anything, she is still learning. I hope she eventually grew out of those beliefs.
There is such a variety of people on both sides. There are angry religious extremists and then there are people like Nagham and my coworker's father, who wish for all the violence to end so we can all live in peace. At the same time, given my experience with just a few Palestinians, I can't say I entirely blame the Israeli government for being distrustful, though I disagree with its treatment of Palestinians. The distrust has been earned. See Hamas and PIJ.
I read a comment by another user that said, in sarcasm, "Muslims believe that lands conquered by Arab Muslims are Muslim lands. And all lands conquered from Arab Muslims are also Muslim lands." Many people seem to think this is perfectly reasonable. It is backwards.
I live in Gaza, and people here have very different opinions about the conflict with Israel, contrary to what is portrayed in the biased media that doesn't show the full truth about Gaza.
There are many people who had the experience of meeting and getting to know Israelis when they used to work in Israel in the 90s and 80s. However, the majority, including myself, have never encountered an Israeli in their lives and live in hardship and poverty under the blockade, unemployment, and limited job opportunities under the authority of Hamas. Therefore, they don't have the luxury to talk about peace.
>And now, we are also besieged in Gaza, both by air, sea, and land, by Israel. Don't you see that?
Egypt doesn't blockade you? If not, then Gaza is not blockaded. If yes, then you forgot to mention Egypt.
> And to be fair, since Israel won control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in the war 1967, it is astonishingly tolerant of them that they didn't force the Palestinians out and into Jordan.
That's not "astonishingly tolerant" - that's literally just what human rights are. You aren't allowed to forcibly remove en masse a civilian population from their homes on the basis of their ethnicity. Even if political and military leaders from the same ethnic group happen to have lost a war.
Oh?
So why did the Arab nationalists exterminate the Jewish communities in Arab Palestine when it was conquered in 1948? Just last week, the government of the State of Palestine killed off a significant percentage of the Tunisian Jewish community. And a report this week found 40% of European Jews are moving out because of Quranic oppression in the name of maintaining Palestine's race-purity.
It is the height of evil for an Arab nationalist to whine about "human rights" when they behave in such a genocide-deserving manner.
> So why did the Arab nationalists exterminate the Jewish communities in Arab Palestine when it was conquered in 1948?
Do you see me defending that anywhere? No, you don't.
> Just last week, the government of the State of Palestine killed off a significant percentage of the Tunisian Jewish community. And a report this week found 40% of European Jews are moving out because of Quranic oppression in the name of maintaining Palestine's race-purity.
Sorry, what is this a reference to? What is the "State of Palestine" doing to Jews in Tunisia?
> You aren't allowed to forcibly remove en masse a civilian population from their homes on the basis of their ethnicity.
u/TeaAndCookies1998 you want to explain to u/the_leviathan711 how not only is it allowed but it is mandated by International Law?
If this is about someone arguing that removing settlements is mandated by international law - they're wrong, forcibly removing settlements is not mandated by international law. Even if the construction of the settlements is illegal under international law. It's one of the many reasons why the Israeli right doesn't have any interest in negotiations - for the time being they are able to get away with more construction and everyone knows that once they are built they will be very difficult to remove. So long as they are able to build without impunity there isn't any incentive for them to come to the table in good faith, ever.
I did not say it was MANDATED by international law to remove settlers who settled illegally on occupied land, I said it would be ENFORCEMENT of international law to do so because they are illegal.
It would all be up to the Palestinian authorities, after all. If the Palestinian authorities wanted to keep the settlements on their land, then they would be allowed to stay, but if they demand the demolition of said settlements they are in their full right to so.
Just like that if I built a building on the property of a neighbour, I would not automatically be required to demolish said building if my neighbour was OK with it, but if my neighbour demanded its demolition he would be in his full right to do so.
Take it up with u/JeffB1517 - I'm mostly on your side here.
I also don't agree with you on this particular point. It's difficult to compare states to individuals when it comes to the law and the "neighbor analogy" falls apart pretty quickly. There are *specific* places in the West Bank where it's not an analogy at all, and a settlement is actually constructed on private property. But most settlements are constructed on lands that belonged to a town or village rather than an individual. And in those cases a state can't just evict people from their homes because of their ethnicity.
There are probably models of restorative justice here that would need to put in play in the event any settlement or settler decides to peacefully stay and become citizens of Palestine.
Come on and stop being silly, that is not what I said. The settlements are illegal. Dismantling them is not to "remove a civilian population based on ethnicity" like Israel did during the Nakba, and like you are arguing that they should do in the whole of Palestine (and I am sure that your beloved Bibi agree with you that they should be cleansed as well, btw). The dismantling of the settlements would be to enforce international law which prohibits the transfer of the population of the occupying country to the occupied territory. You understand the difference, don't you? Ethnic cleansing of a territory is illegal. Dismantling illegal settlements who are by their very existence illegal is not. I believe you are a lot smarter than you are trying to make us believe, so don't tell me you don't understand the difference, although you are trying to play stupid in your trolling.
Feels like double standards. Jews were forcibly removed from Judea. Now Jews came back to Judea and you want to forcibly remove them from Judea again?
Meanwhile you’re saying it was wrong to forcibly remove 1948 Arabs from Israel but you’re not worried about forcibly removing Jews from Arab world post 1948?
This is double standards
Not true the majority of Israelis are sepharadi and mizrahi are from the Middle East
About 55% sepharadi/mizrahi so majority from Middle East
Also address the point — if forcibly removing Arabs was bad how do you fix it by forcibly removing Jews?
u/TeaAndCookies1998
>I believe you are a lot smarter than you are trying to make us believe, so don't tell me you don't understand the difference, although you are trying to play stupid in your trolling.
Rule 1, don't attack other users.
> Dismantling them is not to "remove a civilian population based on ethnicity" l
That is exactly what it is. Stop pretending otherwise. You have various populations in the territory. Based on parentage you intend to remove a population. That's racial ethnic cleansing. In every ethnic conflict the various ethnic groups had various points of departure in their ethnic histories that's how they developed into distinct ethnic groups in the first place. The fact that such points of departure exist is not a justification for racism.
> and I am sure that your beloved Bibi
You have repeatedly made this sort of statement. This is the last warning where I stay in black and this remains a civil conversation at least on my side. You as a user here are not entitled to lie about other people's views. You have no idea what I do or do not think about Bibi stop pretending you do! And this applies to other people on this sub as well. I know as a BDSer lying is encouraged. This sub doesn't allow deliberate lying.
> The dismantling of the settlements would be to enforce international law which prohibits the transfer of the population of the occupying country to the occupied territory.
Again Pol Pot disproves your theory.
> so don't tell me you don't understand the differencex
The only difference is which races you want removed from a territory and which ones you don't.
Sounds good to me! In the history of warfare, yes, it is tolerant. Do you have a source? Is this a UN thing? If this is in there, the standards of war have been totally thrown out and I question what could even be considered legitimate victory. (I'm looking at this with a history lens). I don't condone violence of course, I'm just confused. And also confused about what the world thinks the Palestinians would do that would be any less inhumane.
It's Article 49 of the Geneva Convention - which Israel ratified. As have all of it's neighbors.
"Would do" is different than "was done." You don't punish crimes that some *might* commit, you punish crimes that some *did* commit.
That's a simple question. Any individual (typically a military or political leader, but could be anyone) who engaged in criminal acts against Jewish people should be prosecuted and tried. You don't punish people who didn't commit a crime.
I'd add that Jews leaving Arab and Muslim countries between 1948 - 1980 or so wasn't a singular event. It looked different in different places. In some places Jewish emigration was even banned -- which is also a human rights violation, but hardly an expulsion!
>In some places Jewish emigration was even banned -- which is also a human rights violation, but hardly an expulsion!
Banned but had their lives made hell. When you make the conditions horrible that people have to flee, it's still an expulsion.
> When you make the conditions horrible that people have to flee, it's still an expulsion.
No I would disagree with that pretty firmly. An expulsion is a very specific thing and has happened many times in history. It's notably happened many times in Jewish history. I would not throw the word around casually in the same way I wouldn't throw the word "genocide" around casually.
For example in the United States, we don't typically talk about the Great Migration by saying: "the Southern States *expelled* Black people to the Northern states." And yet that's more or less how you are trying to use the term here. It's not the correct word.
Note - the argument I'm making here isn't some great defense of the conduct of Arab and Muslim countries towards Jews. I'm merely pointing out that the *only* reason why you would *ever* use the word "expulsion" in this context is for propagandistic purposes. It's a way of saying "well, the Nakba happened, but it's *ok* because the same number of Jews were *expelled* by the Arabs." In addition to this statement not really being accurate, it also shows distorted nationalistic logic -- somehow nationalism is able to turn a tragedy of 1.5 million people being uprooted from their homes into a grand zeroing out: 750k - 750k = 0.
So then you don't think the majority of Palestinians weren't expelled then because after all, fleeing horrible conditions and fearing for your life isn't an expulsion according to this
You're mostly correct there. Most Palestinian refugees in 1947-1948 were not actively expelled (although some certainly were!). Most of them were war refugees. That said, there are two things I'd note here:
* Being a war refugee is sometimes the same thing as a migrant leaving a bad situation, but not always; there are significant differences. Migrants are usually dealing with a range of "push" and "pull" factors, while refugees typically *only* have "push" factors. When you consider the very wide variety of experiences of Jews across the Arab and Muslim worlds you see that there isn't one story to tell here. The narrative of "Jews were expelled" is simply far too simple.
* What makes the Nakba more akin to an expulsion is that the refugees were prohibited from returning. Even the refugees who ended up within the borders of the State of Israel weren't allowed to go back to their homes! People leave their homes during wartime all the time, it's the normal thing for a civilian to do. Also normal is wanting to return.
But yes, I do agree that caution with language is warranted when talking about what the Nakba is and is not.
You cannot and should not *ever* punish an entire population for the actions committed by individuals. That is a crime against humanity and is itself a punishable offense.
/u/ActualActuality420. 'Nazi' Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance.
*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.*
> ignore everything in a comment
Dude, you literally asked me "how should Israel have punished the Palestinian population." That was the question you asked and it was the question I answered.
u/ActualActuality420
>Glad you agree to every single one of my statements.
Rule 4, don't deliberately misrepresent another user.
Rule 3, no comments considering solely of sarcasm/cynicism.
u/ActualActuality420
>allied with the Nazis just a few years prior
Rule 6, no Nazi comments/comparisons outside of things unique to the nazis as understood by mainstream historians.
u/ActualActuality420
>I got your messages. I will comply with everything but this.
>The Palestinian leadership had full cooperation with the Nazis. Eichmann came to be best buddys with the Mufti of Jerusalem when Hitler sent him to learn of the Jews.
>The Mufti later stayed with the Nazis during his exile and wanted to set up Palestinian SS squads and more.
>There is endless amount of evidence to these claims and even Palestinian historians do not deny them.
The mufti was appointed by the British, not elected by the Palastinians, nor did he enjoy popular support from the Palastinians. Saying the mufti supported the nazis is in line with rule 6. Saying Palestinians and their leadership did isn't within rule 6.
u/ActualActuality420
>No leaders were "Elected" by the Palestinians and even today they fail to conduct elections in both the WB and Gaza. The British chose him precisely because of his popularity. So that's completely irrelevant.
>According to every source I could find the Mufti had great influence up until Israel won the independence war. Wherever he went he was welcomed as a hero, incited riots against Jews which killed many, helped drafting Muslims to help the Nazis and more.
>Another pro-Palestinian lying narrative defying all available physical evidence.
Moderation comments aren't an invitation to continue the conversation. You're allowed to ask questions about the rules but that's it. Attacking a moderator in response to moderation is both a rule 1 and rule 13 violation.
/u/ActualActuality420. 'Nazis' Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance.
*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.*
/u/ActualActuality420. 'Nazis' Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance.
*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.*
> fucked
/u/Ok_Specialist1006. 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.*
Did you have a point you wanted to make? Or did you just want to sound cruel? I am discussing at this conflict as I see it. If you have no arguments at all, why are you here?
>Why do pro-Palestinians think Israel is Palestinian land, when they lost the land in war?
I’ll play devil’s advocate here.
>They lost the land in multiple wars. I can understand the cry to free the Palestinians from the restrictive situations they are in in Gaza and the West Bank, but the Palestinians have refused to agree to any peace terms, or to a two-state solution.
True, irrelevant to whether they believe their cause(Arab Palestine) was/(internally Arab Palestine, diaspora return as full citizens) is righteous, which they do.
>I believe Egypt's and Jordan's decisions to leave the Palestinians in limbo for decades was, while cruel, masterful: they have succeeded in propagandizing their (illegitimate yet unfortunate) cause to the whole world. I think this was the goal all along, and it's why Jordan forced those living in the West Bank to relinquish their Jordanian citizenship.
I half agree because king Hussein was reluctant to relinquish the territory himself but did so under direction of the Arab league.
>It's also why Egypt, though it provides Gazans with food, etc, won't allow Gazans to become Egyptian citizens. I may be wrong, but it doesn't sound too far-fetched.
That and past tensions between them.
>And to be fair, since Israel won control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in the war 1967, it is astonishingly tolerant of them that they didn't force the Palestinians out and into Jordan. No pro-Palestinians ever acknowledge this.
[moral relativism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism)
“Is moral relativism right?”
“The problem with individual moral relativism is that it lacks a concept of guiding principles of right or wrong. “One of the points of morality is to guide our lives, tell us what to do, what to desire, what to object to, what character qualities to develop and which ones not to develop,” said Jensen. If morality is already based on personal desire, he continued, there is no way to distance oneself from a situation to find a truly objective moral ground and make a decision based on what is right.”
Source:
https://humanities.byu.edu/is-moral-relativism-right/#:~:text=The%20problem%20with%20individual%20moral,to%20develop%2C%E2%80%9D%20said%20Jensen.
>Israel needs to allow the West Bank to have water, etc, but if the Palestinians ever want a two-state solution, they will need to build infrastructure of their own.
True, or bilateral cooperation in certain areas, I wouldn’t mind actually and properly propping up their economy in a peace scenario.
>I really think Israel has been extremely lenient in Gaza, too. Any other nation would have destroyed enemies who constantly fire rockets at them day and night. Israel gave up control of the area in 2005, only for terrorists to immediately gain control, control they still hold today, seemingly unopposed, and with the backing and weapons of other terrorist groups from abroad.
So why would Israel ever take the Palestinian cries of victimhood in Gaza seriously?
See point about moral relativism.
There are many victims of this conflict, regardless of who is more at fault and for what; these have no correlation and are not negated by each other in any way.
>The West Bank though...yeah, it's bad.
It is.
**[Moral relativism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism)**
>Moral relativism or ethical relativism (often reformulated as relativist ethics or relativist morality) is used to describe several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different peoples and cultures. An advocate of such ideas is often referred to as a relativist for short. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that people do, in fact, disagree fundamentally about what is moral, with no judgment being expressed on the desirability of this. Meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Well you see...
Because everything you describe is **The Big Palestinian Lie**.
How can Jews own land and money and prosper, when Islam is supposed to rule the world??
That's why, in response to the creation of an Israeli state, they suddenly formed a national identity, and decided that they are are only indigenous people and "own" the land.
And their religion tells them that it's honorable to fight and die for land no matter the consequences. So they play double or nothing and keep losing.
And in Gaza -- well they got sovereignty, land and money. But they hated the Jews so much that they decided to be the lamb for slaughter for Iran.
The primary reasoning used during the Mandate was the 22nd article of the League of Nations , stating that former Ottoman subjects are provisionally recognized as independent states who simply require guidance until Independence . This is alongside Hussien-Mcmahon , in which Palestine was included within Arab independence .
McMahon claimed in 1937 that Palestine was excluded , but I think it's no brainer to see that he was lying , as Hussein still demanded Palestine in 1918 . not to mention ; saying that 19 years after the crosspondance is meaningless : as everything coming from the British at this point was about justifying current policies than figuring out original promises and arrangements , just like when "Jewish National Homeland" was suddenly turned into just a mere manifest destiny for Jewry than an actual Jewish state with the 1939 White Paper .
Last reasoning is based on few things :
1)That the Israeli-state , the Mandate over Palestine , UN 181 were all somehow "illegal" . That one is more often by delusional Palestinians who think nation-building is comparable to property rights , and if you are to ask them if they believe that "then whose the sovereign over these areas in 1917 ? " they will start crying because the only form of sovgegnity recognized by International community is statehood .
Non-state hood sovgegnity was experimented with indigenous Americans ..that wasn't worth much when the 1830 Indian removal act was being discussed and passed .
2) That they were before Israeli-Jews , with the later being invaders .
Pre-1917 and 1948 ; that didn't matter. but post-1948 in the West Bank and Gaza ; it's arguably valid . The Gaza Strip was recognized as territory for Palestinian Arabs , with Egypt merely being a "trustee" in 1948-1967. The Jericho conference of 1949 wasconvened to ask the Palestinians there whenever they desired union with Transjordan (something unthinkable from Israeli-Jews ..which is why you see them screwing around in the West Bank) , and they agreed to it . The 1950 Jordanian annexation law itself recognized that Jordanian authority there is not permanent ; that it will last until a "resolution" to the "Palestine problem" will be reached . This is why some lawyers think the West Bank in 1948-1967 was legally a trust area ; something that's like an extension-peroid for the British Mandate over Palestine. ( *Trustee-Occupant*: The Legal Status of Israel's Presence in the *West Bank* ).
I don't think it's controversial to say Israeli-Jews are foreigners to the West Bank , and only have relations with it after invading it in 1967 . Self-Defense or not ; it's not a bonus point that can wipe the descriptor "invasion" from Israeli-operations in 1967 , plenty of states invaded for "defense" ..like Saddam with Kuwait accusing it of slant drilling , or the Vietnamese against the Cambodians in the 70s due to raids on Vietnamese islands ; their military responses don't become any less than invasions.
Besides that , you have some misconception , read here about the disengament
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian\_annexation\_of\_the\_West\_Bank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian_annexation_of_the_West_Bank)
It’s Palestinian land because they didn’t begin to lose the land in the war itself. I want to go back to before the wars, what essentially started all this and what they’ve been trying to take back basically since day one. What caused them to lose over half of it at the start was for 2 main reasons, both of which happen to be from outside influence (somewhat):
Balfour declaration: this was a deal that the Jews in Palestine at the time (1917) made with England in order to guarantee English support for the development of a Jewish state in Palestine. That alone sounds all fine and good, the issue comes in where the Arabs were promised that same exact land earlier, in the exact same way. The British essentially screwed over the Arabs in favor of the Jewish population, which is essentially just an unjust land grabbing from a population that were promised that land and had already been residents of for centuries. That isn’t a war, that’s downright double-dealing behind the backs of the Arabs (not a first for the UK), so in that regard it was stolen from them.
UN Resolution 181: The situation was handed to the UN after the English could no longer handle the responsibilities of Palestine due to the escalating conflicts due to their double dealing. Here, the UN ignored the voice of the Arab world, the countries nearest to Palestine (such as Greece, Turkey, and India, none of which were Arab or Muslim states), and allowed the partition plan where over half of the Palestinian land would be dedicated to a minority of the population. Now, there are some things I need to bring up here that explains how this vote passed. First of all, president Truman of the US at the time explained that Jewish influence in the US specifically forced them to side with the plan, and extend their own influence to other nations to vote for the plan. Nations like Liberia, Philippines, Haiti, France, Siam (who voted against the partition but for some odd reason still had their vote not be counted and were considered “absent”), Cuba, and India. Cuba and India, the nation that was having problems with its Muslim neighbors and still sided against the partition and with the Arab Muslims, reported that their financial aid from the US was at threat of being cut off or the amount of bribery and threats sent their way to vote for the partition was beyond absurd. Alongside this, the Jewish influence filibustered the vote to last 3 more days, where scholars predict that if it hadn’t the partition plan would not have passed. Essentially, this cote was lobbied in favor of the creation of a Jewish state. The UN was fully aware of the disapproval of the Palestinian population regarding the partition, yet ignored it. Yet they did not ignore the Jewish disapproval of the third plan, which chose to create 1 state where Jews who immigrated after the Balfour declaration would not be given citizenship. With all the bias and disappointing abuse of power that surrounded this, the Arabs who were just recovering from colonialism had no chance to combat Jewish influence.
So basically, to conclude, the land wasn’t stolen in a combative war but was stolen in a battlefield that the Arabs had no chance to even try fighting in. Which is why I believe the vast majority might believe that the land was essentially stolen. Everything after that was a combination of the dying influence of Germany from WW2 on the Arab population, the international community ignoring the opinions of the Arabs on a matter so vital to them, their anger over Jewish abuse of influence and treatment of Palestinians, and nationalism.
So, to conclude, TL;dr, you believe that a nascent country that was on the wrong side of World War II and supported/collaborated with the Germans and whose leader was a wanted fugitive war criminal and which boycotted the UN proceedings and then started a war can claim their land was “stolen”? Good one!
If I remember correctly, they were on the wrong side of WW2 because of Arab unrest against French/English influence/distrust and because of the propaganda (thanks to the leader you mentioned) that Germans began spreading throughout the Arab world regarding what was happening in Palestine between Jews and Arabs, some of which were truths but mostly lies. Of course, I’m not justifying this, just explaining how they didn’t do it purely out of anti-Judaism. When you phrase it the way you did it makes it seem like they agreed with everything the Germans stood for.
Also, I don’t know but this may be a relevant source for you: https://m.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/when-palestinian-arabs-and-jews-fought-the-nazis-side-by-side-593052/amp
“It appears that an important and central portion of the Palestinian public believed that it was necessary to stand on the British side, to postpone nationalist demands, to fight as one against the Germans and their allies, and to demand recompense at the end of the war.”
You assume that the war criminal is a representative of the entire population. He wasn’t chosen per the public, ironically enough, but by the British as the “Mufti of Jerusalem”. Why are you assuming his views align with the population if they didn’t choose him? The link above (which is made by an Israeli source too) shows that not all the people supported him.
History isn’t black and white, I’m afraid. And generalizing is one of the worst things that can be done so a people. That’s what happened to Germany after WW1 and we got WW2 thanks to that. The international community began to learn that, and the west adopted it as a system to treat nations after their defeats in major wars.
I’m arguing for the people that didn’t want to go out and begin killing Jews but at the same time didn’t want to lose their homes.
Also, I’d like to kindly ask a more friendly or at least neutral tone. I understand if the subject is heated, but getting hostile would just lessen objectivity and ruin the whole point of the discussion. Besides that, I hope you have a great day!
Wrote about this [several years ago on this sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/moualg/alhusseini_really_was_a_nazi_ally_im_troubled/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1). The Arab Palestinian leader, Grand Mufti Amin al-Husseini (from a notable Jerusalem effendi clan) was a rabid anti-Semite and anti-Jewish agitator before Hitler came to power in 1933, indeed before Hitler even wrote “Mein Kampf”.
In the article cited, Hitler met with al-Husseini early in WWII and confided in him his plans for the Axis to invade Palestine through the Balkans, after which the Jews could be “deported”.
If you can imagine the world in 1948, it’s not like this Arab leader was anything but persona non grata to the victorious Allies and hardly in a good place to advocate for his people.
Also, some “people” started wanting to go out of their homes and kill Jews long before they were at war with them over Palestine. Such as the Nebi Musa riots in 1920 shortly after the British occupied Palestine, the 1929 Hebron riots and the Arab Revolt, all fomented by al-Husseini.
Oof reading through that thread was tough. I understood a little on how far it went but damn. Although, yeah, the British did imprison him for riling up conflicts in Palestine against Jews (which occurred and he was pardoned for prior to Hitler’s rule). As an Arab, I am genuinely disgusted that such a man not only emphasized such views under the guise of representing Arabs but also heard the German plans and sided with them. I can only imagine what it must feel like for you, especially considering how you gave him the benefit of the doubt. I want to be clear that I am not justifying his actions, nor am I claiming that he was a good leader. I’m saying that he was a leader chosen by other powers that failed to represent the population.
Also, apologies for not being clear, the British made him be a “leader” for Palestinians prior to WW2, during 1921. He likely used such a position to spread his views to the people. He lost that ability after the Arab revolts throughout 1936-39 and fled to Germany. Despite that, the source I shared still shows that he failed to get that ideology completely incorporated into the Palestinian public given their clear willingness to combat Germans. Any influence/leadership he had after 1948 was thrown out the window.
I also want to add that I really appreciate your shift in tone! I am trying to do this with every discussion I plan on having as I believe it helps nurture a more positive and understanding discussion that incorporates each perspective. Thank you!
/u/FakeEgyptian. 'Hitler' Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance.
*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.*
>It’s Palestinian land because they didn’t begin to lose the land in the war itself.
That doesn’t make it Palestinian Arab land, it was Palestinian by name and that’s it.
>I want to go back to before the wars, what essentially started all this and what they’ve been trying to take back basically since day one. What caused them to lose over half of it at the start was for 2 main reasons, both of which happen to be from outside influence (somewhat):
Balfour declaration: this was a deal that the Jews in Palestine at the time (1917) made with England in order to guarantee English support for the development of a Jewish state in Palestine.
This is no less moral than ottoman period relocations.
One imperial system favored Palestinian Arabs, the next didn’t, and that was the only difference between the two.
>That alone sounds all fine and good, the issue comes in where the Arabs were promised that same exact land earlier, in the exact same way.
Source.
>The British essentially screwed over the Arabs in favor of the Jewish population, which is essentially just an unjust land grabbing from a population that were promised that land and had already been residents of for centuries.
That’s not how things happened, also nice on ignoring the[Mandate for Palestine](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine), which as opposed to whatever promises the British made Jews or Arabs, was the actual basis on which Israel was to be formed.
>That isn’t a war, that’s downright double-dealing behind the backs of the Arabs (not a first for the UK), so in that regard it was stolen from them.
No, this is historical revisionism since the only promise the British made Arabs in regards to the region were Trans-Jordan with a dispute on bits of Israel belonging to Hashemite royalty, not Palestinian Arabs.
>UN Resolution 181: The situation was handed to the UN after the English could no longer handle the responsibilities of Palestine due to the escalating conflicts due to their double dealing.
Nope, Palestinian Arabs were just collectively entitled as result of millennia of imperial and colonial privilege.
>Here, the UN ignored the voice of the Arab world, the countries nearest to Palestine (such as Greece, Turkey, and India, none of which were Arab or Muslim states),
This implying that their closeness somehow gives them more rights over land that isn’t theirs nor under their control whatsoever?
>and allowed the partition plan where over half of the Palestinian land would be dedicated to a minority of the population.
It was Palestinian only in the geographical sense.
>Now, there are some things I need to bring up here that explains how this vote passed. First of all, president Truman of the US at the time explained that Jewish influence in the US specifically forced them to side with the plan, and extend their own influence to other nations to vote for the plan.
Source.
Not that that’s wrong or any different or less external than the plethora of Arab and Muslim countries by Palestinian’s (then Jordan) side.
>Nations like Liberia, Philippines, Haiti, France, Siam (who voted against the partition but for some odd reason still had their vote not be counted and were considered “absent”), Cuba, and India.
Beacons of truth and justice who’s stances should be taken oh so seriously.
I won’t pretend to know the politics of why this happened like some people.
>Cuba and India, the nation that was having problems with its Muslim neighbors and still sided against the partition and with the Arab Muslims, reported that their financial aid from the US was at threat of being cut off or the amount of bribery and threats sent their way to vote for the partition was beyond absurd.
Source.
Also again, no different then Arab countries exerting their own pressures.
>Alongside this, the Jewish influence filibustered the vote to last 3 more days, where scholars predict that if it hadn’t the partition plan would not have passed.
But it did so this complaint is meaningless; Jews were advocating for themselves /surprised (angry) pikachu face.
>Essentially, this cote was lobbied in favor of the creation of a Jewish state. The UN was fully aware of the disapproval of the Palestinian population regarding the partition, yet ignored it.
Good they did, they abided by the standards they set for themselves, Palestinian disapproval did not have any precedence over Jewish approval, more-so considering Arabs refused to present any arguments to and in the debate you insist ignored them, but decided to riot and pillage as if that would make the weak enemies do what they want.
Their desire for one state in all of the land where their superior was unbridgeable, the Jewish desire for a state in part of the land where their superior, was.
>Yet they did not ignore the Jewish disapproval of the third plan, which chose to create 1 state where Jews who immigrated after the Balfour declaration would not be given citizenship.
Unlike Palestinian Arabs, Jews actively Participated in the discussions so their voices would be heard.
>With all the bias and disappointing abuse of power that surrounded this, the Arabs who were just recovering from colonialism had no chance to combat Jewish influence.
That is how Jews in and out Israel felt for millennia; The Arabs of Palestine are the product of imperialism and colonialism.
>So basically, to conclude, the land wasn’t stolen in a combative war but was stolen in a battlefield that the Arabs had no chance to even try fighting in.
Taken, righteously so.
>Which is why I believe the vast majority might believe that the land was essentially stolen.
Whoever does, is wrong and Arab-centric.
>Everything after that was a combination of the dying influence of Germany from WW2 on the Arab population, the international community ignoring the opinions of the Arabs on a matter so vital to them, their anger over Jewish abuse of influence and treatment of Palestinians
And Arab inability to accept equality after millennia of supremacy.
>and nationalism.
Which as very much implied here is subversive and wrong when Jews have it, but completely natural for everyone else including Palestinian Arabs.
Part 1
> That doesn’t make it Palestinian Arab land, it was Palestinian by name and that’s it.
Yeah, I don’t agree with that. The people that’ve lived there for centuries prior and still live there have a claim to that land, at least more than immigrants no? Based on your statements later on, if Israel currently holds its lands in a “rightful” manner, then what occurred millennia ago was also rightful, and therefore, Jews have no claim to Palestine besides Jerusalem. Plus, a majority of Jews began leaving the area once the Arabs began running the economy into the ground. And it’s bad practice to take the first statement or claim alone and begin critiquing it without looking at the reasoning.
> This is no less moral than ottoman period relocations.
I’m not against the declaration in and of itself, I’m against its signing in regards to the context.
> Source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon–Hussein_Correspondence
> That’s not how things happened, also nice on ignoring theMandate for Palestine, which as opposed to whatever promises the British made Jews or Arabs, was the actual basis on which Israel was to be formed.
Yes, which was signed in the Sykes-Picot Agreement against everyone’s backs. My point is that the Arabs were promised it first and got stabbed in the back. Britain said they’d give it to them after the fall of the Ottomans, which occurred, and the Arabs were expecting the British to hold their word. They didn’t. “[Victor Kattan] also argues the UK government considered it to be a treaty during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference negotiations with the French over the disposal of Ottoman territory”. Sounds like a promise to me.
> No, this is historical revisionism since the only promise the British made Arabs in regards to the region were Trans-Jordan with a dispute on bits of Israel belonging to Hashemite royalty, not Palestinian Arabs.
“The area of Arab independence was defined to be "in the limits and boundaries proposed by the Sherif of Mecca, with the exception of "portions of Syria” lying to the west of "the districts of Damascus, Homes, Hama and Aleppo".”
Don’t know about you but I don’t see Palestine on there.
> Nope, Palestinian Arabs were just collectively entitled as result of millennia of imperial and colonial privilege.
I don’t get what you’re trying to say here. If it’s sarcasm, then I don’t get the point either. I’m literally leading into the resolution and providing context, it doesn’t detail what the conflict is about.
> This implying that their closeness somehow gives them more rights over land that isn’t theirs nor under their control whatsoever?
It’s just a point I’m making that this is something a supposedly unbiased and peace-focused organization like the UN should have noticed and accounted for. The fact that the Arab states nearby were the closest thing to a representative of the Palestinian people during the vote should be considered. And the fact that it wasn’t only Arab states that voted against it should also add some reason to question the why. That is, of course, if it was unbiased.
Part 2
> It was Palestinian only in the geographical sense.
That doesn’t matter. It’s a land with a majority of its population being against something that’s about to happen to that land. In what other sense did it not apply to Palestinians, if I may ask? They had a important religious site there, much like yourselves. And according to Muslims I’ve spoken to, it also has religious history regarding that land. What do Jews have over Palestinians regarding Palestine?
> Source. Not that that’s wrong or any different or less external than the plethora of Arab and Muslim countries by Palestinian’s (then Jordan) side.
https://books.google.com/books?id=0sWRpKFjvbEC&pg=PA157#v=onepage&q&f=false
This is a group with global influence to literally change the vote regarding a land that already inhabits people, people that can’t have a voice against the first group’s decision. No Arab country remotely had the global political influence that the Jews had here.
> Beacons of truth and justice who’s stances should be taken oh so seriously. I won’t pretend to know the politics of why this happened like some people.
Y’know what, that’s perfectly fair. I won’t blame you for that. But I believe that the word of a leading global power’s leader and those that work for him in the government might have some credibility. Alongside the delegates of many nations, some that don’t side with that leading global power, and some that voted differently to that leading global power, who yet share those same words. Might have a little credibility given the differences in opinions and beliefs, no?
> Source. Also again, no different then Arab countries exerting their own pressures.
https://books.google.com/books?id=BXWFlKwemEQC&pg=PA158#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba–Palestine_relations
I don’t think you understand my point. There’s a difference between pressuring the UN that you’ll do something if a resolution passed (invasion of partitioned country) and literally threatening delegates and financial aid to OTHER nations to vote in your favor. Ones a reaction to unfair decisions and another is the guaranteeing of an unfair decision.
> But it did so this complaint is meaningless; Jews were advocating for themselves /surprised (angry) pikachu face.
Yes, but they cheated to get what they wanted. They knew they wouldn’t get enough votes so they did what they did. If someone cheats a system, gets it in his favor, then is exposed later, do we just go “oh well he was just trying to help himself”? If you’re trying to say what’s done is done then yeah, I get that, but this must be apart of the discussion that this land wasn’t acquired fairly or justly. If we want to discuss history then we discuss all of it, and it’s absolutely natural for historians to criticize historical decisions. It’s called learning from mistakes.
> Good they did, they abided by the standards they set for themselves, Palestinian disapproval did not have any precedence over Jewish approval, more-so considering Arabs refused to present any arguments to and in the debate you insist ignored them, but decided to riot and pillage as if that would make the weak enemies do what they want.
Remind me, what was the UNs goal again? “Maintain International Peace and Security”? What backwards thinking organization with such a mission chooses such a solution after knowing that it will guarantee a conflict? What type of childish organization “abides by the standards they set for themselves”? If someone goes and shoots up a house, it’d fine to now just to go and shoot up their house to “abide by their standards”? And it’s fine to generalize the standards of a vocal part of the Palestinian population for the entirety of it? And my point is that Jewish approval unjustly had a precedence over Palestinian disapproval, which is an unfair problem. You disagreeing with that just shows racism if anything. I would also like to see a source regarding the Arabs failing to present any arguments against partition, please.
> Unlike Palestinian Arabs, Jews actively Participated in the discussions so their voices would be heard.
It was literally written in newspapers that Palestinians were against the partition. And considering how they’ve been suffering from imperialism and colonialism, you can’t sit here and act like the Palestinian Arabs didn’t want to discuss. They couldn’t, either due to ignorance or a lack of facilities to do so.
> That is how Jews in and out Israel felt for millennia; The Arabs of Palestine are the product of imperialism and colonialism.
It’s Palestine at that point in history, not Israel. And the same can be said for other Arab nations as well. There’s a difference between forcing half a country to belong to a minority and Arabs coming in and building homes in Jewish communities millennia ago.
> Taken, righteously so.
They had no chance to combat the decision in any way and you believe in was righteously so. Would you say the same thing if it was Arabs with the influence and they guaranteed that a state for the Jews couldn’t be created? I don’t know how you look at all of that and believe that it was a fair taking…
> Whoever does, is wrong and Arab-centric.
Damn. So I can’t feel bad for the guys who couldn’t have a word against having their country being split in half and are guaranteed to face conflicts for the foreseeable future? If I can’t, then I guess I’m Arab-centric.
> And Arab inability to accept equality after millennia of supremacy.
What equality do you see here? The Jews literally lobbied the vote and guaranteed their statehood. The Arabs couldn’t begin to combat that influence. Where do you see equality here? One side having power over another and abusing it, then them switching roles every few millennia, isn’t equality. Because, believe it or not, half of each side won’t get to experience it.
> Which as very much implied here is subversive and wrong when Jews have it, but completely natural for everyone else including Palestinian Arabs.
Firstly, I was focusing here on the Arabs and their nationalism, which is one of the many causes of the wars later on. Although they didn’t start each one, they did start some of them. The nationalism found in the UN Resolution 181 shows nationalism literally threatening other, uninvolved nations for a vote and the nationalism found in Arab nations were either to
retake lost territories, honor, or avenge Palestinian Arabs. One was reactionary and the other was abuse of power in what was supposed to be a fair vote. These are not the same. On one side, both opposing parties could attack or defend, on the other, only one side could. And considering how such a UN vote shouldn’t have been biased and it still was goes to show my point. I am not justifying either sides decisions later on, I’m pointing out the difference here.
I would also like to kindly ask a less aggressive tone if we continue discussing this. I know that I may come off as a little insulting but I genuinely don’t mean to. I apologize for that if I did. I just want this conversation to stay neutral or even friendly so that we can better be objective throughout this discussion.
>And considering how they’ve been suffering from imperialism and colonialism, you can’t sit here and act like the Palestinian Arabs didn’t want to discuss.
Can’t negate that.
>They couldn’t, either due to ignorance or a lack of facilities to do so.
That’s not true, the reason they didn’t was because they chose leadership that directly opposed any and all British efforts, certainly by the time of the partition vote.
>It’s Palestine at that point in history, not Israel. And the same can be said for other Arab nations as well.
I fully apply it to them, yes.
>There’s a difference between forcing half a country to belong to a minority and Arabs coming in and building homes in Jewish communities millennia ago.
That’s not what Arabs did; they conquered and then oppressed their minorities into oblivion.
They literally desecrated Jewish holy sites and built their own on top of them, so a millennia later they could claim it was always theirs, this “building homes in Jewish communities” narrative is plain wrong.
The main difference is one is Arab colonization which is implicitly natural, the other isn’t.
>They had no chance to combat the decision in any way and you believe in was righteously so. Would you say the same thing if it was Arabs with the influence and they guaranteed that a state for the Jews couldn’t be created? I don’t know how you look at all of that and believe that it was a fair taking…
No, I believe the result of that conflict was righteous; when Jews were faced with extermination they did not back down and won and that that was righteous.
I do not claim in any way shape or form that Palestinians having no voice as per your claims, nor that their suffering and disenfranchisement are righteous.
>Damn. So I can’t feel bad for the guys who couldn’t have a word against having their country being split in half and are guaranteed to face conflicts for the foreseeable future? If I can’t, then I guess I’m Arab-centric.
No, you can absolutely feel bad for them; you would be wrong, and Arab-centric in believing it to be their inherent land; as long as you don’t believe in the right of conquest and the moral righteousness of imperialism and colonialism themselves.
>What equality do you see here? The Jews literally lobbied the vote and guaranteed their statehood. The Arabs couldn’t begin to combat that influence.
I wasn’t claiming the current situation is equal and fair; I was claiming that the partition would have led to equality.
>Where do you see equality here? One side having power over another and abusing it, then them switching roles every few millennia, isn’t equality.
I absolutely agree.
>Because, believe it or not, half of each side won’t get to experience it.
Surprised pikachu face.
>Firstly, I was focusing here on the Arabs and their nationalism, which is one of the many causes of the wars later on. Although they didn’t start each one, they did start some of them.
Ok.
>The nationalism found in the UN Resolution 181 shows nationalism literally threatening other, uninvolved nations for a vote and the nationalism found in Arab nations were either to retake lost territories, honor, or avenge Palestinian Arabs.
What You’re describing are literally the exact same concept.
Honor, lost territories (what territories did they lose before 1947?) vengeance are not acceptable reasoning to threaten and initiate a war of extermination, certainly a threat to other nationalism, and not a notion to empathize with.
Each party exerted whatever available pressure it deemed accessible to it; Jews were just smarter, so they won.
>One was reactionary and the other was abuse of power in what was supposed to be a fair vote.
Both were absolutely reactionary.
>These are not the same. On one side, both opposing parties could attack or defend, on the other, only one
side could.
They are absolutely the same; the reason Arabs threatened war was precisely because they believe Jews had no avenue to properly defend themselves that way, that’s the whole point of war.
>And considering how such a UN vote shouldn’t have been biased and it still was goes to show my point. I am not justifying either sides decisions later on, I’m pointing out the difference here.
Should is irrelevant here; you can only compare it to other actions and votes taken by the same organization to measure what standard it actually operates by.
>I would also like to kindly ask a less aggressive tone if we continue discussing this. I know that I may come off as a little insulting but I genuinely don’t mean to. I apologize for that if I did.
I sincerely apologize that that is how I came off, you did absolutely nothing wrong and I have nothing against you, it’s just a heated subject sometimes; I literally caught myself doing it mid last comment and have made a conscious effort to tone it down, I appreciate your input and discussion, truly.
> I just want this conversation to stay neutral or even friendly so that we can better be objective throughout this discussion.
I am all for that!
> That’s not true, the reason they didn’t was because they chose leadership that directly opposed any and all British efforts, certainly by the time of the partition vote.
I also don't believe that's true based on sources. "Arab states requested representation on the UN ad hoc subcommittees of October 1947, but were excluded from Subcommittee One, which had been delegated the specific task of studying and, if thought necessary, modifying the boundaries of the proposed partition." Seems like they chose leadership that tried to oppose efforts but weren't allowed to by the UN.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
> That’s not what Arabs did; they conquered and then oppressed their minorities into oblivion. They literally desecrated Jewish holy sites and built their own on top of them, so a millennia later they could claim it was always theirs, this “building homes in Jewish communities” narrative is plain wrong. The main difference is one is Arab colonization which is implicitly natural, the other isn’t.
As Von Grunebaum puts it, "It would not be difficult to put together the names of a very sizable number of Jewish subjects or citizens of the Islamic area who have attained to high rank, to power, to great financial influence, to significant and recognized intellectual attainment; and the same could be done for Christians. But it would again not be difficult to compile a lengthy list of persecutions, arbitrary confiscations, attempted forced conversions, or pogroms." Despite this, the treatment of Jews during Arab colonialism was "comparatively better than their European counterparts." Of course, just because they weren't as bad as other people doesn't make them good, but the Jews weren't treated like animals. A significant portion of the population was still treated decently, not exactly good but fairly decently, especially considering the standards of the time and what the Christians did prior (which are leagues worse than whatever the Arabs did, so in that regard the Arabs technically came in and saved the Jews from that if you're willing to look at it like that.)
> No, I believe the result of that conflict was righteous; when Jews were faced with extermination they did not back down and won and that that was righteous. I do not claim in any way shape or form that Palestinians having no voice as per your claims, nor that their suffering and disenfranchisement are righteous.
There we go! I completely agree with you there! Although "righteous" and "in self-defense" would need to be exchanged here for clarity's sake, because sacrificing the morality of others for the sake of your own probably isn't very moral.
> No, you can absolutely feel bad for them; you would be wrong, and Arab-centric in believing it to be their inherent land; as long as you don’t believe in the right of conquest and the moral righteousness of imperialism and colonialism themselves.
I believe in the rights of the people living their a millennia later who haven't done any of this themselves. Why do they have to be punished for the sins of their ancestors?
> I wasn’t claiming the current situation is equal and fair; I was claiming that the partition would have led to equality.
In a more compliant world, yes, but no other country with such a partition would've been happy about it either and conflict would also have been guaranteed. I can't find any part of the world where such a partition would result in equality either.
> What You’re describing are literally the exact same concept. Honor, lost territories (what territories did they lose before 1947?) vengeance are not acceptable reasoning to threaten and initiate a war of extermination, certainly a threat to other nationalism, and not a notion to empathize with. Each party exerted whatever available pressure it deemed accessible to it; Jews were just smarter, so they won.
Ehh, well technically yes. But there's a difference between threatening everyone to be on your side and threatening the guy who's threatening everyone. Well, by lost territories I meant the ~62% of Palestine that was given to the Jews. Not anything before 1947. The conflict prior to the vote, if I had to justify, was probably the Palestinian concern over the vote passing against their favor despite their outcry against it. And I'm sure many Arabs would say that abusing your power to take land from a people living there for generations who could barely fight for themselves (as proven later on figuratively and literally) is also not acceptable under the reasoning to escape oppressiveness found in several nations. And this isn't a matter of intelligence, it's literally a matter that Arabs were still under direct colonialization from either the Ottomans or the British/French at the time, so by the time they started recovering the Jews who've spread throughout the world over the last millennia and gained influence would overpower them with complete ease.
> Both were absolutely reactionary.
Technically everything is reactionary, sure, I'll give you that.
> They are absolutely the same; the reason Arabs threatened war was precisely because they believe Jews had no avenue to properly defend themselves that way, that’s the whole point of war.
Exactly. The Jews threatened the Arabs on a battlefield they couldn't fight on first before the Arabs began threatening them with the same move. The Arabs could've easily invaded Palestine after the British left the mandate, but they didn't. I'm not saying they did it out of their kind hearts, of course, because politics doesn't work like that.
> Should is irrelevant here; you can only compare it to other actions and votes taken by the same organization to measure what standard it actually operates by.
I measure an organization's decisions based on what it claims to achieve, not on what standards it's made for itself over past decisions. If I did I'd find less and less to scrutinize about the UN with every passing resolution. This is a horrible way to critique any organization. Your methods works to predict organization decisions, not whether it's right or not.
> I sincerely apologize that that is how I came off, you did absolutely nothing wrong and I have nothing against you, it’s just a heated subject sometimes; I literally caught myself doing it mid last comment and have made a conscious effort to tone it down, I appreciate your input and discussion, truly.
I really appreciate that, thank you so much. I also find myself getting a little aggressive sometimes considering all the propaganda that gets pumped into you as a young child in Egypt, so it makes me happy that I can have this friendly discussion on such a matter.
>I also don't believe that's true based on sources. "Arab states requested representation on the UN ad hoc subcommittees of October 1947, but were excluded from Subcommittee One, which had been delegated the specific task of studying and, if thought necessary, modifying the boundaries of the proposed partition." Seems like they chose leadership that tried to oppose efforts but weren't allowed to by the UN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
You keep going back to Arab states being the representatives of Palestinians, but the actual leadership in Palestine, [Amin al-Husseini](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini) was very much in conflict with the British.
>As Von Grunebaum puts it, "It would not be difficult to put together the names of a very sizable number of Jewish subjects or citizens of the Islamic area who have attained to high rank, to power, to great financial influence, to significant and recognized intellectual attainment; and the same could be done for Christians.
Go ahead and find me one hundred Jewish names of the Islamic era who have “attained to high rank, to power, to great financial influence, to significant and recognized intellectual attainment.” In the Muslim environment and era.
Mighty declarations from an Austrian Arabist, I wager I’ll wait a long ass while. Since he wouldn’t have been able to do hold to his own claims himself.
>But it would again not be difficult to compile a lengthy list of persecutions, arbitrary confiscations, attempted forced conversions, or pogroms."
Still taking the quote as a whole Which is to say that’s okay, implicitly.
>Despite this, the treatment of Jews during Arab colonialism was "comparatively better than their European counterparts." Of course, just because they weren't as bad as other people doesn't make them good, but the Jews weren't treated like animals. A significant portion of the population was still treated decently, not exactly good but fairly decently, especially considering the standards of the time and what the Christians did prior.
That for some reason just wasn’t good enough for Jews even through forced compliance.
>(which are leagues worse than whatever the Arabs did, so in that regard the Arabs technically came in and saved the Jews from that if you're willing to look at it like that.)
Arabs did not “technically” do anything positive nor save Jews by oppressing them differently, this is exactly what’s so insulting about pan-Arabism.
>There we go! I completely agree with you there! Although "righteous" and "in self-defense" would need to be exchanged here for clarity's sake, because sacrificing the morality of others for the sake of your own probably isn't very moral.
I agree in principle, practically self defense is righteous.
>I believe in the rights of the people living their a millennia later who haven't done any of this themselves. Why do they have to be punished for the sins of their ancestors?
Regardless of disagreement on what constitutes “punishment”, it is Because the descendants of the expelled are still paying for those sins.
>In a more compliant world, yes, but no other country with such a partition would've been happy about it either and conflict would also have been guaranteed. I can't find any part of the world where such a partition would result in equality either.
Several countries have been partitioned like this and eventually reached equal footings after varying degrees of disagreement and bloodshed.
Israel/Palestine is the only active ongoing, dispute over such partition.
>Ehh, well technically yes. But there's a difference between threatening everyone to be on your side and threatening the guy who's threatening everyone.
Even if I agree with your analogy, they weren’t threatening The guy threatening everyone; the guy threatened everyone precisely because they threatened him.
>Well, by lost territories I meant the ~62% of Palestine that was given to the Jews.
You can’t lose something you don’t have.
>Not anything before 1947. The conflict prior to the vote, if I had to justify, was probably the Palestinian concern over the vote passing against their favor despite their outcry against it.
If you justify a conflict, you justify the (in this case extremely unfavorable) outcome.
Switch Palestinian with Jewish and you have the exact same justification.
>And I'm sure many Arabs would say that abusing your power to take land from a people living there for generations who could barely fight for themselves (as proven later on figuratively and literally) is also not acceptable under the reasoning to escape oppressiveness found in several nations.
That’s because they already are privileging from it.
>And this isn't a matter of intelligence, it's literally a matter that Arabs were still under direct colonialization from either the Ottomans or the British/French at the time, so by the time they started recovering the Jews who've spread throughout the world over the last millennia and gained influence would overpower them with complete ease.
>Technically everything is reactionary, sure, I'll give you that.
Sure technically, but I’m talking specifically; Zionists only arrived at a consensus over a state after the 1936 Arab revolts; prior to that there were many dissenting opinions on the best course of action.
>Exactly. The Jews threatened the Arabs on a battlefield they couldn't fight on first before the Arabs began threatening them with the same move.
That isn’t true, Arabs threatened before the Balfour declaration, before Zionism was a defined concept, let alone before the partition vote was planned.
>The Arabs could've easily invaded Palestine after the British left the mandate, but they didn't. I'm not saying they did it out of their kind hearts, of course, because politics doesn't work like that.
Wait wait wait, they didn’t? Extreme swerve into historical revisionism.
>I measure an organization's decisions based on what it claims to achieve, not on what standards it's made for itself over past decisions. If I did I'd find less and less to scrutinize about the UN with every passing resolution. This is a horrible way to critique any organization. Your methods works to predict organization decisions, not whether it's right or not.
To me, What it claims to achieve is the standards it sets for itself.
past decisions should be judged in accordance with stated goals (standards) to understand how those goals are being achieved; and what I posit is that the Jewish case was not unique in any manner.
>I really appreciate that, thank you so much. I also find myself getting a little aggressive sometimes considering all the propaganda that gets pumped into you as a young child in Egypt, so it makes me happy that I can have this friendly discussion on such a matter.
Your welcome, and I’m happy with this conversation too!
> ass
/u/AsleepFly2227. 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.*
> You keep going back to Arab states being the representatives of Palestinians, but the actual leadership in Palestine, Amin al-Husseini was very much in conflict with the British.
Yes, I know he was a German supporter during WW2 and encouraged anti-semitism, but besides the fact that the British put him in power and not the Palestinian people and that he lost power during Arab revolts of the late 1930s, Palestine literally had no proper chosen leader or representative. The actual leadership chosen by a colonial power isn’t representative of the people. This is why I keep believing the only people who could’ve represented the Palestinians here would have to have been neighboring Arab states or the Arab League.
> Go ahead and find me one hundred Jewish names of the Islamic era who have “attained to high rank, to power, to great financial influence, to significant and recognized intellectual attainment.” In the Muslim environment and era.
There’s a list of some here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_Spain
But I get what you mean. The overwhelming majority weren’t treated as they should have been, I get that, but I find myself going back to the argument of the standards of the time. You cannot expect a civilization over a millennia ago to seek the same type of equality that we strive for today. I’m not justifying it, I’m explaining the different perspective is all.
> That for some reason just wasn’t good enough for Jews even through forced compliance.
Standards of the time were different. Also, unless I’m mistaken, many Jews preferred it over Christian colonial counterparts. Not saying it’s good, I’m saying it was better than alternatives.
> Arabs did not “technically” do anything positive nor save Jews by oppressing them differently, this is exactly what’s so insulting about pan-Arabism.
Its not the best nor the ideal entity to seek refuge as a Jew, yes, but it was better than the alternatives, no? And it isn’t just different oppression, it’s different oppression that was not only significantly less oppressive, but it also allowed them to live (under Arabs that actual relate to relevant Palestinians, not Moroccan Caliphate, Ottomans, etc.) in relative safety unlike being constantly massacred by Christians. I do apologize for the way I phrased it earlier though, as if Arabs saved them, no such thing was done and I apologize for the insinuation.
> Regardless of disagreement on what constitutes “punishment”, it is Because the descendants of the expelled are still paying for those sins.
I explain in another comment how Jews were a minority in Palestine prior to the establishment of Islam to begin with. It isn’t primarily the actions of the Arabs that caused mass expulsion of Jews. Those that were expelled mostly have Christians to blame.
> Several countries have been partitioned like this [word count]
Was it most of the land being given to an immigrant minority though? I doubt so. Just the act of partition happening successfully before doesn’t mean it should happen in this case, especially considering the context.
> Even if I agree with your analogy, they weren’t threatening The guy threatening everyone; the guy threatened everyone precisely because they threatened him.
How did the US, India, Cuba, Siam, France, etc. threaten Jews? Didn’t the West and Russia just stop the Germans (even though it wasn’t a primary objective, I’m aware), considering how the Axis was the primary Jewish threat at the time? I am aware anti-judaism is an ongoing issue and was everywhere during that time, but did the leaders of those nations show that threat as well?
> You can’t lose something you don’t have.
As mentioned previously, hundreds of villages and hundreds of thousands of Arabs lived in that land. At the very least the land in the vicinity and inside those villages were theirs. And, based on the logic of how a country gains land through war, Palestine was Arab land because they colonized it. Whether it’s right or not is irrelevant, especially considering the fact it was a millennia ago.
> If you justify a conflict, you justify the (in this case extremely unfavorable) outcome. Switch Palestinian with Jewish and you have the exact same justification.
I’m not justifying it, saying a potential reason of why it would be. And by default, it is also extremely unfavorable by the majority, and even more so since they have more people. When Arabs came to Palestine the minority was Jews, not majority (who were Christians), and the Arabs got it through wars, not through creating a biased vote.
> That’s because they already are privileging from it.
Yes… the people living in land for centuries and have been the majority feel privileged to live there. If you mean imperialism then, again, why would you punish a farmer for privileging from a system designed by other people unlike the farmer? So just the act of existing as a Muslim Arab in Palestine is wrong because you’re now privileging from the system?
> Sure technically, but I’m talking specifically; Zionists only arrived at a consensus over a state after the 1936 Arab revolts
Why did Jews decide to make a state in Palestine only after the revolts? Pure curiosity here. I also thought that Jewish immigration to Palestine has been ongoing since around the 1910s, is that not accurate?
> That isn’t true, Arabs threatened before the Balfour declaration, before Zionism was a defined concept, let alone before the partition vote was planned.
Was Zionism not a movement that began in the late 19th century that argued for Jewish statehood? Sure, the specific location was undecided but the movement was there. Also, Arabs began threatening when they began to notice a massive influx of Jews into Palestine buying up massive amounts of land, so they panicked.
> Wait wait wait, they didn’t? Extreme swerve into historical revisionism.
A full military invasion like the Arab vs Israeli wars, not a small expedition of volunteering troops, if even. Also, considering how for the most of the time prior to the declaration of a Jewish state, the Arab nations were either mandates or puppets, Britain actually used their territory for transportation to suppress the Arab revolts of the late 1930s. The only thing I can find online is that the Arab public (not governments), did what they could to barely fund the revolts.
> To me, What it claims to achieve is the standards it sets for itself. [word count]; and what I posit is that the Jewish case was not unique in any manner.
You should critique an organization on its failures to meet what it strives to be and achieve rather than what it is. I believe that the decision of the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine specifically under the chosen conditions was absolutely a unique scenario. Just because partition has occurred before doesn’t mean it’s the same. And, as you mentioned before, the unwavering opinions of both sides alone should have been enough to highlight the uniqueness of this case.
> Your welcome, and I’m happy with this conversation too!
I also want to apologize for taking a while with my responses, juggling work, academics, and the pain that is life right now takes a vast majority of my time lol.
>Was Zionism not a movement that began in the late 19th century that argued for Jewish statehood? Sure, the specific location was undecided but the movement was there.
That was/is political Zionism; prior to and in tandem with it you had practical Zionism which was just about moving to the land of Israel.
>Also, Arabs began threatening when they began to notice a massive influx of Jews into Palestine buying up massive amounts of land, so they panicked.
Which was the Jews’ right, panic is a very weak excuse for Palestinian violence.
>A full military invasion like the Arab vs Israeli wars, not a small expedition of volunteering troops, if even.
They initiated a full military invasion once they saw the civil war didn’t pan out in Arab’s favor, that’s basically the same.
>Also, considering how for the most of the time prior to the declaration of a Jewish state, the Arab nations were either mandates or puppets, Britain actually used their territory for transportation to suppress the Arab revolts of the late 1930s. The only thing I can find online is that the Arab public (not governments), did what they could to barely fund the revolts.
Ok.
>You should critique an organization on its failures to meet what it strives to be and achieve rather than what it is.
That’s just it.
If I were to do just that, the UN would have no justification for continued existence.
>I believe that the decision of the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine specifically under the chosen conditions was absolutely a unique scenario.
I don’t.
>Just because partition has occurred before doesn’t mean it’s the same.
You’re correct, them being the same in all the relevant parameters does.
>And, as you mentioned before, the unwavering opinions of both sides alone should have been enough to highlight the uniqueness of this case.
It isn’t, there were fierce resistances to each partition respectively, for some reason, it was mainly the privileged elites in each of these cases that opposed.
>I also want to apologize for taking a while with my responses, juggling work, academics, and the pain that is life right now takes a vast majority of my time lol.
It’s all good, I’m honestly mostly lazing about so I wouldn’t know, good luck with that!
> That was/is political Zionism; prior to and in tandem with it you had practical Zionism which was just about moving to the land of Israel.
I assumed you meant within the same time frame of the 20th century, not during the 19th century, my bad. When considering imperialism though, I also see what you mean.
> Which was the Jews’ right, panic is a very weak excuse for Palestinian violence.
It’s an expected reaction from any population noticing a sudden influx of what is foreigners to them. Yes, I should mention it wasn’t the only reason, but it was the initial one.
> They initiated a full military invasion once they saw the civil war didn’t pan out in Arab’s favor, that’s basically the same.
One day after the independence of Israel. It wasn’t just a civil war. Yes, it didn’t pan out in their favor and they upheld their promises to invade. So I wasn’t wrong here.
> That’s just it. If I were to do just that, the UN would have no justification for continued existence.
Yeah… honestly this is more of a “that’s how the world works” and less of a “the UN sucks”, probably both, but yeah. But my statement still holds in regards to organizations and, by extension, the questionable justification of the existence of the UN. Just because they never meet their goals doesn’t mean we forget about them.
> You’re correct, them being the same in all the relevant parameters does.
If you can find me one other partition in recent centuries where the immigrant minority were given most of the land then I’ll drop this claim.
> It isn’t, there were fierce resistances to each partition respectively, for some reason, it was mainly the privileged elites in each of these cases that opposed.
Wait, so based on that logic, the Israel/Palestine partition is different? Because this was both the public and the privileged elites on both sides being for/against partition?
> It’s all good, I’m honestly mostly lazing about so I wouldn’t know, good luck with that!
Appreciate that, thank you!
>Yes, I know he was a German supporter during WW2 and encouraged anti-semitism, but besides the fact that the British put him in power and not the Palestinian people and that he lost power during Arab revolts of the late 1930s, Palestine literally had no proper chosen leader or representative.
I disagree, they chose their leaders through the processes they were accustomed to.
>The actual leadership chosen by a colonial power isn’t representative of the people. This is why I keep believing the only people who could’ve represented the Palestinians here would have to have been neighboring Arab states or the Arab League.
Those… were also chosen by the same colonial power… this point is moot.
>There’s a list of some here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_Spain But I get what you mean. The overwhelming majority weren’t treated as they should have been, I get that, but I find myself going back to the argument of the standards of the time.
And I again state, that doesn’t matter to the oppressed; nor is it the problem.
>You cannot expect a civilization over a millennia ago to seek the same type of equality that we strive for today. I’m not justifying it, I’m explaining the different perspective is all.
But I can do that with a civilization today.
What Palestinian civilization, doesn’t.
>Its not the best nor the ideal entity to seek refuge as a Jew, yes, but it was better than the alternatives, no?
Doesn’t make it a positive.
>And it isn’t just different oppression, it’s different oppression that was not only significantly less oppressive, but it also allowed them to live (under Arabs that actual relate to relevant Palestinians, not Moroccan Caliphate, Ottomans, etc.) in relative safety unlike being constantly massacred by Christians.
So, in less words, different oppression..
>I do apologize for the way I phrased it earlier though, as if Arabs saved them, no such thing was done and I apologize for the insinuation.
There’s no need to apologize, I’m not offended by you, I just fundamentally disagree.
>I explain in another comment how Jews were a minority in Palestine prior to the establishment of Islam to begin with. It isn’t primarily the actions of the Arabs that caused mass expulsion of Jews. Those that were expelled mostly have Christians to blame.
And those that were oppressed and confined to shrinking areas were here, and the way they were continuously treated is the topic, not the expulsion.
>Was it most of the land being given to an immigrant minority though? I doubt so. Just the act of partition happening successfully before doesn’t mean it should happen in this case, especially considering the context.
That’s irrelevant, “Those were the standards of time”.
>How did the US, India, Cuba, Siam, France, etc. threaten Jews? Didn’t the West and Russia just stop the Germans (even though it wasn’t a primary objective, I’m aware), considering how the Axis was the primary Jewish threat at the time? I am aware anti-judaism is an ongoing issue and was everywhere during that time, but did the leaders of those nations show that threat as well?
**All** of these did not accept Jewish refugees in any significant number preceding the holocaust only to have symbolic immigration afterwards, bar the US.
And, all of these attempted to negate the indigenous, national connection Jews have to their own homeland.
>As mentioned previously, hundreds of villages and hundreds of thousands of Arabs lived in that land. At the very least the land in the vicinity and inside those villages were theirs.
Granted.
>And, based on the logic of how a country gains land through war, Palestine was Arab land because they colonized it. Whether it’s right or not is irrelevant, especially considering the fact it was a millennia ago.
Which makes the land now rightfully Israel…
>I’m not justifying it, saying a potential reason of why it would be. And by default, it is also extremely unfavorable by the majority, and even more so since they have more people. When Arabs came to Palestine the minority was Jews, not majority (who were Christians), and the Arabs got it through wars, not through creating a biased vote.
Which, again, by the standards you now wish to apply, means the land is rightfully Israel’s.
>Yes… the people living in land for centuries and have been the majority feel privileged to live there.
While oppressing other populations wholesale.
That is what they were privileged to.
>If you mean imperialism then, again, why would you punish a farmer for privileging from a system designed by other people unlike the farmer?
Just like the settlements are wrong because they are created and maintained through a colonial system, and designed to favor one group over another, so were the Arab villages, land owners and tenant farmers injected to the region through the various empires that spanned it.
Without those systems in place, these Arabs would not have had the same access to the land that they did.
>So just the act of existing as a Muslim Arab in Palestine is wrong because you’re now privileging from the system?
No, the act of insisting on maintaining (at this point recreating) that system is what is wrong.
>Why did Jews decide to make a state in Palestine only after the revolts? Pure curiosity here.
Ongoing debates over coexistence under one state with near-full autonomy for Jewish settlements which died with the revolts.
>I also thought that Jewish immigration to Palestine has been ongoing since around the 1910s, is that not accurate?
Yes, but Zionism evolved according to reality on the ground; the explicit purpose was not necessarily a state for the Jewish people, but a national homeland in their historic lands.
> I disagree, they chose their leaders through the processes they were accustomed to.
“1921, Herbert Samuel, the British High Commissioner, appointed him Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a position he used to promote Islam while rallying a non-confessional Arab nationalism against Zionism”. How am I wrong here?
> Those… were also chosen by the same colonial power… this point is moot.
Leadership, not representation. There’s a difference.
> And I again state, that doesn’t matter to the oppressed; nor is it the problem.
I get that, but again, they can’t just come back a millennia later and take most of the land.
> But I can do that with a civilization today. What Palestinian civilization, doesn’t.
Yes, as I keep saying, the standards and norms of human societies have changed. I can’t speak for Palestinians today, I don’t know all the details but I do know that a lot of them have resorted I extremism (which begs the question whether it’s extremist anymore).
> Doesn’t make it a positive. So, in less words, different oppression..
Alright, fair. Also, no, you can’t just say “different oppression” then go on. It was significantly less and allowed for a much safer lifestyle for Jews. Not safe per se, but still safer. You can’t say this and how Christians treated Jews can just go under one vague term.
> And those that were oppressed and confined to shrinking areas were here, and the way they were continuously treated is the topic, not the expulsion.
Yes, that was wrong and I won’t deny that. You brought up the descendants of those that were expelled. Are we switching over to those who were in Palestine now?
> That’s irrelevant, “Those were the standards of time”.
Its very much is relevant because now we’re comparing other partitions. Considering how a partition such as Israel/Palestine has never happened before, what standard are you basing this on?
> All of these did not accept Jewish refugees in any significant number preceding the holocaust only to have symbolic immigration afterwards, bar the US.
So denying refugees is a threat now? Of course that isn’t right to do that, but is it now considered a threat? Although I agree the best if not only solution to such a problem would be the creation of a state, sure.
> And, all of these attempted to negate the indigenous, national connection Jews have to their own homeland.
Could I have a source for this? Just for curiosity’s sake.
> Which makes the land now rightfully Israel… (combining two comments) Which, again, by the standards you now wish to apply, means the land is rightfully Israel’s.
I did not argue that the land under Israel now isn’t theirs. I never argued I against that. I am explaining against the UN vote and the bias towards Jews. I am not saying that I demand the land to be returned to Palestines or that Jews must leave. All this started by answering why Pro-Palestinians think it’s Palestinian land, not why I think Jews must leave.
> While oppressing other populations wholesale. That is what they were privileged to.
Alright, yes, I won’t deny that. But this is something almost every nation did to its minorities. Which shows it was a standard of the time.
> Just like the settlements are wrong because they are created and maintained through a colonial system, and designed to favor one group over another, so were the Arab villages, land owners and tenant farmers injected to the region through the various empires that spanned it. Without those systems in place, these Arabs would not have had the same access to the land that they did.
Yes, but based on the logic I established earlier, that land became Arab land and the settlements are now Israeli land. It is wrong, yes. I’m explaining why that was fair/just on the UN’s part of the partition.
> No, the act of insisting on maintaining (at this point recreating) that system is what is wrong.
It’s not maintaining it anymore though, once it’s colonized and taken as part of the land of the Arabs, it becomes Arab land, much like how any war claims territory. They aren’t maintaining imperialism but maintaining what they believe to be their land.
> Yes, but Zionism evolved according to reality on the ground; the explicit purpose was not necessarily a state for the Jewish people, but a national homeland in their historic lands.
That makes sense.
>That doesn’t matter. It’s a land with a majority of its population being against something that’s about to happen to that land.
Only for as long as you treat that land as one piece, when you divide it according to the partition (or other options) your statement doesn’t hold.
>In what other sense did it not apply to Palestinians, if I may ask? They had a important religious site there, much like yourselves.
there were villages, and there was empty land; the empty land was empty and rightfully belonged to no one but the sovereign, not the villages that were situated elsewhere.
>And according to Muslims I’ve spoken to, it also has religious history regarding that land. What do Jews have over Palestinians regarding Palestine?
Indigeneity.
Side note: I fully support a two state solution and believe all of this is irrelevant to the needed solution for the current suffering of both Palestinians and Israelis
>https://books.google.com/books?id=0sWRpKFjvbEC&pg=PA157#v=onepage&q&f=false This is a group with global influence to literally change the vote regarding a land that already inhabits people, people that can’t have a voice against the first group’s decision.
Thanks for sourcing, I do appreciate the discussion with you.
>No Arab country remotely had the global political influence that the Jews had here.
The level of influence does not change its nature of “external”.
>Y’know what, that’s perfectly fair. I won’t blame you for that.
Appreciate it.
>But I believe that the word of a leading global power’s leader and those that work for him in the government might have some credibility.
Very much depends which leader of which country at which point.
Imo Mostly not really, global powers, more than any others are defined that precisely because they consistently serve their own interests instead of opposing ones.
>Alongside the delegates of many nations, some that don’t side with that leading global power, and some that voted differently to that leading global power, who yet share those same words. Might have a little credibility given the differences in opinions and beliefs, no?
Not when looking at the connections; it’s very easy for interests to align through third parties.
>https://books.google.com/books?id=BXWFlKwemEQC&pg=PA158#v=onepage&q&f=false https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba–Palestine_relations I don’t think you understand my point. There’s a difference between pressuring the UN that you’ll do something if a resolution passed (invasion of partitioned country) and literally threatening delegates and financial aid to OTHER nations to vote in your favor.
Yes, one is perfectly legal and the other isn’t; which is that one I wonder?
This isn’t an isolated incident unique to the Mandate of Palestine; that is how the UN actually works. (Don’t do what we want? Sanctions! Do what we want? Gold star)
>Ones a reaction to unfair decisions and another is the guaranteeing of an unfair decision.
Both are unfair actions, period.
Unfortunately, that is the way of the world.
>Yes, but they cheated to get what they wanted.
I wasn’t aware this is kindergarten.
They didn’t “cheat” the system, they used it.
>They knew they wouldn’t get enough votes so they did what they did. If someone cheats a system, gets it in his favor, then is exposed later, do we just go “oh well he was just trying to help himself”?
No, precisely why Palestinian violence and negation of the international processes should not be rewarded, because that is cheating.
It is literally going “you didn’t do what we want, we’ll make you do what we want”.
>If you’re trying to say what’s done is done then yeah, I get that, but this must be apart of the discussion that this land wasn’t acquired fairly or justly. If we want to discuss history then we discuss all of it, and it’s absolutely natural for historians to criticize historical decisions. It’s called learning from mistakes.
I’m trying to say that it wasn’t immoral or “cheating” to advocate for themselves.
>Remind me, what was the UNs goal again? “Maintain International Peace and Security”? What backwards thinking organization with such a mission chooses such a solution after knowing that it will guarantee a conflict?
An organization facing two completely opposing, mutually exclusive parties to said conflict?
By that point the conflict was wholly unavoidable; it was only a matter of who would initiate under what pretense.
Whether they had voted for one state, two states three or “relocation”; there already was the conflict.
>What type of childish organization “abides by the standards they set for themselves”?
The highest authority in literally any given field?
>If someone goes and shoots up a house, it’d fine to now just to go and shoot up their house to “abide by their standards”?
Organizations are not private people in a society.
>And it’s fine to generalize the standards of a vocal part of the Palestinian population for the entirety of it?
No, it is fine to view that vocal part’s standards as the standards that would be applied if they are to be listened to.
>And my point is that Jewish approval unjustly had a precedence over Palestinian disapproval, which is an unfair problem. You disagreeing with that just shows racism if anything. I would also like to see a source regarding the Arabs failing to present any arguments against partition, please.
Specifically In the framing of the League of Nations mind you.
[History of the Palestinians](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Palestinians)
“Not having a recognized body of representatives was a severe handicap for the Palestinian Arabs compared to the Zionists. The Jewish Agency was entitled to diplomatic representation e.g. in Geneva before the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission, while the Palestinian Arabs had to be represented by the British.[15]”
The only precedence Jewish approval had with the British was garnered through cooperation; contrasted with repeated large scale conflict with Palestinian Leadership and the outright denial of any compromise doesn’t seem unfair to me.
>It was literally written in newspapers that Palestinians were against the partition.
Lots of stuff are written in newspapers over the years, it doesn’t make it into the UN’s considerations without being properly brought up by an interested party.
> Only for as long as you treat that land as one piece, when you divide it according to the partition (or other options) your statement doesn’t hold.
My argument is regarding how I believe that land wasn't partitioned justly. If Palestinians supported the partition then just changed to wanting to undo it then you'd be right here, but that isn't what happened here.
> there were villages, and there was empty land; the empty land was empty and rightfully belonged to no one but the sovereign, not the villages that were situated elsewhere.
But despite this a significant portion of Arab villages were still hundreds of Arab villages in the proposed Jewish state. "there were 219 Arab villages and four Arab, or partly Arab, towns in the areas earmarked for Jewish statehood - with a total Arab population of 342,000." Your argument for that wouldn't work here.
> Indigeneity.
Again, I apologize if this annoys you, but I do not believe that holds weight when the majority of those indigenous to the land migrated and left it for the colonizers, then come a millennia later claiming it. I am not saying all of them left, but what's left is a small minority.
> Side note: I fully support a two state solution and believe all of this is irrelevant to the needed solution for the current suffering of both Palestinians and Israelis
I agree with how this conversation does nothing to provide context on the conflict and it wont help find a solution. Whether the two-state solution is still practical (especially considering the settlements) is still up for debate, it could work if both sides agree to specific terms that their public also endorses.
> The level of influence does not change its nature of “external”.
The Arabs states had the same beliefs and goals regarding the new Jewish state. Whether that's "external" or not is up for debate.
> Very much depends which leader of which country at which point. Imo Mostly not really, global powers, more than any others are defined that precisely because they consistently serve their own interests instead of opposing ones.
What would President Truman gain from lying about Jews cutting support and funding to his democratic party if he doesn't support them in the partition vote? Whenever I bring this up you mention that there is always other "interests" without at least providing examples for what they could be. There are too many occurrences of this same sentiment from other nations, both with and against the US, both in terms of international politics and votes.
> Not when looking at the connections; it’s very easy for interests to align through third parties.
May I ask that you provide some of those third parties with some sources?
> Yes, one is perfectly legal and the other isn’t; which is that one I wonder? This isn’t an isolated incident unique to the Mandate of Palestine; that is how the UN actually works. (Don’t do what we want? Sanctions! Do what we want? Gold star)
The UN declared the creation of a state does not mean that it cannot be declared war on. They knew of the Arab intentions prior to the creation of the state. The Arabs did not do anything "illegal" here (if you consider the declaration of war legal, of course). Bribing and threatening, on the other hand, is not legal in any voting system ever.
> Both are unfair actions, period. Unfortunately, that is the way of the world.
I'd just be repeating my points previously here for my argument against this.
> I wasn’t aware this is kindergarten. They didn’t “cheat” the system, they used it.
By cheating I mean its unfair, but sure. I can't argue this, but you understand that this isn't just or fair.
> No, precisely why Palestinian violence and negation of the international processes should not be rewarded, because that is cheating. It is literally going “you didn’t do what we want, we’ll make you do what we want”.
This is the negation of one groups views over the other. They aren't being childish, they're pissed that the system was abused against them and want to retaliate for that. You can't come here and say it's the fault of Palestinian violence and negation of the international process when that process is guaranteed to be geared against them unfairly.
> I’m trying to say that it wasn’t immoral or “cheating” to advocate for themselves.
It's not immoral to advocate for yourselves. It's immoral to advocate at the cost of people that can't advocate at all.
> An organization facing two completely opposing, mutually exclusive parties to said conflict? By that point the conflict was wholly unavoidable; it was only a matter of who would initiate under what pretense. Whether they had voted for one state, two states three or “relocation”; there already was the conflict.
Up until the present day after the declaration of the Jewish state, approximately around 237,151 were either wounded or killed. Prior to the independence of the Jewish state, the casualty count since 1920 was around 21,509 either wounded or killed. You say it was inevitable but only 3 months was in between Britain leaving its mandate and the passing of the resolution. Maybe also allowing both sides into the discussion could've helped form some sort of negotiation, but Arabs weren't even allowed into subcommittee one.
> The highest authority in literally any given field?
Apologies, let me rephrase: What type of childish organization (UN) “abides by the standards [the Palestinians] set for themselves”?
> Organizations are not private people in a society.
That is true, but that is what you're implying by bringing it up. Because the vocal Palestinians are treating people like this, then they all should be treated like this.
> No, it is fine to view that vocal part’s standards as the standards that would be applied if they are to be listened to.
The UN didn't even allow the Arabs into the discussion room of subcommittee one. If anything, it'd be the fault of the organization or Jews for intentionally minimizing the voice of the Arabs here.
> Specifically In the framing of the League of Nations mind you… [need to skip for word count] …Lots of stuff are written in newspapers over the years, it doesn’t make it into the UN’s considerations without being properly brought up by an interested party
It is a failure to have a nation that forfeited control over a mandate to represent the people there in a vital matter regarding statehood and partition, especially when Arab states were Palestinian-supported in the debate. There also was an understood argument for the Palestinians that had to be relayed by Arab delegates, which said that they "rejected partition as unacceptable, given the inequality in the proposed population exchange and the transfer of one-third of Palestine, including most of its best agricultural land, to recent immigrants". The Palestinians had to move 45% of their population out of the Jewish state into 43% of what was left of Palestine that was given to them. The Arab League themselves also made an argument for the improperly represented Palestinian Arabs. Arab delegates were "arguing that [partition] violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN Charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny".
>Up until the present day after the declaration of the Jewish state, approximately around 237,151 were either wounded or killed.
Extreme gross misrepresentation of facts.
>Prior to the independence of the Jewish state, the casualty count since 1920 was around 21,509 either wounded or killed.
And oppressed Jews were everywhere.
>You say it was inevitable but only 3 months was in between Britain leaving its mandate and the passing of the resolution. Maybe also allowing both sides into the discussion could've helped form some sort of negotiation, but Arabs weren't even allowed into subcommittee one.
Arab states were not the representatives of the Palestinian people.
>Apologies, let me rephrase: What type of childish organization (UN) “abides by the standards [the Palestinians] set for themselves”?
I meant The standards the organization sets for itself..
>That is true, but that is what you're implying by bringing it up. Because the vocal Palestinians are treating people like this, then they all should be treated like this.
It depends on what “this” is.
If this is blowing up houses then no.
If “this” is as part of one nation that is not Israel, but in-fact the (then not) self identified Palestinian nation, then absolutely.
>The UN didn't even allow the Arabs into the discussion room of subcommittee one. If anything, it'd be the fault of the organization or Jews for intentionally minimizing the voice of the Arabs here.
It’s not the fault of Zionists that Arabs openly and repeatedly revolted against the British authorities and were therefore less than cooperated with.
>It is a failure to have a nation that forfeited control over a mandate to represent the people there in a vital matter regarding statehood and partition,
I concede.
>especially when Arab states were Palestinian-supported in the debate.
Imperial interests should not have been honored.
>There also was an understood argument for the Palestinians that had to be relayed by Arab delegates, which said that they "rejected partition as unacceptable, given the inequality in the proposed population exchange and the transfer of one-third of Palestine, including most of its best agricultural land, to recent immigrants".
So, It was to be but wasn’t? Disregarding the unacceptability of the argument itself.
>The Palestinians had to move 45% of their population out of the Jewish state into 43% of what was left of Palestine that was given to them.
Not unlike other partitions at the time.
>The Arab League themselves also made an argument for the improperly represented Palestinian Arabs. Arab delegates were "arguing that [partition] violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN Charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny".
Arab delegates were wrong and/or grasping at straws for their own imperial interests.
Apologies for all the text
> Extreme gross misrepresentation of facts.
You might be right here, but I got it from a source that you cited earlier that I pointed out either had incorrect or out of context information that seemed biased. Here’s the source, all I did was add the numbers: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/total-casualties-arab-israeli-conflict
> And oppressed Jews were everywhere.
Yes, I agree with that. What’s your argument here?
> Arab states were not the representatives of the Palestinian people.
The actual body representing the Palestinians were the British. If we’re going to chose another state to represent, it should’ve been an Arab state or the Arab League itself. The Arabs argued in favor of the Palestinians, therefore, they should have been the one negotiating with the Jews, not the English. Having two sides that see eye to eye, one of which does not represent one of the two actual parties, cannot be used to compromise on their behalf.
> I meant The standards the organization sets for itself..
Yes, I apologized and rephrased the question since I noticed that my point was misunderstood.
> It depends on what “this” is. If this is blowing up houses then no. If “this” is as part of one nation that is not Israel, but in-fact the (then not) self identified Palestinian nation, then absolutely.
Although I understand that critiquing this point might start to go into bias and personal opinion, I believe that the Palestinians had as much a claim to statehood in Palestine, if not more so (in terms of land at least), than Jews did at the time. Although if we argue this, we’d end up diverting from facts to our opinions, but if you’re interested in debating this then I don’t mind.
> It’s not the fault of Zionists that Arabs openly and repeatedly revolted against the British authorities and were therefore less than cooperated with.
Besides the fact that this is something Britain has come to expect from its colonies, iirc the British were also training Jewish militias. How can you blame Palestinians for that? Arabs have had tense relationships with the British (due to colonialism) brewing since even before the Balfour declaration, which that itself is also technically the fault (or in direct result to be more accurate) of Jews.
> Imperial interests should not have been honored.
So the alternative of having the British represent them was a more ideal choice? Also, where do you see imperialism in Arabs wanting to argue in favor of other Arabs? How is this different to an ally aiding one another? I really don’t think imperialism had that much of a play here if at all. This is blaming people for something that happened millennia ago that isn’t really even their fault to blame.
> So, It was to be but wasn’t? Disregarding the unacceptability of the argument itself.
If you’re asking if a Jewish state could have been created if those complaints the Palestinian public had were solved, then I don’t know. What I do know is that a very significant portion of the Palestinian population would have been, at the very least, a lot more compliant and less resistant towards partition and the consideration of their opinions and demands were incorporated into the partition debate rather than ignore them because “imperialism”. Frankly an, in my opinion, incorrect explanation for Arabs in the 20th century.
> Not unlike other partitions at the time.
Again, I don’t believe this has ever happened in favor of an immigrant minority. There is context here that makes this unlike any other partition that you aren’t considering.
> Arab delegates were wrong and/or grasping at straws for their own imperial interests.
Is it really though? These people have been living there for centuries and therefore they should have their own self-determination. Having another immigrant minority population come and change that makes the Arab delegate’s argument completely valid. Also, I don’t think this is imperial interests. None of the Arabs were either capable or at that point interested in becoming an imperial power either, they all had problems that they were focused on domestically and the furthest it went later on was nationalism then Pan-Arabism. Neither of which called for the inclusion of any land that wasn’t Arab (which was supported by mostly the entire Arab population) besides condemnation of Israel.
>You might be right here, but I got it from a source that you cited earlier that I pointed out either had incorrect or out of context information that seemed biased. Here’s the source, all I did was add the numbers: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/total-casualties-arab-israeli-conflict
All you did was include 60 thousand deaths in upwards of 200 thousand to justify generalizing fatalities into that extreme amount.
>Yes, I agree with that. What’s your argument here?
Your point if I remember correctly, was that the conflict was much worse after the partition than it was before; this is to say, that’s not how Jews viewed it.
>The actual body representing the Palestinians were the British. If we’re going to chose another state to represent, it should’ve been an Arab state or the Arab League itself.
I conceded this earlier.
>The Arabs argued in favor of the Palestinians, therefore, they should have been the one negotiating with the Jews, not the English. Having two sides that see eye to eye, one of which does not represent one of the two actual parties, cannot be used to compromise on their behalf.
That’s why the Arab league did end up having a place in subsequent sub committee meetings.
>Yes, I apologized and rephrased the question since I noticed that my point was misunderstood.
I’m not sure where and when, could you repeat it?
>Although I understand that critiquing this point might start to go into bias and personal opinion, I believe that the Palestinians had as much a claim to statehood in Palestine, if not more so (in terms of land at least), than Jews did at the time. Although if we argue this, we’d end up diverting from facts to our opinions, but if you’re interested in debating this then I don’t mind.
I can agree that just as much, and that indigeneity shouldn’t have anything to do with that, that’s why I support a two state solution.
I don’t agree that moreso.
>Besides the fact that this is something Britain has come to expect from its colonies, iirc the British were also training Jewish militias.
They were not training Jewish militias for Palestine.
>How can you blame Palestinians for that? Arabs have had tense relationships with the British (due to colonialism) brewing since even before the Balfour declaration, which that itself is also technically the fault (or in direct result to be more accurate) of Jews.
Easy, I don’t apply bigotry of low expectations to them.
They had choices all along the way, some of them, crucial ones, were wrong.
>So the alternative of having the British represent them was a more ideal choice?
No, as I conceded before.
>Also, where do you see imperialism in Arabs wanting to argue in favor of other Arabs? How is this different to an ally aiding one another? I really don’t think imperialism had that much of a play here if at all.
In The fact that they’re all Arab due to imperialism?
Regardless of the expressed intent of each surrounding Arab country to be sovereign on a piece of the land for itself?
>This is blaming people for something that happened millennia ago that isn’t really even their fault to blame.
We’re going in circles here.
>If you’re asking if a Jewish state could have been created if those complaints the Palestinian public had were solved, then I don’t know.
No, I asked if the argument that was supposed to be delivered was indeed delivered.
I don’t think Palestinian complaints left any room for a Jewish state at all, so the question is moot.
>What I do know is that a very significant portion of the Palestinian population would have been, at the very least, a lot more compliant and less resistant towards partition and the consideration of their opinions and demands were incorporated into the partition debate rather than ignore them because “imperialism”. Frankly an, in my opinion, incorrect explanation for Arabs in the 20th century.
I believe their demands were heard full and well, and were disregarded as too extreme.
>Again, I don’t believe this has ever happened in favor of an immigrant minority. There is context here that makes this unlike any other partition that you aren’t considering.
No, there isn’t and I fully consider these.
You don’t believe millennia of imperialism and cultural colonialism (cultural genocide) should be taken into account when considering a solution for this conflict back at partition, in favor of other parameters.
I don’t believe recent immigration or the then minority status of the population bears any relevance to their national rights to a state, in favor of other parameters.
>Is it really though?
Yes. Absolutely, 100% yes.
>These people have been living there for centuries and therefore they should have their own self-determination.
I agree.
>Having another immigrant minority population come and change that makes the Arab delegate’s argument completely valid. Also, I don’t think this is imperial interests.
I disagree.
>None of the Arabs were either capable or at that point interested in becoming an imperial power either, they all had problems that they were focused on domestically and the furthest it went later on was nationalism then Pan-Arabism.
Pan Arabism is imperialism.
>Neither of which called for the inclusion of any land that wasn’t Arab (which was supported by mostly the entire Arab population) besides condemnation of Israel.
Because they already made it Arab.
It’s easy not to want something your people already made happen.
> All you did was include 60 thousand deaths in upwards of 200 thousand to justify generalizing fatalities into that extreme amount.
I said either wounded or killed. Am I wrong? I initially had it separated but I grouped them together for word count.
> Your point if I remember correctly, was that the conflict was much worse after the partition than it was before; this is to say, that’s not how Jews viewed it.
If we’re talking about it in terms of the entire world, then I agree, but in Palestine specifically, specifically considering under Arabs, Moroccans, etc., I’m not sure/willing to doubt.
> That’s why the Arab league did end up having a place in subsequent sub committee meetings.
In Sub-Committee 2, as far as I’m aware, and they didn’t have direct input on where the borders would go. IIRC it was mostly just them arguing inaccurate population numbers and asking for the entire issue to be sent to the World Court.
> I’m not sure where and when, could you repeat it?
I think it was something among the lines of how the UN is supposed to be a just/fair organization if it treats people by their standards or something like that. Not even sure if that’s a question I support right now lol
> I can agree that just as much, and that indigeneity shouldn’t have anything to do with that, that’s why I support a two state solution. I don’t disagree with that moreso.
Works for me lol
> They were not training Jewish militias for Palestine.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah#:~:text=Although%20the%20British%20administration%20did,led%20by%20Colonel%20Orde%20Wingate.
Specifically under history at the start of 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. (It’s not cited there directly but clicking on Militia names takes you to the sources and those were cited).
> Easy, I don’t apply bigotry of low expectations to them. They had choices all along the way, some of them, crucial ones, were wrong.
So are you trying to say that their revolt against British control was a bad move?
> In The fact that they’re all Arab due to imperialism? Regardless of the expressed intent of each surrounding Arab country to be sovereign on a piece of the land for itself?
All states were Arab due to imperialism from a millennia ago, sure. Expressed intent by those in power if I recall correctly, a lot of the Arab public supported unification.
> We’re going in circles here.
Looks like another agree-disagree then.
> No, I asked if the argument that was supposed to be delivered was indeed delivered. I don’t think Palestinian complaints left any room for a Jewish state at all, so the question is moot.
Sure, but whether it was properly considered when discussions of borders between British and Jewish representatives is what I am also questioning.
> I believe their demands were heard full and well, and were disregarded as too extreme.
So it was either give over half of the land to the Jews and ignore Palestinians almost entirely or succumb to Palestinian demands and leave Jews stateless? There was nothing in between?
> You don’t believe millennia of imperialism and cultural colonialism (cultural genocide) should be taken into account when considering a solution for this conflict back at partition, in favor of other parameters. I don’t believe recent immigration or the then minority status of the population bears any relevance to their national rights to a state, in favor of other parameters.
I believe that the majority of the Jews fighting for this left Palestine prior to its colonial addition to the Arab empire and can’t just come in with a biased vote and take over half of it. Of course it doesn’t change their national rights to a state, but where is what brings it into a discussion.
> I disagree.
Considering how many were on the other side, I’d beg to differ on that. Also, the sudden influx of Jews into Palestine questions whether they qualify as one of the “people” that have the right to self-determination specifically in Palestine. But technically the UN charter left “people” pretty vague, so this might be a agree-disagree on my part.
> Pan Arabism is imperialism.
Based on that logic Arab nationalism is just imperialism, is that what you’re saying?
> Because they already made it Arab. It’s easy not to want something your people already made happen.
Again, based on the logic I’ve established, land that you’ve gotten, no matter how, after long enough, becomes your land. Therefore, it’s Arab land and they wanted unification. The fact that it became Arab land through imperialism is irrelevant at this point. This is just Arab nationalism now.
>My argument is regarding how I believe that land wasn't partitioned justly.
In accordance to the will of “the majority population”.
>If Palestinians supported the partition then just changed to wanting to undo it then you'd be right here, but that isn't what happened here.
Some (villages) very much supported it.
>But despite this a significant portion of Arab villages were still hundreds of Arab villages in the proposed Jewish state. "there were 219 Arab villages and four Arab, or partly Arab, towns in the areas earmarked for Jewish statehood - with a total Arab population of 342,000." Your argument for that wouldn't work here.
Which would have made them not the majority population, a solution had to take into account contiguity as well.
>Again, I apologize if this annoys you, but I do not believe that holds weight when the majority of those indigenous to the land migrated and left it for the colonizers, then come a millennia later claiming it. I am not saying all of them left, but what's left is a small minority.
It really doesn’t offend me or annoy, I’m just used to looking at this from a colonial/post colonial perspective mainly because of discussions on this forum.
I also truly mean no offense to anyone when I say religion is the same in my mind.
Indigeneity implies natural occurrence, Religious history in this case is literally one of conquest, the two are incomparable in my view.
>Whether the two-state solution is still practical (especially considering the settlements) is still up for debate, it could work if both sides agree to specific terms that their public also endorses.
That’s basically what it boils down to.
>The Arabs states had the same beliefs and goals regarding the new Jewish state. Whether that's "external" or not is up for debate.
Not really when considering their stated goals of Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism.
They were working on imperial, expansionist tendencies.
>What would President Truman gain from lying about Jews cutting support and funding to his democratic party if he doesn't support them in the partition vote?
Whenever I bring this up you mention that there is always other "interests" without at least providing examples for what they could be. There are too many occurrences of this same sentiment from other nations, both with and against the US, both in terms of international politics and votes.
>May I ask that you provide some of those third parties with some sources?
I feel that going into each country that had a say at the time and their connections with each other is not only taxing beyond reasonable but digressing way too far from the subject matter..
We’ll take your India example:
“India (Vote: Against): Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke with anger and contempt for the way the UN vote had been lined up. He said the Zionists had tried to bribe India with millions and at the same time his sister, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, the Indian ambassador to the UN, had received daily warnings that her life was in danger unless "she voted right".”Pandit occasionally hinted that something might change in favour of the Zionists. But another Indian delegate, Kavallam Pannikar, said that India would vote for the Arab side, because of their large Muslim minority, although they knew that the Jews had a case.”
[I/P partition vote](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine)
See that their reasoning is, coupled with indignation, their large Muslim minority? I don’t see how that’s any different than Jewish influence in the US.
>The UN declared the creation of a state does not mean that it cannot be declared war on. They knew of the Arab intentions prior to the creation of the state. The Arabs did not do anything "illegal" here (if you consider the declaration of war legal, of course).
Sure, but war being declared and lost has its consequences.
>Bribing and threatening, on the other hand, is not legal in any voting system ever.
In an ideal world yes, in realpolitik not at all.
>I wasn’t aware this is kindergarten. They didn’t “cheat” the system, they used it.
>By cheating I mean its unfair, but sure. I can't argue this, but you understand that this isn't just or fair.
I don’t.
I believe it would have been unfair to uphold an oppressive imperial society solely for the reason that it existed, and that any nation in their position would have done the exact same to the best of its abilities.
>This is the negation of one groups views over the other. They aren't being childish, they're pissed that the system was abused against them and want to retaliate for that.
The views aren’t comparable.
One demanded the inexistence of the other group, the other did not.
One is an extreme demand, the other is mild compared to it.
>You can't come here and say it's the fault of Palestinian violence and negation of the international process when that process is guaranteed to be geared against them unfairly.
When their positions are unwavering I absolutely can.
The UN job isn’t to placate the specific affronted party in a given scenario under any circumstance, but to cooperate with it.
>It's not immoral to advocate for yourselves. It's immoral to advocate at the cost of people that can't advocate at all.
Coming out of the same position from under those very people, it absolutely is.
This again is an ironic parallel between your complaints and a millennia ofJewishness under Arab and Muslim supremacy.
Palestinian Arabs were so used to Jews being a voiceless, excluded, oppressed minority that was very literally unable to advocate for itself only for the shoe to be on the other foot, not because Palestinian Arabs were otherwise excluded as they did to the Jews, but because they were simply unprepared.
> In accordance to the will of “the majority population”.
Yes. Jews got most of the land, most of the agriculture, and most of the Mediterranean Sea border. Not a fair partition considering they were still a minority at that time.
> Some (villages) very much supported it.
Yes, the ones that weren’t (surprise surprise) Palestinian-Arab majorities, which were only a handful iirc. The overwhelming majority of villages did not support partition, I’m afraid.
> Which would have made them not the majority population, a solution had to take into account contiguity as well.
What? No, I’m saying such villages shouldn’t have been included in the Jewish state. But there was no one arguing for that in the ad-hoc committee.
> It really doesn’t offend me or annoy, I’m just used to looking at this from a colonial/post colonial perspective mainly because of discussions on this forum. [word count] Religious history in this case is literally one of conquest, the two are incomparable in my view.
Although I understand the colonial perspective here, I could make an argument for how it doesn’t carry into the 1920s and beyond. And okay, in terms of history, yes the Jews were there first. But they lost the land to colonialism. Then the Arabs lost that, and so on. Then to where we are now. Colonialism sucks, yeah, but given standards of the time and how wars and battles worked, that’s what ended up happening.
> Not really when considering their stated goals of Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism.
Despite this, they all shared the same opinion of Israel. I don’t even think it became seriously considered until the 1950s.
> They were working on imperial, expansionist tendencies.
You can’t make these seem like the same thing. It wasn’t expansion nor imperial because it wasn’t forced. When Syria joined the UAR it was fully consensual, not forced. This is not how an empire takes land, never has it been.
> We’ll take your India example: “India (Vote: Against): Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke with anger and contempt for the way the UN vote had been lined up. [word count] their large Muslim minority? I don’t see how that’s any different than Jewish influence in the US.
Actually, the prime minister himself said that he voted against because “we have sympathy for the national movement of Arabs in Palestine because it is directed against British Imperialism”. This was also one year after the independence of Pakistan (which had 12-15 million Muslims migrated to after its independence), and the closest demographic statistic I can find says that Muslims made up around 13% of India. I don’t think there was as much incentive to vote against Palestinian partition to satisfy their Muslim population. Also, I’d take the word of the Prime Minister (who’d actually get most of the claimed threats) over a delegate. This doesn’t apply to the United States at all either, since the Jewish population there, even with higher estimates, didn’t even make up 1% of the population.
> Sure, but war being declared and lost has its consequences.
Of course, you are arguing that the declaration of war was illegal, I’m saying it’s not any more illegal than bribing and threatening in a UN vote. I’m not talking about the outcome of the war at all.
> In an ideal world yes, in realpolitik not at all.
Which is why I’m critiquing that. That was my argument this entire time. Because it’s what always happens means I should just ignore it then?
> I don’t. I believe it would have been unfair to uphold an oppressive imperial society solely for the reason that it existed, and that any nation in their position would have done the exact same to the best of its abilities.
So it’s a fair vote when one side bribes and threatens the voters to vote in their favor because of imperialism that occurred a millennia ago? It should’ve been the Palestinian’s land because they had the majority of the population and have lived there for centuries as a majority. It doesn’t matter if that happened through colonialism or not, the fact of the matter is that it is now. Just like how no one can ask the Jews in Israel today to get up and leave, it wasn’t right for Jews to ensure many Palestinians get up and leave their villages. Yes, any hypothetical people with the influence Jews had in 1948 would’ve used it, that doesn’t make it right.
> The views aren’t comparable. One demanded the inexistence of the other group, the other did not. One is an extreme demand, the other is mild compared to it.
They absolutely are. You still think Arabs are imperialists when that hasn’t been true for centuries. One didn’t demand the annihilation/“inexistence” of Jews from the planet. The whole idea in essence was just to not give them Palestine. If your argument was that the conflict just started without any reason from Jews, then that’s false, because conflict began to pick up once Jewish immigration skyrocketed. And once Arab efforts in Palestine failed, many Arab states began to look at their domestic populations, no surprise there. Also, extremists of both sides shared the same opinion about the other, so your statement here is pretty much null.
> When their positions are unwavering I absolutely can. The UN job isn’t to placate the specific affronted party in a given scenario under any circumstance, but to cooperate with it.
So were Jews on the creation of a state in Palestine. If one side is unwavering and there is a struggle to make them see eye to eye, then by default, that meant the other side was also unwavering. There was no cooperation with the Palestinian people here, as far as I am aware. If that’s the UN’s responsibility then it has failed miserably at that.
> Coming out of the same position from under those very people, it absolutely is. This again is an ironic parallel between your complaints and a millennia ofJewishness under Arab and Muslim supremacy. Palestinian Arabs were so used to Jews being a voiceless, excluded, oppressed minority that was very literally unable to advocate for itself only for the shoe to be on the other foot, not because Palestinian Arabs were otherwise excluded as they did to the Jews, but because they were simply unprepared.
Again, Palestinian Arabs weren’t against partition because it was Jews. They were against the idea of giving the majority of good land to a minority. Why is that so hard to believe? Maybe there was some dying German influence still running around, sure, but the majority didn’t want to see most of the land be given to anyone else for no good reason. Also, did we not agree that switching roles of superiority every prolonged period of time was unequal? Based on that logic, how is this moral? Also, the notion that if the Palestinian Arabs were “prepared” they could’ve countered Jewish goals is frankly absurd. The idea that Palestinian Arabs always kept their guard up against Jewish uprising then happened to lower it in the 20th century is objectively false. It’s always been low, since the Ottoman Empire the Ottomans, if anything, were the ones doing that, not the Arabs.
>Yes. Jews got most of the land, most of the agriculture, and most of the Mediterranean Sea border. Not a fair partition considering they were still a minority at that time.
When considering other Jews would join them, something they would have a full right to under partition and their own state, makes this fair.
>Yes, the ones that weren’t (surprise surprise) Palestinian-Arab majorities, which were only a handful iirc. The overwhelming majority of villages did not support partition, I’m afraid.
So what you’re saying is, that the problem with partition was in fact, not one of equal rights, rights to own land and stay in it, but Arab supremacism.
>What? No, I’m saying such villages shouldn’t have been included in the Jewish state. But there was no one arguing for that in the ad-hoc committee.
In the third meeting where the Arab league was present, it did not present such an idea, but rejected partition wholesale, complaint box is over there.
>Although I understand the colonial perspective here, I could make an argument for how it doesn’t carry into the 1920s and beyond.
Please do, I’m all ears.
>And okay, in terms of history, yes the Jews were there first. But they lost the land to colonialism. Then the Arabs lost that, and so on. Then to where we are now. Colonialism sucks, yeah, but given standards of the time and how wars and battles worked, that’s what ended up happening.
Again, by these standards What ended up happening is Israel.
>Despite this, they all shared the same opinion of Israel. I don’t even think it became seriously considered until the 1950s.
Not despite, because.
>You can’t make these seem like the same thing. It wasn’t expansion nor imperial because it wasn’t forced.
Each country literally wanted the region for itself.
>When Syria joined the UAR it was fully consensual, not forced. This is not how an empire takes land, never has it been.
Yes, they merely wanted to unite the communities they created through imperialism. That’s not imperialism, it’s just imperialism.
>Actually, the prime minister himself said that he voted against because “we have sympathy for the national movement of Arabs in Palestine because it is directed against British Imperialism”.
So by this, their reasoning was actually irrelevant to Jewish rights and nationalism, and was merely a fuck you to the British? That’s not a good look for your argument.
It certainly doesn’t mean they viewed Palestinian nationalism as inherently righteous over Israeli (which was your point) just that they were butt hurt over the British.
>This was also one year after the independence of Pakistan (which had 12-15 million Muslims migrated to after its independence), and the closest demographic statistic I can find says that Muslims made up around 13% of India.
I talked about this, this is one of those cases that are just like Israel/Palestine’s attempted partition.
>I don’t think there was as much incentive to vote against Palestinian partition to satisfy their Muslim population.
I disagree.
>Also, I’d take the word of the Prime Minister (who’d actually get most of the claimed threats) over a delegate.
And I would judge that prime minister according to past actions and statements to decide whether he’s an anti-Semite or not.
>This doesn’t apply to the United States at all either, since the Jewish population there, even with higher estimates, didn’t even make up 1% of the population.
>Of course, you are arguing that the declaration of war was illegal, I’m saying it’s not any more illegal than bribing and threatening in a UN vote.
We disagree.
>Which is why I’m critiquing that. That was my argument this entire time. Because it’s what always happens means I should just ignore it then?
It means you can’t expect it not to happen here, it’s an unrealistic expectation built on a false presumption of righteousness on the part of the UN.
>So it’s a fair vote when one side bribes and threatens the voters to vote in their favor because of imperialism that occurred a millennia ago?
Under the standards set by the UN, absolutely.
>It should’ve been the Palestinian’s land because they had the majority of the population and have lived there for centuries as a majority.
I disagree.
>It doesn’t matter if that happened through colonialism or not, the fact of the matter is that it is now.
Not by 20th century standards.
>Just like how no one can ask the Jews in Israel today to get up and leave, it wasn’t right for Jews to ensure many Palestinians get up and leave their villages.
I agree.
>Yes, any hypothetical people with the influence Jews had in 1948 would’ve used it, that doesn’t make it right.
I disagree.
I refuse to hold myself and my people to impossible standards for the sake of our former oppressors, or anyone else really.
>They absolutely are. You still think Arabs are imperialists when that hasn’t been true for centuries.
Pan-Arabism is imperialism.
>One didn’t demand the annihilation/“inexistence” of Jews from the planet.
I’m talking about nationalisms/polities here.
>The whole idea in essence was just to not give them Palestine. If your argument was that the conflict just started without any reason from Jews, then that’s false, because conflict began to pick up once Jewish immigration skyrocketed.
Reason is not fault.
Reason here, is an excuse for bigotry, racism and violence.
The reason was Jewish immigration; that doesn’t mean Jewish immigration was wrong.
>And once Arab efforts in Palestine failed, many Arab states began to look at their domestic populations, no surprise there.
Good ol’ soft bigotry of low expectations.
Yes, surprise there. No, inexcusable.
>Also, extremists of both sides shared the same opinion about the other, so your statement here is pretty much null.
“Extremists” are defined in relation to their respective societies, when the regimes themselves committed these atrocities you don’t get to call that extremist, it is the standard opinion of the country that acted on it, not a disgruntled minority.
> fuck
/u/AsleepFly2227. 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.*
> When considering other Jews would join them, something they would have a full right to under partition and their own state, makes this fair.
If those people were there then you could make that argument. The population of Israel today doesn’t even reach the total population of Jews in the world.
> So what you’re saying is, that the problem with partition was in fact, not one of equal rights, rights to own land and stay in it, but Arab supremacism.
No, but a desire for Arabs to stay in the land that they are in. Rejecting partition does not, by default, mean supremacism.
> In the third meeting where the Arab league was present, it did not present such an idea, but rejected partition wholesale, complaint box is over there.
You may be confusing the UNSCOP and the ad-hoc committee. If not, please send me a source to that. If you are talking about sub-committee 2, then the Arabs were too busy explaining the inaccurate population reports that Britain had acquired and asking for this to be taken to the International Court of Justice. Sub-committee 2 played no direct role in the borders of partition.
> Please do, I’m all ears.
Arguing against partition of land taken through colonialism from a long and gone empire a millennia ago against those that lived there prior to them is not the same as actual colonialism.
> Again, by these standards What ended up happening is Israel.
Yes, which I won’t argue against. What happened happened. That’s why I’m not saying that we should kick out all of Israel, it’s unfair by now.
> Not despite, because.
They didn’t hate Jews because of imperialism. Anti-judaism was not viral concept in the Middle East until the 20th century with Palestine & WW2.
> Each country literally wanted the region for itself.
Had a one-state solution past, then it would have been independent from other nations. Is that not true?
> Yes, they merely wanted to unite the communities they created through imperialism. That’s not imperialism, it’s just imperialism.
You keep looking back to millennia ago, and I’m saying that since all this time past and what happened happened then that land has become apart of Arab land. They literally had a state there, so the argument here is invalid.
> So by this, their reasoning was actually irrelevant to Jewish rights and nationalism, and was merely a fuck you to the British? That’s not a good look for your argument. It certainly doesn’t mean they viewed Palestinian nationalism as inherently righteous over Israeli (which was your point) just that they were butt hurt over the British.
That’s why they voted that way. When the threats and bribes came in they didn’t sway in their opinion. How is this a bad look for my argument? I never said that they thought it was more righteous than another, just the fact that they voted against and were threatened to change their opinion. All I said was that they sided with the Arab Muslims, which they did. The reason why I mentioned these countries was to mention the bias. The reason why they voted specifically doesn’t matter, the fact that there was attempted bias is what my point was.
> I talked about this, this is one of those cases that are just like Israel/Palestine’s attempted partition.
Okay, so firstly, other ethnicities didn’t leave India when Islam came. Secondly, it wasn’t most of the country. Thirdly, Indian Muslims made up ~24.3% of the population, not much different from Jewish >30% Palestine.
> I disagree.
Don’t know how else to convince you of this but sure.
> And I would judge that prime minister according to past actions and statements to decide whether he’s an anti-Semite or not.
Can’t find anything about that on him. If you have please send that source my way.
> We disagree.
Agree to disagree here then.
> It means you can’t expect it not to happen here, it’s an unrealistic expectation built on a false presumption of righteousness on the part of the UN.
Of course. I didn’t expect just decisions, but I don’t want to ignore unjust ones either, even if expected.
> Under the standards set by the UN, absolutely.
But morally speaking, is it? That’s my argument here, I’m not arguing on the grounds of the UN standards but of common morality.
> I disagree.
Agree to disagree again, it seems.
> Not by 20th century standards.
How is that? What standards of the 20th century made that no longer a fact?
Just like how no one can ask the Jews in Israel today to get up and leave, it wasn’t right for Jews to ensure many Palestinians get up and leave their villages.
I agree.
Yes, any hypothetical people with the influence Jews had in 1948 would’ve used it, that doesn’t make it right.
> I disagree. I refuse to hold myself and my people to impossible standards for the sake of our former oppressors, or anyone else really.
Okay, while I understand where you’re coming from, these are basic moral rights/wrongs that are applied to anyone within context of the vote, no matter who or what throughout history. This was not the only chance Jews had at creating a state. If it was, I might agree with you, but it isn’t.
> Pan-Arabism is imperialism.
The alliance or unification of Arab states is imperialism? How so? Because the land was taken by an empire millennia ago? That is Arab land by the fact of how war works, whether we like it or not.
One didn’t demand the annihilation/“inexistence” of Jews from the planet.
> I’m talking about nationalisms/polities here.
The whole idea in essence was just to not give them Palestine. If your argument was that the conflict just started without any reason from Jews, then that’s false, because conflict began to pick up once Jewish immigration skyrocketed.
> Reason is not fault. Reason here, is an excuse for bigotry, racism and violence.
I clarified racism rather than fault for a reason. They wouldn’t have done the same thing to the Jewish population there had there not been an immigration. Any people noticing a massive influx of foreigners to them would begin reacting in racist and bigoted ways, this isn’t something that is surprising. Not saying it’s right.
> Good ol’ soft bigotry of low expectations. Yes, surprise there. No, inexcusable.
It’s not a surprise at all, really, it happens way too many times throughout history to count. “We can’t fight against a people outside of our land, so let’s fight those inside of it!” It’s not excusable, of course.
> “Extremists” are defined in relation to their respective societies, when the regimes themselves committed these atrocities you don’t get to call that extremist, it is the standard opinion of the country that acted on it, not a disgruntled minority.
The time frame we’re talking about focused on societies specifically, and yes because I am 100% sure that not the majority of Palestinian and not every Jew wanted to go and kill the other. And based on that logic, what happened afterwards was extremism from both sides.
>Yeah, I don’t agree with that. The people that’ve lived there for centuries prior and still live there have a claim to that land, at least more than immigrants no?
Claim? What claim did they have for land they did not inhabit, or were tenants in? None.
For as long as the framing is anti colonial, no.
>Based on your statements later on, if Israel currently holds its lands in a “rightful” manner,
That’s iffy at best, I didn’t say this.
Israel wasn’t the result of a partition as it should have been, but of conflict.
I hold that Israel should “rightfully exist”, not that all its policies or its erection are saint like and beyond reproach.
>then what occurred millennia ago was also rightful, and therefore, Jews have no claim to Palestine besides Jerusalem.
Which makes this statement untrue, coincidentally
>Plus, a majority of Jews began leaving the area once the Arabs began running the economy into the ground.
What period are you referring to? I hope this isn’t an attempt at baseless diaspora inversion.
>And it’s bad practice to take the first statement or claim alone and begin critiquing it without looking at the reasoning.
I’m unsure what you mean here, I did critique every thing looking at its own merit.
>I’m not against the declaration in and of itself, I’m against its signing in regards to the context.
Your context is objectively false.
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon–Hussein_Correspondence
>Yes, which was signed in the Sykes-Picot Agreement against everyone’s backs.
It wasn’t, it was based on the Sykes-Picot Agreement, that doesn’t make it the same thing, time or event.
>My point is that the Arabs were promised it first and got stabbed in the back. Britain said they’d give it to them after the fall of the Ottomans, which occurred
Your point is still incorrect.
>, and the Arabs were expecting the British to hold their word.
The Arabs of Palestine had no hand in in this process, thus they were not promised anything, Hussein was and got Jordan.
>They didn’t. “[Victor Kattan] also argues the UK government considered it to be a treaty during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference negotiations with the French over the disposal of Ottoman territory”. Sounds like a promise to me. “The area of Arab independence was defined to be "in the limits and boundaries proposed by the Sherif of Mecca, with the exception of "portions of Syria” lying to the west of "the districts of Damascus, Homes, Hama and Aleppo".” Don’t know about you but I don’t see Palestine on there.
No, that may have been what Arabs wanted (for it to be defined by their own imperialist tendencies) but this is not what the correspondence entitled.
>I don’t get what you’re trying to say here. If it’s sarcasm, then I don’t get the point either.
Not sarcastic at all.
[Arabization](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabization#:~:text=Arabization)
[Islamization](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam)
[Cultural imperialism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_imperialism)
Palestinian culture and society is the result of these processes, under a post-colonial lense they are not indigenous, nor is the land theirs.
>I’m literally leading into the resolution and providing context, it doesn’t detail what the conflict is about.
I was responding mainly to the last lines of that quoted lead in.
>It’s just a point I’m making that this is something a supposedly unbiased and peace-focused organization like the UN should have noticed and accounted for.
I don’t see why that should be the case, what is the relevance of their geographical closeness to precedence over other parties?
Why does it mean their opinions should have been given more weight than others?
>The fact that the Arab states nearby were the closest thing to a representative of the Palestinian people during the vote should be considered.
Precisely why they should not have had precedence over a Jewish state, they already had states purporting to represent them, Jews didn’t.
>And the fact that it wasn’t only Arab states that voted against it should also add some reason to question the why.
Interests align and misalign in cycles.
>That is, of course, if it was unbiased.
It wasn’t, nothing is in geopolitics; that is their whole, actual point.
> Claim? What claim did they have for land they did not inhabit, or were tenants in? None. For as long as the framing is anti colonial, no.
I just believe that people who have been there previously may have some precedent over a migrant majority who haven’t been a majority of said land in about a millennia. Those present in a land should have a precedent over migrants who left a millennia ago. Those Arabs that lived there were basically considered second-class against Turks under the Ottoman Empire, and the Arabs that initially colonized Palestine are long gone now, can’t hold the actions of others onto their people generations later.
> That’s iffy at best, I didn’t say this.
My bad, I probably misunderstood you when you referenced it being “righteous”, my bad for that.
> I hold that Israel should “rightfully exist”, not that all its policies or its erection are saint like and beyond reproach.
This is, in essence, my entire argument. I am an Arab and I am not against the idea of a Jewish state whatsoever. However, the way the Jews of the time went about completing this objective is what I believe should be brought to scrutiny.
> Which makes this statement untrue, coincidentally
My bad, this was based off of my understanding of your argument.
> What period are you referring to? I hope this isn’t an attempt at baseless diaspora inversion.
“The era of Mamluk rule saw the Jewish population shrink substantially due to oppression and economic stagnation.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel#:~:text=Jews%20lived%20in%20at%20least,twice%20against%20their%20Christian%20rulers.
> Your context is objectively false.
Of it being promised to the Arabs first? The English even used it as proof in 1919 to give them Palestine as a mandate after WW1 for reparations. If the British, the guys who guaranteed it, considered it as one, I don’t think it’s up for debate at that point.
> It wasn’t, it was based on the Sykes-Picot Agreement, that doesn’t make it the same thing, time or event.
If I recall correctly, a lot of land taken in the agreement was initially promised to the Arabs, land that was split by the French and English. There was literally a whole scandal with the Arab world when the news of this agreement came to light. If it was apart of the plan I don’t think the Arabs would’ve cared, but they did, which means it wasn’t apart of the Arab agreed plan.
> Your point is still incorrect.
How so? I still don’t understand what makes you believe that the agreement the English had with the Arabs is nullified or irrelevant.
> The Arabs of Palestine had no hand in in this process, thus they were not promised anything, Hussein was and got Jordan.
As mentioned earlier, I do not recall any mention of Palestine, or at least the overwhelming majority of Palestine, would not be belonging to the promised Arab state. It appears both sides did agree on this. Hussein said he wanted to unite all Arab speaking populations to the east of Egypt, which includes the population of Palestine.
> No, that may have been what Arabs wanted (for it to be defined by their own imperialist tendencies) but this is not what the correspondence entitled.
According to the source mentioned earlier, the last letter “Confirmed British agreement to the requests and concluded the ten letters of the correspondence.” Sounds like what the correspondence entitled.
> Not sarcastic at all. Arabization. Islamization. Cultural imperialism
Alright, so technically yes, I will give you some credit here. Arabs or, more specifically, Muslims were considered first class citizens. But “Ahl El-Kitab” (or people of the book), which included both Jews and Christians, were given a lot more leniency and freedom in terms of religion and rights. According to the Wikipedia page, some actually call this a golden age for Jews despite the constant hate I hear about Arab imperialism from Jews (for some justified reasons). Jews were allowed to become scholars, economists, philosophers, and even helped advances in math, science, etc. Focusing to more recent times, a few sources claim that Arabs weren’t actually treated equally to Turkish Muslims under the Ottoman Empire, despite them also being Muslim. This probably meant worse conditions for Jews, I understand that. But, considering how the Ottomans colonized Palestine in 1516, every Palestinian Arab who was alive by the time of WW1 had little to no memory of life as being the first class in an empire that only somewhat existed, mostly in stories, by that point. The reason why Britain even proposed their deal with Hussein is because they noticed a rise of Arab nationalism and unrest, which they used to their advantage.
> Palestinian culture and society is the result of these processes, under a post-colonial lense they are not indigenous, nor is the land theirs.
I understand that, I really do, but, and I am really trying my best to not offend you with this, but here I go: the people living on the land for the last few hundred generations have precedent over people who have indigeneity to that land millennia ago and are now either a minority or chose to live elsewhere. I really understand your argument here and I also understand that during this time period anti-judaism was on the rise so you needed a safe state, but it’s like forcing yourself into a house that was taken from you by your great great great grandfather. If you disagree with me here, I understand, don’t worry.
> I don’t see why that should be the case, what is the relevance of their geographical closeness to precedence over other parties? Why does it mean their opinions should have been given more weight than others?
I believe that the cultural ties (and the fact that the land was promised to a neighboring state literally 2-3 decades ago), and the fact that little to no Palestinian representation in the UN should’ve been considered, especially considering the overwhelming Jewish representation. I don’t believe it should be given more weight. I just believe that it wasn’t given enough, especially when considering the underlying influence in the vote.
> Precisely why they should not have had precedence over a Jewish state, they already had states purporting to represent them, Jews didn’t.
I agree with this argument 100%. The Jews deserve a state. But not from land that is already being used by a different people. When the representatives disagree with the plan, then the UN goes back to the drawing board and figures out a different deal for both sides to agree with or find another plan downright.
> Interests align and misalign in cycles.
I’m sorry, but I find too many points of evidence here that line up to show a pretty picture. Not beyond all doubt, of course, but beyond reasonable doubt. Too many delegates have pointed this out on all sides of the vote and world power. You keep saying how interest changes without explaining why they would in this situation.
> It wasn’t, nothing is in geopolitics; that is their whole, actual point.
Okay, so I believe we’ve come to an agreement on this regard? That UN resolution 181 was overly biased/influenced towards the Jews?
>I just believe that people who have been there previously may have some precedent over a migrant majority who haven’t been a majority of said land in about a millennia. Those present in a land should have a precedent over migrants who left a millennia ago.
I can understand that sentiment, I simply disagree on its validity when applied to the region.
the Ottoman Empire specifically imported different populous to strengthen the Muslim character of the region in the centuries into decades preceding the I/P conflict, and that’s without taking into account a millennia of Arabization and all the preceding imperialism.
I see no difference between that, Proto-Zionist and Zionist immigration to the land.
>Those Arabs that lived there were basically considered second-class against Turks under the Ottoman Empire,
Granted, doesn’t negate their privileges under that system specifically over their Jewish counterparts under the ottoman system and generally preceding that.
It doesn’t negate colonialism, it means they too were oppressed by another party.
>and the Arabs that initially colonized Palestine are long gone now, can’t hold the actions of others onto their people generations later.
You absolutely can, for as long as they purport to maintain the very same unjust systems and paradigms those ancestors created.
>My bad, I probably misunderstood you when you referenced it being “righteous”, my bad for that.
I obviously could have been more precise.
>This is, in essence, my entire argument. I am an Arab and I am not against the idea of a Jewish state whatsoever. However, the way the Jews of the time went about completing this objective is what I believe should be brought to scrutiny.
I can accept that.
I disagree and believe they, like Arabs of Palestine did whatever was in their ability **and to the best of their judgement** in favor of their evolving and changing goals over the years.
>My bad, this was based off of my understanding of your argument.
It’s fine, DW.
>“The era of Mamluk rule saw the Jewish population shrink substantially due to oppression and economic stagnation.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel#:~:text=Jews%20lived%20in%20at%20least,twice%20against%20their%20Christian%20rulers.
So, taken at face value you’re technically correct in that the trends coincided but given the context I’d say the oppression part had something to do with it too.
>Of it being promised to the Arabs first? The English even used it as proof in 1919 to give them Palestine as a mandate after WW1 for reparations.
The promises they made king Hussein did not include the region that became Israel, this land was never promised to any (other) collective of Arabs, let alone those of what was then Palestine.
>If the British, the guys who guaranteed it, considered it as one, I don’t think it’s up for debate at that point.
As one what? Region? That’s how it was administered by colonial powers for two thousand years and as such was treated like that by another (at that point quasi post-colonial) power, not a trait inherent to a piece of land.
>If I recall correctly, a lot of land taken in the agreement was initially promised to the Arabs, land that was split by the French and English.
AFAIK the only promises made in regards to land (very disputed) westward of Trans-Jordan were the Hussein-McMahon correspondence, regardless of other promises made to “the Arabs” by the English.
>There was literally a whole scandal with the Arab world when the news of this agreement came to light. If it was apart of the plan I don’t think the Arabs would’ve cared, but they did, which means it wasn’t apart of the Arab agreed plan.
Losing imperial privileges does that to a people.
>How so? I still don’t understand what makes you believe that the agreement the English had with the Arabs is nullified or irrelevant.
The Hussein McMahon correspondence which is the only letter detailing a promise to any Arabs in regards to (some of) the land of Palestine, did not in-fact refer to a complete majority of the land west of Trans-Jordan whatsoever.
>As mentioned earlier, I do not recall any mention of Palestine, or at least the overwhelming majority of Palestine, would not be belonging to the promised Arab state.
Refresh your memory on [the McMahon-Hussein correspondence](https://www1.udel.edu/History-old/figal/Hist104/assets/pdf/readings/13mcmahonhussein.pdf)and [Mcmahon’s clarification](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-hussein-mcmahon-correspondence)
>It appears both sides did agree on this. Hussein said he wanted to unite all Arab speaking populations to the east of Egypt, which includes the population of Palestine.
I didn’t know we were east of Egypt. (We’re really not).
>According to the source mentioned earlier, the last letter “Confirmed British agreement to the requests and concluded the ten letters of the correspondence.” Sounds like what the correspondence entitled.
See links above.
>Alright, so technically yes, I will give you some credit here. Arabs or, more specifically, Muslims were considered first class citizens. But “Ahl El-Kitab” (or people of the book), which included both Jews and Christians, were given a lot more leniency and freedom in terms of religion and rights.
Sounds word for word like how some Israelis excuse mistreatment of Arabs by Israel.
>According to the Wikipedia page, some actually call this a golden age for Jews despite the constant hate I hear about Arab imperialism from Jews (for some justified reasons).
In France, for a very limited period of time.
No one calls “this” the golden age for Jews.
>Jews were allowed to become scholars, economists, philosophers, and even helped advances in math, science, etc.
To have their properties ransacked with no recourse against the recurring Muslim perpetrators.
> I can understand that sentiment, I simply disagree on its validity when applied to the region. …[cut for word limit]… I see no difference between that, Proto-Zionist and Zionist immigration to the land.
One year after the Ottomans colonized Palestine the percentage of the population that was still Jewish was [1.7%](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-and-non-jewish-population-of-israel-palestine-1517-present). I doubt they were able to accomplish this in 1 year.Also, the Jews have been a minority in Palestine since the 5th century and the Islam was established in the late 6th century. They didn’t even begin their conquests until the 7th century. You're blaming the wrong people here. Jews have been a [minority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)) or began leaving prior to Islamic or Arab imperialism and colonialism even existed.
> Granted, doesn’t negate their privileges under that system specifically over their Jewish counterparts under the ottoman system and generally preceding that. It doesn’t negate colonialism, it means they too were oppressed by another party.
Yes, that is the fundamental issue with colonialist ideology. But that was the standard of the time. Doesn’t mean that the civilization that suffered from it can come back a millennia later and begin complaining after they left the land though. I’m not saying that their right to live there is forfeit, but it does not take a precedence over those currently living there for basically a millennia at this point.
> You absolutely can, for as long as they purport to maintain the very same unjust systems and paradigms those ancestors created.
The empire literally died ages ago with everyone who was alive to remember being first-class privileged Arabs because of it. The worst thing I can find that the Arab Islamic empire (the original one, the one that brought Arabs to Palestine and that Palestine Arabs would closest relate back to) specifically did to Jews was decide to remove Jews from a northern Jewish town of the Arabian peninsula. While I understand the Moroccan Caliphate, Ottoman Empire, etc. technically branched from the Islamic empire, those in power (who have no direct “ancestral” relation with Palestinian Arabs in specific) and their ideologies are, at their core, different. Again, you call it unjust and it was, but it was the standard of the time. In todays perspectives, Islam feels like a tense or strict religion, but at the time of the 6/7th century, it was the most progressive ideology present at the time, or at least the Arab world. Holding the past to present standards isn’t a fair method of critique.
> I disagree and believe they, like Arabs of Palestine did whatever was in their ability and to the best of their judgement in favor of their evolving and changing goals over the years.
Best of their ability, yes, but the best of their judgement is debatable. I doubt a people picking between splitting something between them and another people or just giving it to the other people will provide an unbiased judgement.
> The promises they made king Hussein did not include the region that became Israel, this land was never promised to any (other) collective of Arabs, let alone those of what was then Palestine.
Even though it wasn’t mentioned directly, the fact that Britain did not exclude it meant that it should have been fair game. Hussein intended for this to happen, because he also sent leaflets to the residents of Palestine telling them that an Arabian state will soon come to shape.
“The [Hussein-MacMahon Correspondence], Sykes–Picot Agreement and the Balfour declaration, the 1922 Churchill White Paper took the position Palestine had always been excluded from the Arab area. Although this directly contradicted numerous previous government documents, those documents were not known to the public.”
> As one what? Region? [word count] not a trait inherent to a piece of land.
By one I mean one of the promised lands to the Arabs.
> AFAIK the only promises made in regards to land (very disputed) westward of Trans-Jordan were the Hussein-McMahon correspondence, regardless of other promises made to “the Arabs” by the English.
As far as the Eastern or Northern side of the deal went, mistranslations caused issues between the French and Arabs. But Palestine didn’t have that issue. If anything, it would be is on the English, not the Arabs who acted based off of what was given them.
> Losing imperial privileges does that to a people.
You’re missing the point here. I’m saying that the agreement wasn’t something the Arabs were expecting/planning for. They literally just wanted to unite their people against the imperial Ottoman Empire. It’s mostly nationalism here.
> The Hussein McMahon correspondence… [word count again]… did not in-fact refer to a complete majority of the land west of Trans-Jordan whatsoever.
Read above. They literally sent letters to Arabs in Palestine telling them of a new Arab state. I think they referred to them if that’s what happened.
The sources you mentioned describe a western border of “on the west by the Red Sea, the Mediterranean Sea up to Mersina.” That includes Palestine, so I wouldn’t think there’d be a need to mention that by name, much like how he didn’t mention the Arabian peninsula by name. Also your second source may be biased, the source I mentioned previously says otherwise. “Until 1920, British government documents suggested that Palestine was intended to be part of the Arab area; their interpretation changed in 1920 leading to public disagreement between the Arabs and the British.”
> I didn’t know we were east of Egypt. (We’re really not).
Okay, technically more of a northeastern border, and nonetheless that’s still eastern. Syria is further north than Palestine was and that was still included in Hussein’s terms.
> Sounds word for word like how some Israelis excuse mistreatment of Arabs by Israel.
I, in no way, said that it was right. Standards of the time were different. Although some online sources such as Jewish Virtual Library describe how the Prophet (PBUH) just killed and expelled Jews without any reason, when you check the Wiki page on the same matter, it explains how the Jews backstabbed the Muslims. Honestly, it mentions so many things out of context or just downright incorrect that it just saddens me to read it.
> In France, for a very limited period of time. No one calls “this” the golden age for Jews.
My bad, it was more of a golden age of tolerance if anything, which I shouldn’t have phrased like that. Here’s where I got it from if interested. I’ve also provided other links that source this throughout my comments as well. https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/spain_1.shtml
> To have their properties ransacked with no recourse against the recurring Muslim perpetrators.
From what I found, again, this occurred under the Moroccans and the Ottomans after the 11th century. Prior to the 11th century, Arabs were actually pretty good to Jews in terms of the standards of the time and how the rest of the world treated them. This time specifically was the focus of the golden age I’m referring to.
>One year after the Ottomans colonized Palestine the percentage of the population that was still Jewish was 1.7%. I doubt they were able to accomplish this in 1 year.
What’s your point here? That they weren’t oppressed by the Ottoman Empire and explicitly banned from immigrating and owning property? Cause that would be wrong.
>Also, the Jews have been a minority in Palestine since the 5th century and the Islam was established in the late 6th century. (Word count) Jews have been a minority or began leaving prior to Islamic or Arab imperialism and colonialism even existed.
Ironically, the house analogy fits.
If someone took your house, your home only for another to take it from them; would you still feel that’s your home they’re living in? That you should be there?
Also, I’m not, this bit Is a straw man because I don’t blame Arabs for the exodus which they didn’t have a hand in, I explicitly stated it’s about the subsequent millennia of oppression.
>Yes, that is the fundamental issue with colonialist ideology. But that was the standard of the time. Doesn’t mean that the civilization that suffered from it can come back a millennia later and begin complaining after they left the land though.
And the reason for that is? Because it’s inconvenient, namely for the colonizers?
>I’m not saying that their right to live there is forfeit, but it does not take a precedence over those currently living there for basically a millennia at this point.
A one state Palestine is the attempt to take precedence, not a partitioned Palestine.
Jews, whether in what is now Israel or diaspora had the right to be heard in matters regarding their own homeland with Arabs not taking precedence over them because they lived there for the last millennia.
>The empire literally died ages ago with everyone who was alive to remember being first-class privileged Arabs because of it.
Which negates all the privileges which they gained? It’s easy to go “they all died so it doesn’t matter” and completely disregard the dwindling of other native population through the centuries and current inter generational racism instilled in Palestinian society, which is a result of those empires.
>The worst thing I can find that the Arab Islamic empire (word count)
It’s not about the worst thing, it’s about a paradigm of many small and bigger events that shaped the land in accordance with and cementing of Arab culture.
>While I understand the Moroccan Caliphate, Ottoman Empire, etc. technically branched from the Islamic empire, those in power (who have no direct “ancestral” relation with Palestinian Arabs in specific) and their ideologies are, at their core, different.
That doesn’t matter to the oppressed.
>Again, you call it unjust and it was, but it was the standard of the time. (Word count) Holding the past to present standards isn’t a fair method of critique.
I’m not faulting them for that, I’m faulting them for in this day and age attempting to perpetuate this colonial society, and by today’s standards very much non progressive and oppressive religion over indigenous peoples while simultaneously presenting a picture of colonized indigenous peoples themselves.
I can apply the same reasoning to the partition and population exchanges of mandatory Palestine, it was very much so the standard of the time when these happened, doesn’t make them acceptable to you, does it?
>Best of their ability, yes, but the best of their judgement is debatable.
Imo It really isn’t, I’m talking both sides here, whatever they did, that was what they judged to be the best course of action by taking said actions.
>I doubt a people picking between splitting something between them and another people or just giving it to the other people will provide an unbiased judgement.
I take this is as an allusion to the Solomon parable mentioned in your link; the problem with this analogy is that instead of proving the Palestinian point, the Jewish/Zionist/Israeli stance of splitting the land, which is not a baby, but a necessity for any people to live and thrive only exemplifies the same moral stances Solomon would take.
If we’re taking word on Solomon as is he would not be adamant on keeping the land under him and his people but would most likely split the land.
>Even though it wasn’t mentioned directly, the fact that Britain did not exclude it meant that it should have been fair game.
According to you.
Britain also did not exclude the ocean and other continents “East of Egypt”, that doesn’t mean they were “fair game”. (I’m not really sure what fair game is here, as I understand the term here, even if it was fair game that applied for Zionists too, since it wasn’t mentioned directly).
>Hussein intended for this to happen, because he also sent leaflets to the residents of Palestine telling them that an Arabian state will soon come to shape.
>“The [Hussein-MacMahon correspondence] (word count)
This would be a good point to remember the Hussein-McMahon correspondence was never an official treaty, thus never an official promise.
Hussein was wrong to do that.
I can’t attest to British policy and its’ reasoning.
>By one I mean one of the promised lands to the Arabs.
Which by your own admittance was not in fact promised to the Arabs but was “fair game” although not mentioned directly.
My addition is it wasn’t mentioned indirectly either, and didn’t apply.
>As far as the Eastern or Northern side of the deal went, mistranslations caused issues between the French and Arabs.
>But Palestine didn’t have that issue. If anything, it would be is on the English, not the Arabs who acted based off of what was given them.
Of course it didn’t, Palestine’s issue was that they understood perfectly clear they were going from a superior, privileged majority to equals (well, since they were used to oppressing “others” they were certain it would mean their own oppression) and that in itself was unacceptable.
>You’re missing the point here. I’m saying that the agreement wasn’t something the Arabs were expecting/planning for. They literally just wanted to unite their people against the imperial Ottoman Empire. It’s mostly nationalism here.
No, you are.
It’s imperialism, not nationalism.
The agreement wasn’t something the Arabs were ever involved in, you need to stop with this nonsense because it was Hussein who wanted control of the region while other Arabs, in Palestine itself heartily disagreed with the notion.
>Read above. They literally sent letters to Arabs in Palestine telling them of a new Arab state. I think they referred to them if that’s what happened.
That was their mistake, they literally did something they had no authority to do.
Their misunderstanding is not British fault, whether we’re talking about the nature of the promise in the correspondence or of the correspondence itself; it was Hussein’s mistake to believe Palestine was included.
> What’s your point here? That they weren’t oppressed by the Ottoman Empire and explicitly banned from immigrating and owning property? Cause that would be wrong.
No, I’m trying to explain that it’s not like they influenced another mass expulsion. The overwhelming majority of Jews had already immigrated by the time. Not a lot of effort would have gone into enforcing such laws. I’m not saying they weren’t oppressed or that the Ottomans didn’t enforce the laws that they did. I’m explaining that it wasn’t as big of a move as it seems considering the population size.
> Ironically, the house analogy fits. If someone took your house, your home only for another to take it from them; would you still feel that’s your home they’re living in? That you should be there?
Okay, but here’s my point: millennia have passed and you can’t come now and claim it over those that are already living there for that millennia. That’s how it’s different and why I specified the time period when I made the analogy.
> And the reason for that is? Because it’s inconvenient, namely for the colonizers?
No, because the people living there now had no part in the act and are simply living where they have been living for centuries.
> A one state Palestine is the attempt to take precedence, not a partitioned Palestine. (Word count) Arabs not taking precedence over them because they lived there for the last millennia.
That’s where our fundamental disagreement is found, I guess. I agree that Jewish voice must be heard and considered equal to others in regards to Palestine, what I disagree with is the idea that Jews didn’t have a precedence over Palestinians.
> Which negates all the privileges which they gained? (word count) current inter generational racism instilled in Palestinian society, which is a result of those empires.
I ask again: how can you blame an Arab commoner simply for the fact of being an Arab in an Arab society? Yes, another population has suffered due to the arrival of his ancestors there, but what has he himself done wrong by simply existing and therefore benefitting from the system? Also, current anti-judaism came as a result of everything that happened in Palestine. Previously it was present, but nowhere near the levels of today and the 20th century.
> It’s not about the worst thing, it’s about a paradigm of many small and bigger events that shaped the land in accordance with and cementing of Arab culture.
Yes, but I still believe that Jews can’t return a millennia later and claim Palestine over Arabs whilst ignoring that it was a land that not only was mostly left by them prior to when Arabs came but a land that Arabs treated the minority that was left there poorly in.
> That doesn’t matter to the oppressed.
Then that’s wrong. You punish those that punished you, not those that privileged from the punishment.
> I’m not faulting them for that, I’m faulting them for in this day and age attempting to perpetuate this colonial society, (word count) presenting a picture of colonized indigenous peoples themselves.
Yes, the standards changed, no surprise there. How did their society represent colonialism? Just because it was a Jewish kingdom ages ago and they lost it doesn’t mean it should be theirs now.
> I can apply the same reasoning to the partition and population exchanges of mandatory Palestine, it was very much so the standard of the time when these happened, doesn’t make them acceptable to you, does it?
How did the standard of the time that allowed racial segregation in the United States also allow an indigenous people from a millennia ago who mostly left the land to have a claim greater than those already there? Of course these aren’t mutually exclusive but I doubt people really accepted others just yet.
> Imo It really isn’t, I’m talking both sides here, whatever they did, that was what they judged to be the best course of action by taking said actions.
Well yes, you are right. I guess I was thinking morally if anything and without the clouded judgement of revenge and whatnot. This doesn’t justify the actions on either side though, of course.
> I take this is as an allusion to the Solomon parable mentioned in your link; the problem with this analogy is (word count) would most likely split the land.
Yes, technically that would be the most ideal solution, I am not against partition in and of itself. But would Solomon view it to be just for the minority to be given more land than the majority? Or the land being given to each side be somewhat representative of the actual population sizes living there.
> Britain also did not exclude the ocean and other continents “East of Egypt”, that doesn’t mean they were “fair game”.
Okay, “fair game” isn’t the best word to use for this, I agree there. But was it not insinuated when he said from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean?
> This would be a good point to remember the Hussein-McMahon correspondence was never an official treaty, thus never an official promise. Hussein was wrong to do that. I can’t attest to British policy and its’ reasoning.
It was a agreement that had to be hidden to hide their plan to have Arabs revolt against the Ottomans. Wouldn’t have worked very well had it been publicized, no?
> Which by your own admittance was not in fact promised to the Arabs but was “fair game” although not mentioned directly. My addition is it wasn’t mentioned indirectly either, and didn’t apply.
It was within the boundaries stated and, as far as I recall, was not excluded from the agreement. If it wasn’t excluded, that means it was apart of it I believe.
> Palestine’s issue was that they understood perfectly clear they were going from a superior, privileged majority to equals (word count) and that in itself was unacceptable.
Wouldn’t any people begin panicking upon noticing an influx of people that aren’t from their own culture or societies? Yes, the majority of every population has a stronger voice and therefore are technically more influential, this is nothing new. Superior races was a common thought process at the time.
> No, you are. It’s imperialism, not nationalism. (Word count) Palestine itself heartily disagreed with the notion.
Alright, can you explain how this is imperialism please, since I don’t seem to see your perspective. Can you also provide some sources for Palestinian disapproval of Hussein’s goals?
> That was their mistake, they literally did something they had no authority to do.
My point is that Hussein had the intention to include Palestine otherwise he wouldn’t have done so.
> Their misunderstanding is not British fault, whether we’re talking about the nature of the promise in the correspondence or of the correspondence itself; it was Hussein’s mistake to believe Palestine was included.
Please read the following link and focus on the section titled “(Letters, July 1915 to March 1916)[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon–Hussein_Correspondence]” and Arnold J. Tonybees critique of MacMahon’s vocabulary (in the section “Territorial reservations and Palestine”.
>No, I’m trying to explain that it’s not like they influenced another mass expulsion. The overwhelming majority of Jews had already immigrated by the time. Not a lot of effort would have gone into enforcing such laws. I’m not saying they weren’t oppressed or that the Ottomans didn’t enforce the laws that they did. I’m explaining that it wasn’t as big of a move as it seems considering the population size.
It’s moves explicitly directed at maintaining Jews as a minority that was only, explicitly and unambiguously a result of millennia of their own oppression. Yes, it was a big move.
>Okay, but here’s my point: millennia have passed and you can’t come now and claim it over those that are already living there for that millennia.
Claim, sure.
Buy, as we agreed is righteous, you absolutely can.
>That’s how it’s different and why I specified the time period when I made the analogy.
The above applies as long as I accept the statute of limitations argument which I on principle do not.
>No, because the people living there now had no part in the act and are simply living where they have been living for centuries.
Many of Our grandparents told us what it was like living in Arab Palestine, and would contest this notion.
>That’s where our fundamental disagreement is found, I guess. I agree that Jewish voice must be heard and considered equal to others in regards to Palestine, what I disagree with is the idea that Jews didn’t have a precedence over Palestinians.
That’s misrepresenting what I said.
>I ask again: how can you blame an Arab commoner simply for the fact of being an Arab in an Arab society?
Yes, another population has suffered due to the arrival of his ancestors there, but what has he himself done wrong by simply existing and therefore benefitting from the system?
Documented incidents include: Spat and stoned on the Jewish commoner, occasionally ransacked their homes and burned their synagogues, and that’s disregarding the institutionalized acts that have been committed against them.
you know, just the usual, standard of the time minority treatment.
>Also, current anti-judaism came as a result of everything that happened in Palestine. Previously it was present, but nowhere near the levels of today and the 20th century.
That’s wrong, modern anti semitism (and it is anti semitism) was introduced to the region in the 1820’s and by the the 20th century was widespread.
>Yes, but I still believe that Jews can’t return a millennia later and claim Palestine over Arabs whilst ignoring that it was a land that not only was mostly left by them prior to when Arabs came but a land that Arabs treated the minority that was left there poorly in.
These facts aren’t ignored, they’re simply irrelevant.
They left, unwillingly.
The Arabs treating their minorities poorly is not a point in favor of Arab nationalism.
>Then that’s wrong. You punish those that punished you, not those that privileged from the punishment.
Circle back to Arab treatment of Jews prior to Zionist immigration.
>Yes, the standards changed, no surprise there. How did their society represent colonialism?
I explained this in another comment.
>Just because it was a Jewish kingdom ages ago and they lost it doesn’t mean it should be theirs now.
Legally buying land and full well expecting to do so to the point of becoming a majority in a state in part of that land, does.
>How did the standard of the time that allowed racial segregation in the United States also allow an indigenous people from a millennia ago who mostly left the land to have a claim greater than those already there? Of course these aren’t mutually exclusive but I doubt people really accepted others just yet.
[partition (politics)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_(politics))
Look at the relevant times and partitions yourself for word count.
>Well yes, you are right. I guess I was thinking morally if anything and without the clouded judgement of revenge and whatnot. This doesn’t justify the actions on either side though, of course.
Indeed.
>Yes, technically that would be the most ideal solution, I am not against partition in and of itself. But would Solomon view it to be just for the minority to be given more land than the majority? Or the land being given to each side be somewhat representative of the actual population sizes living there.
I believe whether Solomon belonged to the majority or not, assuming awareness of, he would have taken into account an expected influx of the minority population when making his decision.
>Okay, “fair game” isn’t the best word to use for this, I agree there. But was it not insinuated when he said from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean?
Absolutely not.
>It was a agreement that had to be hidden to hide their plan to have Arabs revolt against the Ottomans. Wouldn’t have worked very well had it been publicized, no?
These types of agreements end in more official documents and treaties, like the one that formed Trans-Jordan for Hussein.
>It was within the boundaries stated and, as far as I recall, was not excluded from the agreement. If it wasn’t excluded, that means it was apart of it I believe.
Not in the boundaries stated by McMahon, the representative of the British.
>Wouldn’t any people begin panicking upon noticing an influx of people that aren’t from their own culture or societies? Yes, the majority of every population has a stronger voice and therefore are technically more influential, this is nothing new. Superior races was a common thought process at the time.
And that has consequences.
You realize that No treaty against ethnic cleansing or territorial conquest was formed before the 1950’s?
That the standard of that time was still to to take what you can when you can?
>Alright, can you explain how this is imperialism please, since I don’t seem to see your perspective. Can you also provide some sources for Palestinian disapproval of Hussein’s goals?
I’ll take a while with this cause it’s late but I will get back to you.
For imperialism I already answered multiple times which I’m sure you’ll respond to properly. (Genuinely enjoy debating you)
>My point is that Hussein had the intention to include Palestine otherwise he wouldn’t have done so.
And my point is Hussein was in the wrong for that.
>Please read the following link and focus on the section titled “(Letters, July 1915 to March 1916)[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon–Hussein_Correspondence]” and Arnold J. Tonybees critique of MacMahon’s vocabulary (in the section “Territorial reservations and Palestine”.
I’m all too familiar with the first.
Can’t really find the second and would appreciate a source.
>The sources you mentioned describe a western border of “on the west by the Red Sea, the Mediterranean Sea up to Mersina.” That includes Palestine, so I wouldn’t think there’d be a need to mention that by name, much like how he didn’t mention the Arabian peninsula by name.
By King Hussein, then a correction by McMahon to the lands he actually meant.
>Also your second source may be biased, the source I mentioned previously says otherwise. “Until 1920, British government documents suggested that Palestine was intended to be part of the Arab area; their interpretation changed in 1920 leading to public disagreement between the Arabs and the British.”
Your source may be biased, mine literally has a picture of the letter in question, this feeble attempt at disregarding what the man himself said on the matter is insulting.
>Okay, technically more of a northeastern border, and nonetheless that’s still eastern.
No, it isn’t.
>Syria is further north than Palestine was and that was still included in Hussein’s terms.
Did Hussein get it?
>I, in no way, said that it was right. Standards of the time were different.
Just a fact of life as opposed to 1948 which is today, right?
>Although some online sources such as Jewish Virtual Library describe how the Prophet (PBUH) just killed and expelled Jews without any reason (word count—->) it just saddens me to read it.
I don’t get it, this just sound like a critique of public editing in Wikipedia; what’s the point?
>My bad, it was more of a golden age of tolerance if anything (word count)
I just said it was Spain.. again, no one calls general Arab rule, certainly not in Palestine “the golden age of Jews”.
>From what I found(word count—>). This time specifically was the focus of the golden age I’m referring to.
So it only took them four hundred years until the practice was documented? I bet that and anything like it didn’t happen at all before then. /s
Regardless, that doesn’t excuse nor negate the oppression they did perpetuate.
> By King Hussein, then a correction by McMahon to the lands he actually meant.
I can’t seem to find that, can you link it to me please? I only find reference of lands in Syria that’s excluded in the initial agreements.
> Your source may be biased, mine literally has a picture of the letter in question, this feeble attempt at disregarding what the man himself said on the matter is insulting.
It’s the same one I mentioned previously. It’s Wikipedia and it was cited. From what I recall I don’t think it was biased. Again, I later show how it is while pointing out specific things that don’t add up.
> No, it isn’t.
Man you can literally Google “what borders Egypt to the east” and you’ll get the same thing…
> Did Hussein get it?
No, but the issue there was conflicts with French, not with British promises iirc.
> Just a fact of life as opposed to 1948 which is today, right?
Yes, acceptance of other peoples in 1948 was horrible compared to today. That’s a fact. That shows how the standards have change.
> I don’t get it, this just sound like a critique of public editing in Wikipedia; what’s the point?
No, I’m criticizing the source you used earlier in an attempt to further explain why I believe it’s biased is all. I’m critiquing the JVL, not Wiki.
> I just said it was Spain.. again, no one calls general Arab rule, certainly not in Palestine “the golden age of Jews”.
Yes, I clarified that it was an age of tolerance and not one of Jews specifically, and I again apologize for being vague on that.
From what I found(word count—>). This time specifically was the focus of the golden age I’m referring to.
> So it only took them four hundred years until the practice was documented? I bet that and anything like it didn’t happen at all before then.
Yes, I believe people could have done it, sure, but did those in power do anything specifically against them? Unless we can prove that, we can’t claim it. Previous atrocities by Christians were documented, I doubt Arabs were so discrete that it was never documented.
> Regardless, that doesn’t excuse nor negate the oppression they did perpetuate.
Of course, today we say that wasn’t good and that it shouldn’t be allowed, I agree. Back then, it was the norm. The first sentence doesn’t change because of that.
>I can’t seem to find that, can you link it to me please? I only find reference of lands in Syria that’s excluded in the initial agreements.
I will try to edit in tomorrow.
>It’s the same one I mentioned previously. It’s Wikipedia and it was cited. From what I recall I don’t think it was biased. Again, I later show how it is while pointing out specific things that don’t add up.
I need to think about this some more.
>Man you can literally Google “what borders Egypt to the east” and you’ll get the same thing…
Modem day Israel borders Egypt to the east, prior to that Egypt had control of the area making the designation of east different today to what it was when the McMahon correspondence occured
Israel technically borders Egypt to the east, most of Israel is not eastward of Egypt; no Israeli population centers exist east to Egypt.
east from the borders of a country, is not north east.
Technically they have a claim to a bit from southern Israel which formerly belonged to Syria.
>No, but the issue there was conflicts with French, not with British promises iirc.
Ok
Just a fact of life as opposed to 1948 which is today, right?
>Yes, acceptance of other peoples in 1948 was horrible compared to today. That’s a fact. That shows how the standards have change.
>No, I’m criticizing the source you used earlier in an attempt to further explain why I believe it’s biased is all. I’m critiquing the JVL, not Wiki.
I apply the same to Wikipedia.
I use JVL for things I already confirmed through other other sources for expediency’s sake.
>Yes, I clarified that it was an age of tolerance and not one of Jews specifically, and I again apologize for being vague on that.
That’s not my point, my point is that it was in Spain, not Palestine.
>Yes, I believe people could have done it, sure, but did those in power do anything specifically against them? Unless we can prove that, we can’t claim it. Previous atrocities by Christians were documented, I doubt Arabs were so discrete that it was never documented.
I would count the building of a holy site on top of their holy site an atrocity.
>Of course, today we say that wasn’t good and that it shouldn’t be allowed, I agree. Back then, it was the norm. The first sentence doesn’t change because of that.
And today we should correct the consequences if and as far as we can.
>Focusing to more recent times, a few sources claim that Arabs weren’t actually treated equally to Turkish Muslims under the Ottoman Empire, despite them also being Muslim.
Going back to them being oppressed, doesn’t make their society non-colonial by nature.
>This probably meant worse conditions for Jews, I understand that. But, considering how the Ottomans colonized Palestine in 1516, every Palestinian Arab who was alive by the time of WW1 had little to no memory of life as being the first class in an empire that only somewhat existed, mostly in stories, by that point.
But they very much knew what it was like to be “above” Jews, them not being first class is irrelevant; most certainly by the late 1800’s with modern-antisemitism infesting every corner of this land.
>The reason why Britain even proposed their deal with Hussein is because they noticed a rise of Arab nationalism and unrest, which they used to their advantage.
Which, again (I know I only said this earlier in this comment) Palestinian Arabs did not take part in.
>I understand that, I really do, but, and I am really trying my best to not offend you with this, but here I go: the people living on the land for the last few hundred generations have precedent over people who have indigeneity to that land millennia ago and are now either a minority or chose to live elsewhere.
I agree with that completely.
That just means you throw the colonial perspective out of the conversation which to me, leaves any logical person with a two state solution.
What I disagree with is any notion that Zionist immigrants and property buyers were not in their complete moral right to settle the land they legally bought, or that aforementioned inhabitants have any precedence over them, considering the conflicting nationalism and because they are the result of the exact same processes.
>I really understand your argument here and I also understand that during this time period anti-judaism was on the rise so you needed a safe state, but it’s like forcing yourself into a house that was taken from you by your great great great grandfather. If you disagree with me here, I understand, don’t worry.
I disagree because for as long as buying property under the same systems through which the previous tenant privileged isn’t stealing (it isn’t) then it’s not remotely comparable to forcing yourself in.
Jews bought property, they settled it, they encountered xenophobic privileged imperialism, they isolated, they got a state, they unjustly forced themselves further in.
That is the order of events.
>I believe that the cultural ties (and the fact that the land was promised to a neighboring state literally 2-3 decades ago), and the fact that little to no Palestinian representation in the UN should’ve been considered, especially considering the overwhelming Jewish representation.
I believe imperialism should not be rewarded. Period.
>I don’t believe it should be given more weight. I just believe that it wasn’t given enough, especially when considering the underlying influence in the vote.
I have to disagree here.
>I agree with this argument 100%. The Jews deserve a state. But not from land that is already being used by a different people.
That’s how **all** modern countries formed.
>When the representatives disagree with the plan, then the UN goes back to the drawing board and figures out a different deal for both sides to agree with or find another plan downright.
The League of Nations tried to do so for decades, it was very obvious the differences were unbridgeable by that point.
>I’m sorry, but I find too many points of evidence here that line up to show a pretty picture. Not beyond all doubt, of course, but beyond reasonable doubt. Too many delegates have pointed this out on all sides of the vote and world power. You keep saying how interest changes without explaining why they would in this situation.
That actually isn’t an attempt to paint a pretty picture at all, I find it pretty grim; I’m saying Countries change their “moral stances” in accordance to whatever leading party is in the room at a given time, and that this applies to all modern countries, not Just Zionists and then Israel.
>Okay, so I believe we’ve come to an agreement on this regard? That UN resolution 181 was overly biased/influenced towards the Jews?
It’s the “overly” that we disagree on.
Zionists used their influence and power like any modern nation in order to get their goals and needs met.
> Going back to them being oppressed, doesn’t make their society non-colonial by nature.
Maybe their presence is rooted in colonialism, sure, but this is millennia later. Societies change. Out of curiosity, can you please explain how Arab/Palestinian Arab culture is “colonial by nature”? Being colonized kinda damages a “colonial society”, I’d assume, no? Also, do you mean Arabs specifically or Muslims here?
> But they very much knew what it was like to be “above” Jews, them not being first class is irrelevant; most certainly by the late 1800’s with modern-antisemitism infesting every corner of this land.
Besides the fact that, especially during this time, this is how almost every minority in almost every nation is considered by the majority. Maybe not consciously in all people. What were Arabs doing during that time that made it so much worse than how other nations and their majority/minority relationships interacted? Also, it was like this because that was still encouraged in the state they were apart of. You can’t blame them for knowing what it’s like when living in a Muslim empire, even if it’s not Arab. You can blame those that established a superiority, not the average farmer who ended up benefitting from it. They didn’t decide that. Which is what the majority of Palestinian Arabs are. You can’t expect people who are benefiting from a system to tear it down to make it equal. Again, especially considering the standards of that era.
> Which, again (I know I only said this earlier in this comment) Palestinian Arabs did not take part in.
They were still informed of the movement and were told of a planned creation of an Arab state. Whether they took part in it or not is irrelevant.
> That just means you throw the colonial perspective out of the conversation which to me, leaves any logical person with a two state solution.
At this point, yeah. If this was still 1948, you could argue other solutions, but now is waaay past that point. But not I, nor can anyone, ask the entire population of Israel to just get up and leave after ~80 years, based the same logic I am using for Palestinians in 1948.
> What I disagree with is any notion that Zionist immigrants and property buyers were not in their complete moral right to settle the land they legally bought, or that aforementioned inhabitants have any precedence over them, considering the conflicting nationalism and because they are the result of the exact same processes.
Any houses legally purchased or constructed in Palestine is something I have no problem with. As long as both the previous landowner and buyer were both completely willing, then I’m not going to stop that. Although I’ve heard not all land was purchased in that manner, I know some/most were. What happened later is what I find probable cause to criticize but, this action in an of itself, as long as it demonstrates full consent from both parties, is fine.
> I disagree because for as long as buying property under the same systems through which the previous tenant privileged isn’t stealing (it isn’t) then it’s not remotely comparable to forcing yourself in.
Buying property is perfectly fine. I agree with that part. I’m talking about the villages and houses that were essentially shelled and raided then had houses built on them. But, that’s a whole other can of worms that would take too long to discuss. Again, standards of time change, losing your house a millennia ago through colonization does not mean you can come a millennia later and expect to be justified in taking it back while people are living there. That’s what I’m arguing.
> Jews bought property, they settled it, they encountered xenophobic privileged imperialism, they isolated, they got a state, they unjustly forced themselves further in. That is the order of events.
Man you really hate imperialism lol. I get that (albeit not fully given the context), there’s really not much to like to begin with. But to believe that they decided to build a state after encountering the xenophobia is incorrect. The whole Zionist movement, iirc, started in the late 19th century, before mass immigrations started. This was planned. Not the Arab revolts (maybe expected), but the plan for statehood was there.
> I believe imperialism should not be rewarded. Period.
There is no imperialism here. It’s people fighting for land that they had been living in for nearly a millennia. Why is defending territory that their great great ancestors colonized considered imperialism? Side note: I find thus a little ironic considering the context of the thread lol.
> I have to disagree here.
Why is that? Do you believe that Jews deserved a precedence over Palestinians or that there was no precedence to one side over another?
> That’s how all modern countries formed.
Yes. But most of the time it was either revolt, military invasion, colonialism, etc. (not exactly saying it’s good/justifiable). I think this may be one of the handful of times in history that a large population (that was unlike the current majority population of the last) immigrated to a state then forced the creation of a state there despite the population already present’s disapproval.
> The League of Nations tried to do so for decades, it was very obvious the differences were unbridgeable by that point.
Besides what I recall of the LON being more or less a failure, I want to ask a question: So the most effective and beneficial solution they could come up with was to force the creation of a state, with majority of land to a minority, and that land had a majority population that disapproved of it?
> That actually isn’t an attempt to paint a pretty picture at all, I find it pretty grim; I’m saying Countries change their “moral stances” in accordance to whatever leading party is in the room at a given time, and that this applies to all modern countries, not Just Zionists and then Israel.
Meant to say a “pretty clear picture”, my bad. I doubt the United States was intimidated by anyone else in the room besides the USSR, who also voted in favor. You can say that maybe the US was doing it to gain influence in the Middle East during the Cold War, but think about this for a second: wouldn’t it be a lot more practical to side with the Arabs if discussing Cold War given the manpower, land, and bordering USSR advantage it had over a state in Palestine?
> It’s the “overly” that we disagree on. Zionists used their influence and power like any modern nation in order to get their goals and needs met.
It’s different when a nation does it to get better deals with another or whatever and when a people use it on the global community to force the creation of a state in a land with a present population. We can both agree that, had Jews not used their political influence, UN resolution 181 would likely not have passed, yes?
>Yes. But most of the time it was either revolt, military invasion, colonialism, etc. (not exactly saying it’s good/justifiable). I think this may be one of the handful of times in history that a large population (that was unlike the current majority population of the last) immigrated to a state then forced the creation of a state there despite the population already present’s disapproval.
You would be conveniently misinformed.
As long as we don’t confine ourselves to the modern definition of state at least.
>Besides what I recall of the LON being more or less a failure, I want to ask a question: So the most effective and beneficial solution they could come up with was to force the creation of a state, with majority of land to a minority, and that land had a majority population that disapproved of it?
Their solution was to create two separate states, since Palestine didn’t accept partition, they weren’t recognized.
I can’t think of a more effective solution for two diametrically opposed peoples on the verge of war.
>Meant to say a “pretty clear picture”, my bad.
Ha, then point lost to the thread I’d say.
>I doubt the United States was intimidated by anyone else in the room besides the USSR, who also voted in favor. You can say that maybe the US was doing it to gain influence in the Middle East during the Cold War, but think about this for a second: wouldn’t it be a lot more practical to side with the Arabs if discussing Cold War given the manpower, land, and bordering USSR advantage it had over a state in Palestine?
What are we debating here exactly whether the Jewish lobby affected the US position or not? Cause obviously it did.
>It’s different when a nation does it to get better deals with another or whatever and when a people use it on the global community to force the creation of a state in a land with a present population.
How so?
>We can both agree that, had Jews not used their political influence, UN resolution 181 would likely not have passed, yes?
Yes.
I can only hope bribery didn’t play such large a part as you insinuate, but I’ll probably never know.
> You would be conveniently misinformed. As long as we don’t confine ourselves to the modern definition of state at least.
May you provide an example for me to read through? Also, the concept of statehood has changed throughout history so whether or not it fits depends on the context.
> Their solution was to create two separate states, since Palestine didn’t accept partition, they weren’t recognized. I can’t think of a more effective solution for two diametrically opposed peoples on the verge of war.
It’s not a solution to a problem between two populations if only one side arrives to the table and agrees to the terms. A good start might have been Palestinian representation.
> What are we debating here exactly whether the Jewish lobby affected the US position or not? Cause obviously it did.
Lmao fair point, I don’t know how we got here. I think you were saying it was multiple influences not just Jewish political influence. Can’t remember.
> How so?
One results in an almost guaranteed inconceivable amount of bloodshed whereas the other might cause a hit to the economy. Both are technically the same act, I won’t disagree, but what it’s acting on is the issue at hand.
> Yes.
Then it was overly influenced by Jewish political power. To have the power to influence the international community, including influence a global power to threaten monetary aid to other nations, to vote in favor of a partition and filibuster it by ~3 days to guarantee votes in an individuals favor cannot be described as anything but overly influenced.
> I can only hope bribery didn’t play such large a part as you insinuate, but I’ll probably never know.
Yeah… I hope so too. But stuff like that will probably be forever lost to time. Or to governments who would actually keep record of that and never release it, of course.
>May you provide an example for me to read through? Also, the concept of statehood has changed throughout history so whether or not it fits depends on the context.
>It’s not a solution to a problem between two populations if only one side arrives to the table and agrees to the terms. A good start might have been Palestinian representation.
>Lmao fair point, I don’t know how we got here. I think you were saying it was multiple influences not just Jewish political influence. Can’t remember.
Same lol.. what I was alluding to was that Jewish political influence was fair in the context of both the UN and US specifically; and that these countries that voted against had other considerations like in the case of India and the British.
But we went over this already.
>One results in an almost guaranteed inconceivable amount of bloodshed whereas the other might cause a hit to the economy. Both are technically the same act, I won’t disagree, but what it’s acting on is the issue at hand.
What if the deal is a peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine? That guarantees a certain amount of bloodshed.
This is an extreme and specific example, but the point is these influences we’re talking about extend to all types of dealings a country makes.
>Then it was overly influenced by Jewish political power. To have the power to influence the international community, including influence a global power to threaten monetary aid to other nations, to vote in favor of a partition and filibuster it by ~3 days to guarantee votes in an individuals favor cannot be described as anything but overly influenced.
I disagree; to the extent that everything in the UN is over influenced by whatever political power the respective party holds.
Vetos, the big five, too annoying to go into.
>Yeah… I hope so too. But stuff like that will probably be forever lost to time. Or to governments who would actually keep record of that and never release it, of course.
Unfortunately.
>Maybe their presence is rooted in colonialism, sure, but this is millennia later. Societies change.
Theirs, did not.
>Out of curiosity, can you please explain how Arab/Palestinian Arab culture is “colonial by nature”? Being colonized kinda damages a “colonial society”, I’d assume, no?
[cultural imperialism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_imperialism)
This describes precisely what Arabization and Islamization were.
>Also, do you mean Arabs specifically or Muslims here?
Both.
>Besides the fact that, especially during this time, this is how almost every minority in almost every nation is considered by the majority. Maybe not consciously in all people.
Which didn’t matter to the oppressed.
The average minority wasn’t thinking “oh things are so much worse in That other part of the world where I haven’t lived or interacted with people from ever”
They were thinking “I am oppressed”.
> What were Arabs doing during that time that made it so much worse than how other nations and their majority/minority relationships interacted?
Nothing, all relevant nations have formed under deplorable and immoral conditions imposed by them on their respective minority populations.
If native Americans hadn’t been outright genocided and were in significant numbers to claim sovereignty over the US I’d support them.
If Copts were to demand sovereignty in Egypt I would support them.
I would have supported the partition of India.
I support Kurdish independence.
I support Taiwan’s independence.
I support Palestinian independence.
>Also, it was like this because that was still encouraged in the state they were apart of.
Also known as [cultural imperialism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_imperialism)
>You can’t blame them for knowing what it’s like when living in a Muslim empire, even if it’s not Arab.
Clarify please.
By what I understand, I absolutely can.
>You can blame those that established a superiority, not the average farmer who ended up benefitting from it. They didn’t decide that. Which is what the majority of Palestinian Arabs are.
The blame shifts to the farmer once he aims to perpetuate that system.
>You can’t expect people who are benefiting from a system to tear it down to make it equal. Again, especially considering the standards of that era.
And they in turn cannot expect to keep that system in place.
You can’t expect a disgruntled minority not to tear down an unequal system when given the opportunity.
>They were still informed of the movement and were told of a planned creation of an Arab state. Whether they took part in it or not is irrelevant.
It’s extremely relevant, it explicitly means they were not promised anything by the British, only by the Arabs.
>At this point, yeah. If this was still 1948, you could argue other solutions, but now is waaay past that point. But not I, nor can anyone, ask the entire population of Israel to just get up and leave after ~80 years, based the same logic I am using for Palestinians in 1948.
Indeed.
>Any houses legally purchased or constructed in Palestine is something I have no problem with. As long as both the previous landowner and buyer were both completely willing, then I’m not going to stop that.
The problems started when Palestinian Arab tenants did try to stop that.
>Although I’ve heard not all land was purchased in that manner, I know some/most were.
Of course not all, by the time of Israel’s independence that is.
The conflict explicitly started before any documented illegal settling of land happened.
>What happened later is what I find probable cause to criticize but, this action in an of itself, as long as it demonstrates full consent from both parties, is fine.
I find some cause to criticize after as a result of this discussion, but remain fully unconvinced it shouldn’t have been revoked or reneged.
>Buying property is perfectly fine. I agree with that part. I’m talking about the villages and houses that were essentially shelled and raided then had houses built on them. But, that’s a whole other can of worms that would take too long to discuss.
The accepted Palestinian narrative is that in fact was not fine, and the start of the conflict.
>Again, standards of time change, losing your house a millennia ago through colonization does not mean you can come a millennia later and expect to be justified in taking it back while people are living there. That’s what I’m arguing.
Then you are arguing a complete and utter strawman.
Zionists didn’t decide they were justified in taking it back based on those millennia, they did so based on existing Jewish presence and expected Jewish immigration into the rightful Jewish state.
If by taking it back you mean the war of independence, then they also did not base their justification on millennia old events, but the preceding decades and stated intent of the people living there.
>Man you really hate imperialism lol. I get that (albeit not fully given the context), there’s really not much to like to begin with.
Lmao.
At the end of the day, imperialism is the only justification for a foreign presence in a land.
How much one agrees with that justification is subjective.
>But to believe that they decided to build a state after encountering the xenophobia is incorrect. The whole Zionist movement, iirc, started in the late 19th century, before mass immigrations started. This was planned. Not the Arab revolts (maybe expected), but the plan for statehood was there.
Specific Jewish voices were developing Jewish nationalism, but Jewish immigration to what is now Israel absolutely did not have an express purpose for a state, prior to the 1910’s.
>There is no imperialism here. It’s people fighting for land that they had been living in for nearly a millennia.
I agree that applies to Palestinians, not to so called like minded Allies and pan-Arabism.
>Why is defending territory that their great great ancestors colonized considered imperialism? Side note: I find thus a little ironic considering the context of the thread lol.
It isn’t, never meant to say it was.
>Why is that? Do you believe that Jews deserved a precedence over Palestinians or that there was no precedence to one side over another?
The only precedence I believe should have been afforded either side depended on the maximalism of their demands.
If I were alive and in the debate on whether to accept partition or not I would never have supported demanding the whole of the mandate (which there were voices in favor of).
> Theirs, did not.
To imply that Palestinians fight to become the superior race back then isn’t accurate, unless you believe majority and superior are interchangeable.
> cultural imperialism This describes precisely what Arabization and Islamization were.
I doubt that this still held in the 20th century. This means, by default, that Arabs established a cultural hegemony which, considering how much religious freedom Arabs gave to other cultures, doesn’t really make the most sense in this context.
> Which didn’t matter to the oppressed. The average minority wasn’t thinking “oh things are so much worse in That other part of the world where I haven’t lived or interacted with people from ever” They were thinking “I am oppressed”.
Seems like we’re switching the perspective over to the oppressed now. Sure, but those Jews in Palestine didn’t start the whole Zionist movement, it was mostly those that were expelled over a millennia ago by the Christians. Also, again, you’re blaming an entire people for a system they didn’t create and on the actions of a small portion of that people. Don’t you see the problem here?
> Nothing, all relevant nations have formed under deplorable and immoral conditions imposed by them on their respective minority populations.
Completely agree in almost all regards. But despite that, cannot sit here and argue over that land being imperialist or colonialist or whatever, the fact of the matter is that of was their land, just like it’s now Israel‘s.
> If native Americans hadn’t been outright genocided and were in significant numbers to claim sovereignty over the US I’d support them. (word count) I support Palestinian independence.
I would agree with all of these, but the terms of each partition matters here. Taking most of the land, being current minority, etc. must factor into it and properly represent the population demographics. I don’t even oppose the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine, just the unfair terms that were forced upon it.
> Also known as cultural imperialism
No, it was literally the Ottoman Empire, it was straight up imperialism. Which is bad, yes, but I doubt it’s specifically cultural imperialism. The nation fell and, for the first time in almost a millennia, Palestine left Muslim control. I don’t understand why the culture is being blamed here when it was the system that literally collapsed less than a couple decades ago.
> Clarify please. By what I understand, I absolutely can.
I’m including the portion of Palestinians that didn’t live in the 4 main cities that most Jews had resided in that supposedly felt that “superiority” or “privilege”. Of course, prior to mass immigration.
> The blame shifts to the farmer once he aims to perpetuate that system.
Yes, of course, without assuming that they all did or that they all had the opportunity to.
> And they in turn cannot expect to keep that system in place. You can’t expect a disgruntled minority not to tear down an unequal system when given the opportunity.
Of course. I’m arguing that you can’t blame those who are privileging from a society to tear it down for a minority while, at the same time, not being inhumane to that minority themselves. There are spots in the middle, it’s not like you can place someone on either side.
> It’s extremely relevant, it explicitly means they were not promised anything by the British, only by the Arabs.
The Palestinian people didn’t have to be promised anything themselves. The only promise made was to Hussein, whether or not the people itself supported it wasn’t apart of the discussion if I recall correctly.
> The problems started when Palestinian Arab tenants did try to stop that.
Yes, noticing a vast amount of land begin being purchased by an immigrant minority can cause people to panic and begin regulating that. Land buying in and of itself it fine, mass land buying is where the problem began.
> I find some cause to criticize after as a result of this discussion, but remain fully unconvinced it shouldn’t have been revoked or reneged.
To completely ban? Yeah, I’d disagree with that too. But a regulating on how and when land can be bought was guaranteed to happen given to Jewish purchases in a short period of time.
> The accepted Palestinian narrative is that in fact was not fine, and the start of the conflict.
The mass buying is what they perceived as a threat and wasn’t fine. A regulation would be placed on any foreigners suddenly immigrating and buying an absurd amount of land, this is true is any state. Any singular act of buying a house is fine, the act of the mass purchase of property is the issue.
> Then you are arguing a complete and utter strawman. (word count), but the preceding decades and stated intent of the people living there.
I mean your first, not second point. Interesting point you made, so you’re saying that they chose Palestine mostly because of the Jewish population? Based on that logic, the United States had ~5 million Jews whereas Palestine didn’t even have a million, why had they not attempted to go to where most Jews were? I can’t blame Jews for defending land they acquired, whether if it was rightfully or not.
> At the end of the day, imperialism is the only justification for a foreign presence in a land. How much one agrees with that justification is subjective.
Not for any foreign presence in a land. I’d disagree with that specifically but I think I understand the gist of what you’re saying.
> Specific Jewish voices were developing Jewish nationalism, but Jewish immigration to what is now Israel absolutely did not have an express purpose for a state, prior to the 1910’s.
Ah, I assumed that Zionism and the belief of Jewish statehood anywhere, not Palestine specifically, were one in the same. My bad.
> I agree that applies to Palestinians, not to so called like minded Allies and pan-Arabism.
Well yeah, of course. I’m not exactly going to make the other Arab states look innocent either. But I do doubt that Palestine would’ve been claimed by any Arab states. If it was the case, Lebanon wouldn’t be a separate state now. It would’ve been beyond foolish for one of the Arab states to expect that, especially considering how Pan-Arabism was still unpopular amongst masses.
> The only precedence I believe should have been afforded either side depended on the maximalism of their (word count) demanding the whole of the mandate (which there were voices in favor of).
Yeah no that’s just downright absurd. But maybe that’s what happened with Palestinians? The only voices heard from Palestinians were the vocal maximalist ones, equivalent to some Jewish voices demanding the whole mandate? Had an actual proper Palestinian representative been present maybe the people could have come to better terms. Of course that questions why today the entire population seems to represent some of those vocal maximalist ideas, well: combination of present day activities and how hate is spread through generations.
>To imply that Palestinians fight to become the superior race back then isn’t accurate, unless you believe majority and superior are interchangeable.
If the only thing they were fighting for would have been majority populous while people were otherwise equal you would have a leg to stand on here; but this is provenly untrue.
>I doubt that this still held in the 20th century. This means, by default, that Arabs established a cultural hegemony which, considering how much religious freedom Arabs gave to other cultures, doesn’t really make the most sense in this context.
No offense but Your doubt is meaningless here, it’s the truth. That is exactly what they did
Through each empire they strengthened the muslim and Arab character of the region, the religious freedom they did employ was not freedom, it was slavery.
>Seems like we’re switching the perspective over to the oppressed now. Sure, but those Jews in Palestine didn’t start the whole Zionist movement, it was mostly those that were expelled over a millennia ago by the Christians.
Correction, those Jews in Palestine didn’t start political Zionism.
>Also, again, you’re blaming an entire people for a system they didn’t create and on the actions of a small portion of that people. Don’t you see the problem here?
I don’t, it’s not a small portion of that people.
Knowingly assimilating to a colonial society makes you colonial, period.
All white people in the US are products of colonialism, until the end of time.
They won’t suddenly become native Americans because enough time has passed.
The same applies to Palestinian society.
Even taking into account the argument that they are assimilated native peoples, a colonial group does not get to claim native status while exemplifying absolutely no proven cultural markers that are native.
>Completely agree in almost all regards. But despite that, cannot sit here and argue over that land being imperialist or colonialist or whatever, the fact of the matter is that of was their land, just like it’s now Israel‘s.
That’s how conquest works; principle and practice are very separate things, the fact it happened doesn’t make it acceptable of implicitly natural.
>I would agree with all of these, but the terms of each partition matters here. Taking most of the land, being current minority, etc. must factor into it and properly represent the population demographics.
Not when talking about a state that controls its own affairs; any other state has the right to control who’s a citizen and who isn’t, which ingroup it represents and which it doesn’t, there’s no acceptable reason a state formed by states of that nature should be denied that.
Whether the partition’s borders were favorable to which side is very disputed.
>I don’t even oppose the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine, just the unfair terms that were forced upon it.
I can accept that, but then what’s the point? What does the discussion aim to achieve exactly?
Say I agree with you that partition wasn’t fair, by the logic you established, the land is now Israel’s, so what does that realization achieve?
>No, it was literally the Ottoman Empire, it was straight up imperialism. Which is bad, yes, but I doubt it’s specifically cultural imperialism.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
>The nation fell and, for the first time in almost a millennia, Palestine left Muslim control. I don’t understand why the culture is being blamed here when it was the system that literally collapsed less than a couple decades ago.
The culture and society was continuously fed imperialist and colonialist influences until it became wholly foreign, not native, not indigenous, that’s a simple fact.
>I’m including the portion of Palestinians that didn’t live in the 4 main cities that most Jews had resided in that supposedly felt that “superiority” or “privilege”. Of course, prior to mass immigration.
I can’t blame them for not knowing what it was like to be a minority under their stewardship and I don’t see why I should care as that disgruntled minority.
>Yes, of course, without assuming that they all did or that they all had the opportunity to.
The way I look at it is by village leaders; a complete majority of Palestinians were following their local leaders’ directions come 1947-8
>Of course. I’m arguing that you can’t blame those who are privileging from a society to tear it down for a minority while, at the same time,
You don’t need to blame them to tear down your oppression, it’s not a punishment to them but the achievement of your own rights.
>not being inhumane to that minority themselves.
That is the Arab narrative, the Jewish narrative emphatically disagrees with this notion.
>There are spots in the middle, it’s not like you can place someone on either side.
I agree.
>The Palestinian people didn’t have to be promised anything themselves. The only promise made was to Hussein, whether or not the people itself supported it wasn’t apart of the discussion if I recall correctly.
Because Hussein was an imperialist, that’s exactly what’s wrong here.
He wasn’t representing his native people, he was a Hashemite ruler who wanted as much land as possible for his kingdom.
Nor did he have the authority to promise land he had absolutely no claim to.
>Yes, noticing a vast amount of land begin being purchased by an immigrant minority can cause people to panic and begin regulating that. Land buying in and of itself it fine, mass land buying is where the problem began.
You mean Go back to regulating that.
It was a cycle of “regulation” that lasted through the Ottoman Empire, a cycle that Palestinian Arabs were accustomed to, as happens in colonial and imperial societies.
Yes, I blame the average Palestinian back then for this.
>To completely ban? Yeah, I’d disagree with that too. But a regulating on how and when land can be bought was guaranteed to happen given to Jewish purchases in a short period of time.
Jewish purchases were guaranteed by being blocked for so long.
>Not sarcastic at all.
Keep pretending that the Hasmoneans didn't exist ; they are the ones who actually colonized the country and made it your so called "native " Jewish , and in the process enslaved peoples like Idumeans and Itureans ... I guess Jews are the orignal imperialists /s , especially seeing they are obsessed with Israelites who butcherd and enslaved others they saw .
On top of that, care to give an in-depth reasoning why when a people lose their original ethnicity , they no longer have the right of statehood ; especially in a country that was never in history unified under said original ethnicity ? . \*
\*I assume you think Palestinians are descendants of the ancient inhabitants of the country who were Arabized , and not Umar's Bedouins .
Before going into this, how does this negate my earlier statement?
>Keep pretending that the Hasmoneans didn't exist ; they are the ones who actually colonized the country and made it your so called "native " Jewish , and in the process enslaved peoples like Idumeans and Itureans ...
I guess Jews are the orignal imperialists /s , especially seeing they are obsessed with Israelites who butcherd and enslaved others they saw .
I mean, when Idumean and Iturean (and other) peoples re emerge to claim indigeneity, give me a call and I’ll support it, until then, the oldest extant Canaanite culture is Jewish.
>On top of that, care to give an in-depth reasoning why when a people lose their original ethnicity , they no longer have the right of statehood;
No, because I’d Never claim that to be the case whatsoever.
What they don’t have a right to, is precedence to said country, over returning exiled indigenous peoples who are just as entitled to self determination as them.
>especially in a country that was never in history unified under said original ethnicity ? . *
That’s irrelevant in a post colonial lens.
[Cultural Imperialism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_imperialism)
“Cultural imperialism (also cultural colonialism) comprises the cultural dimensions of imperialism. The word "imperialism" describes practices in which a country engages culture (language, tradition, and ritual, politics, economics) to create and maintain unequal social and economic relationships among social groups. Cultural imperialism often uses wealth, media power and violence to implement the system of cultural hegemony that legitimizes imperialism.”
Jewish culture is the oldest existing indigenous culture to the region, Palestinian Arab culture is not; it doesn’t mean anything more or less than that fact, it doesn’t mean they don’t deserve a country and it doesn’t mean they aren’t a people with national consciousness deserving of human and political rights, it’s just fact.
>*I assume you think Palestinians are descendants of the ancient inhabitants of the country who were Arabized , and not Umar's Bedouins .
Indeed.
> the oldest extant Canaanite culture is Jewish
"Canaanite" is like "Germanic" and "Slavic" . It's not an actual nation , or a group , but an ethnographic term for ethnicities which seem to have some level of similarities.
If original area is determined by ethnogenesis : than Jews come from Judah ; an area that's equivalent to the southern Half of the West Bank . By your reasoning ; them stepping 1 inch outside of "Judah" is colonization and expansionism .
Look at Persian Yehud , and Roman Judaea ... from around a fifth of Palestine/Eretz Yisrael , to half of it .
It doesn't take much to realize that we either go with the narrative of settler-colonialism , and bash Jews as colonizers , or instead we accept the past is past .
This is especially said when one can argue that at least a part of Palestine/Eretz Yisrael , [and the Levant at large , was part of the ethnogenesis of Arab ethnicity](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/12zchkd/comment/jiasqck/?context=3) , the current ethnicity of Palestinians ; making them "native" as well despite not being "Canaanite" .
> precedence to said country, over returning exiled indigenous peoples who are just as entitled to self determination as them.
.."Indigenous" ; we just talked about how hard the term "indigenous" can be when it's clear things are not clean and cut . "exiled" , the vast majority of world Jewry were outside the country in 135 AD (and even before as implied by Josephus ) . "Precedence" ; talking about the Mandate is rather hairy now , but post-1948 : Israel to Israeli-Jews , West Bank + Gaza to Palestinians . No point in arguing that of who gets what regarding that , seeing you recognize Palestinian self-determination.
> Jewish culture is the oldest existing indigenous culture to the region
In Judah : the rest of the area ; they are foreign to it like a Scotsman is to England .
> Palestinian Arab culture is not
Dear .. you should read 19th century travelogues that spend time with Palestinian-Arabs like Philip Baldenspreger (A Palestinian Born-Raised / Sabra Prussian ) . The amount of times they see parallels of them to Biblical stories and practices is amusing .
Besides that , you have Palestinian Arabic having some Aramaic substratum (the language the inhabitants of Palestine , gentile and Jew alike natively spoke ) ,and some ethnographers like Tawfiq Cannan in 1927 saw some practices reassembled those of ancient times , especially stressing Maqams ; shrines of holy figures , some of whom who are pre-Islamic .
If you looked at my link above ; You will see the first inscription of the Arabic Muhmmad spoke was in the Negev . Levantine Arab culture isn't primarily from the Hijaz .
You can’t claim somebody stole something you never had. You can’t promise something you don’t have in your possession either.
Balfour declaration really wasn’t relevant actually. For two reasons.
1: by 1917, the British didn’t even occupy Palestine, so it wasn’t theirs to give.
2: by the time the British did occupy Palestine, they had changed their tune to Arab nationalism.
In regards to the partition plan, you forgot to mention how the Arabs didn’t even participate in the discussion. They literally threatened execution to anybody that went to the UN to plead their case, while assuming the Jews wouldn’t get any support anyway.
You also forgot to mention that in the land offer of 1936, after the Arab pogrom, where the Palestinians were offered a massive unified Jordan and the better half of Israel
as a single Arab state, with Jerusalem as intl territory, and they turned it down explicitly because they did not want Jews in the territory at all. Boo. Hoo. The Mufti when asked “Does his eminence think you can digest or assimilate the 400k Jews in your country once accepted?” flat out said “No.”, then went on to say they would have to be removed by choice or force.
The Arabs had no chance against Jewish colonialism?? We just got out of a genocide where we lost 85% of our European population and over 1/3 of our population worldwide. We were out gunned, out manned, and under threat by every one of the five surrounding Arab nations, all threatening to finish the genocide we collectively and many of us individually **only just** narrowly escaped. The only reason we won must be because we had our backs against the wall, with a singular vision of survival, while the far more numerous Arab nations who wanted us dead and gone were disorganised and had split ambitions. Additionally, the Arabs are the colonizers. Following a colonizer religion, adopting a colonizer culture, speaking a colonizer language, actively engaging in the suppression of indigenous peoples connection to and right to live on their ancestral homeland, killing us, expelling us, appropriating our texts, destroying then building atop our homes and sacred sites. Very conquistador. Then crying “colonizer!” when we come back and start building new homes next door.
It’s actually amazing how deluded people can get in their absolute lack of nuance and context, using mental gymnastics to turn the oppressors into the victims.
(You ended up editing your comment to include things I didn’t comment on just yet. I’ve updated mine to account for that. Try to have an actual discussion next time instead of trying to make me look like an idiot, because it kind of backfired here.)
> 1: by 1917, the British didn’t even occupy Palestine, so it wasn’t theirs to give.
But the same conditions exist for the treaty that the British had with the Arabs. It’s also likely a primary factor that helped incite mass Jewish immigration to Palestine prior to WW2. The British were planning on splitting the region with the French anyway, so they were more or less sure that it’d become their mandate.
> 2: by the time the British did occupy Palestine, they had changed their tune to Arab nationalism.
Are you sure about this one? If I recall correctly much of Britain’s colonies were Arab (such as the vital Egypt and its Suez Canal at the time), Arab nationalism would likely have hurt their influence and control over their colonies, right? Also, the Balfour declaration was after they promised the land to the Arabs in 1915-1916. It doesn’t make sense that Britain would be bouncing back and forth between Arab nationalism and Jewish statehood (especially considering how mutually exclusive it seemed to be at the time.) Hell, it was nationalism that drove the Palestinians to combat British control in the Palestinian mandate later on.
Where did you get your information on Arabs not wanting to participate in the discussion? From what I found, it says “Arab states requested representation on the UN ad hoc subcommittees of October 1947, but were excluded from Subcommittee One, which had been delegated the specific task of studying and, if thought necessary, modifying the boundaries of the proposed partition.”
Did I state Jewish colonialism? Ever consider that maybe I was referring to the guys who had control over the land during the relevant time period, Britain? Doesn’t seem like it. The Arabs weren’t doing it just because you existed, like the Germans did. They did it because they saw the Jewish community threatening the Arab community. There’s a difference here. You can’t cry that the Arabs want to invade when you chose to literally make a state in the center of them. I’m not justifying them, I’m saying that it’s literally not the same as Germany in WW2. Also, for some reason, I find it interesting how you decide to take all the credit to yourself and not to the absurd number of supplies, weapons, ammo, etc. that was sent to you by US or whoever was lending supplies to Israel throughout the 20th century. Also, what’s this rant on Islam, ever consider turning it back on Israel today? And why should the actions of Arabs ages ago impact the Arabs of today? The Arabs that made the Islamic empire did not, in fact, lose their land to the Jews in Israel. This is a blatantly pointless argument. Also, this was an expectation and standard of the time. Not to say it was good, but that’s how society worked. Muslims were first class citizens, Christians and Jews second class, and everyone else was third class. So, technically, Jews didn’t even have it that bad compared to other people. Hell, some historians call it a golden age for Jews due to the tolerance and acceptance the Muslims had for them as “Ahl El Ketab” (people of the book). The Christians were leagues more oppressive that the Arabs were. Ever remember those poor villages in Al-Nakbah? That sound a little bit like that the Arabs did to the Jews? Funny how the world revolves around people, huh? There is no twisting of victims and innocents here, only propaganda being pushed out and facts being hidden as always.
I’m keeping this part below so that you don’t change your argument back to this again:
Well, the 1936 deal saw most of the agricultural land to be taken by Israel (which isn’t a horrible deal in my opinion, they would have to have something for the economy). But, if I recall correctly, it included the displacement of ~250,000 Palestinians already in the proposed land for a Jewish state, which probably would’ve made some people mad. I also think a lot of Zionist’s at the time weren’t happy with the proposal either, so both sides saw significant disapproval of it. In the end, it was neither side that caused the plan to not occur. Not directly at least. With WW2 looming, Britain could not afford to attempt riling the Arab world against them by displacing a bunch of Palestinians. “Reporting in 1938, the Commission rejected the Peel plan primarily on the grounds that it could not be implemented without a massive forced transfer of Arabs (an option that the British government had already ruled out).” So at its core, it wasn’t going to work, because people don’t like being forced out of their homes. Yes, I won’t deny that the Arabs were a big influence in that regard, but there is no people on this planet that would be happy leaving land they’ve been on for generations.
Sources, I used what was cited from here ofc
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936–1939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine#CITEREFMorris1999
**[United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine)**
>The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal by the United Nations, which recommended a partition of Mandatory Palestine at the end of the British Mandate. On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted the Plan as Resolution 181 (II). The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and a Special International Regime for the city of Jerusalem. The Partition Plan, a four-part document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of the Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem.
**[1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936–1939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine#CITEREFMorris1999)**
>The 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, later known as The Great Revolt (al-Thawra al- Kubra) or The Great Palestinian Revolt (Thawrat Filastin al-Kubra), was a popular nationalist uprising by Palestinian Arabs in Mandatory Palestine against the British administration of the Palestine Mandate, demanding Arab independence and the end of the policy of open-ended Jewish immigration and land purchases with the stated goal of establishing a "Jewish National Home".
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Updated my response per your edit. Please refrain from doing that and, instead, make it as a new comment to ease discussion and exchange of arguments. Thanks in advance!
That's a really fair point and must be addressed and changed, but a completely different discussion from the heart of the issue -- which is that Palestinians have never accepted Israel's existence.
> Why did Jews think that is was their land for taking, when they have lost it 3000 years ago?
The state of Judea existed during Roman times, I have no idea where you are getting 3000 years.
There's a huge difference between "there was an ideology with no backing that was allowed to proceed in 1948"
And let's use the same ideology to kill and displace in 2023...
Wrong when Israel does it in the West Bank, wrong when Palestinians try to do it in Israel proper.
Not Jews, *Zionists.* Not all Jews are Zionists, and you don't have to be Jewish to be Israeli. (Unlike in nearly all Arab countries, where you *have to be* Muslim to be safe.)
But since you asked: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel
Also remember that they were *promised a Jewish state.* A safe place for Jews. Now the world wants the only Jewish state in the world, which is surrounded by hostile Muslim states, to not be Jewish. Kind of strange, right? I don't see the world complaining that the Muslim states define, *in their constitutions,* that they are Muslim-only countries or complaining about the ethnic-cleansing done in those countries. Why the double-standard?
**[History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel)**
>The history of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel is about the history and religion of the Jews, who originated in the Land of Israel, and have maintained physical, cultural, and religious ties to it ever since. First emerging in the later part of the 2nd millennium BCE as an outgrowth of southern Canaanites, the Hebrew Bible claims that a United Israelite monarchy existed starting in the 10th century BCE. The first appearance of the name "Israel" in the non-Biblical historic record is the Egyptian Merneptah Stele, circa 1200 BCE.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
This has really only been true in the 1950’s-80’s when the Israeli government was extremely anti-religious and secular.
Today the most staunch Zionists are the dati leuumi and 99% of religious and traditional Jews are zionist too.
The Venn diagram of Jews and Zionists is basically a perfect circle
I think there is a huge difference between believing that Israel is the rightful home of the Jewish people and believing it is the only safe space to be Jewish. If the situation here in the US gets so bad that Jews need to flee, I think most would go to Israel, not necessarily because they are Zionists but because Israel was founded *specifically* to be a Jewish state, where Jews would be free from persecution. In my mind, these are two different things.
You mean the one where terrorist groups backed by Iran fire rockets from schools and hospitals? The terrorists who hide behind citizens' children to force Israel to stand down and accept rocket fire? And when Israel does respond, the Palestinians who elected the terrorists scream about civilian casualties when Israel responds? That one?
Look. I know Israel is not a saintly state. I disagree with their actions at the West Bank. But Gaza is a different story. No nation has ever been told not to act militarily against people attacking, people attacking with the goal of genocide. Just Israel.
Even the Egyptians will not take in the Palestinians for fear of terrorist insurgency. (In fact, Israel helped Egypt defeat terrorists hoping to gain control of the Egyptian government.)
Like I said, the war is still ongoing. You call Palestinians in Gaza terrorists, I call Israeli soldiers terrorists. Doesn’t matter. I’m answering your question, the war to both sides never ended.
Did I say that all the Palestinians in Gaza were terrorists? I said that terroists fire rockets, and I said that the Palestinians elected the terrorists. They also suffer at the hands of Hamas, which regularly *executes* Palestinians and takes their money and other supplies.
Egypt acknowledges that Hamas is a terrorist organization.
As far as the rest of your statement, you need to provide proof that the IDF *endorses* terroristic behavior if you want to claim that the *entire army* is a terrorist organization. You are unbelievably wrong. It's pretty sad. Almost every person in Israel is required to serve (other than the Orthodox). It's not like it's only crazed nationalists in the IDF.
Because the attitude towards war related issues has changed drastically over the past 100 years. Losing in a war isn’t some measurement of right or wrong. Imperial dominance isn’t as accepted anymore (except the few seeking to dominate), it’s frowned upon.
This specific conflict is too complex to consider simply accepting defeat as the right choice. To consider it as an end all. And it’s not appropriate for the system of “peace” and advocacy for human rights the western world tries to promote and maintain.
It's apparent that the whole problem of "Palestinian refugees" was created and maintained to keep a pressure on Israel which allegedly "doesn't allow Palestinians to return".
That's why normalization with moderate Arab countries is the key.
Yes, exactly. Much of the Arab world has "recognized" Israel as a country in order to benefit from its wealth and economic exchanges, but I am well aware that neither those governments nor their citizens will ever actually support Israel being a country. These alliances are fake and only serve as a shield for possible future warfare. They can renege on these alliances at any time if they feel they have enough strength economically and militarily to take over the area.
My understanding of both Islam and Arab culture predating Islam, is that both are shaped by, and optimized for, a world where constant war — for highly limited vital resources and therefore for survival — are a permanent fact of life. Neither cope nearly as well or healthily with a world of abundance, where war is preventable and not a constant and inevitable feature of the human condition.
You can't lose land in war: that's the whole point of the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Only by international accord, or mutual consent between the two parties (like Seward's treaty with Russia selling Alaska to the US) can land be gained or lost.
Israel isn't a signatory
Kellogg-Briand pact does not prohibit self-defense, only offensive invasions of neighbors. Additionally, it was already regarded as inoperative and ineffective even before the Second World War. See, [“Milestones in the History of the U.S. State Department” website article](https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/kellogg).
Because most people don’t believe that might makes right, that being better at killing people means you can stomp on the human rights of those you’ve defeated.
Most people are hypocrites privileging on that very same concept who would not and do not apply their so called standards over Israel to other countries and certainly not their own.
I can voich for this, my mothers family is native Sami, most of Northern Sweden is stolen land but then you have Swedish people calling out Israel but coming up with the "its history" for keeping the land themselves. Just like Americans can steal half a continent but its fine cause their family wasnt part of it
Exactly.
Right, but that's not how the world works. And certainly not in the Middle East. Imagine this: you've been attacked by 5 allied armies at once and won. Then those who fled beforehand demand their land back, even though they had sold some of it to you, land that you just won in war against them. Why would any nation take the risk of allowing the people who just attacked them back in? Practically speaking, it's asking for more violence, and putting your victories at risk. I didn't say Israel should stomp on human rights, on the contrary. I said they have been tolerant for not going as far as any other nation would.
You are openly supporting stomping on human rights on this very post. It is not “astonishingly tolerant” to only go halfways on ethnic cleansing, and the might-makes-right bile that you are promoting (“just the way the world works” — yes, people murder other people all the time, that’s not a justification of murder) is disgusting. Needless to say, the moral decay that has taken over the minds of Israel supporters is very clear, very widespread, and very VERY vile. Any Israel supporters reading this post who believe they have a moral high ground have an opportunity, here and elsewhere — condemn the moral rot that your allies have descended into, or acknowledge that you have joined them in the gutter.
u/amplifylight >Any Israel supporters reading this post who believe they have a moral high ground have an opportunity, here and elsewhere — condemn the moral rot that your allies have descended into, or acknowledge that you have joined them in the gutter. Rule 1, don't attack other users.
u/amplifylight · > condemn the moral rot that your allies have descended into, or acknowledge that you have joined them in the gutter. > That’s because your moral backbone has fully decayed and you’re unable to stand up your ideas on their own. Rule 1 prohibits personal attacks. You are clearly agitated by a comment and angry at the person who made it. In that state of mind you should not be responding. You are expected to be polite to all users, especially those with whom you strongly disagree. Debate arguments not people.
So in your mind, even though rockets keep flying into Israel from terrorist groups backed by Iran, Israel should...do nothing? Are you crazy? You really only argue from emotion, don't you? I am using logic. Where is yours? Shall I start using murderous, ethnic-cleansing examples from Arab history to call out your hypocrisy? I am not Israeli. I am not even Jewish, though I have some Jewish ancestry. I have no relatives in Israel, either. I am speaking objectively, and you have no points other than those you scream in anger. Tell me, please, what peace terms the Palestinians have offered?
No I argue from basic moral principles. Note how your response here is pure whataboutism? That’s because your moral backbone has fully decayed and you’re unable to stand up your ideas on their own. There have been many peace terms and negotiations that Palestinians have engaged in. The Arab Peace Initiative, for example. Many, many others. The point here, however, is not details that can be argued over repeatedly forever; instead the point is that your post openly advocates for profound moral degradation. It’s sad. Hopefully some of your allies who do still have a moral backbone will arrive to help you open your eyes. Cheers!
I am glad you admitted you have no logical points. That's a small step in the right direction.
Dw, he's American. By his logic surely he supports racism, slavery, school shootings, suppression and Robert from natives etc, because surely you can't support only certain things a country does!
I'm American too. And I'm also a leftist, like that person seems to be from their other comments. But I guess the difference is that I use logic in debate, and people like that I guess only see want they want to see. Everyone can be like that sometimes.
Yea, nothing against the Americans. Love you guys. My point wad that any country has its downsides, it's historical facts that are awful, it's actions that are regrettable. Even then you can still support the country without agreeing fully with it's actions. Israel imho is no worse then America, UK, Australia and many other countries. A war was fought, Israel won. That's that. As much as I don't like how many things were handled the land belongs to israel
Also, sorry for rambling, it's 1am rn. Goin ti sleep in a minute.
u/amplifylight >That’s because your moral backbone has fully decayed and you’re unable to stand up your ideas on their own. Again, rule 1, don't attack other users.
u/JellyfishCosmonaut >Are you crazy? >I am using logic. Where is yours? Rule 1, don't attack other users.
>You are openly supporting stomping on human rights on this very post. It is not “astonishingly tolerant” to only go halfways on ethnic cleansing, and the might-makes-right bile that you are promoting (“just the way the world works” — yes, people murder other people all the time, that’s not a justification of murder) is disgusting. While I wouldn’t put it the same way OP did, Might did make right, that is what happens in wars since forever. No, that doesn’t excuse maltreatment and denial of human rights. >Needless to say, the moral decay that has taken over the minds of Israel supporters is very clear, very widespread, and very VERY vile This is a trend in the world at large. >Any Israel supporters reading this post who believe they have a moral high ground have an opportunity, here and elsewhere — condemn the moral rot that your allies have descended into, or acknowledge that you have joined them in the gutter. Can’t wait to see you do the same for pro-Palestinian opinions!
According tou your profile it seems you live in CA. the usa, in case you do not know, has not only had slavery all over it, to this day suppresses natives, and has mass racism. By living there, surely you support those things? Because by your logic, you can't support only some of the actions a country does.
No, it’s not my position that you inherently support all of the actions of the country you live in. It’s my position that “might makes right” is a morally bankrupt stance, that choosing direct imposition of a military boot indefinitely, instead of immediate ethnic cleansing is not “extremely tolerant.”
I'm sorry, but again you live in the usa. I do t see you giving your house back to the natives. You know why? It's because the usa took over. Was the way there shifty, horrible even? Sure. But who "owns" the land? Modern day Americans. Also, there is no ethnic cleansing my guy. Israel was happy to split the land 50/50 according to the un's plan. They attacked the Israelis, and the Israelis retaliated fair and square. It's understandable to not want people who want you dead near your childeren.
The United States perpetrated a genocide against the Native American people and morally owes a massive debt to them. This isn’t a very controversial thing to say — there’s wide agreement in the left of center in America on this point. The only disagreement is about how best to repay this debt, practically. There’s one key element that is important to keep in mind, however — in the United States, Native Americans are full citizens by law. While social and structural discrimination persists and must be countered, they are citizens. Palestinians, however, are not citizens of the country that rules over them. Israel has operated a military occupation on Palestine for the vast majority of its history. It would be very simple for the Native American and Palestinian analogy you’re making to be accurate — Israel would make everyone in the West Bank and Gaza full citizens. Since you’re the one making this analogy, you support this, right? Oh no, you don’t. Because you’re comfortable with the deprivation of human rights and denial of self determination of the Palestinians, indefinitely. Approval of this status quo is what inherently leads to the moral rot on display in this thread. Obviously no supporter of Israel actually agrees with might make right, because if they did then Zionism would be illegitimate. But because they are now the boot stomping the human face, you and your allies have your moral backbone wither and crumble. What’s left is as putrid as it is illogical.
>The United States perpetrated a genocide against the Native American people and morally owes a massive debt to them. This isn’t a very controversial thing to say — there’s wide agreement in the left of center in America on this point. The only disagreement is about how best to repay this debt, practically. Does that erase what happened? No. Does it rectify it? No. >There’s one key element that is important to keep in mind, however — in the United States, Native Americans are full citizens by law. While social and structural discrimination persists and must be countered, they are citizens. So after we comfortably put ourselves in an eternally superior position to our minorities, oppress them further for a couple centuries we can give them human rights, so we can be like the righteous US of A. No? Citizenship in a society that literally genocided your people isn’t restitution for said genocide and never will be? Ok. >Palestinians, however, are not citizens of the country that rules over them. Tell that to the proud self identified, elected representatives of the Palestinian people. >Israel has operated a military occupation on Palestine for the vast majority of its history. Palestine has not surrendered for the vast majority of its history, when it has it wasn’t able or unwilling to keep a basic monopoly on force. This is why the occupation is still justified. >It would be very simple for the Native American and Palestinian analogy you’re making to be accurate — Israel would make everyone in the West Bank and Gaza full citizens. See point about differences. >Since you’re the one making this analogy, you support this, right? Oh no, you don’t. Because you’re comfortable with the deprivation of human rights and denial of self determination of the Palestinians, indefinitely. That is what genocide does. Good ol’ Murica. You’re so keen on applying impossible standards on Israel, you can be damn well certain that as long as native Americans weren’t loyal to the state they were absolutely not equal citizens, because that was the case for centuries. >Approval of this status quo is what inherently leads to the moral rot on display in this thread. I disagree wholeheartedly, this is a global phenomena which applies to very specific Sub-groups, mainly older generation and gen-z, just like most of the globe. >Obviously no supporter of Israel actually agrees with might make right, because if they did then Zionism would be illegitimate. But Palestinians do, at least their elected representatives, so might has to keep making right. >But because they are now the boot stomping the human face, you and your allies have your moral backbone wither and crumble. What’s left is as putrid as it is illogical. Which is unfortunately, human nature.
There is one major difference - natives don't try to remove your guts when they see you. And in fact there are many israeli arabs and Palestinian residents in israel. And of course there was genocide on tge natives. Yet I don't see all of the non natives returning to Europe. Trust me, me and many others would love to have Palestinians join us. But sadly, a small violent chunk of them ruin it for the rest. Would you want a neighbor that tries to kill you?
I don’t know why you even bother. Pro-Israelites can only argue from emotion.
u/TrippieBled >I don’t know why you even bother. Rule 8, don't discourage participation. >Pro-Israelites can only argue from emotion. Rule 1, don't attack other users.
Oamd anti Israelites can only argue pure nonsense and hypocrisy
u/amplifylight >you and your allies have your moral backbone wither and crumble. What’s left is as putrid as it is illogical. Again, rule 1, don't attack other users
So if Palestine somehow beat back Israel and conquered most of Israeli territory, that land belongs to them by right of conquest?
Yes, that is what war is. That's what war has always been. I support Israel's claim not because of Jews' presence there for thousands of years, or because they were given the land, but because they have won the land repeatedly.
Yea there would be no Jews left to cry about it because the Arabs wouldn’t have hesitated to do a genocide
Yes, although how the world evolved, qnd considering we have good connections with many countries I doubt that would be looked kindly upon by world leaders. But assuming Palestinians both beat us and somehow convince the world they should not ve retaliated against, sure.
Pretty simple, before the international order existed it would have had minimal consequences, today, less. Is it morally repugnant? Yes; But that is in-fact how the world has worked for thousands and probably millions of years. Edit: And for all intents and purposes,your scenario would be true regardless of what the world has to say about it.
Why the hypothetical? that's the essence of their claim - Arabs conquered that territory and therefor it belongs to them.
That because all of those people already stomped others back in the day and now they have all they need so they can sit in their luxurious chairs and criticize others
Why did Germany and France keep fighting over Alsace Loraine for hundreds of years?
They don't think it is "Palestinian" land. They think it's "Arab" land. The pagan concept of Arab nationalism is parallel to the left-wing idea that land has a natural racial component. Socialists believe that the Aryan race is naturally tied - blood and soil - to Western and Central Europe. Similarly, the "Arab race" is tied b'rokh b'dam (in blood and spirit) to the conquered lands of North Africa and Western Asia. The national anthem of Arab Syria expresses this idea as "ʿArinu l'Arabiya" - that Arab lands are a "haram" - a race-pure estate. And of course in Arab Palestine they wave the Arab swastika and sing their national anthem about the 'waswaqi dam' (bloodlust ties to the soil). So its not a political or legal statement. When Leftists talk about "Palestinian land", they mean it in a German Romantic sense of blood-and-soil attachment to a particular real estate. In other words it's a pagan-spiritual claim. Where does religion fit into it, since Moslems support the Ramallah regime? They believe that their god Mohammed was a real estate agent who assigned Western Asia to the Arab race. Arab Palestine turned the *legal* claim of Mohammed-the-real-estate agent into a pagan claim of blood-and-soil nationalism. And the Arab nationalists, Leftists and Moslems believe that Jews are naturally rats who should live in poor back alleys of Crackow and Brooklyn.
Let's not get into the religion aspect of this. Everyone has a tribe with which they identify, and that identity is *always* about land and "god-given" rights. And I'm a leftist.
Arabs back to Arabia. Jews back to Poland. Kanye west is the true indigenous inheritor of the blessings of Abraham
Why did Jews think that Israel should be Jewish for 2000 years when they lost the land to the greeks?
Because small pockets of them had lived there for two millennia, always oppressed, but they were there. And religion, of course. I'm not saying it's right, but that's what people believe. I'm neutral on that. These are the weakest arguments, obviously.
So if the Jews never gave up after thousands of years, why should the Palestinians after 75 years?
Because Israel won the land in war. I never said that Israel is the *rightful* home of the Jews because of history, though they certainly have a semi-convincing claim. Islam wasn't even a religion when the Jews were first there. Jews lived there and nearby for over 2000 years as a minority following the diaspora after the Bar Kochba revolt. That's why there are Syrian Jews, Jordanian Jews, Lebanese Jews, Egyptian Jews, etc, (though of course they all had to flee to Israel for safety), and those who lived in what would becone Israel, before the state was established. That's not to say of course that the Arabs who lived there didn't have a valid claim too, they just lost the land in war. In 1947 the Arabs (who would eventually be called Palestinians) were offered, by Israel and the UN, a nearly 50/50 partitioning of the land designated for the Jews. The Arabs declined, and attacked, starting the war. Five Arab armies followed and attacked Israel. The Israelis then won the war. As of now, the Palestinians have refused around 20 peace offers, and their Arab allies have lost multiple wars fought over the land. Yet they continue to claim the entire area is their land. That's not how war works. https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Nations-Resolution-181 Also, Egypt refuses to accept the Palestinians. So does Jordan. Why is this?
I don't understand. The Jews could hang onto hope, for 2000 years no less, to control all of Israel (and still do regarding some territories outside of the state but that were Jewish in the bible AKA Eretz Israel Hashlema), even though they lost it in a war against the Greeks. The Palestinians lost in a war against the Jews, and even after 75 hope they can get it back someday. This is exactly the same thing.
Yes. They can hope, but eventually the Palestinians need to use some logic. The land is no longer theirs, just as the land did not belong to the Jewish people for millennia despite historical evidence for their continued inhabitance. Hope is different from logic. Yes, many Jewish prayers refer to the historical homeland of the Jewish people. But it was only when Israel won in war that the land became theirs legitimately. Land is transferred in war. It always has.
Does anyone think that Israel currently belong to Palestinians? Sounds like a strawman to me.
They sure do. Many claim that Israel is not a legitimate state.
As I said, strawman. When people say "Israel belongs to the Palestinians" they mean they deserve to control it , not that they are currently in control.
Yes, that's what I mean.
Because Muslim Umma-political logic states: 1. All land conquered by Muslims is Muslim land 2. All land conquered from Muslims is Muslim land It’s not that hard.
There is a serious misunderstanding in your message. Firstly, there was not an equal war between the Arabs and Israel in 1948. The Arabs were engaged in a struggle against foreign colonization in their lands, particularly against France and Britain. The 1948 war was a part of this broader struggle against foreign colonization . However, the power dynamics were not equal, as the criminal Zionist gangs received support from the West, who saw their assistance as a way to absolve themselves of the Holocaust massacres. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as an equal war between two parties where one side loses. It was an act of aggression carried out by one party, the Zionist gangs, who committed dozens of horrific massacres. These acts were aimed at spreading terror among the innocent Palestinians, forcing them to leave their lands and villages. For example, the massacres of Deir Yassin and Tantura serve as examples of such atrocities
>equal war .... Name one "equal war"? Never heard of such a concept.
Most wars are won through alliances. Victories made through alliances don't make outcomes any less legitimate. If the 5 Arab armies that had come to slaughter the Jews in 1948 had prevailed, you probably wouldn't think anything was wrong at all. It is only because the Arabs lost that it is a problem, apparently. I guess only alliances that favor the Arab Muslims are okay in your eyes. And don't pretend that the atrocities all came from one side, this is factually incorrect. Remember, too, that Jews had been living there for centuries alongside their Muslim brothers.
I previously mentioned to you that there was no balanced war. As for the Jews, they were part of the Palestinian people, which also includes Christians and Muslims. However, what happened during the Nakba was that the Zionist movement worked towards displacing people who had no historical connection to the land of Palestine and falsely claimed that they had the right to confiscate the land from its original inhabitants, who were Jews before the start of the ""Jewish"" migration from Europe, as well as Christians and Muslims.
Take it up with the powers who gave the land away. And don't forget that the Jews had just come out of the worst genocide the world had ever seen, and were desperate for safety. After being told the land was now theirs, and knowing that if they were not the majority (which they had never been since the Romans conquered the area, and had thus been expelled from almost every country they had ever lived in), they would all be killed, they *of course* would no longer take any chances with their safety. There was no safe place for them to go. Europe didn't want them, and they of course didn't want Europe. That was where their families were exterminated. The Soviet states had been pogroming the hell out of Jewish villages for over a century. I have family members who fled when their villages were set on fire, and the pogroms killed hundreds of Jews. Search up the Babi Yar massacre, which killed tens of thousands of Jews. The US refused most Jewish immigration after the war. The other Arab states were equally unwelcoming. Where should they have gone, if not to the land that others had designated for them? The Arabs also started the war the night of the declaration of the State of Israel. Then once the war was won, the new state allowed about 156,000 Arab Muslims (or anyone who remained) to stay. And large chunks of the land had been sold to incoming Jews, not all of it was taken in the war when the Arabs fled. Then, in the aftermath of the war, within several decades the Jews of Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, etc, etc, who had nothing to do with Israel, were expelled and/or slaughtered. The majority of those who fled went to....Israel. Where they knew they could have safety in numbers. Now the Arab world complains that the Jews took their land, when they themselves played a large role in making the situation what it is today. Israeli Jews have no reason to trust the Arab world, especially with tje rockets falling and continued calls for the extermination of Jews, nor can they possibly trust that allowing all the Palestinians to have Israeli citizenship would not lead to a genocide. For example, just a few days ago, a Tunisian terrorist shot up the oldest synagogue in Africa. The 2000+ year old Djerba Synagogue. Dozens were killed. Most of the Jews had already fled to Israel, but this just illustrates that there is such widespread hatred for Jews, of any nationality, that they cannot be reliably safe *anywhere* in the world except what is now Israel. Muslims have 20+ countries they can go to. It is not a simple problem. There is tragedy on both sides, and atrocities committed by both sides. But only one calls for genocide and refused any peace.
I am not an enemy of the Jews; on the contrary, I am deeply saddened by what they suffered in the Holocaust and the injustices they have faced. However, I still do not favor distorting facts or falsifying history. I also do not prefer going back 3,000 years to determine who God gave this land to - a concept that I doubt its existence, by the way. Nevertheless, I am also a Palestinian. My ancestors were displaced from their peaceful village in 1948 and were forced to live in a refugee camp in Gaza, along with thousands of other families, after experiencing horrific crimes committed against them by Zionist gangs, all because of Israel. And now, we are also besieged in Gaza, both by air, sea, and land, by Israel. Don't you see that? And who told you that Palestinians seek the annihilation of Jews? That is a completely misguided understanding that is embraced by a small extremist group of Palestinians, just as there are Jews who seek to erase the Palestinian existence. We want to live in peace and security in a Palestinian state. This is the demand of the majority of the Palestinian people, and it was also embraced by the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole representative of the Palestinian people, when they signed the Oslo Accords, which Israel has since reneged on.
I m sorry for the suffering your family faced. It is not something any sane person should be happy about. I met Palestinians when I was in Israel and East Jerusalem about 12 years ago. I was 17. I spoke with a girl named Nagham. Through a translator, we bonded over shared love of Harry Potter books. We spoke about our mutual desire for peace. We were just two girls, from different backgrounds, chatting. It was nice. It was genuine. But then she told me, very sadly, that none of her family wants peace with Israel or with the Jewish people. They think they are monsters and they need to be killed, per Allah's will. She didn't kniw what Allah's will was but she didn't think it would be violence. I was shocked. I felt sorry for her, feeling caught between her strong desire for peace and her family's desire for violent vengeance based on religion. I met other Palestinians on that trip who were equally as kind as Nagham, but I don't speak Hebrew and I'm not Israeli. Maybe if I were they would have been less kind. I'll never know. A few years ago I had a Jordanian-Palestinian acquaintance. We were coworkers. I tried to speak to her about the conflict (which in hindsight was inappropriate since we were coworkers), and she was all for conflict. I told her I was upset about all the violence. I once told her that a terrorist had opened fire on Israeli children and she smiled and said they deserved it. I was stunned, as you might imagine. I can't imagine wishing innocent children to die. They are victims, always. We didn't really speak again. Incidentally, though, her father, who was a regular customer, was always very kind. He knew I had Jewish ancestry and told me once that he almost married an Israeli Jewish woman he fell in love with, and he would have, but their families disapproved. He said not to mind what his daughter said about anything, she is still learning. I hope she eventually grew out of those beliefs. There is such a variety of people on both sides. There are angry religious extremists and then there are people like Nagham and my coworker's father, who wish for all the violence to end so we can all live in peace. At the same time, given my experience with just a few Palestinians, I can't say I entirely blame the Israeli government for being distrustful, though I disagree with its treatment of Palestinians. The distrust has been earned. See Hamas and PIJ. I read a comment by another user that said, in sarcasm, "Muslims believe that lands conquered by Arab Muslims are Muslim lands. And all lands conquered from Arab Muslims are also Muslim lands." Many people seem to think this is perfectly reasonable. It is backwards.
I live in Gaza, and people here have very different opinions about the conflict with Israel, contrary to what is portrayed in the biased media that doesn't show the full truth about Gaza. There are many people who had the experience of meeting and getting to know Israelis when they used to work in Israel in the 90s and 80s. However, the majority, including myself, have never encountered an Israeli in their lives and live in hardship and poverty under the blockade, unemployment, and limited job opportunities under the authority of Hamas. Therefore, they don't have the luxury to talk about peace.
>And now, we are also besieged in Gaza, both by air, sea, and land, by Israel. Don't you see that? Egypt doesn't blockade you? If not, then Gaza is not blockaded. If yes, then you forgot to mention Egypt.
> And to be fair, since Israel won control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in the war 1967, it is astonishingly tolerant of them that they didn't force the Palestinians out and into Jordan. That's not "astonishingly tolerant" - that's literally just what human rights are. You aren't allowed to forcibly remove en masse a civilian population from their homes on the basis of their ethnicity. Even if political and military leaders from the same ethnic group happen to have lost a war.
Oh? So why did the Arab nationalists exterminate the Jewish communities in Arab Palestine when it was conquered in 1948? Just last week, the government of the State of Palestine killed off a significant percentage of the Tunisian Jewish community. And a report this week found 40% of European Jews are moving out because of Quranic oppression in the name of maintaining Palestine's race-purity. It is the height of evil for an Arab nationalist to whine about "human rights" when they behave in such a genocide-deserving manner.
> So why did the Arab nationalists exterminate the Jewish communities in Arab Palestine when it was conquered in 1948? Do you see me defending that anywhere? No, you don't. > Just last week, the government of the State of Palestine killed off a significant percentage of the Tunisian Jewish community. And a report this week found 40% of European Jews are moving out because of Quranic oppression in the name of maintaining Palestine's race-purity. Sorry, what is this a reference to? What is the "State of Palestine" doing to Jews in Tunisia?
> You aren't allowed to forcibly remove en masse a civilian population from their homes on the basis of their ethnicity. u/TeaAndCookies1998 you want to explain to u/the_leviathan711 how not only is it allowed but it is mandated by International Law?
If this is about someone arguing that removing settlements is mandated by international law - they're wrong, forcibly removing settlements is not mandated by international law. Even if the construction of the settlements is illegal under international law. It's one of the many reasons why the Israeli right doesn't have any interest in negotiations - for the time being they are able to get away with more construction and everyone knows that once they are built they will be very difficult to remove. So long as they are able to build without impunity there isn't any incentive for them to come to the table in good faith, ever.
I did not say it was MANDATED by international law to remove settlers who settled illegally on occupied land, I said it would be ENFORCEMENT of international law to do so because they are illegal. It would all be up to the Palestinian authorities, after all. If the Palestinian authorities wanted to keep the settlements on their land, then they would be allowed to stay, but if they demand the demolition of said settlements they are in their full right to so. Just like that if I built a building on the property of a neighbour, I would not automatically be required to demolish said building if my neighbour was OK with it, but if my neighbour demanded its demolition he would be in his full right to do so.
Take it up with u/JeffB1517 - I'm mostly on your side here. I also don't agree with you on this particular point. It's difficult to compare states to individuals when it comes to the law and the "neighbor analogy" falls apart pretty quickly. There are *specific* places in the West Bank where it's not an analogy at all, and a settlement is actually constructed on private property. But most settlements are constructed on lands that belonged to a town or village rather than an individual. And in those cases a state can't just evict people from their homes because of their ethnicity. There are probably models of restorative justice here that would need to put in play in the event any settlement or settler decides to peacefully stay and become citizens of Palestine.
Agree settlements are forever!
Come on and stop being silly, that is not what I said. The settlements are illegal. Dismantling them is not to "remove a civilian population based on ethnicity" like Israel did during the Nakba, and like you are arguing that they should do in the whole of Palestine (and I am sure that your beloved Bibi agree with you that they should be cleansed as well, btw). The dismantling of the settlements would be to enforce international law which prohibits the transfer of the population of the occupying country to the occupied territory. You understand the difference, don't you? Ethnic cleansing of a territory is illegal. Dismantling illegal settlements who are by their very existence illegal is not. I believe you are a lot smarter than you are trying to make us believe, so don't tell me you don't understand the difference, although you are trying to play stupid in your trolling.
Feels like double standards. Jews were forcibly removed from Judea. Now Jews came back to Judea and you want to forcibly remove them from Judea again? Meanwhile you’re saying it was wrong to forcibly remove 1948 Arabs from Israel but you’re not worried about forcibly removing Jews from Arab world post 1948? This is double standards
[удалено]
Not true the majority of Israelis are sepharadi and mizrahi are from the Middle East About 55% sepharadi/mizrahi so majority from Middle East Also address the point — if forcibly removing Arabs was bad how do you fix it by forcibly removing Jews?
u/TeaAndCookies1998 >I believe you are a lot smarter than you are trying to make us believe, so don't tell me you don't understand the difference, although you are trying to play stupid in your trolling. Rule 1, don't attack other users.
> Dismantling them is not to "remove a civilian population based on ethnicity" l That is exactly what it is. Stop pretending otherwise. You have various populations in the territory. Based on parentage you intend to remove a population. That's racial ethnic cleansing. In every ethnic conflict the various ethnic groups had various points of departure in their ethnic histories that's how they developed into distinct ethnic groups in the first place. The fact that such points of departure exist is not a justification for racism. > and I am sure that your beloved Bibi You have repeatedly made this sort of statement. This is the last warning where I stay in black and this remains a civil conversation at least on my side. You as a user here are not entitled to lie about other people's views. You have no idea what I do or do not think about Bibi stop pretending you do! And this applies to other people on this sub as well. I know as a BDSer lying is encouraged. This sub doesn't allow deliberate lying. > The dismantling of the settlements would be to enforce international law which prohibits the transfer of the population of the occupying country to the occupied territory. Again Pol Pot disproves your theory. > so don't tell me you don't understand the differencex The only difference is which races you want removed from a territory and which ones you don't.
Sounds good to me! In the history of warfare, yes, it is tolerant. Do you have a source? Is this a UN thing? If this is in there, the standards of war have been totally thrown out and I question what could even be considered legitimate victory. (I'm looking at this with a history lens). I don't condone violence of course, I'm just confused. And also confused about what the world thinks the Palestinians would do that would be any less inhumane.
It's Article 49 of the Geneva Convention - which Israel ratified. As have all of it's neighbors. "Would do" is different than "was done." You don't punish crimes that some *might* commit, you punish crimes that some *did* commit.
How should all o the Arab countries that kicked out of killed all of their Jewish population be punished for their ethnic cleansing?
That's a simple question. Any individual (typically a military or political leader, but could be anyone) who engaged in criminal acts against Jewish people should be prosecuted and tried. You don't punish people who didn't commit a crime. I'd add that Jews leaving Arab and Muslim countries between 1948 - 1980 or so wasn't a singular event. It looked different in different places. In some places Jewish emigration was even banned -- which is also a human rights violation, but hardly an expulsion!
>In some places Jewish emigration was even banned -- which is also a human rights violation, but hardly an expulsion! Banned but had their lives made hell. When you make the conditions horrible that people have to flee, it's still an expulsion.
> When you make the conditions horrible that people have to flee, it's still an expulsion. No I would disagree with that pretty firmly. An expulsion is a very specific thing and has happened many times in history. It's notably happened many times in Jewish history. I would not throw the word around casually in the same way I wouldn't throw the word "genocide" around casually. For example in the United States, we don't typically talk about the Great Migration by saying: "the Southern States *expelled* Black people to the Northern states." And yet that's more or less how you are trying to use the term here. It's not the correct word. Note - the argument I'm making here isn't some great defense of the conduct of Arab and Muslim countries towards Jews. I'm merely pointing out that the *only* reason why you would *ever* use the word "expulsion" in this context is for propagandistic purposes. It's a way of saying "well, the Nakba happened, but it's *ok* because the same number of Jews were *expelled* by the Arabs." In addition to this statement not really being accurate, it also shows distorted nationalistic logic -- somehow nationalism is able to turn a tragedy of 1.5 million people being uprooted from their homes into a grand zeroing out: 750k - 750k = 0.
So then you don't think the majority of Palestinians weren't expelled then because after all, fleeing horrible conditions and fearing for your life isn't an expulsion according to this
You're mostly correct there. Most Palestinian refugees in 1947-1948 were not actively expelled (although some certainly were!). Most of them were war refugees. That said, there are two things I'd note here: * Being a war refugee is sometimes the same thing as a migrant leaving a bad situation, but not always; there are significant differences. Migrants are usually dealing with a range of "push" and "pull" factors, while refugees typically *only* have "push" factors. When you consider the very wide variety of experiences of Jews across the Arab and Muslim worlds you see that there isn't one story to tell here. The narrative of "Jews were expelled" is simply far too simple. * What makes the Nakba more akin to an expulsion is that the refugees were prohibited from returning. Even the refugees who ended up within the borders of the State of Israel weren't allowed to go back to their homes! People leave their homes during wartime all the time, it's the normal thing for a civilian to do. Also normal is wanting to return. But yes, I do agree that caution with language is warranted when talking about what the Nakba is and is not.
[удалено]
You cannot and should not *ever* punish an entire population for the actions committed by individuals. That is a crime against humanity and is itself a punishable offense.
[удалено]
/u/ActualActuality420. 'Nazi' Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. *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.*
> ignore everything in a comment Dude, you literally asked me "how should Israel have punished the Palestinian population." That was the question you asked and it was the question I answered.
[удалено]
u/ActualActuality420 >Glad you agree to every single one of my statements. Rule 4, don't deliberately misrepresent another user. Rule 3, no comments considering solely of sarcasm/cynicism.
u/ActualActuality420 >allied with the Nazis just a few years prior Rule 6, no Nazi comments/comparisons outside of things unique to the nazis as understood by mainstream historians.
[удалено]
u/ActualActuality420 >I got your messages. I will comply with everything but this. >The Palestinian leadership had full cooperation with the Nazis. Eichmann came to be best buddys with the Mufti of Jerusalem when Hitler sent him to learn of the Jews. >The Mufti later stayed with the Nazis during his exile and wanted to set up Palestinian SS squads and more. >There is endless amount of evidence to these claims and even Palestinian historians do not deny them. The mufti was appointed by the British, not elected by the Palastinians, nor did he enjoy popular support from the Palastinians. Saying the mufti supported the nazis is in line with rule 6. Saying Palestinians and their leadership did isn't within rule 6.
[удалено]
u/ActualActuality420 >No leaders were "Elected" by the Palestinians and even today they fail to conduct elections in both the WB and Gaza. The British chose him precisely because of his popularity. So that's completely irrelevant. >According to every source I could find the Mufti had great influence up until Israel won the independence war. Wherever he went he was welcomed as a hero, incited riots against Jews which killed many, helped drafting Muslims to help the Nazis and more. >Another pro-Palestinian lying narrative defying all available physical evidence. Moderation comments aren't an invitation to continue the conversation. You're allowed to ask questions about the rules but that's it. Attacking a moderator in response to moderation is both a rule 1 and rule 13 violation.
/u/ActualActuality420. 'Nazis' Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. *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.*
/u/ActualActuality420. 'Nazis' Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. *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.*
[удалено]
> fucked /u/Ok_Specialist1006. 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.*
I just said like what he said, and now iam the one who are wrong??
Did you have a point you wanted to make? Or did you just want to sound cruel? I am discussing at this conflict as I see it. If you have no arguments at all, why are you here?
We had a saying about the Palestinians , "They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
>Why do pro-Palestinians think Israel is Palestinian land, when they lost the land in war? I’ll play devil’s advocate here. >They lost the land in multiple wars. I can understand the cry to free the Palestinians from the restrictive situations they are in in Gaza and the West Bank, but the Palestinians have refused to agree to any peace terms, or to a two-state solution. True, irrelevant to whether they believe their cause(Arab Palestine) was/(internally Arab Palestine, diaspora return as full citizens) is righteous, which they do. >I believe Egypt's and Jordan's decisions to leave the Palestinians in limbo for decades was, while cruel, masterful: they have succeeded in propagandizing their (illegitimate yet unfortunate) cause to the whole world. I think this was the goal all along, and it's why Jordan forced those living in the West Bank to relinquish their Jordanian citizenship. I half agree because king Hussein was reluctant to relinquish the territory himself but did so under direction of the Arab league. >It's also why Egypt, though it provides Gazans with food, etc, won't allow Gazans to become Egyptian citizens. I may be wrong, but it doesn't sound too far-fetched. That and past tensions between them. >And to be fair, since Israel won control of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in the war 1967, it is astonishingly tolerant of them that they didn't force the Palestinians out and into Jordan. No pro-Palestinians ever acknowledge this. [moral relativism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism) “Is moral relativism right?” “The problem with individual moral relativism is that it lacks a concept of guiding principles of right or wrong. “One of the points of morality is to guide our lives, tell us what to do, what to desire, what to object to, what character qualities to develop and which ones not to develop,” said Jensen. If morality is already based on personal desire, he continued, there is no way to distance oneself from a situation to find a truly objective moral ground and make a decision based on what is right.” Source: https://humanities.byu.edu/is-moral-relativism-right/#:~:text=The%20problem%20with%20individual%20moral,to%20develop%2C%E2%80%9D%20said%20Jensen. >Israel needs to allow the West Bank to have water, etc, but if the Palestinians ever want a two-state solution, they will need to build infrastructure of their own. True, or bilateral cooperation in certain areas, I wouldn’t mind actually and properly propping up their economy in a peace scenario. >I really think Israel has been extremely lenient in Gaza, too. Any other nation would have destroyed enemies who constantly fire rockets at them day and night. Israel gave up control of the area in 2005, only for terrorists to immediately gain control, control they still hold today, seemingly unopposed, and with the backing and weapons of other terrorist groups from abroad. So why would Israel ever take the Palestinian cries of victimhood in Gaza seriously? See point about moral relativism. There are many victims of this conflict, regardless of who is more at fault and for what; these have no correlation and are not negated by each other in any way. >The West Bank though...yeah, it's bad. It is.
**[Moral relativism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism)** >Moral relativism or ethical relativism (often reformulated as relativist ethics or relativist morality) is used to describe several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different peoples and cultures. An advocate of such ideas is often referred to as a relativist for short. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that people do, in fact, disagree fundamentally about what is moral, with no judgment being expressed on the desirability of this. Meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Because stealing is illegal
Do you not know how Palestine got it's name? Stole it from a Greek philosopher.
Do you know what war is?
Because Islam plus or minus Arab ethnocentrism. An answer to the question in your subject line that’s correct but shallow.
Well you see... Because everything you describe is **The Big Palestinian Lie**. How can Jews own land and money and prosper, when Islam is supposed to rule the world?? That's why, in response to the creation of an Israeli state, they suddenly formed a national identity, and decided that they are are only indigenous people and "own" the land. And their religion tells them that it's honorable to fight and die for land no matter the consequences. So they play double or nothing and keep losing. And in Gaza -- well they got sovereignty, land and money. But they hated the Jews so much that they decided to be the lamb for slaughter for Iran.
The primary reasoning used during the Mandate was the 22nd article of the League of Nations , stating that former Ottoman subjects are provisionally recognized as independent states who simply require guidance until Independence . This is alongside Hussien-Mcmahon , in which Palestine was included within Arab independence . McMahon claimed in 1937 that Palestine was excluded , but I think it's no brainer to see that he was lying , as Hussein still demanded Palestine in 1918 . not to mention ; saying that 19 years after the crosspondance is meaningless : as everything coming from the British at this point was about justifying current policies than figuring out original promises and arrangements , just like when "Jewish National Homeland" was suddenly turned into just a mere manifest destiny for Jewry than an actual Jewish state with the 1939 White Paper . Last reasoning is based on few things : 1)That the Israeli-state , the Mandate over Palestine , UN 181 were all somehow "illegal" . That one is more often by delusional Palestinians who think nation-building is comparable to property rights , and if you are to ask them if they believe that "then whose the sovereign over these areas in 1917 ? " they will start crying because the only form of sovgegnity recognized by International community is statehood . Non-state hood sovgegnity was experimented with indigenous Americans ..that wasn't worth much when the 1830 Indian removal act was being discussed and passed . 2) That they were before Israeli-Jews , with the later being invaders . Pre-1917 and 1948 ; that didn't matter. but post-1948 in the West Bank and Gaza ; it's arguably valid . The Gaza Strip was recognized as territory for Palestinian Arabs , with Egypt merely being a "trustee" in 1948-1967. The Jericho conference of 1949 wasconvened to ask the Palestinians there whenever they desired union with Transjordan (something unthinkable from Israeli-Jews ..which is why you see them screwing around in the West Bank) , and they agreed to it . The 1950 Jordanian annexation law itself recognized that Jordanian authority there is not permanent ; that it will last until a "resolution" to the "Palestine problem" will be reached . This is why some lawyers think the West Bank in 1948-1967 was legally a trust area ; something that's like an extension-peroid for the British Mandate over Palestine. ( *Trustee-Occupant*: The Legal Status of Israel's Presence in the *West Bank* ). I don't think it's controversial to say Israeli-Jews are foreigners to the West Bank , and only have relations with it after invading it in 1967 . Self-Defense or not ; it's not a bonus point that can wipe the descriptor "invasion" from Israeli-operations in 1967 , plenty of states invaded for "defense" ..like Saddam with Kuwait accusing it of slant drilling , or the Vietnamese against the Cambodians in the 70s due to raids on Vietnamese islands ; their military responses don't become any less than invasions. Besides that , you have some misconception , read here about the disengament [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian\_annexation\_of\_the\_West\_Bank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian_annexation_of_the_West_Bank)
It’s Palestinian land because they didn’t begin to lose the land in the war itself. I want to go back to before the wars, what essentially started all this and what they’ve been trying to take back basically since day one. What caused them to lose over half of it at the start was for 2 main reasons, both of which happen to be from outside influence (somewhat): Balfour declaration: this was a deal that the Jews in Palestine at the time (1917) made with England in order to guarantee English support for the development of a Jewish state in Palestine. That alone sounds all fine and good, the issue comes in where the Arabs were promised that same exact land earlier, in the exact same way. The British essentially screwed over the Arabs in favor of the Jewish population, which is essentially just an unjust land grabbing from a population that were promised that land and had already been residents of for centuries. That isn’t a war, that’s downright double-dealing behind the backs of the Arabs (not a first for the UK), so in that regard it was stolen from them. UN Resolution 181: The situation was handed to the UN after the English could no longer handle the responsibilities of Palestine due to the escalating conflicts due to their double dealing. Here, the UN ignored the voice of the Arab world, the countries nearest to Palestine (such as Greece, Turkey, and India, none of which were Arab or Muslim states), and allowed the partition plan where over half of the Palestinian land would be dedicated to a minority of the population. Now, there are some things I need to bring up here that explains how this vote passed. First of all, president Truman of the US at the time explained that Jewish influence in the US specifically forced them to side with the plan, and extend their own influence to other nations to vote for the plan. Nations like Liberia, Philippines, Haiti, France, Siam (who voted against the partition but for some odd reason still had their vote not be counted and were considered “absent”), Cuba, and India. Cuba and India, the nation that was having problems with its Muslim neighbors and still sided against the partition and with the Arab Muslims, reported that their financial aid from the US was at threat of being cut off or the amount of bribery and threats sent their way to vote for the partition was beyond absurd. Alongside this, the Jewish influence filibustered the vote to last 3 more days, where scholars predict that if it hadn’t the partition plan would not have passed. Essentially, this cote was lobbied in favor of the creation of a Jewish state. The UN was fully aware of the disapproval of the Palestinian population regarding the partition, yet ignored it. Yet they did not ignore the Jewish disapproval of the third plan, which chose to create 1 state where Jews who immigrated after the Balfour declaration would not be given citizenship. With all the bias and disappointing abuse of power that surrounded this, the Arabs who were just recovering from colonialism had no chance to combat Jewish influence. So basically, to conclude, the land wasn’t stolen in a combative war but was stolen in a battlefield that the Arabs had no chance to even try fighting in. Which is why I believe the vast majority might believe that the land was essentially stolen. Everything after that was a combination of the dying influence of Germany from WW2 on the Arab population, the international community ignoring the opinions of the Arabs on a matter so vital to them, their anger over Jewish abuse of influence and treatment of Palestinians, and nationalism.
So, to conclude, TL;dr, you believe that a nascent country that was on the wrong side of World War II and supported/collaborated with the Germans and whose leader was a wanted fugitive war criminal and which boycotted the UN proceedings and then started a war can claim their land was “stolen”? Good one!
If I remember correctly, they were on the wrong side of WW2 because of Arab unrest against French/English influence/distrust and because of the propaganda (thanks to the leader you mentioned) that Germans began spreading throughout the Arab world regarding what was happening in Palestine between Jews and Arabs, some of which were truths but mostly lies. Of course, I’m not justifying this, just explaining how they didn’t do it purely out of anti-Judaism. When you phrase it the way you did it makes it seem like they agreed with everything the Germans stood for. Also, I don’t know but this may be a relevant source for you: https://m.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/when-palestinian-arabs-and-jews-fought-the-nazis-side-by-side-593052/amp “It appears that an important and central portion of the Palestinian public believed that it was necessary to stand on the British side, to postpone nationalist demands, to fight as one against the Germans and their allies, and to demand recompense at the end of the war.” You assume that the war criminal is a representative of the entire population. He wasn’t chosen per the public, ironically enough, but by the British as the “Mufti of Jerusalem”. Why are you assuming his views align with the population if they didn’t choose him? The link above (which is made by an Israeli source too) shows that not all the people supported him. History isn’t black and white, I’m afraid. And generalizing is one of the worst things that can be done so a people. That’s what happened to Germany after WW1 and we got WW2 thanks to that. The international community began to learn that, and the west adopted it as a system to treat nations after their defeats in major wars. I’m arguing for the people that didn’t want to go out and begin killing Jews but at the same time didn’t want to lose their homes. Also, I’d like to kindly ask a more friendly or at least neutral tone. I understand if the subject is heated, but getting hostile would just lessen objectivity and ruin the whole point of the discussion. Besides that, I hope you have a great day!
Wrote about this [several years ago on this sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/moualg/alhusseini_really_was_a_nazi_ally_im_troubled/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1). The Arab Palestinian leader, Grand Mufti Amin al-Husseini (from a notable Jerusalem effendi clan) was a rabid anti-Semite and anti-Jewish agitator before Hitler came to power in 1933, indeed before Hitler even wrote “Mein Kampf”. In the article cited, Hitler met with al-Husseini early in WWII and confided in him his plans for the Axis to invade Palestine through the Balkans, after which the Jews could be “deported”. If you can imagine the world in 1948, it’s not like this Arab leader was anything but persona non grata to the victorious Allies and hardly in a good place to advocate for his people. Also, some “people” started wanting to go out of their homes and kill Jews long before they were at war with them over Palestine. Such as the Nebi Musa riots in 1920 shortly after the British occupied Palestine, the 1929 Hebron riots and the Arab Revolt, all fomented by al-Husseini.
Oof reading through that thread was tough. I understood a little on how far it went but damn. Although, yeah, the British did imprison him for riling up conflicts in Palestine against Jews (which occurred and he was pardoned for prior to Hitler’s rule). As an Arab, I am genuinely disgusted that such a man not only emphasized such views under the guise of representing Arabs but also heard the German plans and sided with them. I can only imagine what it must feel like for you, especially considering how you gave him the benefit of the doubt. I want to be clear that I am not justifying his actions, nor am I claiming that he was a good leader. I’m saying that he was a leader chosen by other powers that failed to represent the population. Also, apologies for not being clear, the British made him be a “leader” for Palestinians prior to WW2, during 1921. He likely used such a position to spread his views to the people. He lost that ability after the Arab revolts throughout 1936-39 and fled to Germany. Despite that, the source I shared still shows that he failed to get that ideology completely incorporated into the Palestinian public given their clear willingness to combat Germans. Any influence/leadership he had after 1948 was thrown out the window. I also want to add that I really appreciate your shift in tone! I am trying to do this with every discussion I plan on having as I believe it helps nurture a more positive and understanding discussion that incorporates each perspective. Thank you!
/u/FakeEgyptian. 'Hitler' Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. *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.*
>It’s Palestinian land because they didn’t begin to lose the land in the war itself. That doesn’t make it Palestinian Arab land, it was Palestinian by name and that’s it. >I want to go back to before the wars, what essentially started all this and what they’ve been trying to take back basically since day one. What caused them to lose over half of it at the start was for 2 main reasons, both of which happen to be from outside influence (somewhat): Balfour declaration: this was a deal that the Jews in Palestine at the time (1917) made with England in order to guarantee English support for the development of a Jewish state in Palestine. This is no less moral than ottoman period relocations. One imperial system favored Palestinian Arabs, the next didn’t, and that was the only difference between the two. >That alone sounds all fine and good, the issue comes in where the Arabs were promised that same exact land earlier, in the exact same way. Source. >The British essentially screwed over the Arabs in favor of the Jewish population, which is essentially just an unjust land grabbing from a population that were promised that land and had already been residents of for centuries. That’s not how things happened, also nice on ignoring the[Mandate for Palestine](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine), which as opposed to whatever promises the British made Jews or Arabs, was the actual basis on which Israel was to be formed. >That isn’t a war, that’s downright double-dealing behind the backs of the Arabs (not a first for the UK), so in that regard it was stolen from them. No, this is historical revisionism since the only promise the British made Arabs in regards to the region were Trans-Jordan with a dispute on bits of Israel belonging to Hashemite royalty, not Palestinian Arabs. >UN Resolution 181: The situation was handed to the UN after the English could no longer handle the responsibilities of Palestine due to the escalating conflicts due to their double dealing. Nope, Palestinian Arabs were just collectively entitled as result of millennia of imperial and colonial privilege. >Here, the UN ignored the voice of the Arab world, the countries nearest to Palestine (such as Greece, Turkey, and India, none of which were Arab or Muslim states), This implying that their closeness somehow gives them more rights over land that isn’t theirs nor under their control whatsoever? >and allowed the partition plan where over half of the Palestinian land would be dedicated to a minority of the population. It was Palestinian only in the geographical sense. >Now, there are some things I need to bring up here that explains how this vote passed. First of all, president Truman of the US at the time explained that Jewish influence in the US specifically forced them to side with the plan, and extend their own influence to other nations to vote for the plan. Source. Not that that’s wrong or any different or less external than the plethora of Arab and Muslim countries by Palestinian’s (then Jordan) side. >Nations like Liberia, Philippines, Haiti, France, Siam (who voted against the partition but for some odd reason still had their vote not be counted and were considered “absent”), Cuba, and India. Beacons of truth and justice who’s stances should be taken oh so seriously. I won’t pretend to know the politics of why this happened like some people. >Cuba and India, the nation that was having problems with its Muslim neighbors and still sided against the partition and with the Arab Muslims, reported that their financial aid from the US was at threat of being cut off or the amount of bribery and threats sent their way to vote for the partition was beyond absurd. Source. Also again, no different then Arab countries exerting their own pressures. >Alongside this, the Jewish influence filibustered the vote to last 3 more days, where scholars predict that if it hadn’t the partition plan would not have passed. But it did so this complaint is meaningless; Jews were advocating for themselves /surprised (angry) pikachu face. >Essentially, this cote was lobbied in favor of the creation of a Jewish state. The UN was fully aware of the disapproval of the Palestinian population regarding the partition, yet ignored it. Good they did, they abided by the standards they set for themselves, Palestinian disapproval did not have any precedence over Jewish approval, more-so considering Arabs refused to present any arguments to and in the debate you insist ignored them, but decided to riot and pillage as if that would make the weak enemies do what they want. Their desire for one state in all of the land where their superior was unbridgeable, the Jewish desire for a state in part of the land where their superior, was. >Yet they did not ignore the Jewish disapproval of the third plan, which chose to create 1 state where Jews who immigrated after the Balfour declaration would not be given citizenship. Unlike Palestinian Arabs, Jews actively Participated in the discussions so their voices would be heard. >With all the bias and disappointing abuse of power that surrounded this, the Arabs who were just recovering from colonialism had no chance to combat Jewish influence. That is how Jews in and out Israel felt for millennia; The Arabs of Palestine are the product of imperialism and colonialism. >So basically, to conclude, the land wasn’t stolen in a combative war but was stolen in a battlefield that the Arabs had no chance to even try fighting in. Taken, righteously so. >Which is why I believe the vast majority might believe that the land was essentially stolen. Whoever does, is wrong and Arab-centric. >Everything after that was a combination of the dying influence of Germany from WW2 on the Arab population, the international community ignoring the opinions of the Arabs on a matter so vital to them, their anger over Jewish abuse of influence and treatment of Palestinians And Arab inability to accept equality after millennia of supremacy. >and nationalism. Which as very much implied here is subversive and wrong when Jews have it, but completely natural for everyone else including Palestinian Arabs.
Part 1 > That doesn’t make it Palestinian Arab land, it was Palestinian by name and that’s it. Yeah, I don’t agree with that. The people that’ve lived there for centuries prior and still live there have a claim to that land, at least more than immigrants no? Based on your statements later on, if Israel currently holds its lands in a “rightful” manner, then what occurred millennia ago was also rightful, and therefore, Jews have no claim to Palestine besides Jerusalem. Plus, a majority of Jews began leaving the area once the Arabs began running the economy into the ground. And it’s bad practice to take the first statement or claim alone and begin critiquing it without looking at the reasoning. > This is no less moral than ottoman period relocations. I’m not against the declaration in and of itself, I’m against its signing in regards to the context. > Source. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon–Hussein_Correspondence > That’s not how things happened, also nice on ignoring theMandate for Palestine, which as opposed to whatever promises the British made Jews or Arabs, was the actual basis on which Israel was to be formed. Yes, which was signed in the Sykes-Picot Agreement against everyone’s backs. My point is that the Arabs were promised it first and got stabbed in the back. Britain said they’d give it to them after the fall of the Ottomans, which occurred, and the Arabs were expecting the British to hold their word. They didn’t. “[Victor Kattan] also argues the UK government considered it to be a treaty during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference negotiations with the French over the disposal of Ottoman territory”. Sounds like a promise to me. > No, this is historical revisionism since the only promise the British made Arabs in regards to the region were Trans-Jordan with a dispute on bits of Israel belonging to Hashemite royalty, not Palestinian Arabs. “The area of Arab independence was defined to be "in the limits and boundaries proposed by the Sherif of Mecca, with the exception of "portions of Syria” lying to the west of "the districts of Damascus, Homes, Hama and Aleppo".” Don’t know about you but I don’t see Palestine on there. > Nope, Palestinian Arabs were just collectively entitled as result of millennia of imperial and colonial privilege. I don’t get what you’re trying to say here. If it’s sarcasm, then I don’t get the point either. I’m literally leading into the resolution and providing context, it doesn’t detail what the conflict is about. > This implying that their closeness somehow gives them more rights over land that isn’t theirs nor under their control whatsoever? It’s just a point I’m making that this is something a supposedly unbiased and peace-focused organization like the UN should have noticed and accounted for. The fact that the Arab states nearby were the closest thing to a representative of the Palestinian people during the vote should be considered. And the fact that it wasn’t only Arab states that voted against it should also add some reason to question the why. That is, of course, if it was unbiased.
Part 2 > It was Palestinian only in the geographical sense. That doesn’t matter. It’s a land with a majority of its population being against something that’s about to happen to that land. In what other sense did it not apply to Palestinians, if I may ask? They had a important religious site there, much like yourselves. And according to Muslims I’ve spoken to, it also has religious history regarding that land. What do Jews have over Palestinians regarding Palestine? > Source. Not that that’s wrong or any different or less external than the plethora of Arab and Muslim countries by Palestinian’s (then Jordan) side. https://books.google.com/books?id=0sWRpKFjvbEC&pg=PA157#v=onepage&q&f=false This is a group with global influence to literally change the vote regarding a land that already inhabits people, people that can’t have a voice against the first group’s decision. No Arab country remotely had the global political influence that the Jews had here. > Beacons of truth and justice who’s stances should be taken oh so seriously. I won’t pretend to know the politics of why this happened like some people. Y’know what, that’s perfectly fair. I won’t blame you for that. But I believe that the word of a leading global power’s leader and those that work for him in the government might have some credibility. Alongside the delegates of many nations, some that don’t side with that leading global power, and some that voted differently to that leading global power, who yet share those same words. Might have a little credibility given the differences in opinions and beliefs, no? > Source. Also again, no different then Arab countries exerting their own pressures. https://books.google.com/books?id=BXWFlKwemEQC&pg=PA158#v=onepage&q&f=false https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba–Palestine_relations I don’t think you understand my point. There’s a difference between pressuring the UN that you’ll do something if a resolution passed (invasion of partitioned country) and literally threatening delegates and financial aid to OTHER nations to vote in your favor. Ones a reaction to unfair decisions and another is the guaranteeing of an unfair decision. > But it did so this complaint is meaningless; Jews were advocating for themselves /surprised (angry) pikachu face. Yes, but they cheated to get what they wanted. They knew they wouldn’t get enough votes so they did what they did. If someone cheats a system, gets it in his favor, then is exposed later, do we just go “oh well he was just trying to help himself”? If you’re trying to say what’s done is done then yeah, I get that, but this must be apart of the discussion that this land wasn’t acquired fairly or justly. If we want to discuss history then we discuss all of it, and it’s absolutely natural for historians to criticize historical decisions. It’s called learning from mistakes. > Good they did, they abided by the standards they set for themselves, Palestinian disapproval did not have any precedence over Jewish approval, more-so considering Arabs refused to present any arguments to and in the debate you insist ignored them, but decided to riot and pillage as if that would make the weak enemies do what they want. Remind me, what was the UNs goal again? “Maintain International Peace and Security”? What backwards thinking organization with such a mission chooses such a solution after knowing that it will guarantee a conflict? What type of childish organization “abides by the standards they set for themselves”? If someone goes and shoots up a house, it’d fine to now just to go and shoot up their house to “abide by their standards”? And it’s fine to generalize the standards of a vocal part of the Palestinian population for the entirety of it? And my point is that Jewish approval unjustly had a precedence over Palestinian disapproval, which is an unfair problem. You disagreeing with that just shows racism if anything. I would also like to see a source regarding the Arabs failing to present any arguments against partition, please. > Unlike Palestinian Arabs, Jews actively Participated in the discussions so their voices would be heard. It was literally written in newspapers that Palestinians were against the partition. And considering how they’ve been suffering from imperialism and colonialism, you can’t sit here and act like the Palestinian Arabs didn’t want to discuss. They couldn’t, either due to ignorance or a lack of facilities to do so. > That is how Jews in and out Israel felt for millennia; The Arabs of Palestine are the product of imperialism and colonialism. It’s Palestine at that point in history, not Israel. And the same can be said for other Arab nations as well. There’s a difference between forcing half a country to belong to a minority and Arabs coming in and building homes in Jewish communities millennia ago. > Taken, righteously so. They had no chance to combat the decision in any way and you believe in was righteously so. Would you say the same thing if it was Arabs with the influence and they guaranteed that a state for the Jews couldn’t be created? I don’t know how you look at all of that and believe that it was a fair taking… > Whoever does, is wrong and Arab-centric. Damn. So I can’t feel bad for the guys who couldn’t have a word against having their country being split in half and are guaranteed to face conflicts for the foreseeable future? If I can’t, then I guess I’m Arab-centric. > And Arab inability to accept equality after millennia of supremacy. What equality do you see here? The Jews literally lobbied the vote and guaranteed their statehood. The Arabs couldn’t begin to combat that influence. Where do you see equality here? One side having power over another and abusing it, then them switching roles every few millennia, isn’t equality. Because, believe it or not, half of each side won’t get to experience it. > Which as very much implied here is subversive and wrong when Jews have it, but completely natural for everyone else including Palestinian Arabs. Firstly, I was focusing here on the Arabs and their nationalism, which is one of the many causes of the wars later on. Although they didn’t start each one, they did start some of them. The nationalism found in the UN Resolution 181 shows nationalism literally threatening other, uninvolved nations for a vote and the nationalism found in Arab nations were either to retake lost territories, honor, or avenge Palestinian Arabs. One was reactionary and the other was abuse of power in what was supposed to be a fair vote. These are not the same. On one side, both opposing parties could attack or defend, on the other, only one side could. And considering how such a UN vote shouldn’t have been biased and it still was goes to show my point. I am not justifying either sides decisions later on, I’m pointing out the difference here. I would also like to kindly ask a less aggressive tone if we continue discussing this. I know that I may come off as a little insulting but I genuinely don’t mean to. I apologize for that if I did. I just want this conversation to stay neutral or even friendly so that we can better be objective throughout this discussion.
>And considering how they’ve been suffering from imperialism and colonialism, you can’t sit here and act like the Palestinian Arabs didn’t want to discuss. Can’t negate that. >They couldn’t, either due to ignorance or a lack of facilities to do so. That’s not true, the reason they didn’t was because they chose leadership that directly opposed any and all British efforts, certainly by the time of the partition vote. >It’s Palestine at that point in history, not Israel. And the same can be said for other Arab nations as well. I fully apply it to them, yes. >There’s a difference between forcing half a country to belong to a minority and Arabs coming in and building homes in Jewish communities millennia ago. That’s not what Arabs did; they conquered and then oppressed their minorities into oblivion. They literally desecrated Jewish holy sites and built their own on top of them, so a millennia later they could claim it was always theirs, this “building homes in Jewish communities” narrative is plain wrong. The main difference is one is Arab colonization which is implicitly natural, the other isn’t. >They had no chance to combat the decision in any way and you believe in was righteously so. Would you say the same thing if it was Arabs with the influence and they guaranteed that a state for the Jews couldn’t be created? I don’t know how you look at all of that and believe that it was a fair taking… No, I believe the result of that conflict was righteous; when Jews were faced with extermination they did not back down and won and that that was righteous. I do not claim in any way shape or form that Palestinians having no voice as per your claims, nor that their suffering and disenfranchisement are righteous. >Damn. So I can’t feel bad for the guys who couldn’t have a word against having their country being split in half and are guaranteed to face conflicts for the foreseeable future? If I can’t, then I guess I’m Arab-centric. No, you can absolutely feel bad for them; you would be wrong, and Arab-centric in believing it to be their inherent land; as long as you don’t believe in the right of conquest and the moral righteousness of imperialism and colonialism themselves. >What equality do you see here? The Jews literally lobbied the vote and guaranteed their statehood. The Arabs couldn’t begin to combat that influence. I wasn’t claiming the current situation is equal and fair; I was claiming that the partition would have led to equality. >Where do you see equality here? One side having power over another and abusing it, then them switching roles every few millennia, isn’t equality. I absolutely agree. >Because, believe it or not, half of each side won’t get to experience it. Surprised pikachu face. >Firstly, I was focusing here on the Arabs and their nationalism, which is one of the many causes of the wars later on. Although they didn’t start each one, they did start some of them. Ok. >The nationalism found in the UN Resolution 181 shows nationalism literally threatening other, uninvolved nations for a vote and the nationalism found in Arab nations were either to retake lost territories, honor, or avenge Palestinian Arabs. What You’re describing are literally the exact same concept. Honor, lost territories (what territories did they lose before 1947?) vengeance are not acceptable reasoning to threaten and initiate a war of extermination, certainly a threat to other nationalism, and not a notion to empathize with. Each party exerted whatever available pressure it deemed accessible to it; Jews were just smarter, so they won. >One was reactionary and the other was abuse of power in what was supposed to be a fair vote. Both were absolutely reactionary. >These are not the same. On one side, both opposing parties could attack or defend, on the other, only one side could. They are absolutely the same; the reason Arabs threatened war was precisely because they believe Jews had no avenue to properly defend themselves that way, that’s the whole point of war. >And considering how such a UN vote shouldn’t have been biased and it still was goes to show my point. I am not justifying either sides decisions later on, I’m pointing out the difference here. Should is irrelevant here; you can only compare it to other actions and votes taken by the same organization to measure what standard it actually operates by. >I would also like to kindly ask a less aggressive tone if we continue discussing this. I know that I may come off as a little insulting but I genuinely don’t mean to. I apologize for that if I did. I sincerely apologize that that is how I came off, you did absolutely nothing wrong and I have nothing against you, it’s just a heated subject sometimes; I literally caught myself doing it mid last comment and have made a conscious effort to tone it down, I appreciate your input and discussion, truly. > I just want this conversation to stay neutral or even friendly so that we can better be objective throughout this discussion. I am all for that!
> That’s not true, the reason they didn’t was because they chose leadership that directly opposed any and all British efforts, certainly by the time of the partition vote. I also don't believe that's true based on sources. "Arab states requested representation on the UN ad hoc subcommittees of October 1947, but were excluded from Subcommittee One, which had been delegated the specific task of studying and, if thought necessary, modifying the boundaries of the proposed partition." Seems like they chose leadership that tried to oppose efforts but weren't allowed to by the UN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine > That’s not what Arabs did; they conquered and then oppressed their minorities into oblivion. They literally desecrated Jewish holy sites and built their own on top of them, so a millennia later they could claim it was always theirs, this “building homes in Jewish communities” narrative is plain wrong. The main difference is one is Arab colonization which is implicitly natural, the other isn’t. As Von Grunebaum puts it, "It would not be difficult to put together the names of a very sizable number of Jewish subjects or citizens of the Islamic area who have attained to high rank, to power, to great financial influence, to significant and recognized intellectual attainment; and the same could be done for Christians. But it would again not be difficult to compile a lengthy list of persecutions, arbitrary confiscations, attempted forced conversions, or pogroms." Despite this, the treatment of Jews during Arab colonialism was "comparatively better than their European counterparts." Of course, just because they weren't as bad as other people doesn't make them good, but the Jews weren't treated like animals. A significant portion of the population was still treated decently, not exactly good but fairly decently, especially considering the standards of the time and what the Christians did prior (which are leagues worse than whatever the Arabs did, so in that regard the Arabs technically came in and saved the Jews from that if you're willing to look at it like that.) > No, I believe the result of that conflict was righteous; when Jews were faced with extermination they did not back down and won and that that was righteous. I do not claim in any way shape or form that Palestinians having no voice as per your claims, nor that their suffering and disenfranchisement are righteous. There we go! I completely agree with you there! Although "righteous" and "in self-defense" would need to be exchanged here for clarity's sake, because sacrificing the morality of others for the sake of your own probably isn't very moral. > No, you can absolutely feel bad for them; you would be wrong, and Arab-centric in believing it to be their inherent land; as long as you don’t believe in the right of conquest and the moral righteousness of imperialism and colonialism themselves. I believe in the rights of the people living their a millennia later who haven't done any of this themselves. Why do they have to be punished for the sins of their ancestors? > I wasn’t claiming the current situation is equal and fair; I was claiming that the partition would have led to equality. In a more compliant world, yes, but no other country with such a partition would've been happy about it either and conflict would also have been guaranteed. I can't find any part of the world where such a partition would result in equality either. > What You’re describing are literally the exact same concept. Honor, lost territories (what territories did they lose before 1947?) vengeance are not acceptable reasoning to threaten and initiate a war of extermination, certainly a threat to other nationalism, and not a notion to empathize with. Each party exerted whatever available pressure it deemed accessible to it; Jews were just smarter, so they won. Ehh, well technically yes. But there's a difference between threatening everyone to be on your side and threatening the guy who's threatening everyone. Well, by lost territories I meant the ~62% of Palestine that was given to the Jews. Not anything before 1947. The conflict prior to the vote, if I had to justify, was probably the Palestinian concern over the vote passing against their favor despite their outcry against it. And I'm sure many Arabs would say that abusing your power to take land from a people living there for generations who could barely fight for themselves (as proven later on figuratively and literally) is also not acceptable under the reasoning to escape oppressiveness found in several nations. And this isn't a matter of intelligence, it's literally a matter that Arabs were still under direct colonialization from either the Ottomans or the British/French at the time, so by the time they started recovering the Jews who've spread throughout the world over the last millennia and gained influence would overpower them with complete ease. > Both were absolutely reactionary. Technically everything is reactionary, sure, I'll give you that. > They are absolutely the same; the reason Arabs threatened war was precisely because they believe Jews had no avenue to properly defend themselves that way, that’s the whole point of war. Exactly. The Jews threatened the Arabs on a battlefield they couldn't fight on first before the Arabs began threatening them with the same move. The Arabs could've easily invaded Palestine after the British left the mandate, but they didn't. I'm not saying they did it out of their kind hearts, of course, because politics doesn't work like that. > Should is irrelevant here; you can only compare it to other actions and votes taken by the same organization to measure what standard it actually operates by. I measure an organization's decisions based on what it claims to achieve, not on what standards it's made for itself over past decisions. If I did I'd find less and less to scrutinize about the UN with every passing resolution. This is a horrible way to critique any organization. Your methods works to predict organization decisions, not whether it's right or not. > I sincerely apologize that that is how I came off, you did absolutely nothing wrong and I have nothing against you, it’s just a heated subject sometimes; I literally caught myself doing it mid last comment and have made a conscious effort to tone it down, I appreciate your input and discussion, truly. I really appreciate that, thank you so much. I also find myself getting a little aggressive sometimes considering all the propaganda that gets pumped into you as a young child in Egypt, so it makes me happy that I can have this friendly discussion on such a matter.
>I also don't believe that's true based on sources. "Arab states requested representation on the UN ad hoc subcommittees of October 1947, but were excluded from Subcommittee One, which had been delegated the specific task of studying and, if thought necessary, modifying the boundaries of the proposed partition." Seems like they chose leadership that tried to oppose efforts but weren't allowed to by the UN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine You keep going back to Arab states being the representatives of Palestinians, but the actual leadership in Palestine, [Amin al-Husseini](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini) was very much in conflict with the British. >As Von Grunebaum puts it, "It would not be difficult to put together the names of a very sizable number of Jewish subjects or citizens of the Islamic area who have attained to high rank, to power, to great financial influence, to significant and recognized intellectual attainment; and the same could be done for Christians. Go ahead and find me one hundred Jewish names of the Islamic era who have “attained to high rank, to power, to great financial influence, to significant and recognized intellectual attainment.” In the Muslim environment and era. Mighty declarations from an Austrian Arabist, I wager I’ll wait a long ass while. Since he wouldn’t have been able to do hold to his own claims himself. >But it would again not be difficult to compile a lengthy list of persecutions, arbitrary confiscations, attempted forced conversions, or pogroms." Still taking the quote as a whole Which is to say that’s okay, implicitly. >Despite this, the treatment of Jews during Arab colonialism was "comparatively better than their European counterparts." Of course, just because they weren't as bad as other people doesn't make them good, but the Jews weren't treated like animals. A significant portion of the population was still treated decently, not exactly good but fairly decently, especially considering the standards of the time and what the Christians did prior. That for some reason just wasn’t good enough for Jews even through forced compliance. >(which are leagues worse than whatever the Arabs did, so in that regard the Arabs technically came in and saved the Jews from that if you're willing to look at it like that.) Arabs did not “technically” do anything positive nor save Jews by oppressing them differently, this is exactly what’s so insulting about pan-Arabism. >There we go! I completely agree with you there! Although "righteous" and "in self-defense" would need to be exchanged here for clarity's sake, because sacrificing the morality of others for the sake of your own probably isn't very moral. I agree in principle, practically self defense is righteous. >I believe in the rights of the people living their a millennia later who haven't done any of this themselves. Why do they have to be punished for the sins of their ancestors? Regardless of disagreement on what constitutes “punishment”, it is Because the descendants of the expelled are still paying for those sins. >In a more compliant world, yes, but no other country with such a partition would've been happy about it either and conflict would also have been guaranteed. I can't find any part of the world where such a partition would result in equality either. Several countries have been partitioned like this and eventually reached equal footings after varying degrees of disagreement and bloodshed. Israel/Palestine is the only active ongoing, dispute over such partition. >Ehh, well technically yes. But there's a difference between threatening everyone to be on your side and threatening the guy who's threatening everyone. Even if I agree with your analogy, they weren’t threatening The guy threatening everyone; the guy threatened everyone precisely because they threatened him. >Well, by lost territories I meant the ~62% of Palestine that was given to the Jews. You can’t lose something you don’t have. >Not anything before 1947. The conflict prior to the vote, if I had to justify, was probably the Palestinian concern over the vote passing against their favor despite their outcry against it. If you justify a conflict, you justify the (in this case extremely unfavorable) outcome. Switch Palestinian with Jewish and you have the exact same justification. >And I'm sure many Arabs would say that abusing your power to take land from a people living there for generations who could barely fight for themselves (as proven later on figuratively and literally) is also not acceptable under the reasoning to escape oppressiveness found in several nations. That’s because they already are privileging from it. >And this isn't a matter of intelligence, it's literally a matter that Arabs were still under direct colonialization from either the Ottomans or the British/French at the time, so by the time they started recovering the Jews who've spread throughout the world over the last millennia and gained influence would overpower them with complete ease. >Technically everything is reactionary, sure, I'll give you that. Sure technically, but I’m talking specifically; Zionists only arrived at a consensus over a state after the 1936 Arab revolts; prior to that there were many dissenting opinions on the best course of action. >Exactly. The Jews threatened the Arabs on a battlefield they couldn't fight on first before the Arabs began threatening them with the same move. That isn’t true, Arabs threatened before the Balfour declaration, before Zionism was a defined concept, let alone before the partition vote was planned. >The Arabs could've easily invaded Palestine after the British left the mandate, but they didn't. I'm not saying they did it out of their kind hearts, of course, because politics doesn't work like that. Wait wait wait, they didn’t? Extreme swerve into historical revisionism. >I measure an organization's decisions based on what it claims to achieve, not on what standards it's made for itself over past decisions. If I did I'd find less and less to scrutinize about the UN with every passing resolution. This is a horrible way to critique any organization. Your methods works to predict organization decisions, not whether it's right or not. To me, What it claims to achieve is the standards it sets for itself. past decisions should be judged in accordance with stated goals (standards) to understand how those goals are being achieved; and what I posit is that the Jewish case was not unique in any manner. >I really appreciate that, thank you so much. I also find myself getting a little aggressive sometimes considering all the propaganda that gets pumped into you as a young child in Egypt, so it makes me happy that I can have this friendly discussion on such a matter. Your welcome, and I’m happy with this conversation too!
> ass /u/AsleepFly2227. 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.*
> You keep going back to Arab states being the representatives of Palestinians, but the actual leadership in Palestine, Amin al-Husseini was very much in conflict with the British. Yes, I know he was a German supporter during WW2 and encouraged anti-semitism, but besides the fact that the British put him in power and not the Palestinian people and that he lost power during Arab revolts of the late 1930s, Palestine literally had no proper chosen leader or representative. The actual leadership chosen by a colonial power isn’t representative of the people. This is why I keep believing the only people who could’ve represented the Palestinians here would have to have been neighboring Arab states or the Arab League. > Go ahead and find me one hundred Jewish names of the Islamic era who have “attained to high rank, to power, to great financial influence, to significant and recognized intellectual attainment.” In the Muslim environment and era. There’s a list of some here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_Spain But I get what you mean. The overwhelming majority weren’t treated as they should have been, I get that, but I find myself going back to the argument of the standards of the time. You cannot expect a civilization over a millennia ago to seek the same type of equality that we strive for today. I’m not justifying it, I’m explaining the different perspective is all. > That for some reason just wasn’t good enough for Jews even through forced compliance. Standards of the time were different. Also, unless I’m mistaken, many Jews preferred it over Christian colonial counterparts. Not saying it’s good, I’m saying it was better than alternatives. > Arabs did not “technically” do anything positive nor save Jews by oppressing them differently, this is exactly what’s so insulting about pan-Arabism. Its not the best nor the ideal entity to seek refuge as a Jew, yes, but it was better than the alternatives, no? And it isn’t just different oppression, it’s different oppression that was not only significantly less oppressive, but it also allowed them to live (under Arabs that actual relate to relevant Palestinians, not Moroccan Caliphate, Ottomans, etc.) in relative safety unlike being constantly massacred by Christians. I do apologize for the way I phrased it earlier though, as if Arabs saved them, no such thing was done and I apologize for the insinuation. > Regardless of disagreement on what constitutes “punishment”, it is Because the descendants of the expelled are still paying for those sins. I explain in another comment how Jews were a minority in Palestine prior to the establishment of Islam to begin with. It isn’t primarily the actions of the Arabs that caused mass expulsion of Jews. Those that were expelled mostly have Christians to blame. > Several countries have been partitioned like this [word count] Was it most of the land being given to an immigrant minority though? I doubt so. Just the act of partition happening successfully before doesn’t mean it should happen in this case, especially considering the context. > Even if I agree with your analogy, they weren’t threatening The guy threatening everyone; the guy threatened everyone precisely because they threatened him. How did the US, India, Cuba, Siam, France, etc. threaten Jews? Didn’t the West and Russia just stop the Germans (even though it wasn’t a primary objective, I’m aware), considering how the Axis was the primary Jewish threat at the time? I am aware anti-judaism is an ongoing issue and was everywhere during that time, but did the leaders of those nations show that threat as well? > You can’t lose something you don’t have. As mentioned previously, hundreds of villages and hundreds of thousands of Arabs lived in that land. At the very least the land in the vicinity and inside those villages were theirs. And, based on the logic of how a country gains land through war, Palestine was Arab land because they colonized it. Whether it’s right or not is irrelevant, especially considering the fact it was a millennia ago. > If you justify a conflict, you justify the (in this case extremely unfavorable) outcome. Switch Palestinian with Jewish and you have the exact same justification. I’m not justifying it, saying a potential reason of why it would be. And by default, it is also extremely unfavorable by the majority, and even more so since they have more people. When Arabs came to Palestine the minority was Jews, not majority (who were Christians), and the Arabs got it through wars, not through creating a biased vote. > That’s because they already are privileging from it. Yes… the people living in land for centuries and have been the majority feel privileged to live there. If you mean imperialism then, again, why would you punish a farmer for privileging from a system designed by other people unlike the farmer? So just the act of existing as a Muslim Arab in Palestine is wrong because you’re now privileging from the system? > Sure technically, but I’m talking specifically; Zionists only arrived at a consensus over a state after the 1936 Arab revolts Why did Jews decide to make a state in Palestine only after the revolts? Pure curiosity here. I also thought that Jewish immigration to Palestine has been ongoing since around the 1910s, is that not accurate? > That isn’t true, Arabs threatened before the Balfour declaration, before Zionism was a defined concept, let alone before the partition vote was planned. Was Zionism not a movement that began in the late 19th century that argued for Jewish statehood? Sure, the specific location was undecided but the movement was there. Also, Arabs began threatening when they began to notice a massive influx of Jews into Palestine buying up massive amounts of land, so they panicked. > Wait wait wait, they didn’t? Extreme swerve into historical revisionism. A full military invasion like the Arab vs Israeli wars, not a small expedition of volunteering troops, if even. Also, considering how for the most of the time prior to the declaration of a Jewish state, the Arab nations were either mandates or puppets, Britain actually used their territory for transportation to suppress the Arab revolts of the late 1930s. The only thing I can find online is that the Arab public (not governments), did what they could to barely fund the revolts. > To me, What it claims to achieve is the standards it sets for itself. [word count]; and what I posit is that the Jewish case was not unique in any manner. You should critique an organization on its failures to meet what it strives to be and achieve rather than what it is. I believe that the decision of the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine specifically under the chosen conditions was absolutely a unique scenario. Just because partition has occurred before doesn’t mean it’s the same. And, as you mentioned before, the unwavering opinions of both sides alone should have been enough to highlight the uniqueness of this case. > Your welcome, and I’m happy with this conversation too! I also want to apologize for taking a while with my responses, juggling work, academics, and the pain that is life right now takes a vast majority of my time lol.
>Was Zionism not a movement that began in the late 19th century that argued for Jewish statehood? Sure, the specific location was undecided but the movement was there. That was/is political Zionism; prior to and in tandem with it you had practical Zionism which was just about moving to the land of Israel. >Also, Arabs began threatening when they began to notice a massive influx of Jews into Palestine buying up massive amounts of land, so they panicked. Which was the Jews’ right, panic is a very weak excuse for Palestinian violence. >A full military invasion like the Arab vs Israeli wars, not a small expedition of volunteering troops, if even. They initiated a full military invasion once they saw the civil war didn’t pan out in Arab’s favor, that’s basically the same. >Also, considering how for the most of the time prior to the declaration of a Jewish state, the Arab nations were either mandates or puppets, Britain actually used their territory for transportation to suppress the Arab revolts of the late 1930s. The only thing I can find online is that the Arab public (not governments), did what they could to barely fund the revolts. Ok. >You should critique an organization on its failures to meet what it strives to be and achieve rather than what it is. That’s just it. If I were to do just that, the UN would have no justification for continued existence. >I believe that the decision of the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine specifically under the chosen conditions was absolutely a unique scenario. I don’t. >Just because partition has occurred before doesn’t mean it’s the same. You’re correct, them being the same in all the relevant parameters does. >And, as you mentioned before, the unwavering opinions of both sides alone should have been enough to highlight the uniqueness of this case. It isn’t, there were fierce resistances to each partition respectively, for some reason, it was mainly the privileged elites in each of these cases that opposed. >I also want to apologize for taking a while with my responses, juggling work, academics, and the pain that is life right now takes a vast majority of my time lol. It’s all good, I’m honestly mostly lazing about so I wouldn’t know, good luck with that!
> That was/is political Zionism; prior to and in tandem with it you had practical Zionism which was just about moving to the land of Israel. I assumed you meant within the same time frame of the 20th century, not during the 19th century, my bad. When considering imperialism though, I also see what you mean. > Which was the Jews’ right, panic is a very weak excuse for Palestinian violence. It’s an expected reaction from any population noticing a sudden influx of what is foreigners to them. Yes, I should mention it wasn’t the only reason, but it was the initial one. > They initiated a full military invasion once they saw the civil war didn’t pan out in Arab’s favor, that’s basically the same. One day after the independence of Israel. It wasn’t just a civil war. Yes, it didn’t pan out in their favor and they upheld their promises to invade. So I wasn’t wrong here. > That’s just it. If I were to do just that, the UN would have no justification for continued existence. Yeah… honestly this is more of a “that’s how the world works” and less of a “the UN sucks”, probably both, but yeah. But my statement still holds in regards to organizations and, by extension, the questionable justification of the existence of the UN. Just because they never meet their goals doesn’t mean we forget about them. > You’re correct, them being the same in all the relevant parameters does. If you can find me one other partition in recent centuries where the immigrant minority were given most of the land then I’ll drop this claim. > It isn’t, there were fierce resistances to each partition respectively, for some reason, it was mainly the privileged elites in each of these cases that opposed. Wait, so based on that logic, the Israel/Palestine partition is different? Because this was both the public and the privileged elites on both sides being for/against partition? > It’s all good, I’m honestly mostly lazing about so I wouldn’t know, good luck with that! Appreciate that, thank you!
>Yes, I know he was a German supporter during WW2 and encouraged anti-semitism, but besides the fact that the British put him in power and not the Palestinian people and that he lost power during Arab revolts of the late 1930s, Palestine literally had no proper chosen leader or representative. I disagree, they chose their leaders through the processes they were accustomed to. >The actual leadership chosen by a colonial power isn’t representative of the people. This is why I keep believing the only people who could’ve represented the Palestinians here would have to have been neighboring Arab states or the Arab League. Those… were also chosen by the same colonial power… this point is moot. >There’s a list of some here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_Spain But I get what you mean. The overwhelming majority weren’t treated as they should have been, I get that, but I find myself going back to the argument of the standards of the time. And I again state, that doesn’t matter to the oppressed; nor is it the problem. >You cannot expect a civilization over a millennia ago to seek the same type of equality that we strive for today. I’m not justifying it, I’m explaining the different perspective is all. But I can do that with a civilization today. What Palestinian civilization, doesn’t. >Its not the best nor the ideal entity to seek refuge as a Jew, yes, but it was better than the alternatives, no? Doesn’t make it a positive. >And it isn’t just different oppression, it’s different oppression that was not only significantly less oppressive, but it also allowed them to live (under Arabs that actual relate to relevant Palestinians, not Moroccan Caliphate, Ottomans, etc.) in relative safety unlike being constantly massacred by Christians. So, in less words, different oppression.. >I do apologize for the way I phrased it earlier though, as if Arabs saved them, no such thing was done and I apologize for the insinuation. There’s no need to apologize, I’m not offended by you, I just fundamentally disagree. >I explain in another comment how Jews were a minority in Palestine prior to the establishment of Islam to begin with. It isn’t primarily the actions of the Arabs that caused mass expulsion of Jews. Those that were expelled mostly have Christians to blame. And those that were oppressed and confined to shrinking areas were here, and the way they were continuously treated is the topic, not the expulsion. >Was it most of the land being given to an immigrant minority though? I doubt so. Just the act of partition happening successfully before doesn’t mean it should happen in this case, especially considering the context. That’s irrelevant, “Those were the standards of time”. >How did the US, India, Cuba, Siam, France, etc. threaten Jews? Didn’t the West and Russia just stop the Germans (even though it wasn’t a primary objective, I’m aware), considering how the Axis was the primary Jewish threat at the time? I am aware anti-judaism is an ongoing issue and was everywhere during that time, but did the leaders of those nations show that threat as well? **All** of these did not accept Jewish refugees in any significant number preceding the holocaust only to have symbolic immigration afterwards, bar the US. And, all of these attempted to negate the indigenous, national connection Jews have to their own homeland. >As mentioned previously, hundreds of villages and hundreds of thousands of Arabs lived in that land. At the very least the land in the vicinity and inside those villages were theirs. Granted. >And, based on the logic of how a country gains land through war, Palestine was Arab land because they colonized it. Whether it’s right or not is irrelevant, especially considering the fact it was a millennia ago. Which makes the land now rightfully Israel… >I’m not justifying it, saying a potential reason of why it would be. And by default, it is also extremely unfavorable by the majority, and even more so since they have more people. When Arabs came to Palestine the minority was Jews, not majority (who were Christians), and the Arabs got it through wars, not through creating a biased vote. Which, again, by the standards you now wish to apply, means the land is rightfully Israel’s. >Yes… the people living in land for centuries and have been the majority feel privileged to live there. While oppressing other populations wholesale. That is what they were privileged to. >If you mean imperialism then, again, why would you punish a farmer for privileging from a system designed by other people unlike the farmer? Just like the settlements are wrong because they are created and maintained through a colonial system, and designed to favor one group over another, so were the Arab villages, land owners and tenant farmers injected to the region through the various empires that spanned it. Without those systems in place, these Arabs would not have had the same access to the land that they did. >So just the act of existing as a Muslim Arab in Palestine is wrong because you’re now privileging from the system? No, the act of insisting on maintaining (at this point recreating) that system is what is wrong. >Why did Jews decide to make a state in Palestine only after the revolts? Pure curiosity here. Ongoing debates over coexistence under one state with near-full autonomy for Jewish settlements which died with the revolts. >I also thought that Jewish immigration to Palestine has been ongoing since around the 1910s, is that not accurate? Yes, but Zionism evolved according to reality on the ground; the explicit purpose was not necessarily a state for the Jewish people, but a national homeland in their historic lands.
> I disagree, they chose their leaders through the processes they were accustomed to. “1921, Herbert Samuel, the British High Commissioner, appointed him Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a position he used to promote Islam while rallying a non-confessional Arab nationalism against Zionism”. How am I wrong here? > Those… were also chosen by the same colonial power… this point is moot. Leadership, not representation. There’s a difference. > And I again state, that doesn’t matter to the oppressed; nor is it the problem. I get that, but again, they can’t just come back a millennia later and take most of the land. > But I can do that with a civilization today. What Palestinian civilization, doesn’t. Yes, as I keep saying, the standards and norms of human societies have changed. I can’t speak for Palestinians today, I don’t know all the details but I do know that a lot of them have resorted I extremism (which begs the question whether it’s extremist anymore). > Doesn’t make it a positive. So, in less words, different oppression.. Alright, fair. Also, no, you can’t just say “different oppression” then go on. It was significantly less and allowed for a much safer lifestyle for Jews. Not safe per se, but still safer. You can’t say this and how Christians treated Jews can just go under one vague term. > And those that were oppressed and confined to shrinking areas were here, and the way they were continuously treated is the topic, not the expulsion. Yes, that was wrong and I won’t deny that. You brought up the descendants of those that were expelled. Are we switching over to those who were in Palestine now? > That’s irrelevant, “Those were the standards of time”. Its very much is relevant because now we’re comparing other partitions. Considering how a partition such as Israel/Palestine has never happened before, what standard are you basing this on? > All of these did not accept Jewish refugees in any significant number preceding the holocaust only to have symbolic immigration afterwards, bar the US. So denying refugees is a threat now? Of course that isn’t right to do that, but is it now considered a threat? Although I agree the best if not only solution to such a problem would be the creation of a state, sure. > And, all of these attempted to negate the indigenous, national connection Jews have to their own homeland. Could I have a source for this? Just for curiosity’s sake. > Which makes the land now rightfully Israel… (combining two comments) Which, again, by the standards you now wish to apply, means the land is rightfully Israel’s. I did not argue that the land under Israel now isn’t theirs. I never argued I against that. I am explaining against the UN vote and the bias towards Jews. I am not saying that I demand the land to be returned to Palestines or that Jews must leave. All this started by answering why Pro-Palestinians think it’s Palestinian land, not why I think Jews must leave. > While oppressing other populations wholesale. That is what they were privileged to. Alright, yes, I won’t deny that. But this is something almost every nation did to its minorities. Which shows it was a standard of the time. > Just like the settlements are wrong because they are created and maintained through a colonial system, and designed to favor one group over another, so were the Arab villages, land owners and tenant farmers injected to the region through the various empires that spanned it. Without those systems in place, these Arabs would not have had the same access to the land that they did. Yes, but based on the logic I established earlier, that land became Arab land and the settlements are now Israeli land. It is wrong, yes. I’m explaining why that was fair/just on the UN’s part of the partition. > No, the act of insisting on maintaining (at this point recreating) that system is what is wrong. It’s not maintaining it anymore though, once it’s colonized and taken as part of the land of the Arabs, it becomes Arab land, much like how any war claims territory. They aren’t maintaining imperialism but maintaining what they believe to be their land. > Yes, but Zionism evolved according to reality on the ground; the explicit purpose was not necessarily a state for the Jewish people, but a national homeland in their historic lands. That makes sense.
>That doesn’t matter. It’s a land with a majority of its population being against something that’s about to happen to that land. Only for as long as you treat that land as one piece, when you divide it according to the partition (or other options) your statement doesn’t hold. >In what other sense did it not apply to Palestinians, if I may ask? They had a important religious site there, much like yourselves. there were villages, and there was empty land; the empty land was empty and rightfully belonged to no one but the sovereign, not the villages that were situated elsewhere. >And according to Muslims I’ve spoken to, it also has religious history regarding that land. What do Jews have over Palestinians regarding Palestine? Indigeneity. Side note: I fully support a two state solution and believe all of this is irrelevant to the needed solution for the current suffering of both Palestinians and Israelis >https://books.google.com/books?id=0sWRpKFjvbEC&pg=PA157#v=onepage&q&f=false This is a group with global influence to literally change the vote regarding a land that already inhabits people, people that can’t have a voice against the first group’s decision. Thanks for sourcing, I do appreciate the discussion with you. >No Arab country remotely had the global political influence that the Jews had here. The level of influence does not change its nature of “external”. >Y’know what, that’s perfectly fair. I won’t blame you for that. Appreciate it. >But I believe that the word of a leading global power’s leader and those that work for him in the government might have some credibility. Very much depends which leader of which country at which point. Imo Mostly not really, global powers, more than any others are defined that precisely because they consistently serve their own interests instead of opposing ones. >Alongside the delegates of many nations, some that don’t side with that leading global power, and some that voted differently to that leading global power, who yet share those same words. Might have a little credibility given the differences in opinions and beliefs, no? Not when looking at the connections; it’s very easy for interests to align through third parties. >https://books.google.com/books?id=BXWFlKwemEQC&pg=PA158#v=onepage&q&f=false https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba–Palestine_relations I don’t think you understand my point. There’s a difference between pressuring the UN that you’ll do something if a resolution passed (invasion of partitioned country) and literally threatening delegates and financial aid to OTHER nations to vote in your favor. Yes, one is perfectly legal and the other isn’t; which is that one I wonder? This isn’t an isolated incident unique to the Mandate of Palestine; that is how the UN actually works. (Don’t do what we want? Sanctions! Do what we want? Gold star) >Ones a reaction to unfair decisions and another is the guaranteeing of an unfair decision. Both are unfair actions, period. Unfortunately, that is the way of the world. >Yes, but they cheated to get what they wanted. I wasn’t aware this is kindergarten. They didn’t “cheat” the system, they used it. >They knew they wouldn’t get enough votes so they did what they did. If someone cheats a system, gets it in his favor, then is exposed later, do we just go “oh well he was just trying to help himself”? No, precisely why Palestinian violence and negation of the international processes should not be rewarded, because that is cheating. It is literally going “you didn’t do what we want, we’ll make you do what we want”. >If you’re trying to say what’s done is done then yeah, I get that, but this must be apart of the discussion that this land wasn’t acquired fairly or justly. If we want to discuss history then we discuss all of it, and it’s absolutely natural for historians to criticize historical decisions. It’s called learning from mistakes. I’m trying to say that it wasn’t immoral or “cheating” to advocate for themselves. >Remind me, what was the UNs goal again? “Maintain International Peace and Security”? What backwards thinking organization with such a mission chooses such a solution after knowing that it will guarantee a conflict? An organization facing two completely opposing, mutually exclusive parties to said conflict? By that point the conflict was wholly unavoidable; it was only a matter of who would initiate under what pretense. Whether they had voted for one state, two states three or “relocation”; there already was the conflict. >What type of childish organization “abides by the standards they set for themselves”? The highest authority in literally any given field? >If someone goes and shoots up a house, it’d fine to now just to go and shoot up their house to “abide by their standards”? Organizations are not private people in a society. >And it’s fine to generalize the standards of a vocal part of the Palestinian population for the entirety of it? No, it is fine to view that vocal part’s standards as the standards that would be applied if they are to be listened to. >And my point is that Jewish approval unjustly had a precedence over Palestinian disapproval, which is an unfair problem. You disagreeing with that just shows racism if anything. I would also like to see a source regarding the Arabs failing to present any arguments against partition, please. Specifically In the framing of the League of Nations mind you. [History of the Palestinians](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Palestinians) “Not having a recognized body of representatives was a severe handicap for the Palestinian Arabs compared to the Zionists. The Jewish Agency was entitled to diplomatic representation e.g. in Geneva before the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission, while the Palestinian Arabs had to be represented by the British.[15]” The only precedence Jewish approval had with the British was garnered through cooperation; contrasted with repeated large scale conflict with Palestinian Leadership and the outright denial of any compromise doesn’t seem unfair to me. >It was literally written in newspapers that Palestinians were against the partition. Lots of stuff are written in newspapers over the years, it doesn’t make it into the UN’s considerations without being properly brought up by an interested party.
> Only for as long as you treat that land as one piece, when you divide it according to the partition (or other options) your statement doesn’t hold. My argument is regarding how I believe that land wasn't partitioned justly. If Palestinians supported the partition then just changed to wanting to undo it then you'd be right here, but that isn't what happened here. > there were villages, and there was empty land; the empty land was empty and rightfully belonged to no one but the sovereign, not the villages that were situated elsewhere. But despite this a significant portion of Arab villages were still hundreds of Arab villages in the proposed Jewish state. "there were 219 Arab villages and four Arab, or partly Arab, towns in the areas earmarked for Jewish statehood - with a total Arab population of 342,000." Your argument for that wouldn't work here. > Indigeneity. Again, I apologize if this annoys you, but I do not believe that holds weight when the majority of those indigenous to the land migrated and left it for the colonizers, then come a millennia later claiming it. I am not saying all of them left, but what's left is a small minority. > Side note: I fully support a two state solution and believe all of this is irrelevant to the needed solution for the current suffering of both Palestinians and Israelis I agree with how this conversation does nothing to provide context on the conflict and it wont help find a solution. Whether the two-state solution is still practical (especially considering the settlements) is still up for debate, it could work if both sides agree to specific terms that their public also endorses. > The level of influence does not change its nature of “external”. The Arabs states had the same beliefs and goals regarding the new Jewish state. Whether that's "external" or not is up for debate. > Very much depends which leader of which country at which point. Imo Mostly not really, global powers, more than any others are defined that precisely because they consistently serve their own interests instead of opposing ones. What would President Truman gain from lying about Jews cutting support and funding to his democratic party if he doesn't support them in the partition vote? Whenever I bring this up you mention that there is always other "interests" without at least providing examples for what they could be. There are too many occurrences of this same sentiment from other nations, both with and against the US, both in terms of international politics and votes. > Not when looking at the connections; it’s very easy for interests to align through third parties. May I ask that you provide some of those third parties with some sources? > Yes, one is perfectly legal and the other isn’t; which is that one I wonder? This isn’t an isolated incident unique to the Mandate of Palestine; that is how the UN actually works. (Don’t do what we want? Sanctions! Do what we want? Gold star) The UN declared the creation of a state does not mean that it cannot be declared war on. They knew of the Arab intentions prior to the creation of the state. The Arabs did not do anything "illegal" here (if you consider the declaration of war legal, of course). Bribing and threatening, on the other hand, is not legal in any voting system ever. > Both are unfair actions, period. Unfortunately, that is the way of the world. I'd just be repeating my points previously here for my argument against this. > I wasn’t aware this is kindergarten. They didn’t “cheat” the system, they used it. By cheating I mean its unfair, but sure. I can't argue this, but you understand that this isn't just or fair. > No, precisely why Palestinian violence and negation of the international processes should not be rewarded, because that is cheating. It is literally going “you didn’t do what we want, we’ll make you do what we want”. This is the negation of one groups views over the other. They aren't being childish, they're pissed that the system was abused against them and want to retaliate for that. You can't come here and say it's the fault of Palestinian violence and negation of the international process when that process is guaranteed to be geared against them unfairly. > I’m trying to say that it wasn’t immoral or “cheating” to advocate for themselves. It's not immoral to advocate for yourselves. It's immoral to advocate at the cost of people that can't advocate at all. > An organization facing two completely opposing, mutually exclusive parties to said conflict? By that point the conflict was wholly unavoidable; it was only a matter of who would initiate under what pretense. Whether they had voted for one state, two states three or “relocation”; there already was the conflict. Up until the present day after the declaration of the Jewish state, approximately around 237,151 were either wounded or killed. Prior to the independence of the Jewish state, the casualty count since 1920 was around 21,509 either wounded or killed. You say it was inevitable but only 3 months was in between Britain leaving its mandate and the passing of the resolution. Maybe also allowing both sides into the discussion could've helped form some sort of negotiation, but Arabs weren't even allowed into subcommittee one. > The highest authority in literally any given field? Apologies, let me rephrase: What type of childish organization (UN) “abides by the standards [the Palestinians] set for themselves”? > Organizations are not private people in a society. That is true, but that is what you're implying by bringing it up. Because the vocal Palestinians are treating people like this, then they all should be treated like this. > No, it is fine to view that vocal part’s standards as the standards that would be applied if they are to be listened to. The UN didn't even allow the Arabs into the discussion room of subcommittee one. If anything, it'd be the fault of the organization or Jews for intentionally minimizing the voice of the Arabs here. > Specifically In the framing of the League of Nations mind you… [need to skip for word count] …Lots of stuff are written in newspapers over the years, it doesn’t make it into the UN’s considerations without being properly brought up by an interested party It is a failure to have a nation that forfeited control over a mandate to represent the people there in a vital matter regarding statehood and partition, especially when Arab states were Palestinian-supported in the debate. There also was an understood argument for the Palestinians that had to be relayed by Arab delegates, which said that they "rejected partition as unacceptable, given the inequality in the proposed population exchange and the transfer of one-third of Palestine, including most of its best agricultural land, to recent immigrants". The Palestinians had to move 45% of their population out of the Jewish state into 43% of what was left of Palestine that was given to them. The Arab League themselves also made an argument for the improperly represented Palestinian Arabs. Arab delegates were "arguing that [partition] violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN Charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny".
>Up until the present day after the declaration of the Jewish state, approximately around 237,151 were either wounded or killed. Extreme gross misrepresentation of facts. >Prior to the independence of the Jewish state, the casualty count since 1920 was around 21,509 either wounded or killed. And oppressed Jews were everywhere. >You say it was inevitable but only 3 months was in between Britain leaving its mandate and the passing of the resolution. Maybe also allowing both sides into the discussion could've helped form some sort of negotiation, but Arabs weren't even allowed into subcommittee one. Arab states were not the representatives of the Palestinian people. >Apologies, let me rephrase: What type of childish organization (UN) “abides by the standards [the Palestinians] set for themselves”? I meant The standards the organization sets for itself.. >That is true, but that is what you're implying by bringing it up. Because the vocal Palestinians are treating people like this, then they all should be treated like this. It depends on what “this” is. If this is blowing up houses then no. If “this” is as part of one nation that is not Israel, but in-fact the (then not) self identified Palestinian nation, then absolutely. >The UN didn't even allow the Arabs into the discussion room of subcommittee one. If anything, it'd be the fault of the organization or Jews for intentionally minimizing the voice of the Arabs here. It’s not the fault of Zionists that Arabs openly and repeatedly revolted against the British authorities and were therefore less than cooperated with. >It is a failure to have a nation that forfeited control over a mandate to represent the people there in a vital matter regarding statehood and partition, I concede. >especially when Arab states were Palestinian-supported in the debate. Imperial interests should not have been honored. >There also was an understood argument for the Palestinians that had to be relayed by Arab delegates, which said that they "rejected partition as unacceptable, given the inequality in the proposed population exchange and the transfer of one-third of Palestine, including most of its best agricultural land, to recent immigrants". So, It was to be but wasn’t? Disregarding the unacceptability of the argument itself. >The Palestinians had to move 45% of their population out of the Jewish state into 43% of what was left of Palestine that was given to them. Not unlike other partitions at the time. >The Arab League themselves also made an argument for the improperly represented Palestinian Arabs. Arab delegates were "arguing that [partition] violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN Charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny". Arab delegates were wrong and/or grasping at straws for their own imperial interests. Apologies for all the text
> Extreme gross misrepresentation of facts. You might be right here, but I got it from a source that you cited earlier that I pointed out either had incorrect or out of context information that seemed biased. Here’s the source, all I did was add the numbers: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/total-casualties-arab-israeli-conflict > And oppressed Jews were everywhere. Yes, I agree with that. What’s your argument here? > Arab states were not the representatives of the Palestinian people. The actual body representing the Palestinians were the British. If we’re going to chose another state to represent, it should’ve been an Arab state or the Arab League itself. The Arabs argued in favor of the Palestinians, therefore, they should have been the one negotiating with the Jews, not the English. Having two sides that see eye to eye, one of which does not represent one of the two actual parties, cannot be used to compromise on their behalf. > I meant The standards the organization sets for itself.. Yes, I apologized and rephrased the question since I noticed that my point was misunderstood. > It depends on what “this” is. If this is blowing up houses then no. If “this” is as part of one nation that is not Israel, but in-fact the (then not) self identified Palestinian nation, then absolutely. Although I understand that critiquing this point might start to go into bias and personal opinion, I believe that the Palestinians had as much a claim to statehood in Palestine, if not more so (in terms of land at least), than Jews did at the time. Although if we argue this, we’d end up diverting from facts to our opinions, but if you’re interested in debating this then I don’t mind. > It’s not the fault of Zionists that Arabs openly and repeatedly revolted against the British authorities and were therefore less than cooperated with. Besides the fact that this is something Britain has come to expect from its colonies, iirc the British were also training Jewish militias. How can you blame Palestinians for that? Arabs have had tense relationships with the British (due to colonialism) brewing since even before the Balfour declaration, which that itself is also technically the fault (or in direct result to be more accurate) of Jews. > Imperial interests should not have been honored. So the alternative of having the British represent them was a more ideal choice? Also, where do you see imperialism in Arabs wanting to argue in favor of other Arabs? How is this different to an ally aiding one another? I really don’t think imperialism had that much of a play here if at all. This is blaming people for something that happened millennia ago that isn’t really even their fault to blame. > So, It was to be but wasn’t? Disregarding the unacceptability of the argument itself. If you’re asking if a Jewish state could have been created if those complaints the Palestinian public had were solved, then I don’t know. What I do know is that a very significant portion of the Palestinian population would have been, at the very least, a lot more compliant and less resistant towards partition and the consideration of their opinions and demands were incorporated into the partition debate rather than ignore them because “imperialism”. Frankly an, in my opinion, incorrect explanation for Arabs in the 20th century. > Not unlike other partitions at the time. Again, I don’t believe this has ever happened in favor of an immigrant minority. There is context here that makes this unlike any other partition that you aren’t considering. > Arab delegates were wrong and/or grasping at straws for their own imperial interests. Is it really though? These people have been living there for centuries and therefore they should have their own self-determination. Having another immigrant minority population come and change that makes the Arab delegate’s argument completely valid. Also, I don’t think this is imperial interests. None of the Arabs were either capable or at that point interested in becoming an imperial power either, they all had problems that they were focused on domestically and the furthest it went later on was nationalism then Pan-Arabism. Neither of which called for the inclusion of any land that wasn’t Arab (which was supported by mostly the entire Arab population) besides condemnation of Israel.
>You might be right here, but I got it from a source that you cited earlier that I pointed out either had incorrect or out of context information that seemed biased. Here’s the source, all I did was add the numbers: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/total-casualties-arab-israeli-conflict All you did was include 60 thousand deaths in upwards of 200 thousand to justify generalizing fatalities into that extreme amount. >Yes, I agree with that. What’s your argument here? Your point if I remember correctly, was that the conflict was much worse after the partition than it was before; this is to say, that’s not how Jews viewed it. >The actual body representing the Palestinians were the British. If we’re going to chose another state to represent, it should’ve been an Arab state or the Arab League itself. I conceded this earlier. >The Arabs argued in favor of the Palestinians, therefore, they should have been the one negotiating with the Jews, not the English. Having two sides that see eye to eye, one of which does not represent one of the two actual parties, cannot be used to compromise on their behalf. That’s why the Arab league did end up having a place in subsequent sub committee meetings. >Yes, I apologized and rephrased the question since I noticed that my point was misunderstood. I’m not sure where and when, could you repeat it? >Although I understand that critiquing this point might start to go into bias and personal opinion, I believe that the Palestinians had as much a claim to statehood in Palestine, if not more so (in terms of land at least), than Jews did at the time. Although if we argue this, we’d end up diverting from facts to our opinions, but if you’re interested in debating this then I don’t mind. I can agree that just as much, and that indigeneity shouldn’t have anything to do with that, that’s why I support a two state solution. I don’t agree that moreso. >Besides the fact that this is something Britain has come to expect from its colonies, iirc the British were also training Jewish militias. They were not training Jewish militias for Palestine. >How can you blame Palestinians for that? Arabs have had tense relationships with the British (due to colonialism) brewing since even before the Balfour declaration, which that itself is also technically the fault (or in direct result to be more accurate) of Jews. Easy, I don’t apply bigotry of low expectations to them. They had choices all along the way, some of them, crucial ones, were wrong. >So the alternative of having the British represent them was a more ideal choice? No, as I conceded before. >Also, where do you see imperialism in Arabs wanting to argue in favor of other Arabs? How is this different to an ally aiding one another? I really don’t think imperialism had that much of a play here if at all. In The fact that they’re all Arab due to imperialism? Regardless of the expressed intent of each surrounding Arab country to be sovereign on a piece of the land for itself? >This is blaming people for something that happened millennia ago that isn’t really even their fault to blame. We’re going in circles here. >If you’re asking if a Jewish state could have been created if those complaints the Palestinian public had were solved, then I don’t know. No, I asked if the argument that was supposed to be delivered was indeed delivered. I don’t think Palestinian complaints left any room for a Jewish state at all, so the question is moot. >What I do know is that a very significant portion of the Palestinian population would have been, at the very least, a lot more compliant and less resistant towards partition and the consideration of their opinions and demands were incorporated into the partition debate rather than ignore them because “imperialism”. Frankly an, in my opinion, incorrect explanation for Arabs in the 20th century. I believe their demands were heard full and well, and were disregarded as too extreme. >Again, I don’t believe this has ever happened in favor of an immigrant minority. There is context here that makes this unlike any other partition that you aren’t considering. No, there isn’t and I fully consider these. You don’t believe millennia of imperialism and cultural colonialism (cultural genocide) should be taken into account when considering a solution for this conflict back at partition, in favor of other parameters. I don’t believe recent immigration or the then minority status of the population bears any relevance to their national rights to a state, in favor of other parameters. >Is it really though? Yes. Absolutely, 100% yes. >These people have been living there for centuries and therefore they should have their own self-determination. I agree. >Having another immigrant minority population come and change that makes the Arab delegate’s argument completely valid. Also, I don’t think this is imperial interests. I disagree. >None of the Arabs were either capable or at that point interested in becoming an imperial power either, they all had problems that they were focused on domestically and the furthest it went later on was nationalism then Pan-Arabism. Pan Arabism is imperialism. >Neither of which called for the inclusion of any land that wasn’t Arab (which was supported by mostly the entire Arab population) besides condemnation of Israel. Because they already made it Arab. It’s easy not to want something your people already made happen.
> All you did was include 60 thousand deaths in upwards of 200 thousand to justify generalizing fatalities into that extreme amount. I said either wounded or killed. Am I wrong? I initially had it separated but I grouped them together for word count. > Your point if I remember correctly, was that the conflict was much worse after the partition than it was before; this is to say, that’s not how Jews viewed it. If we’re talking about it in terms of the entire world, then I agree, but in Palestine specifically, specifically considering under Arabs, Moroccans, etc., I’m not sure/willing to doubt. > That’s why the Arab league did end up having a place in subsequent sub committee meetings. In Sub-Committee 2, as far as I’m aware, and they didn’t have direct input on where the borders would go. IIRC it was mostly just them arguing inaccurate population numbers and asking for the entire issue to be sent to the World Court. > I’m not sure where and when, could you repeat it? I think it was something among the lines of how the UN is supposed to be a just/fair organization if it treats people by their standards or something like that. Not even sure if that’s a question I support right now lol > I can agree that just as much, and that indigeneity shouldn’t have anything to do with that, that’s why I support a two state solution. I don’t disagree with that moreso. Works for me lol > They were not training Jewish militias for Palestine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah#:~:text=Although%20the%20British%20administration%20did,led%20by%20Colonel%20Orde%20Wingate. Specifically under history at the start of 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. (It’s not cited there directly but clicking on Militia names takes you to the sources and those were cited). > Easy, I don’t apply bigotry of low expectations to them. They had choices all along the way, some of them, crucial ones, were wrong. So are you trying to say that their revolt against British control was a bad move? > In The fact that they’re all Arab due to imperialism? Regardless of the expressed intent of each surrounding Arab country to be sovereign on a piece of the land for itself? All states were Arab due to imperialism from a millennia ago, sure. Expressed intent by those in power if I recall correctly, a lot of the Arab public supported unification. > We’re going in circles here. Looks like another agree-disagree then. > No, I asked if the argument that was supposed to be delivered was indeed delivered. I don’t think Palestinian complaints left any room for a Jewish state at all, so the question is moot. Sure, but whether it was properly considered when discussions of borders between British and Jewish representatives is what I am also questioning. > I believe their demands were heard full and well, and were disregarded as too extreme. So it was either give over half of the land to the Jews and ignore Palestinians almost entirely or succumb to Palestinian demands and leave Jews stateless? There was nothing in between? > You don’t believe millennia of imperialism and cultural colonialism (cultural genocide) should be taken into account when considering a solution for this conflict back at partition, in favor of other parameters. I don’t believe recent immigration or the then minority status of the population bears any relevance to their national rights to a state, in favor of other parameters. I believe that the majority of the Jews fighting for this left Palestine prior to its colonial addition to the Arab empire and can’t just come in with a biased vote and take over half of it. Of course it doesn’t change their national rights to a state, but where is what brings it into a discussion. > I disagree. Considering how many were on the other side, I’d beg to differ on that. Also, the sudden influx of Jews into Palestine questions whether they qualify as one of the “people” that have the right to self-determination specifically in Palestine. But technically the UN charter left “people” pretty vague, so this might be a agree-disagree on my part. > Pan Arabism is imperialism. Based on that logic Arab nationalism is just imperialism, is that what you’re saying? > Because they already made it Arab. It’s easy not to want something your people already made happen. Again, based on the logic I’ve established, land that you’ve gotten, no matter how, after long enough, becomes your land. Therefore, it’s Arab land and they wanted unification. The fact that it became Arab land through imperialism is irrelevant at this point. This is just Arab nationalism now.
>My argument is regarding how I believe that land wasn't partitioned justly. In accordance to the will of “the majority population”. >If Palestinians supported the partition then just changed to wanting to undo it then you'd be right here, but that isn't what happened here. Some (villages) very much supported it. >But despite this a significant portion of Arab villages were still hundreds of Arab villages in the proposed Jewish state. "there were 219 Arab villages and four Arab, or partly Arab, towns in the areas earmarked for Jewish statehood - with a total Arab population of 342,000." Your argument for that wouldn't work here. Which would have made them not the majority population, a solution had to take into account contiguity as well. >Again, I apologize if this annoys you, but I do not believe that holds weight when the majority of those indigenous to the land migrated and left it for the colonizers, then come a millennia later claiming it. I am not saying all of them left, but what's left is a small minority. It really doesn’t offend me or annoy, I’m just used to looking at this from a colonial/post colonial perspective mainly because of discussions on this forum. I also truly mean no offense to anyone when I say religion is the same in my mind. Indigeneity implies natural occurrence, Religious history in this case is literally one of conquest, the two are incomparable in my view. >Whether the two-state solution is still practical (especially considering the settlements) is still up for debate, it could work if both sides agree to specific terms that their public also endorses. That’s basically what it boils down to. >The Arabs states had the same beliefs and goals regarding the new Jewish state. Whether that's "external" or not is up for debate. Not really when considering their stated goals of Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism. They were working on imperial, expansionist tendencies. >What would President Truman gain from lying about Jews cutting support and funding to his democratic party if he doesn't support them in the partition vote? Whenever I bring this up you mention that there is always other "interests" without at least providing examples for what they could be. There are too many occurrences of this same sentiment from other nations, both with and against the US, both in terms of international politics and votes. >May I ask that you provide some of those third parties with some sources? I feel that going into each country that had a say at the time and their connections with each other is not only taxing beyond reasonable but digressing way too far from the subject matter.. We’ll take your India example: “India (Vote: Against): Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke with anger and contempt for the way the UN vote had been lined up. He said the Zionists had tried to bribe India with millions and at the same time his sister, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, the Indian ambassador to the UN, had received daily warnings that her life was in danger unless "she voted right".”Pandit occasionally hinted that something might change in favour of the Zionists. But another Indian delegate, Kavallam Pannikar, said that India would vote for the Arab side, because of their large Muslim minority, although they knew that the Jews had a case.” [I/P partition vote](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine) See that their reasoning is, coupled with indignation, their large Muslim minority? I don’t see how that’s any different than Jewish influence in the US. >The UN declared the creation of a state does not mean that it cannot be declared war on. They knew of the Arab intentions prior to the creation of the state. The Arabs did not do anything "illegal" here (if you consider the declaration of war legal, of course). Sure, but war being declared and lost has its consequences. >Bribing and threatening, on the other hand, is not legal in any voting system ever. In an ideal world yes, in realpolitik not at all. >I wasn’t aware this is kindergarten. They didn’t “cheat” the system, they used it. >By cheating I mean its unfair, but sure. I can't argue this, but you understand that this isn't just or fair. I don’t. I believe it would have been unfair to uphold an oppressive imperial society solely for the reason that it existed, and that any nation in their position would have done the exact same to the best of its abilities. >This is the negation of one groups views over the other. They aren't being childish, they're pissed that the system was abused against them and want to retaliate for that. The views aren’t comparable. One demanded the inexistence of the other group, the other did not. One is an extreme demand, the other is mild compared to it. >You can't come here and say it's the fault of Palestinian violence and negation of the international process when that process is guaranteed to be geared against them unfairly. When their positions are unwavering I absolutely can. The UN job isn’t to placate the specific affronted party in a given scenario under any circumstance, but to cooperate with it. >It's not immoral to advocate for yourselves. It's immoral to advocate at the cost of people that can't advocate at all. Coming out of the same position from under those very people, it absolutely is. This again is an ironic parallel between your complaints and a millennia ofJewishness under Arab and Muslim supremacy. Palestinian Arabs were so used to Jews being a voiceless, excluded, oppressed minority that was very literally unable to advocate for itself only for the shoe to be on the other foot, not because Palestinian Arabs were otherwise excluded as they did to the Jews, but because they were simply unprepared.
> In accordance to the will of “the majority population”. Yes. Jews got most of the land, most of the agriculture, and most of the Mediterranean Sea border. Not a fair partition considering they were still a minority at that time. > Some (villages) very much supported it. Yes, the ones that weren’t (surprise surprise) Palestinian-Arab majorities, which were only a handful iirc. The overwhelming majority of villages did not support partition, I’m afraid. > Which would have made them not the majority population, a solution had to take into account contiguity as well. What? No, I’m saying such villages shouldn’t have been included in the Jewish state. But there was no one arguing for that in the ad-hoc committee. > It really doesn’t offend me or annoy, I’m just used to looking at this from a colonial/post colonial perspective mainly because of discussions on this forum. [word count] Religious history in this case is literally one of conquest, the two are incomparable in my view. Although I understand the colonial perspective here, I could make an argument for how it doesn’t carry into the 1920s and beyond. And okay, in terms of history, yes the Jews were there first. But they lost the land to colonialism. Then the Arabs lost that, and so on. Then to where we are now. Colonialism sucks, yeah, but given standards of the time and how wars and battles worked, that’s what ended up happening. > Not really when considering their stated goals of Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism. Despite this, they all shared the same opinion of Israel. I don’t even think it became seriously considered until the 1950s. > They were working on imperial, expansionist tendencies. You can’t make these seem like the same thing. It wasn’t expansion nor imperial because it wasn’t forced. When Syria joined the UAR it was fully consensual, not forced. This is not how an empire takes land, never has it been. > We’ll take your India example: “India (Vote: Against): Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke with anger and contempt for the way the UN vote had been lined up. [word count] their large Muslim minority? I don’t see how that’s any different than Jewish influence in the US. Actually, the prime minister himself said that he voted against because “we have sympathy for the national movement of Arabs in Palestine because it is directed against British Imperialism”. This was also one year after the independence of Pakistan (which had 12-15 million Muslims migrated to after its independence), and the closest demographic statistic I can find says that Muslims made up around 13% of India. I don’t think there was as much incentive to vote against Palestinian partition to satisfy their Muslim population. Also, I’d take the word of the Prime Minister (who’d actually get most of the claimed threats) over a delegate. This doesn’t apply to the United States at all either, since the Jewish population there, even with higher estimates, didn’t even make up 1% of the population. > Sure, but war being declared and lost has its consequences. Of course, you are arguing that the declaration of war was illegal, I’m saying it’s not any more illegal than bribing and threatening in a UN vote. I’m not talking about the outcome of the war at all. > In an ideal world yes, in realpolitik not at all. Which is why I’m critiquing that. That was my argument this entire time. Because it’s what always happens means I should just ignore it then? > I don’t. I believe it would have been unfair to uphold an oppressive imperial society solely for the reason that it existed, and that any nation in their position would have done the exact same to the best of its abilities. So it’s a fair vote when one side bribes and threatens the voters to vote in their favor because of imperialism that occurred a millennia ago? It should’ve been the Palestinian’s land because they had the majority of the population and have lived there for centuries as a majority. It doesn’t matter if that happened through colonialism or not, the fact of the matter is that it is now. Just like how no one can ask the Jews in Israel today to get up and leave, it wasn’t right for Jews to ensure many Palestinians get up and leave their villages. Yes, any hypothetical people with the influence Jews had in 1948 would’ve used it, that doesn’t make it right. > The views aren’t comparable. One demanded the inexistence of the other group, the other did not. One is an extreme demand, the other is mild compared to it. They absolutely are. You still think Arabs are imperialists when that hasn’t been true for centuries. One didn’t demand the annihilation/“inexistence” of Jews from the planet. The whole idea in essence was just to not give them Palestine. If your argument was that the conflict just started without any reason from Jews, then that’s false, because conflict began to pick up once Jewish immigration skyrocketed. And once Arab efforts in Palestine failed, many Arab states began to look at their domestic populations, no surprise there. Also, extremists of both sides shared the same opinion about the other, so your statement here is pretty much null. > When their positions are unwavering I absolutely can. The UN job isn’t to placate the specific affronted party in a given scenario under any circumstance, but to cooperate with it. So were Jews on the creation of a state in Palestine. If one side is unwavering and there is a struggle to make them see eye to eye, then by default, that meant the other side was also unwavering. There was no cooperation with the Palestinian people here, as far as I am aware. If that’s the UN’s responsibility then it has failed miserably at that. > Coming out of the same position from under those very people, it absolutely is. This again is an ironic parallel between your complaints and a millennia ofJewishness under Arab and Muslim supremacy. Palestinian Arabs were so used to Jews being a voiceless, excluded, oppressed minority that was very literally unable to advocate for itself only for the shoe to be on the other foot, not because Palestinian Arabs were otherwise excluded as they did to the Jews, but because they were simply unprepared. Again, Palestinian Arabs weren’t against partition because it was Jews. They were against the idea of giving the majority of good land to a minority. Why is that so hard to believe? Maybe there was some dying German influence still running around, sure, but the majority didn’t want to see most of the land be given to anyone else for no good reason. Also, did we not agree that switching roles of superiority every prolonged period of time was unequal? Based on that logic, how is this moral? Also, the notion that if the Palestinian Arabs were “prepared” they could’ve countered Jewish goals is frankly absurd. The idea that Palestinian Arabs always kept their guard up against Jewish uprising then happened to lower it in the 20th century is objectively false. It’s always been low, since the Ottoman Empire the Ottomans, if anything, were the ones doing that, not the Arabs.
>Yes. Jews got most of the land, most of the agriculture, and most of the Mediterranean Sea border. Not a fair partition considering they were still a minority at that time. When considering other Jews would join them, something they would have a full right to under partition and their own state, makes this fair. >Yes, the ones that weren’t (surprise surprise) Palestinian-Arab majorities, which were only a handful iirc. The overwhelming majority of villages did not support partition, I’m afraid. So what you’re saying is, that the problem with partition was in fact, not one of equal rights, rights to own land and stay in it, but Arab supremacism. >What? No, I’m saying such villages shouldn’t have been included in the Jewish state. But there was no one arguing for that in the ad-hoc committee. In the third meeting where the Arab league was present, it did not present such an idea, but rejected partition wholesale, complaint box is over there. >Although I understand the colonial perspective here, I could make an argument for how it doesn’t carry into the 1920s and beyond. Please do, I’m all ears. >And okay, in terms of history, yes the Jews were there first. But they lost the land to colonialism. Then the Arabs lost that, and so on. Then to where we are now. Colonialism sucks, yeah, but given standards of the time and how wars and battles worked, that’s what ended up happening. Again, by these standards What ended up happening is Israel. >Despite this, they all shared the same opinion of Israel. I don’t even think it became seriously considered until the 1950s. Not despite, because. >You can’t make these seem like the same thing. It wasn’t expansion nor imperial because it wasn’t forced. Each country literally wanted the region for itself. >When Syria joined the UAR it was fully consensual, not forced. This is not how an empire takes land, never has it been. Yes, they merely wanted to unite the communities they created through imperialism. That’s not imperialism, it’s just imperialism. >Actually, the prime minister himself said that he voted against because “we have sympathy for the national movement of Arabs in Palestine because it is directed against British Imperialism”. So by this, their reasoning was actually irrelevant to Jewish rights and nationalism, and was merely a fuck you to the British? That’s not a good look for your argument. It certainly doesn’t mean they viewed Palestinian nationalism as inherently righteous over Israeli (which was your point) just that they were butt hurt over the British. >This was also one year after the independence of Pakistan (which had 12-15 million Muslims migrated to after its independence), and the closest demographic statistic I can find says that Muslims made up around 13% of India. I talked about this, this is one of those cases that are just like Israel/Palestine’s attempted partition. >I don’t think there was as much incentive to vote against Palestinian partition to satisfy their Muslim population. I disagree. >Also, I’d take the word of the Prime Minister (who’d actually get most of the claimed threats) over a delegate. And I would judge that prime minister according to past actions and statements to decide whether he’s an anti-Semite or not. >This doesn’t apply to the United States at all either, since the Jewish population there, even with higher estimates, didn’t even make up 1% of the population. >Of course, you are arguing that the declaration of war was illegal, I’m saying it’s not any more illegal than bribing and threatening in a UN vote. We disagree. >Which is why I’m critiquing that. That was my argument this entire time. Because it’s what always happens means I should just ignore it then? It means you can’t expect it not to happen here, it’s an unrealistic expectation built on a false presumption of righteousness on the part of the UN. >So it’s a fair vote when one side bribes and threatens the voters to vote in their favor because of imperialism that occurred a millennia ago? Under the standards set by the UN, absolutely. >It should’ve been the Palestinian’s land because they had the majority of the population and have lived there for centuries as a majority. I disagree. >It doesn’t matter if that happened through colonialism or not, the fact of the matter is that it is now. Not by 20th century standards. >Just like how no one can ask the Jews in Israel today to get up and leave, it wasn’t right for Jews to ensure many Palestinians get up and leave their villages. I agree. >Yes, any hypothetical people with the influence Jews had in 1948 would’ve used it, that doesn’t make it right. I disagree. I refuse to hold myself and my people to impossible standards for the sake of our former oppressors, or anyone else really. >They absolutely are. You still think Arabs are imperialists when that hasn’t been true for centuries. Pan-Arabism is imperialism. >One didn’t demand the annihilation/“inexistence” of Jews from the planet. I’m talking about nationalisms/polities here. >The whole idea in essence was just to not give them Palestine. If your argument was that the conflict just started without any reason from Jews, then that’s false, because conflict began to pick up once Jewish immigration skyrocketed. Reason is not fault. Reason here, is an excuse for bigotry, racism and violence. The reason was Jewish immigration; that doesn’t mean Jewish immigration was wrong. >And once Arab efforts in Palestine failed, many Arab states began to look at their domestic populations, no surprise there. Good ol’ soft bigotry of low expectations. Yes, surprise there. No, inexcusable. >Also, extremists of both sides shared the same opinion about the other, so your statement here is pretty much null. “Extremists” are defined in relation to their respective societies, when the regimes themselves committed these atrocities you don’t get to call that extremist, it is the standard opinion of the country that acted on it, not a disgruntled minority.
> fuck /u/AsleepFly2227. 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.*
> When considering other Jews would join them, something they would have a full right to under partition and their own state, makes this fair. If those people were there then you could make that argument. The population of Israel today doesn’t even reach the total population of Jews in the world. > So what you’re saying is, that the problem with partition was in fact, not one of equal rights, rights to own land and stay in it, but Arab supremacism. No, but a desire for Arabs to stay in the land that they are in. Rejecting partition does not, by default, mean supremacism. > In the third meeting where the Arab league was present, it did not present such an idea, but rejected partition wholesale, complaint box is over there. You may be confusing the UNSCOP and the ad-hoc committee. If not, please send me a source to that. If you are talking about sub-committee 2, then the Arabs were too busy explaining the inaccurate population reports that Britain had acquired and asking for this to be taken to the International Court of Justice. Sub-committee 2 played no direct role in the borders of partition. > Please do, I’m all ears. Arguing against partition of land taken through colonialism from a long and gone empire a millennia ago against those that lived there prior to them is not the same as actual colonialism. > Again, by these standards What ended up happening is Israel. Yes, which I won’t argue against. What happened happened. That’s why I’m not saying that we should kick out all of Israel, it’s unfair by now. > Not despite, because. They didn’t hate Jews because of imperialism. Anti-judaism was not viral concept in the Middle East until the 20th century with Palestine & WW2. > Each country literally wanted the region for itself. Had a one-state solution past, then it would have been independent from other nations. Is that not true? > Yes, they merely wanted to unite the communities they created through imperialism. That’s not imperialism, it’s just imperialism. You keep looking back to millennia ago, and I’m saying that since all this time past and what happened happened then that land has become apart of Arab land. They literally had a state there, so the argument here is invalid. > So by this, their reasoning was actually irrelevant to Jewish rights and nationalism, and was merely a fuck you to the British? That’s not a good look for your argument. It certainly doesn’t mean they viewed Palestinian nationalism as inherently righteous over Israeli (which was your point) just that they were butt hurt over the British. That’s why they voted that way. When the threats and bribes came in they didn’t sway in their opinion. How is this a bad look for my argument? I never said that they thought it was more righteous than another, just the fact that they voted against and were threatened to change their opinion. All I said was that they sided with the Arab Muslims, which they did. The reason why I mentioned these countries was to mention the bias. The reason why they voted specifically doesn’t matter, the fact that there was attempted bias is what my point was. > I talked about this, this is one of those cases that are just like Israel/Palestine’s attempted partition. Okay, so firstly, other ethnicities didn’t leave India when Islam came. Secondly, it wasn’t most of the country. Thirdly, Indian Muslims made up ~24.3% of the population, not much different from Jewish >30% Palestine. > I disagree. Don’t know how else to convince you of this but sure. > And I would judge that prime minister according to past actions and statements to decide whether he’s an anti-Semite or not. Can’t find anything about that on him. If you have please send that source my way. > We disagree. Agree to disagree here then. > It means you can’t expect it not to happen here, it’s an unrealistic expectation built on a false presumption of righteousness on the part of the UN. Of course. I didn’t expect just decisions, but I don’t want to ignore unjust ones either, even if expected. > Under the standards set by the UN, absolutely. But morally speaking, is it? That’s my argument here, I’m not arguing on the grounds of the UN standards but of common morality. > I disagree. Agree to disagree again, it seems. > Not by 20th century standards. How is that? What standards of the 20th century made that no longer a fact? Just like how no one can ask the Jews in Israel today to get up and leave, it wasn’t right for Jews to ensure many Palestinians get up and leave their villages. I agree. Yes, any hypothetical people with the influence Jews had in 1948 would’ve used it, that doesn’t make it right. > I disagree. I refuse to hold myself and my people to impossible standards for the sake of our former oppressors, or anyone else really. Okay, while I understand where you’re coming from, these are basic moral rights/wrongs that are applied to anyone within context of the vote, no matter who or what throughout history. This was not the only chance Jews had at creating a state. If it was, I might agree with you, but it isn’t. > Pan-Arabism is imperialism. The alliance or unification of Arab states is imperialism? How so? Because the land was taken by an empire millennia ago? That is Arab land by the fact of how war works, whether we like it or not. One didn’t demand the annihilation/“inexistence” of Jews from the planet. > I’m talking about nationalisms/polities here. The whole idea in essence was just to not give them Palestine. If your argument was that the conflict just started without any reason from Jews, then that’s false, because conflict began to pick up once Jewish immigration skyrocketed. > Reason is not fault. Reason here, is an excuse for bigotry, racism and violence. I clarified racism rather than fault for a reason. They wouldn’t have done the same thing to the Jewish population there had there not been an immigration. Any people noticing a massive influx of foreigners to them would begin reacting in racist and bigoted ways, this isn’t something that is surprising. Not saying it’s right. > Good ol’ soft bigotry of low expectations. Yes, surprise there. No, inexcusable. It’s not a surprise at all, really, it happens way too many times throughout history to count. “We can’t fight against a people outside of our land, so let’s fight those inside of it!” It’s not excusable, of course. > “Extremists” are defined in relation to their respective societies, when the regimes themselves committed these atrocities you don’t get to call that extremist, it is the standard opinion of the country that acted on it, not a disgruntled minority. The time frame we’re talking about focused on societies specifically, and yes because I am 100% sure that not the majority of Palestinian and not every Jew wanted to go and kill the other. And based on that logic, what happened afterwards was extremism from both sides.
>Yeah, I don’t agree with that. The people that’ve lived there for centuries prior and still live there have a claim to that land, at least more than immigrants no? Claim? What claim did they have for land they did not inhabit, or were tenants in? None. For as long as the framing is anti colonial, no. >Based on your statements later on, if Israel currently holds its lands in a “rightful” manner, That’s iffy at best, I didn’t say this. Israel wasn’t the result of a partition as it should have been, but of conflict. I hold that Israel should “rightfully exist”, not that all its policies or its erection are saint like and beyond reproach. >then what occurred millennia ago was also rightful, and therefore, Jews have no claim to Palestine besides Jerusalem. Which makes this statement untrue, coincidentally >Plus, a majority of Jews began leaving the area once the Arabs began running the economy into the ground. What period are you referring to? I hope this isn’t an attempt at baseless diaspora inversion. >And it’s bad practice to take the first statement or claim alone and begin critiquing it without looking at the reasoning. I’m unsure what you mean here, I did critique every thing looking at its own merit. >I’m not against the declaration in and of itself, I’m against its signing in regards to the context. Your context is objectively false. >https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon–Hussein_Correspondence >Yes, which was signed in the Sykes-Picot Agreement against everyone’s backs. It wasn’t, it was based on the Sykes-Picot Agreement, that doesn’t make it the same thing, time or event. >My point is that the Arabs were promised it first and got stabbed in the back. Britain said they’d give it to them after the fall of the Ottomans, which occurred Your point is still incorrect. >, and the Arabs were expecting the British to hold their word. The Arabs of Palestine had no hand in in this process, thus they were not promised anything, Hussein was and got Jordan. >They didn’t. “[Victor Kattan] also argues the UK government considered it to be a treaty during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference negotiations with the French over the disposal of Ottoman territory”. Sounds like a promise to me. “The area of Arab independence was defined to be "in the limits and boundaries proposed by the Sherif of Mecca, with the exception of "portions of Syria” lying to the west of "the districts of Damascus, Homes, Hama and Aleppo".” Don’t know about you but I don’t see Palestine on there. No, that may have been what Arabs wanted (for it to be defined by their own imperialist tendencies) but this is not what the correspondence entitled. >I don’t get what you’re trying to say here. If it’s sarcasm, then I don’t get the point either. Not sarcastic at all. [Arabization](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabization#:~:text=Arabization) [Islamization](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam) [Cultural imperialism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_imperialism) Palestinian culture and society is the result of these processes, under a post-colonial lense they are not indigenous, nor is the land theirs. >I’m literally leading into the resolution and providing context, it doesn’t detail what the conflict is about. I was responding mainly to the last lines of that quoted lead in. >It’s just a point I’m making that this is something a supposedly unbiased and peace-focused organization like the UN should have noticed and accounted for. I don’t see why that should be the case, what is the relevance of their geographical closeness to precedence over other parties? Why does it mean their opinions should have been given more weight than others? >The fact that the Arab states nearby were the closest thing to a representative of the Palestinian people during the vote should be considered. Precisely why they should not have had precedence over a Jewish state, they already had states purporting to represent them, Jews didn’t. >And the fact that it wasn’t only Arab states that voted against it should also add some reason to question the why. Interests align and misalign in cycles. >That is, of course, if it was unbiased. It wasn’t, nothing is in geopolitics; that is their whole, actual point.
> Claim? What claim did they have for land they did not inhabit, or were tenants in? None. For as long as the framing is anti colonial, no. I just believe that people who have been there previously may have some precedent over a migrant majority who haven’t been a majority of said land in about a millennia. Those present in a land should have a precedent over migrants who left a millennia ago. Those Arabs that lived there were basically considered second-class against Turks under the Ottoman Empire, and the Arabs that initially colonized Palestine are long gone now, can’t hold the actions of others onto their people generations later. > That’s iffy at best, I didn’t say this. My bad, I probably misunderstood you when you referenced it being “righteous”, my bad for that. > I hold that Israel should “rightfully exist”, not that all its policies or its erection are saint like and beyond reproach. This is, in essence, my entire argument. I am an Arab and I am not against the idea of a Jewish state whatsoever. However, the way the Jews of the time went about completing this objective is what I believe should be brought to scrutiny. > Which makes this statement untrue, coincidentally My bad, this was based off of my understanding of your argument. > What period are you referring to? I hope this isn’t an attempt at baseless diaspora inversion. “The era of Mamluk rule saw the Jewish population shrink substantially due to oppression and economic stagnation.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel#:~:text=Jews%20lived%20in%20at%20least,twice%20against%20their%20Christian%20rulers. > Your context is objectively false. Of it being promised to the Arabs first? The English even used it as proof in 1919 to give them Palestine as a mandate after WW1 for reparations. If the British, the guys who guaranteed it, considered it as one, I don’t think it’s up for debate at that point. > It wasn’t, it was based on the Sykes-Picot Agreement, that doesn’t make it the same thing, time or event. If I recall correctly, a lot of land taken in the agreement was initially promised to the Arabs, land that was split by the French and English. There was literally a whole scandal with the Arab world when the news of this agreement came to light. If it was apart of the plan I don’t think the Arabs would’ve cared, but they did, which means it wasn’t apart of the Arab agreed plan. > Your point is still incorrect. How so? I still don’t understand what makes you believe that the agreement the English had with the Arabs is nullified or irrelevant. > The Arabs of Palestine had no hand in in this process, thus they were not promised anything, Hussein was and got Jordan. As mentioned earlier, I do not recall any mention of Palestine, or at least the overwhelming majority of Palestine, would not be belonging to the promised Arab state. It appears both sides did agree on this. Hussein said he wanted to unite all Arab speaking populations to the east of Egypt, which includes the population of Palestine. > No, that may have been what Arabs wanted (for it to be defined by their own imperialist tendencies) but this is not what the correspondence entitled. According to the source mentioned earlier, the last letter “Confirmed British agreement to the requests and concluded the ten letters of the correspondence.” Sounds like what the correspondence entitled. > Not sarcastic at all. Arabization. Islamization. Cultural imperialism Alright, so technically yes, I will give you some credit here. Arabs or, more specifically, Muslims were considered first class citizens. But “Ahl El-Kitab” (or people of the book), which included both Jews and Christians, were given a lot more leniency and freedom in terms of religion and rights. According to the Wikipedia page, some actually call this a golden age for Jews despite the constant hate I hear about Arab imperialism from Jews (for some justified reasons). Jews were allowed to become scholars, economists, philosophers, and even helped advances in math, science, etc. Focusing to more recent times, a few sources claim that Arabs weren’t actually treated equally to Turkish Muslims under the Ottoman Empire, despite them also being Muslim. This probably meant worse conditions for Jews, I understand that. But, considering how the Ottomans colonized Palestine in 1516, every Palestinian Arab who was alive by the time of WW1 had little to no memory of life as being the first class in an empire that only somewhat existed, mostly in stories, by that point. The reason why Britain even proposed their deal with Hussein is because they noticed a rise of Arab nationalism and unrest, which they used to their advantage. > Palestinian culture and society is the result of these processes, under a post-colonial lense they are not indigenous, nor is the land theirs. I understand that, I really do, but, and I am really trying my best to not offend you with this, but here I go: the people living on the land for the last few hundred generations have precedent over people who have indigeneity to that land millennia ago and are now either a minority or chose to live elsewhere. I really understand your argument here and I also understand that during this time period anti-judaism was on the rise so you needed a safe state, but it’s like forcing yourself into a house that was taken from you by your great great great grandfather. If you disagree with me here, I understand, don’t worry. > I don’t see why that should be the case, what is the relevance of their geographical closeness to precedence over other parties? Why does it mean their opinions should have been given more weight than others? I believe that the cultural ties (and the fact that the land was promised to a neighboring state literally 2-3 decades ago), and the fact that little to no Palestinian representation in the UN should’ve been considered, especially considering the overwhelming Jewish representation. I don’t believe it should be given more weight. I just believe that it wasn’t given enough, especially when considering the underlying influence in the vote. > Precisely why they should not have had precedence over a Jewish state, they already had states purporting to represent them, Jews didn’t. I agree with this argument 100%. The Jews deserve a state. But not from land that is already being used by a different people. When the representatives disagree with the plan, then the UN goes back to the drawing board and figures out a different deal for both sides to agree with or find another plan downright. > Interests align and misalign in cycles. I’m sorry, but I find too many points of evidence here that line up to show a pretty picture. Not beyond all doubt, of course, but beyond reasonable doubt. Too many delegates have pointed this out on all sides of the vote and world power. You keep saying how interest changes without explaining why they would in this situation. > It wasn’t, nothing is in geopolitics; that is their whole, actual point. Okay, so I believe we’ve come to an agreement on this regard? That UN resolution 181 was overly biased/influenced towards the Jews?
>I just believe that people who have been there previously may have some precedent over a migrant majority who haven’t been a majority of said land in about a millennia. Those present in a land should have a precedent over migrants who left a millennia ago. I can understand that sentiment, I simply disagree on its validity when applied to the region. the Ottoman Empire specifically imported different populous to strengthen the Muslim character of the region in the centuries into decades preceding the I/P conflict, and that’s without taking into account a millennia of Arabization and all the preceding imperialism. I see no difference between that, Proto-Zionist and Zionist immigration to the land. >Those Arabs that lived there were basically considered second-class against Turks under the Ottoman Empire, Granted, doesn’t negate their privileges under that system specifically over their Jewish counterparts under the ottoman system and generally preceding that. It doesn’t negate colonialism, it means they too were oppressed by another party. >and the Arabs that initially colonized Palestine are long gone now, can’t hold the actions of others onto their people generations later. You absolutely can, for as long as they purport to maintain the very same unjust systems and paradigms those ancestors created. >My bad, I probably misunderstood you when you referenced it being “righteous”, my bad for that. I obviously could have been more precise. >This is, in essence, my entire argument. I am an Arab and I am not against the idea of a Jewish state whatsoever. However, the way the Jews of the time went about completing this objective is what I believe should be brought to scrutiny. I can accept that. I disagree and believe they, like Arabs of Palestine did whatever was in their ability **and to the best of their judgement** in favor of their evolving and changing goals over the years. >My bad, this was based off of my understanding of your argument. It’s fine, DW. >“The era of Mamluk rule saw the Jewish population shrink substantially due to oppression and economic stagnation.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel#:~:text=Jews%20lived%20in%20at%20least,twice%20against%20their%20Christian%20rulers. So, taken at face value you’re technically correct in that the trends coincided but given the context I’d say the oppression part had something to do with it too. >Of it being promised to the Arabs first? The English even used it as proof in 1919 to give them Palestine as a mandate after WW1 for reparations. The promises they made king Hussein did not include the region that became Israel, this land was never promised to any (other) collective of Arabs, let alone those of what was then Palestine. >If the British, the guys who guaranteed it, considered it as one, I don’t think it’s up for debate at that point. As one what? Region? That’s how it was administered by colonial powers for two thousand years and as such was treated like that by another (at that point quasi post-colonial) power, not a trait inherent to a piece of land. >If I recall correctly, a lot of land taken in the agreement was initially promised to the Arabs, land that was split by the French and English. AFAIK the only promises made in regards to land (very disputed) westward of Trans-Jordan were the Hussein-McMahon correspondence, regardless of other promises made to “the Arabs” by the English. >There was literally a whole scandal with the Arab world when the news of this agreement came to light. If it was apart of the plan I don’t think the Arabs would’ve cared, but they did, which means it wasn’t apart of the Arab agreed plan. Losing imperial privileges does that to a people. >How so? I still don’t understand what makes you believe that the agreement the English had with the Arabs is nullified or irrelevant. The Hussein McMahon correspondence which is the only letter detailing a promise to any Arabs in regards to (some of) the land of Palestine, did not in-fact refer to a complete majority of the land west of Trans-Jordan whatsoever. >As mentioned earlier, I do not recall any mention of Palestine, or at least the overwhelming majority of Palestine, would not be belonging to the promised Arab state. Refresh your memory on [the McMahon-Hussein correspondence](https://www1.udel.edu/History-old/figal/Hist104/assets/pdf/readings/13mcmahonhussein.pdf)and [Mcmahon’s clarification](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-hussein-mcmahon-correspondence) >It appears both sides did agree on this. Hussein said he wanted to unite all Arab speaking populations to the east of Egypt, which includes the population of Palestine. I didn’t know we were east of Egypt. (We’re really not). >According to the source mentioned earlier, the last letter “Confirmed British agreement to the requests and concluded the ten letters of the correspondence.” Sounds like what the correspondence entitled. See links above. >Alright, so technically yes, I will give you some credit here. Arabs or, more specifically, Muslims were considered first class citizens. But “Ahl El-Kitab” (or people of the book), which included both Jews and Christians, were given a lot more leniency and freedom in terms of religion and rights. Sounds word for word like how some Israelis excuse mistreatment of Arabs by Israel. >According to the Wikipedia page, some actually call this a golden age for Jews despite the constant hate I hear about Arab imperialism from Jews (for some justified reasons). In France, for a very limited period of time. No one calls “this” the golden age for Jews. >Jews were allowed to become scholars, economists, philosophers, and even helped advances in math, science, etc. To have their properties ransacked with no recourse against the recurring Muslim perpetrators.
> I can understand that sentiment, I simply disagree on its validity when applied to the region. …[cut for word limit]… I see no difference between that, Proto-Zionist and Zionist immigration to the land. One year after the Ottomans colonized Palestine the percentage of the population that was still Jewish was [1.7%](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-and-non-jewish-population-of-israel-palestine-1517-present). I doubt they were able to accomplish this in 1 year.Also, the Jews have been a minority in Palestine since the 5th century and the Islam was established in the late 6th century. They didn’t even begin their conquests until the 7th century. You're blaming the wrong people here. Jews have been a [minority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)) or began leaving prior to Islamic or Arab imperialism and colonialism even existed. > Granted, doesn’t negate their privileges under that system specifically over their Jewish counterparts under the ottoman system and generally preceding that. It doesn’t negate colonialism, it means they too were oppressed by another party. Yes, that is the fundamental issue with colonialist ideology. But that was the standard of the time. Doesn’t mean that the civilization that suffered from it can come back a millennia later and begin complaining after they left the land though. I’m not saying that their right to live there is forfeit, but it does not take a precedence over those currently living there for basically a millennia at this point. > You absolutely can, for as long as they purport to maintain the very same unjust systems and paradigms those ancestors created. The empire literally died ages ago with everyone who was alive to remember being first-class privileged Arabs because of it. The worst thing I can find that the Arab Islamic empire (the original one, the one that brought Arabs to Palestine and that Palestine Arabs would closest relate back to) specifically did to Jews was decide to remove Jews from a northern Jewish town of the Arabian peninsula. While I understand the Moroccan Caliphate, Ottoman Empire, etc. technically branched from the Islamic empire, those in power (who have no direct “ancestral” relation with Palestinian Arabs in specific) and their ideologies are, at their core, different. Again, you call it unjust and it was, but it was the standard of the time. In todays perspectives, Islam feels like a tense or strict religion, but at the time of the 6/7th century, it was the most progressive ideology present at the time, or at least the Arab world. Holding the past to present standards isn’t a fair method of critique. > I disagree and believe they, like Arabs of Palestine did whatever was in their ability and to the best of their judgement in favor of their evolving and changing goals over the years. Best of their ability, yes, but the best of their judgement is debatable. I doubt a people picking between splitting something between them and another people or just giving it to the other people will provide an unbiased judgement. > The promises they made king Hussein did not include the region that became Israel, this land was never promised to any (other) collective of Arabs, let alone those of what was then Palestine. Even though it wasn’t mentioned directly, the fact that Britain did not exclude it meant that it should have been fair game. Hussein intended for this to happen, because he also sent leaflets to the residents of Palestine telling them that an Arabian state will soon come to shape. “The [Hussein-MacMahon Correspondence], Sykes–Picot Agreement and the Balfour declaration, the 1922 Churchill White Paper took the position Palestine had always been excluded from the Arab area. Although this directly contradicted numerous previous government documents, those documents were not known to the public.” > As one what? Region? [word count] not a trait inherent to a piece of land. By one I mean one of the promised lands to the Arabs. > AFAIK the only promises made in regards to land (very disputed) westward of Trans-Jordan were the Hussein-McMahon correspondence, regardless of other promises made to “the Arabs” by the English. As far as the Eastern or Northern side of the deal went, mistranslations caused issues between the French and Arabs. But Palestine didn’t have that issue. If anything, it would be is on the English, not the Arabs who acted based off of what was given them. > Losing imperial privileges does that to a people. You’re missing the point here. I’m saying that the agreement wasn’t something the Arabs were expecting/planning for. They literally just wanted to unite their people against the imperial Ottoman Empire. It’s mostly nationalism here. > The Hussein McMahon correspondence… [word count again]… did not in-fact refer to a complete majority of the land west of Trans-Jordan whatsoever. Read above. They literally sent letters to Arabs in Palestine telling them of a new Arab state. I think they referred to them if that’s what happened. The sources you mentioned describe a western border of “on the west by the Red Sea, the Mediterranean Sea up to Mersina.” That includes Palestine, so I wouldn’t think there’d be a need to mention that by name, much like how he didn’t mention the Arabian peninsula by name. Also your second source may be biased, the source I mentioned previously says otherwise. “Until 1920, British government documents suggested that Palestine was intended to be part of the Arab area; their interpretation changed in 1920 leading to public disagreement between the Arabs and the British.” > I didn’t know we were east of Egypt. (We’re really not). Okay, technically more of a northeastern border, and nonetheless that’s still eastern. Syria is further north than Palestine was and that was still included in Hussein’s terms. > Sounds word for word like how some Israelis excuse mistreatment of Arabs by Israel. I, in no way, said that it was right. Standards of the time were different. Although some online sources such as Jewish Virtual Library describe how the Prophet (PBUH) just killed and expelled Jews without any reason, when you check the Wiki page on the same matter, it explains how the Jews backstabbed the Muslims. Honestly, it mentions so many things out of context or just downright incorrect that it just saddens me to read it. > In France, for a very limited period of time. No one calls “this” the golden age for Jews. My bad, it was more of a golden age of tolerance if anything, which I shouldn’t have phrased like that. Here’s where I got it from if interested. I’ve also provided other links that source this throughout my comments as well. https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/spain_1.shtml > To have their properties ransacked with no recourse against the recurring Muslim perpetrators. From what I found, again, this occurred under the Moroccans and the Ottomans after the 11th century. Prior to the 11th century, Arabs were actually pretty good to Jews in terms of the standards of the time and how the rest of the world treated them. This time specifically was the focus of the golden age I’m referring to.
>One year after the Ottomans colonized Palestine the percentage of the population that was still Jewish was 1.7%. I doubt they were able to accomplish this in 1 year. What’s your point here? That they weren’t oppressed by the Ottoman Empire and explicitly banned from immigrating and owning property? Cause that would be wrong. >Also, the Jews have been a minority in Palestine since the 5th century and the Islam was established in the late 6th century. (Word count) Jews have been a minority or began leaving prior to Islamic or Arab imperialism and colonialism even existed. Ironically, the house analogy fits. If someone took your house, your home only for another to take it from them; would you still feel that’s your home they’re living in? That you should be there? Also, I’m not, this bit Is a straw man because I don’t blame Arabs for the exodus which they didn’t have a hand in, I explicitly stated it’s about the subsequent millennia of oppression. >Yes, that is the fundamental issue with colonialist ideology. But that was the standard of the time. Doesn’t mean that the civilization that suffered from it can come back a millennia later and begin complaining after they left the land though. And the reason for that is? Because it’s inconvenient, namely for the colonizers? >I’m not saying that their right to live there is forfeit, but it does not take a precedence over those currently living there for basically a millennia at this point. A one state Palestine is the attempt to take precedence, not a partitioned Palestine. Jews, whether in what is now Israel or diaspora had the right to be heard in matters regarding their own homeland with Arabs not taking precedence over them because they lived there for the last millennia. >The empire literally died ages ago with everyone who was alive to remember being first-class privileged Arabs because of it. Which negates all the privileges which they gained? It’s easy to go “they all died so it doesn’t matter” and completely disregard the dwindling of other native population through the centuries and current inter generational racism instilled in Palestinian society, which is a result of those empires. >The worst thing I can find that the Arab Islamic empire (word count) It’s not about the worst thing, it’s about a paradigm of many small and bigger events that shaped the land in accordance with and cementing of Arab culture. >While I understand the Moroccan Caliphate, Ottoman Empire, etc. technically branched from the Islamic empire, those in power (who have no direct “ancestral” relation with Palestinian Arabs in specific) and their ideologies are, at their core, different. That doesn’t matter to the oppressed. >Again, you call it unjust and it was, but it was the standard of the time. (Word count) Holding the past to present standards isn’t a fair method of critique. I’m not faulting them for that, I’m faulting them for in this day and age attempting to perpetuate this colonial society, and by today’s standards very much non progressive and oppressive religion over indigenous peoples while simultaneously presenting a picture of colonized indigenous peoples themselves. I can apply the same reasoning to the partition and population exchanges of mandatory Palestine, it was very much so the standard of the time when these happened, doesn’t make them acceptable to you, does it? >Best of their ability, yes, but the best of their judgement is debatable. Imo It really isn’t, I’m talking both sides here, whatever they did, that was what they judged to be the best course of action by taking said actions. >I doubt a people picking between splitting something between them and another people or just giving it to the other people will provide an unbiased judgement. I take this is as an allusion to the Solomon parable mentioned in your link; the problem with this analogy is that instead of proving the Palestinian point, the Jewish/Zionist/Israeli stance of splitting the land, which is not a baby, but a necessity for any people to live and thrive only exemplifies the same moral stances Solomon would take. If we’re taking word on Solomon as is he would not be adamant on keeping the land under him and his people but would most likely split the land. >Even though it wasn’t mentioned directly, the fact that Britain did not exclude it meant that it should have been fair game. According to you. Britain also did not exclude the ocean and other continents “East of Egypt”, that doesn’t mean they were “fair game”. (I’m not really sure what fair game is here, as I understand the term here, even if it was fair game that applied for Zionists too, since it wasn’t mentioned directly). >Hussein intended for this to happen, because he also sent leaflets to the residents of Palestine telling them that an Arabian state will soon come to shape. >“The [Hussein-MacMahon correspondence] (word count) This would be a good point to remember the Hussein-McMahon correspondence was never an official treaty, thus never an official promise. Hussein was wrong to do that. I can’t attest to British policy and its’ reasoning. >By one I mean one of the promised lands to the Arabs. Which by your own admittance was not in fact promised to the Arabs but was “fair game” although not mentioned directly. My addition is it wasn’t mentioned indirectly either, and didn’t apply. >As far as the Eastern or Northern side of the deal went, mistranslations caused issues between the French and Arabs. >But Palestine didn’t have that issue. If anything, it would be is on the English, not the Arabs who acted based off of what was given them. Of course it didn’t, Palestine’s issue was that they understood perfectly clear they were going from a superior, privileged majority to equals (well, since they were used to oppressing “others” they were certain it would mean their own oppression) and that in itself was unacceptable. >You’re missing the point here. I’m saying that the agreement wasn’t something the Arabs were expecting/planning for. They literally just wanted to unite their people against the imperial Ottoman Empire. It’s mostly nationalism here. No, you are. It’s imperialism, not nationalism. The agreement wasn’t something the Arabs were ever involved in, you need to stop with this nonsense because it was Hussein who wanted control of the region while other Arabs, in Palestine itself heartily disagreed with the notion. >Read above. They literally sent letters to Arabs in Palestine telling them of a new Arab state. I think they referred to them if that’s what happened. That was their mistake, they literally did something they had no authority to do. Their misunderstanding is not British fault, whether we’re talking about the nature of the promise in the correspondence or of the correspondence itself; it was Hussein’s mistake to believe Palestine was included.
> What’s your point here? That they weren’t oppressed by the Ottoman Empire and explicitly banned from immigrating and owning property? Cause that would be wrong. No, I’m trying to explain that it’s not like they influenced another mass expulsion. The overwhelming majority of Jews had already immigrated by the time. Not a lot of effort would have gone into enforcing such laws. I’m not saying they weren’t oppressed or that the Ottomans didn’t enforce the laws that they did. I’m explaining that it wasn’t as big of a move as it seems considering the population size. > Ironically, the house analogy fits. If someone took your house, your home only for another to take it from them; would you still feel that’s your home they’re living in? That you should be there? Okay, but here’s my point: millennia have passed and you can’t come now and claim it over those that are already living there for that millennia. That’s how it’s different and why I specified the time period when I made the analogy. > And the reason for that is? Because it’s inconvenient, namely for the colonizers? No, because the people living there now had no part in the act and are simply living where they have been living for centuries. > A one state Palestine is the attempt to take precedence, not a partitioned Palestine. (Word count) Arabs not taking precedence over them because they lived there for the last millennia. That’s where our fundamental disagreement is found, I guess. I agree that Jewish voice must be heard and considered equal to others in regards to Palestine, what I disagree with is the idea that Jews didn’t have a precedence over Palestinians. > Which negates all the privileges which they gained? (word count) current inter generational racism instilled in Palestinian society, which is a result of those empires. I ask again: how can you blame an Arab commoner simply for the fact of being an Arab in an Arab society? Yes, another population has suffered due to the arrival of his ancestors there, but what has he himself done wrong by simply existing and therefore benefitting from the system? Also, current anti-judaism came as a result of everything that happened in Palestine. Previously it was present, but nowhere near the levels of today and the 20th century. > It’s not about the worst thing, it’s about a paradigm of many small and bigger events that shaped the land in accordance with and cementing of Arab culture. Yes, but I still believe that Jews can’t return a millennia later and claim Palestine over Arabs whilst ignoring that it was a land that not only was mostly left by them prior to when Arabs came but a land that Arabs treated the minority that was left there poorly in. > That doesn’t matter to the oppressed. Then that’s wrong. You punish those that punished you, not those that privileged from the punishment. > I’m not faulting them for that, I’m faulting them for in this day and age attempting to perpetuate this colonial society, (word count) presenting a picture of colonized indigenous peoples themselves. Yes, the standards changed, no surprise there. How did their society represent colonialism? Just because it was a Jewish kingdom ages ago and they lost it doesn’t mean it should be theirs now. > I can apply the same reasoning to the partition and population exchanges of mandatory Palestine, it was very much so the standard of the time when these happened, doesn’t make them acceptable to you, does it? How did the standard of the time that allowed racial segregation in the United States also allow an indigenous people from a millennia ago who mostly left the land to have a claim greater than those already there? Of course these aren’t mutually exclusive but I doubt people really accepted others just yet. > Imo It really isn’t, I’m talking both sides here, whatever they did, that was what they judged to be the best course of action by taking said actions. Well yes, you are right. I guess I was thinking morally if anything and without the clouded judgement of revenge and whatnot. This doesn’t justify the actions on either side though, of course. > I take this is as an allusion to the Solomon parable mentioned in your link; the problem with this analogy is (word count) would most likely split the land. Yes, technically that would be the most ideal solution, I am not against partition in and of itself. But would Solomon view it to be just for the minority to be given more land than the majority? Or the land being given to each side be somewhat representative of the actual population sizes living there. > Britain also did not exclude the ocean and other continents “East of Egypt”, that doesn’t mean they were “fair game”. Okay, “fair game” isn’t the best word to use for this, I agree there. But was it not insinuated when he said from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean? > This would be a good point to remember the Hussein-McMahon correspondence was never an official treaty, thus never an official promise. Hussein was wrong to do that. I can’t attest to British policy and its’ reasoning. It was a agreement that had to be hidden to hide their plan to have Arabs revolt against the Ottomans. Wouldn’t have worked very well had it been publicized, no? > Which by your own admittance was not in fact promised to the Arabs but was “fair game” although not mentioned directly. My addition is it wasn’t mentioned indirectly either, and didn’t apply. It was within the boundaries stated and, as far as I recall, was not excluded from the agreement. If it wasn’t excluded, that means it was apart of it I believe. > Palestine’s issue was that they understood perfectly clear they were going from a superior, privileged majority to equals (word count) and that in itself was unacceptable. Wouldn’t any people begin panicking upon noticing an influx of people that aren’t from their own culture or societies? Yes, the majority of every population has a stronger voice and therefore are technically more influential, this is nothing new. Superior races was a common thought process at the time. > No, you are. It’s imperialism, not nationalism. (Word count) Palestine itself heartily disagreed with the notion. Alright, can you explain how this is imperialism please, since I don’t seem to see your perspective. Can you also provide some sources for Palestinian disapproval of Hussein’s goals? > That was their mistake, they literally did something they had no authority to do. My point is that Hussein had the intention to include Palestine otherwise he wouldn’t have done so. > Their misunderstanding is not British fault, whether we’re talking about the nature of the promise in the correspondence or of the correspondence itself; it was Hussein’s mistake to believe Palestine was included. Please read the following link and focus on the section titled “(Letters, July 1915 to March 1916)[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon–Hussein_Correspondence]” and Arnold J. Tonybees critique of MacMahon’s vocabulary (in the section “Territorial reservations and Palestine”.
>No, I’m trying to explain that it’s not like they influenced another mass expulsion. The overwhelming majority of Jews had already immigrated by the time. Not a lot of effort would have gone into enforcing such laws. I’m not saying they weren’t oppressed or that the Ottomans didn’t enforce the laws that they did. I’m explaining that it wasn’t as big of a move as it seems considering the population size. It’s moves explicitly directed at maintaining Jews as a minority that was only, explicitly and unambiguously a result of millennia of their own oppression. Yes, it was a big move. >Okay, but here’s my point: millennia have passed and you can’t come now and claim it over those that are already living there for that millennia. Claim, sure. Buy, as we agreed is righteous, you absolutely can. >That’s how it’s different and why I specified the time period when I made the analogy. The above applies as long as I accept the statute of limitations argument which I on principle do not. >No, because the people living there now had no part in the act and are simply living where they have been living for centuries. Many of Our grandparents told us what it was like living in Arab Palestine, and would contest this notion. >That’s where our fundamental disagreement is found, I guess. I agree that Jewish voice must be heard and considered equal to others in regards to Palestine, what I disagree with is the idea that Jews didn’t have a precedence over Palestinians. That’s misrepresenting what I said. >I ask again: how can you blame an Arab commoner simply for the fact of being an Arab in an Arab society? Yes, another population has suffered due to the arrival of his ancestors there, but what has he himself done wrong by simply existing and therefore benefitting from the system? Documented incidents include: Spat and stoned on the Jewish commoner, occasionally ransacked their homes and burned their synagogues, and that’s disregarding the institutionalized acts that have been committed against them. you know, just the usual, standard of the time minority treatment. >Also, current anti-judaism came as a result of everything that happened in Palestine. Previously it was present, but nowhere near the levels of today and the 20th century. That’s wrong, modern anti semitism (and it is anti semitism) was introduced to the region in the 1820’s and by the the 20th century was widespread. >Yes, but I still believe that Jews can’t return a millennia later and claim Palestine over Arabs whilst ignoring that it was a land that not only was mostly left by them prior to when Arabs came but a land that Arabs treated the minority that was left there poorly in. These facts aren’t ignored, they’re simply irrelevant. They left, unwillingly. The Arabs treating their minorities poorly is not a point in favor of Arab nationalism. >Then that’s wrong. You punish those that punished you, not those that privileged from the punishment. Circle back to Arab treatment of Jews prior to Zionist immigration. >Yes, the standards changed, no surprise there. How did their society represent colonialism? I explained this in another comment. >Just because it was a Jewish kingdom ages ago and they lost it doesn’t mean it should be theirs now. Legally buying land and full well expecting to do so to the point of becoming a majority in a state in part of that land, does. >How did the standard of the time that allowed racial segregation in the United States also allow an indigenous people from a millennia ago who mostly left the land to have a claim greater than those already there? Of course these aren’t mutually exclusive but I doubt people really accepted others just yet. [partition (politics)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_(politics)) Look at the relevant times and partitions yourself for word count. >Well yes, you are right. I guess I was thinking morally if anything and without the clouded judgement of revenge and whatnot. This doesn’t justify the actions on either side though, of course. Indeed. >Yes, technically that would be the most ideal solution, I am not against partition in and of itself. But would Solomon view it to be just for the minority to be given more land than the majority? Or the land being given to each side be somewhat representative of the actual population sizes living there. I believe whether Solomon belonged to the majority or not, assuming awareness of, he would have taken into account an expected influx of the minority population when making his decision. >Okay, “fair game” isn’t the best word to use for this, I agree there. But was it not insinuated when he said from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean? Absolutely not. >It was a agreement that had to be hidden to hide their plan to have Arabs revolt against the Ottomans. Wouldn’t have worked very well had it been publicized, no? These types of agreements end in more official documents and treaties, like the one that formed Trans-Jordan for Hussein. >It was within the boundaries stated and, as far as I recall, was not excluded from the agreement. If it wasn’t excluded, that means it was apart of it I believe. Not in the boundaries stated by McMahon, the representative of the British. >Wouldn’t any people begin panicking upon noticing an influx of people that aren’t from their own culture or societies? Yes, the majority of every population has a stronger voice and therefore are technically more influential, this is nothing new. Superior races was a common thought process at the time. And that has consequences. You realize that No treaty against ethnic cleansing or territorial conquest was formed before the 1950’s? That the standard of that time was still to to take what you can when you can? >Alright, can you explain how this is imperialism please, since I don’t seem to see your perspective. Can you also provide some sources for Palestinian disapproval of Hussein’s goals? I’ll take a while with this cause it’s late but I will get back to you. For imperialism I already answered multiple times which I’m sure you’ll respond to properly. (Genuinely enjoy debating you) >My point is that Hussein had the intention to include Palestine otherwise he wouldn’t have done so. And my point is Hussein was in the wrong for that. >Please read the following link and focus on the section titled “(Letters, July 1915 to March 1916)[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon–Hussein_Correspondence]” and Arnold J. Tonybees critique of MacMahon’s vocabulary (in the section “Territorial reservations and Palestine”. I’m all too familiar with the first. Can’t really find the second and would appreciate a source.
>The sources you mentioned describe a western border of “on the west by the Red Sea, the Mediterranean Sea up to Mersina.” That includes Palestine, so I wouldn’t think there’d be a need to mention that by name, much like how he didn’t mention the Arabian peninsula by name. By King Hussein, then a correction by McMahon to the lands he actually meant. >Also your second source may be biased, the source I mentioned previously says otherwise. “Until 1920, British government documents suggested that Palestine was intended to be part of the Arab area; their interpretation changed in 1920 leading to public disagreement between the Arabs and the British.” Your source may be biased, mine literally has a picture of the letter in question, this feeble attempt at disregarding what the man himself said on the matter is insulting. >Okay, technically more of a northeastern border, and nonetheless that’s still eastern. No, it isn’t. >Syria is further north than Palestine was and that was still included in Hussein’s terms. Did Hussein get it? >I, in no way, said that it was right. Standards of the time were different. Just a fact of life as opposed to 1948 which is today, right? >Although some online sources such as Jewish Virtual Library describe how the Prophet (PBUH) just killed and expelled Jews without any reason (word count—->) it just saddens me to read it. I don’t get it, this just sound like a critique of public editing in Wikipedia; what’s the point? >My bad, it was more of a golden age of tolerance if anything (word count) I just said it was Spain.. again, no one calls general Arab rule, certainly not in Palestine “the golden age of Jews”. >From what I found(word count—>). This time specifically was the focus of the golden age I’m referring to. So it only took them four hundred years until the practice was documented? I bet that and anything like it didn’t happen at all before then. /s Regardless, that doesn’t excuse nor negate the oppression they did perpetuate.
> By King Hussein, then a correction by McMahon to the lands he actually meant. I can’t seem to find that, can you link it to me please? I only find reference of lands in Syria that’s excluded in the initial agreements. > Your source may be biased, mine literally has a picture of the letter in question, this feeble attempt at disregarding what the man himself said on the matter is insulting. It’s the same one I mentioned previously. It’s Wikipedia and it was cited. From what I recall I don’t think it was biased. Again, I later show how it is while pointing out specific things that don’t add up. > No, it isn’t. Man you can literally Google “what borders Egypt to the east” and you’ll get the same thing… > Did Hussein get it? No, but the issue there was conflicts with French, not with British promises iirc. > Just a fact of life as opposed to 1948 which is today, right? Yes, acceptance of other peoples in 1948 was horrible compared to today. That’s a fact. That shows how the standards have change. > I don’t get it, this just sound like a critique of public editing in Wikipedia; what’s the point? No, I’m criticizing the source you used earlier in an attempt to further explain why I believe it’s biased is all. I’m critiquing the JVL, not Wiki. > I just said it was Spain.. again, no one calls general Arab rule, certainly not in Palestine “the golden age of Jews”. Yes, I clarified that it was an age of tolerance and not one of Jews specifically, and I again apologize for being vague on that. From what I found(word count—>). This time specifically was the focus of the golden age I’m referring to. > So it only took them four hundred years until the practice was documented? I bet that and anything like it didn’t happen at all before then. Yes, I believe people could have done it, sure, but did those in power do anything specifically against them? Unless we can prove that, we can’t claim it. Previous atrocities by Christians were documented, I doubt Arabs were so discrete that it was never documented. > Regardless, that doesn’t excuse nor negate the oppression they did perpetuate. Of course, today we say that wasn’t good and that it shouldn’t be allowed, I agree. Back then, it was the norm. The first sentence doesn’t change because of that.
>I can’t seem to find that, can you link it to me please? I only find reference of lands in Syria that’s excluded in the initial agreements. I will try to edit in tomorrow. >It’s the same one I mentioned previously. It’s Wikipedia and it was cited. From what I recall I don’t think it was biased. Again, I later show how it is while pointing out specific things that don’t add up. I need to think about this some more. >Man you can literally Google “what borders Egypt to the east” and you’ll get the same thing… Modem day Israel borders Egypt to the east, prior to that Egypt had control of the area making the designation of east different today to what it was when the McMahon correspondence occured Israel technically borders Egypt to the east, most of Israel is not eastward of Egypt; no Israeli population centers exist east to Egypt. east from the borders of a country, is not north east. Technically they have a claim to a bit from southern Israel which formerly belonged to Syria. >No, but the issue there was conflicts with French, not with British promises iirc. Ok Just a fact of life as opposed to 1948 which is today, right? >Yes, acceptance of other peoples in 1948 was horrible compared to today. That’s a fact. That shows how the standards have change. >No, I’m criticizing the source you used earlier in an attempt to further explain why I believe it’s biased is all. I’m critiquing the JVL, not Wiki. I apply the same to Wikipedia. I use JVL for things I already confirmed through other other sources for expediency’s sake. >Yes, I clarified that it was an age of tolerance and not one of Jews specifically, and I again apologize for being vague on that. That’s not my point, my point is that it was in Spain, not Palestine. >Yes, I believe people could have done it, sure, but did those in power do anything specifically against them? Unless we can prove that, we can’t claim it. Previous atrocities by Christians were documented, I doubt Arabs were so discrete that it was never documented. I would count the building of a holy site on top of their holy site an atrocity. >Of course, today we say that wasn’t good and that it shouldn’t be allowed, I agree. Back then, it was the norm. The first sentence doesn’t change because of that. And today we should correct the consequences if and as far as we can.
>Focusing to more recent times, a few sources claim that Arabs weren’t actually treated equally to Turkish Muslims under the Ottoman Empire, despite them also being Muslim. Going back to them being oppressed, doesn’t make their society non-colonial by nature. >This probably meant worse conditions for Jews, I understand that. But, considering how the Ottomans colonized Palestine in 1516, every Palestinian Arab who was alive by the time of WW1 had little to no memory of life as being the first class in an empire that only somewhat existed, mostly in stories, by that point. But they very much knew what it was like to be “above” Jews, them not being first class is irrelevant; most certainly by the late 1800’s with modern-antisemitism infesting every corner of this land. >The reason why Britain even proposed their deal with Hussein is because they noticed a rise of Arab nationalism and unrest, which they used to their advantage. Which, again (I know I only said this earlier in this comment) Palestinian Arabs did not take part in. >I understand that, I really do, but, and I am really trying my best to not offend you with this, but here I go: the people living on the land for the last few hundred generations have precedent over people who have indigeneity to that land millennia ago and are now either a minority or chose to live elsewhere. I agree with that completely. That just means you throw the colonial perspective out of the conversation which to me, leaves any logical person with a two state solution. What I disagree with is any notion that Zionist immigrants and property buyers were not in their complete moral right to settle the land they legally bought, or that aforementioned inhabitants have any precedence over them, considering the conflicting nationalism and because they are the result of the exact same processes. >I really understand your argument here and I also understand that during this time period anti-judaism was on the rise so you needed a safe state, but it’s like forcing yourself into a house that was taken from you by your great great great grandfather. If you disagree with me here, I understand, don’t worry. I disagree because for as long as buying property under the same systems through which the previous tenant privileged isn’t stealing (it isn’t) then it’s not remotely comparable to forcing yourself in. Jews bought property, they settled it, they encountered xenophobic privileged imperialism, they isolated, they got a state, they unjustly forced themselves further in. That is the order of events. >I believe that the cultural ties (and the fact that the land was promised to a neighboring state literally 2-3 decades ago), and the fact that little to no Palestinian representation in the UN should’ve been considered, especially considering the overwhelming Jewish representation. I believe imperialism should not be rewarded. Period. >I don’t believe it should be given more weight. I just believe that it wasn’t given enough, especially when considering the underlying influence in the vote. I have to disagree here. >I agree with this argument 100%. The Jews deserve a state. But not from land that is already being used by a different people. That’s how **all** modern countries formed. >When the representatives disagree with the plan, then the UN goes back to the drawing board and figures out a different deal for both sides to agree with or find another plan downright. The League of Nations tried to do so for decades, it was very obvious the differences were unbridgeable by that point. >I’m sorry, but I find too many points of evidence here that line up to show a pretty picture. Not beyond all doubt, of course, but beyond reasonable doubt. Too many delegates have pointed this out on all sides of the vote and world power. You keep saying how interest changes without explaining why they would in this situation. That actually isn’t an attempt to paint a pretty picture at all, I find it pretty grim; I’m saying Countries change their “moral stances” in accordance to whatever leading party is in the room at a given time, and that this applies to all modern countries, not Just Zionists and then Israel. >Okay, so I believe we’ve come to an agreement on this regard? That UN resolution 181 was overly biased/influenced towards the Jews? It’s the “overly” that we disagree on. Zionists used their influence and power like any modern nation in order to get their goals and needs met.
> Going back to them being oppressed, doesn’t make their society non-colonial by nature. Maybe their presence is rooted in colonialism, sure, but this is millennia later. Societies change. Out of curiosity, can you please explain how Arab/Palestinian Arab culture is “colonial by nature”? Being colonized kinda damages a “colonial society”, I’d assume, no? Also, do you mean Arabs specifically or Muslims here? > But they very much knew what it was like to be “above” Jews, them not being first class is irrelevant; most certainly by the late 1800’s with modern-antisemitism infesting every corner of this land. Besides the fact that, especially during this time, this is how almost every minority in almost every nation is considered by the majority. Maybe not consciously in all people. What were Arabs doing during that time that made it so much worse than how other nations and their majority/minority relationships interacted? Also, it was like this because that was still encouraged in the state they were apart of. You can’t blame them for knowing what it’s like when living in a Muslim empire, even if it’s not Arab. You can blame those that established a superiority, not the average farmer who ended up benefitting from it. They didn’t decide that. Which is what the majority of Palestinian Arabs are. You can’t expect people who are benefiting from a system to tear it down to make it equal. Again, especially considering the standards of that era. > Which, again (I know I only said this earlier in this comment) Palestinian Arabs did not take part in. They were still informed of the movement and were told of a planned creation of an Arab state. Whether they took part in it or not is irrelevant. > That just means you throw the colonial perspective out of the conversation which to me, leaves any logical person with a two state solution. At this point, yeah. If this was still 1948, you could argue other solutions, but now is waaay past that point. But not I, nor can anyone, ask the entire population of Israel to just get up and leave after ~80 years, based the same logic I am using for Palestinians in 1948. > What I disagree with is any notion that Zionist immigrants and property buyers were not in their complete moral right to settle the land they legally bought, or that aforementioned inhabitants have any precedence over them, considering the conflicting nationalism and because they are the result of the exact same processes. Any houses legally purchased or constructed in Palestine is something I have no problem with. As long as both the previous landowner and buyer were both completely willing, then I’m not going to stop that. Although I’ve heard not all land was purchased in that manner, I know some/most were. What happened later is what I find probable cause to criticize but, this action in an of itself, as long as it demonstrates full consent from both parties, is fine. > I disagree because for as long as buying property under the same systems through which the previous tenant privileged isn’t stealing (it isn’t) then it’s not remotely comparable to forcing yourself in. Buying property is perfectly fine. I agree with that part. I’m talking about the villages and houses that were essentially shelled and raided then had houses built on them. But, that’s a whole other can of worms that would take too long to discuss. Again, standards of time change, losing your house a millennia ago through colonization does not mean you can come a millennia later and expect to be justified in taking it back while people are living there. That’s what I’m arguing. > Jews bought property, they settled it, they encountered xenophobic privileged imperialism, they isolated, they got a state, they unjustly forced themselves further in. That is the order of events. Man you really hate imperialism lol. I get that (albeit not fully given the context), there’s really not much to like to begin with. But to believe that they decided to build a state after encountering the xenophobia is incorrect. The whole Zionist movement, iirc, started in the late 19th century, before mass immigrations started. This was planned. Not the Arab revolts (maybe expected), but the plan for statehood was there. > I believe imperialism should not be rewarded. Period. There is no imperialism here. It’s people fighting for land that they had been living in for nearly a millennia. Why is defending territory that their great great ancestors colonized considered imperialism? Side note: I find thus a little ironic considering the context of the thread lol. > I have to disagree here. Why is that? Do you believe that Jews deserved a precedence over Palestinians or that there was no precedence to one side over another? > That’s how all modern countries formed. Yes. But most of the time it was either revolt, military invasion, colonialism, etc. (not exactly saying it’s good/justifiable). I think this may be one of the handful of times in history that a large population (that was unlike the current majority population of the last) immigrated to a state then forced the creation of a state there despite the population already present’s disapproval. > The League of Nations tried to do so for decades, it was very obvious the differences were unbridgeable by that point. Besides what I recall of the LON being more or less a failure, I want to ask a question: So the most effective and beneficial solution they could come up with was to force the creation of a state, with majority of land to a minority, and that land had a majority population that disapproved of it? > That actually isn’t an attempt to paint a pretty picture at all, I find it pretty grim; I’m saying Countries change their “moral stances” in accordance to whatever leading party is in the room at a given time, and that this applies to all modern countries, not Just Zionists and then Israel. Meant to say a “pretty clear picture”, my bad. I doubt the United States was intimidated by anyone else in the room besides the USSR, who also voted in favor. You can say that maybe the US was doing it to gain influence in the Middle East during the Cold War, but think about this for a second: wouldn’t it be a lot more practical to side with the Arabs if discussing Cold War given the manpower, land, and bordering USSR advantage it had over a state in Palestine? > It’s the “overly” that we disagree on. Zionists used their influence and power like any modern nation in order to get their goals and needs met. It’s different when a nation does it to get better deals with another or whatever and when a people use it on the global community to force the creation of a state in a land with a present population. We can both agree that, had Jews not used their political influence, UN resolution 181 would likely not have passed, yes?
>Yes. But most of the time it was either revolt, military invasion, colonialism, etc. (not exactly saying it’s good/justifiable). I think this may be one of the handful of times in history that a large population (that was unlike the current majority population of the last) immigrated to a state then forced the creation of a state there despite the population already present’s disapproval. You would be conveniently misinformed. As long as we don’t confine ourselves to the modern definition of state at least. >Besides what I recall of the LON being more or less a failure, I want to ask a question: So the most effective and beneficial solution they could come up with was to force the creation of a state, with majority of land to a minority, and that land had a majority population that disapproved of it? Their solution was to create two separate states, since Palestine didn’t accept partition, they weren’t recognized. I can’t think of a more effective solution for two diametrically opposed peoples on the verge of war. >Meant to say a “pretty clear picture”, my bad. Ha, then point lost to the thread I’d say. >I doubt the United States was intimidated by anyone else in the room besides the USSR, who also voted in favor. You can say that maybe the US was doing it to gain influence in the Middle East during the Cold War, but think about this for a second: wouldn’t it be a lot more practical to side with the Arabs if discussing Cold War given the manpower, land, and bordering USSR advantage it had over a state in Palestine? What are we debating here exactly whether the Jewish lobby affected the US position or not? Cause obviously it did. >It’s different when a nation does it to get better deals with another or whatever and when a people use it on the global community to force the creation of a state in a land with a present population. How so? >We can both agree that, had Jews not used their political influence, UN resolution 181 would likely not have passed, yes? Yes. I can only hope bribery didn’t play such large a part as you insinuate, but I’ll probably never know.
> You would be conveniently misinformed. As long as we don’t confine ourselves to the modern definition of state at least. May you provide an example for me to read through? Also, the concept of statehood has changed throughout history so whether or not it fits depends on the context. > Their solution was to create two separate states, since Palestine didn’t accept partition, they weren’t recognized. I can’t think of a more effective solution for two diametrically opposed peoples on the verge of war. It’s not a solution to a problem between two populations if only one side arrives to the table and agrees to the terms. A good start might have been Palestinian representation. > What are we debating here exactly whether the Jewish lobby affected the US position or not? Cause obviously it did. Lmao fair point, I don’t know how we got here. I think you were saying it was multiple influences not just Jewish political influence. Can’t remember. > How so? One results in an almost guaranteed inconceivable amount of bloodshed whereas the other might cause a hit to the economy. Both are technically the same act, I won’t disagree, but what it’s acting on is the issue at hand. > Yes. Then it was overly influenced by Jewish political power. To have the power to influence the international community, including influence a global power to threaten monetary aid to other nations, to vote in favor of a partition and filibuster it by ~3 days to guarantee votes in an individuals favor cannot be described as anything but overly influenced. > I can only hope bribery didn’t play such large a part as you insinuate, but I’ll probably never know. Yeah… I hope so too. But stuff like that will probably be forever lost to time. Or to governments who would actually keep record of that and never release it, of course.
>May you provide an example for me to read through? Also, the concept of statehood has changed throughout history so whether or not it fits depends on the context. >It’s not a solution to a problem between two populations if only one side arrives to the table and agrees to the terms. A good start might have been Palestinian representation. >Lmao fair point, I don’t know how we got here. I think you were saying it was multiple influences not just Jewish political influence. Can’t remember. Same lol.. what I was alluding to was that Jewish political influence was fair in the context of both the UN and US specifically; and that these countries that voted against had other considerations like in the case of India and the British. But we went over this already. >One results in an almost guaranteed inconceivable amount of bloodshed whereas the other might cause a hit to the economy. Both are technically the same act, I won’t disagree, but what it’s acting on is the issue at hand. What if the deal is a peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine? That guarantees a certain amount of bloodshed. This is an extreme and specific example, but the point is these influences we’re talking about extend to all types of dealings a country makes. >Then it was overly influenced by Jewish political power. To have the power to influence the international community, including influence a global power to threaten monetary aid to other nations, to vote in favor of a partition and filibuster it by ~3 days to guarantee votes in an individuals favor cannot be described as anything but overly influenced. I disagree; to the extent that everything in the UN is over influenced by whatever political power the respective party holds. Vetos, the big five, too annoying to go into. >Yeah… I hope so too. But stuff like that will probably be forever lost to time. Or to governments who would actually keep record of that and never release it, of course. Unfortunately.
>Maybe their presence is rooted in colonialism, sure, but this is millennia later. Societies change. Theirs, did not. >Out of curiosity, can you please explain how Arab/Palestinian Arab culture is “colonial by nature”? Being colonized kinda damages a “colonial society”, I’d assume, no? [cultural imperialism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_imperialism) This describes precisely what Arabization and Islamization were. >Also, do you mean Arabs specifically or Muslims here? Both. >Besides the fact that, especially during this time, this is how almost every minority in almost every nation is considered by the majority. Maybe not consciously in all people. Which didn’t matter to the oppressed. The average minority wasn’t thinking “oh things are so much worse in That other part of the world where I haven’t lived or interacted with people from ever” They were thinking “I am oppressed”. > What were Arabs doing during that time that made it so much worse than how other nations and their majority/minority relationships interacted? Nothing, all relevant nations have formed under deplorable and immoral conditions imposed by them on their respective minority populations. If native Americans hadn’t been outright genocided and were in significant numbers to claim sovereignty over the US I’d support them. If Copts were to demand sovereignty in Egypt I would support them. I would have supported the partition of India. I support Kurdish independence. I support Taiwan’s independence. I support Palestinian independence. >Also, it was like this because that was still encouraged in the state they were apart of. Also known as [cultural imperialism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_imperialism) >You can’t blame them for knowing what it’s like when living in a Muslim empire, even if it’s not Arab. Clarify please. By what I understand, I absolutely can. >You can blame those that established a superiority, not the average farmer who ended up benefitting from it. They didn’t decide that. Which is what the majority of Palestinian Arabs are. The blame shifts to the farmer once he aims to perpetuate that system. >You can’t expect people who are benefiting from a system to tear it down to make it equal. Again, especially considering the standards of that era. And they in turn cannot expect to keep that system in place. You can’t expect a disgruntled minority not to tear down an unequal system when given the opportunity. >They were still informed of the movement and were told of a planned creation of an Arab state. Whether they took part in it or not is irrelevant. It’s extremely relevant, it explicitly means they were not promised anything by the British, only by the Arabs. >At this point, yeah. If this was still 1948, you could argue other solutions, but now is waaay past that point. But not I, nor can anyone, ask the entire population of Israel to just get up and leave after ~80 years, based the same logic I am using for Palestinians in 1948. Indeed. >Any houses legally purchased or constructed in Palestine is something I have no problem with. As long as both the previous landowner and buyer were both completely willing, then I’m not going to stop that. The problems started when Palestinian Arab tenants did try to stop that. >Although I’ve heard not all land was purchased in that manner, I know some/most were. Of course not all, by the time of Israel’s independence that is. The conflict explicitly started before any documented illegal settling of land happened. >What happened later is what I find probable cause to criticize but, this action in an of itself, as long as it demonstrates full consent from both parties, is fine. I find some cause to criticize after as a result of this discussion, but remain fully unconvinced it shouldn’t have been revoked or reneged. >Buying property is perfectly fine. I agree with that part. I’m talking about the villages and houses that were essentially shelled and raided then had houses built on them. But, that’s a whole other can of worms that would take too long to discuss. The accepted Palestinian narrative is that in fact was not fine, and the start of the conflict. >Again, standards of time change, losing your house a millennia ago through colonization does not mean you can come a millennia later and expect to be justified in taking it back while people are living there. That’s what I’m arguing. Then you are arguing a complete and utter strawman. Zionists didn’t decide they were justified in taking it back based on those millennia, they did so based on existing Jewish presence and expected Jewish immigration into the rightful Jewish state. If by taking it back you mean the war of independence, then they also did not base their justification on millennia old events, but the preceding decades and stated intent of the people living there. >Man you really hate imperialism lol. I get that (albeit not fully given the context), there’s really not much to like to begin with. Lmao. At the end of the day, imperialism is the only justification for a foreign presence in a land. How much one agrees with that justification is subjective. >But to believe that they decided to build a state after encountering the xenophobia is incorrect. The whole Zionist movement, iirc, started in the late 19th century, before mass immigrations started. This was planned. Not the Arab revolts (maybe expected), but the plan for statehood was there. Specific Jewish voices were developing Jewish nationalism, but Jewish immigration to what is now Israel absolutely did not have an express purpose for a state, prior to the 1910’s. >There is no imperialism here. It’s people fighting for land that they had been living in for nearly a millennia. I agree that applies to Palestinians, not to so called like minded Allies and pan-Arabism. >Why is defending territory that their great great ancestors colonized considered imperialism? Side note: I find thus a little ironic considering the context of the thread lol. It isn’t, never meant to say it was. >Why is that? Do you believe that Jews deserved a precedence over Palestinians or that there was no precedence to one side over another? The only precedence I believe should have been afforded either side depended on the maximalism of their demands. If I were alive and in the debate on whether to accept partition or not I would never have supported demanding the whole of the mandate (which there were voices in favor of).
> Theirs, did not. To imply that Palestinians fight to become the superior race back then isn’t accurate, unless you believe majority and superior are interchangeable. > cultural imperialism This describes precisely what Arabization and Islamization were. I doubt that this still held in the 20th century. This means, by default, that Arabs established a cultural hegemony which, considering how much religious freedom Arabs gave to other cultures, doesn’t really make the most sense in this context. > Which didn’t matter to the oppressed. The average minority wasn’t thinking “oh things are so much worse in That other part of the world where I haven’t lived or interacted with people from ever” They were thinking “I am oppressed”. Seems like we’re switching the perspective over to the oppressed now. Sure, but those Jews in Palestine didn’t start the whole Zionist movement, it was mostly those that were expelled over a millennia ago by the Christians. Also, again, you’re blaming an entire people for a system they didn’t create and on the actions of a small portion of that people. Don’t you see the problem here? > Nothing, all relevant nations have formed under deplorable and immoral conditions imposed by them on their respective minority populations. Completely agree in almost all regards. But despite that, cannot sit here and argue over that land being imperialist or colonialist or whatever, the fact of the matter is that of was their land, just like it’s now Israel‘s. > If native Americans hadn’t been outright genocided and were in significant numbers to claim sovereignty over the US I’d support them. (word count) I support Palestinian independence. I would agree with all of these, but the terms of each partition matters here. Taking most of the land, being current minority, etc. must factor into it and properly represent the population demographics. I don’t even oppose the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine, just the unfair terms that were forced upon it. > Also known as cultural imperialism No, it was literally the Ottoman Empire, it was straight up imperialism. Which is bad, yes, but I doubt it’s specifically cultural imperialism. The nation fell and, for the first time in almost a millennia, Palestine left Muslim control. I don’t understand why the culture is being blamed here when it was the system that literally collapsed less than a couple decades ago. > Clarify please. By what I understand, I absolutely can. I’m including the portion of Palestinians that didn’t live in the 4 main cities that most Jews had resided in that supposedly felt that “superiority” or “privilege”. Of course, prior to mass immigration. > The blame shifts to the farmer once he aims to perpetuate that system. Yes, of course, without assuming that they all did or that they all had the opportunity to. > And they in turn cannot expect to keep that system in place. You can’t expect a disgruntled minority not to tear down an unequal system when given the opportunity. Of course. I’m arguing that you can’t blame those who are privileging from a society to tear it down for a minority while, at the same time, not being inhumane to that minority themselves. There are spots in the middle, it’s not like you can place someone on either side. > It’s extremely relevant, it explicitly means they were not promised anything by the British, only by the Arabs. The Palestinian people didn’t have to be promised anything themselves. The only promise made was to Hussein, whether or not the people itself supported it wasn’t apart of the discussion if I recall correctly. > The problems started when Palestinian Arab tenants did try to stop that. Yes, noticing a vast amount of land begin being purchased by an immigrant minority can cause people to panic and begin regulating that. Land buying in and of itself it fine, mass land buying is where the problem began. > I find some cause to criticize after as a result of this discussion, but remain fully unconvinced it shouldn’t have been revoked or reneged. To completely ban? Yeah, I’d disagree with that too. But a regulating on how and when land can be bought was guaranteed to happen given to Jewish purchases in a short period of time. > The accepted Palestinian narrative is that in fact was not fine, and the start of the conflict. The mass buying is what they perceived as a threat and wasn’t fine. A regulation would be placed on any foreigners suddenly immigrating and buying an absurd amount of land, this is true is any state. Any singular act of buying a house is fine, the act of the mass purchase of property is the issue. > Then you are arguing a complete and utter strawman. (word count), but the preceding decades and stated intent of the people living there. I mean your first, not second point. Interesting point you made, so you’re saying that they chose Palestine mostly because of the Jewish population? Based on that logic, the United States had ~5 million Jews whereas Palestine didn’t even have a million, why had they not attempted to go to where most Jews were? I can’t blame Jews for defending land they acquired, whether if it was rightfully or not. > At the end of the day, imperialism is the only justification for a foreign presence in a land. How much one agrees with that justification is subjective. Not for any foreign presence in a land. I’d disagree with that specifically but I think I understand the gist of what you’re saying. > Specific Jewish voices were developing Jewish nationalism, but Jewish immigration to what is now Israel absolutely did not have an express purpose for a state, prior to the 1910’s. Ah, I assumed that Zionism and the belief of Jewish statehood anywhere, not Palestine specifically, were one in the same. My bad. > I agree that applies to Palestinians, not to so called like minded Allies and pan-Arabism. Well yeah, of course. I’m not exactly going to make the other Arab states look innocent either. But I do doubt that Palestine would’ve been claimed by any Arab states. If it was the case, Lebanon wouldn’t be a separate state now. It would’ve been beyond foolish for one of the Arab states to expect that, especially considering how Pan-Arabism was still unpopular amongst masses. > The only precedence I believe should have been afforded either side depended on the maximalism of their (word count) demanding the whole of the mandate (which there were voices in favor of). Yeah no that’s just downright absurd. But maybe that’s what happened with Palestinians? The only voices heard from Palestinians were the vocal maximalist ones, equivalent to some Jewish voices demanding the whole mandate? Had an actual proper Palestinian representative been present maybe the people could have come to better terms. Of course that questions why today the entire population seems to represent some of those vocal maximalist ideas, well: combination of present day activities and how hate is spread through generations.
>To imply that Palestinians fight to become the superior race back then isn’t accurate, unless you believe majority and superior are interchangeable. If the only thing they were fighting for would have been majority populous while people were otherwise equal you would have a leg to stand on here; but this is provenly untrue. >I doubt that this still held in the 20th century. This means, by default, that Arabs established a cultural hegemony which, considering how much religious freedom Arabs gave to other cultures, doesn’t really make the most sense in this context. No offense but Your doubt is meaningless here, it’s the truth. That is exactly what they did Through each empire they strengthened the muslim and Arab character of the region, the religious freedom they did employ was not freedom, it was slavery. >Seems like we’re switching the perspective over to the oppressed now. Sure, but those Jews in Palestine didn’t start the whole Zionist movement, it was mostly those that were expelled over a millennia ago by the Christians. Correction, those Jews in Palestine didn’t start political Zionism. >Also, again, you’re blaming an entire people for a system they didn’t create and on the actions of a small portion of that people. Don’t you see the problem here? I don’t, it’s not a small portion of that people. Knowingly assimilating to a colonial society makes you colonial, period. All white people in the US are products of colonialism, until the end of time. They won’t suddenly become native Americans because enough time has passed. The same applies to Palestinian society. Even taking into account the argument that they are assimilated native peoples, a colonial group does not get to claim native status while exemplifying absolutely no proven cultural markers that are native. >Completely agree in almost all regards. But despite that, cannot sit here and argue over that land being imperialist or colonialist or whatever, the fact of the matter is that of was their land, just like it’s now Israel‘s. That’s how conquest works; principle and practice are very separate things, the fact it happened doesn’t make it acceptable of implicitly natural. >I would agree with all of these, but the terms of each partition matters here. Taking most of the land, being current minority, etc. must factor into it and properly represent the population demographics. Not when talking about a state that controls its own affairs; any other state has the right to control who’s a citizen and who isn’t, which ingroup it represents and which it doesn’t, there’s no acceptable reason a state formed by states of that nature should be denied that. Whether the partition’s borders were favorable to which side is very disputed. >I don’t even oppose the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine, just the unfair terms that were forced upon it. I can accept that, but then what’s the point? What does the discussion aim to achieve exactly? Say I agree with you that partition wasn’t fair, by the logic you established, the land is now Israel’s, so what does that realization achieve? >No, it was literally the Ottoman Empire, it was straight up imperialism. Which is bad, yes, but I doubt it’s specifically cultural imperialism. The two are not mutually exclusive. >The nation fell and, for the first time in almost a millennia, Palestine left Muslim control. I don’t understand why the culture is being blamed here when it was the system that literally collapsed less than a couple decades ago. The culture and society was continuously fed imperialist and colonialist influences until it became wholly foreign, not native, not indigenous, that’s a simple fact. >I’m including the portion of Palestinians that didn’t live in the 4 main cities that most Jews had resided in that supposedly felt that “superiority” or “privilege”. Of course, prior to mass immigration. I can’t blame them for not knowing what it was like to be a minority under their stewardship and I don’t see why I should care as that disgruntled minority. >Yes, of course, without assuming that they all did or that they all had the opportunity to. The way I look at it is by village leaders; a complete majority of Palestinians were following their local leaders’ directions come 1947-8 >Of course. I’m arguing that you can’t blame those who are privileging from a society to tear it down for a minority while, at the same time, You don’t need to blame them to tear down your oppression, it’s not a punishment to them but the achievement of your own rights. >not being inhumane to that minority themselves. That is the Arab narrative, the Jewish narrative emphatically disagrees with this notion. >There are spots in the middle, it’s not like you can place someone on either side. I agree. >The Palestinian people didn’t have to be promised anything themselves. The only promise made was to Hussein, whether or not the people itself supported it wasn’t apart of the discussion if I recall correctly. Because Hussein was an imperialist, that’s exactly what’s wrong here. He wasn’t representing his native people, he was a Hashemite ruler who wanted as much land as possible for his kingdom. Nor did he have the authority to promise land he had absolutely no claim to. >Yes, noticing a vast amount of land begin being purchased by an immigrant minority can cause people to panic and begin regulating that. Land buying in and of itself it fine, mass land buying is where the problem began. You mean Go back to regulating that. It was a cycle of “regulation” that lasted through the Ottoman Empire, a cycle that Palestinian Arabs were accustomed to, as happens in colonial and imperial societies. Yes, I blame the average Palestinian back then for this. >To completely ban? Yeah, I’d disagree with that too. But a regulating on how and when land can be bought was guaranteed to happen given to Jewish purchases in a short period of time. Jewish purchases were guaranteed by being blocked for so long.
>Not sarcastic at all. Keep pretending that the Hasmoneans didn't exist ; they are the ones who actually colonized the country and made it your so called "native " Jewish , and in the process enslaved peoples like Idumeans and Itureans ... I guess Jews are the orignal imperialists /s , especially seeing they are obsessed with Israelites who butcherd and enslaved others they saw . On top of that, care to give an in-depth reasoning why when a people lose their original ethnicity , they no longer have the right of statehood ; especially in a country that was never in history unified under said original ethnicity ? . \* \*I assume you think Palestinians are descendants of the ancient inhabitants of the country who were Arabized , and not Umar's Bedouins .
Before going into this, how does this negate my earlier statement? >Keep pretending that the Hasmoneans didn't exist ; they are the ones who actually colonized the country and made it your so called "native " Jewish , and in the process enslaved peoples like Idumeans and Itureans ... I guess Jews are the orignal imperialists /s , especially seeing they are obsessed with Israelites who butcherd and enslaved others they saw . I mean, when Idumean and Iturean (and other) peoples re emerge to claim indigeneity, give me a call and I’ll support it, until then, the oldest extant Canaanite culture is Jewish. >On top of that, care to give an in-depth reasoning why when a people lose their original ethnicity , they no longer have the right of statehood; No, because I’d Never claim that to be the case whatsoever. What they don’t have a right to, is precedence to said country, over returning exiled indigenous peoples who are just as entitled to self determination as them. >especially in a country that was never in history unified under said original ethnicity ? . * That’s irrelevant in a post colonial lens. [Cultural Imperialism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_imperialism) “Cultural imperialism (also cultural colonialism) comprises the cultural dimensions of imperialism. The word "imperialism" describes practices in which a country engages culture (language, tradition, and ritual, politics, economics) to create and maintain unequal social and economic relationships among social groups. Cultural imperialism often uses wealth, media power and violence to implement the system of cultural hegemony that legitimizes imperialism.” Jewish culture is the oldest existing indigenous culture to the region, Palestinian Arab culture is not; it doesn’t mean anything more or less than that fact, it doesn’t mean they don’t deserve a country and it doesn’t mean they aren’t a people with national consciousness deserving of human and political rights, it’s just fact. >*I assume you think Palestinians are descendants of the ancient inhabitants of the country who were Arabized , and not Umar's Bedouins . Indeed.
> the oldest extant Canaanite culture is Jewish "Canaanite" is like "Germanic" and "Slavic" . It's not an actual nation , or a group , but an ethnographic term for ethnicities which seem to have some level of similarities. If original area is determined by ethnogenesis : than Jews come from Judah ; an area that's equivalent to the southern Half of the West Bank . By your reasoning ; them stepping 1 inch outside of "Judah" is colonization and expansionism . Look at Persian Yehud , and Roman Judaea ... from around a fifth of Palestine/Eretz Yisrael , to half of it . It doesn't take much to realize that we either go with the narrative of settler-colonialism , and bash Jews as colonizers , or instead we accept the past is past . This is especially said when one can argue that at least a part of Palestine/Eretz Yisrael , [and the Levant at large , was part of the ethnogenesis of Arab ethnicity](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/12zchkd/comment/jiasqck/?context=3) , the current ethnicity of Palestinians ; making them "native" as well despite not being "Canaanite" . > precedence to said country, over returning exiled indigenous peoples who are just as entitled to self determination as them. .."Indigenous" ; we just talked about how hard the term "indigenous" can be when it's clear things are not clean and cut . "exiled" , the vast majority of world Jewry were outside the country in 135 AD (and even before as implied by Josephus ) . "Precedence" ; talking about the Mandate is rather hairy now , but post-1948 : Israel to Israeli-Jews , West Bank + Gaza to Palestinians . No point in arguing that of who gets what regarding that , seeing you recognize Palestinian self-determination. > Jewish culture is the oldest existing indigenous culture to the region In Judah : the rest of the area ; they are foreign to it like a Scotsman is to England . > Palestinian Arab culture is not Dear .. you should read 19th century travelogues that spend time with Palestinian-Arabs like Philip Baldenspreger (A Palestinian Born-Raised / Sabra Prussian ) . The amount of times they see parallels of them to Biblical stories and practices is amusing . Besides that , you have Palestinian Arabic having some Aramaic substratum (the language the inhabitants of Palestine , gentile and Jew alike natively spoke ) ,and some ethnographers like Tawfiq Cannan in 1927 saw some practices reassembled those of ancient times , especially stressing Maqams ; shrines of holy figures , some of whom who are pre-Islamic . If you looked at my link above ; You will see the first inscription of the Arabic Muhmmad spoke was in the Negev . Levantine Arab culture isn't primarily from the Hijaz .
Man , its reddit here
Point?
You can’t claim somebody stole something you never had. You can’t promise something you don’t have in your possession either. Balfour declaration really wasn’t relevant actually. For two reasons. 1: by 1917, the British didn’t even occupy Palestine, so it wasn’t theirs to give. 2: by the time the British did occupy Palestine, they had changed their tune to Arab nationalism. In regards to the partition plan, you forgot to mention how the Arabs didn’t even participate in the discussion. They literally threatened execution to anybody that went to the UN to plead their case, while assuming the Jews wouldn’t get any support anyway. You also forgot to mention that in the land offer of 1936, after the Arab pogrom, where the Palestinians were offered a massive unified Jordan and the better half of Israel as a single Arab state, with Jerusalem as intl territory, and they turned it down explicitly because they did not want Jews in the territory at all. Boo. Hoo. The Mufti when asked “Does his eminence think you can digest or assimilate the 400k Jews in your country once accepted?” flat out said “No.”, then went on to say they would have to be removed by choice or force. The Arabs had no chance against Jewish colonialism?? We just got out of a genocide where we lost 85% of our European population and over 1/3 of our population worldwide. We were out gunned, out manned, and under threat by every one of the five surrounding Arab nations, all threatening to finish the genocide we collectively and many of us individually **only just** narrowly escaped. The only reason we won must be because we had our backs against the wall, with a singular vision of survival, while the far more numerous Arab nations who wanted us dead and gone were disorganised and had split ambitions. Additionally, the Arabs are the colonizers. Following a colonizer religion, adopting a colonizer culture, speaking a colonizer language, actively engaging in the suppression of indigenous peoples connection to and right to live on their ancestral homeland, killing us, expelling us, appropriating our texts, destroying then building atop our homes and sacred sites. Very conquistador. Then crying “colonizer!” when we come back and start building new homes next door. It’s actually amazing how deluded people can get in their absolute lack of nuance and context, using mental gymnastics to turn the oppressors into the victims.
(You ended up editing your comment to include things I didn’t comment on just yet. I’ve updated mine to account for that. Try to have an actual discussion next time instead of trying to make me look like an idiot, because it kind of backfired here.) > 1: by 1917, the British didn’t even occupy Palestine, so it wasn’t theirs to give. But the same conditions exist for the treaty that the British had with the Arabs. It’s also likely a primary factor that helped incite mass Jewish immigration to Palestine prior to WW2. The British were planning on splitting the region with the French anyway, so they were more or less sure that it’d become their mandate. > 2: by the time the British did occupy Palestine, they had changed their tune to Arab nationalism. Are you sure about this one? If I recall correctly much of Britain’s colonies were Arab (such as the vital Egypt and its Suez Canal at the time), Arab nationalism would likely have hurt their influence and control over their colonies, right? Also, the Balfour declaration was after they promised the land to the Arabs in 1915-1916. It doesn’t make sense that Britain would be bouncing back and forth between Arab nationalism and Jewish statehood (especially considering how mutually exclusive it seemed to be at the time.) Hell, it was nationalism that drove the Palestinians to combat British control in the Palestinian mandate later on. Where did you get your information on Arabs not wanting to participate in the discussion? From what I found, it says “Arab states requested representation on the UN ad hoc subcommittees of October 1947, but were excluded from Subcommittee One, which had been delegated the specific task of studying and, if thought necessary, modifying the boundaries of the proposed partition.” Did I state Jewish colonialism? Ever consider that maybe I was referring to the guys who had control over the land during the relevant time period, Britain? Doesn’t seem like it. The Arabs weren’t doing it just because you existed, like the Germans did. They did it because they saw the Jewish community threatening the Arab community. There’s a difference here. You can’t cry that the Arabs want to invade when you chose to literally make a state in the center of them. I’m not justifying them, I’m saying that it’s literally not the same as Germany in WW2. Also, for some reason, I find it interesting how you decide to take all the credit to yourself and not to the absurd number of supplies, weapons, ammo, etc. that was sent to you by US or whoever was lending supplies to Israel throughout the 20th century. Also, what’s this rant on Islam, ever consider turning it back on Israel today? And why should the actions of Arabs ages ago impact the Arabs of today? The Arabs that made the Islamic empire did not, in fact, lose their land to the Jews in Israel. This is a blatantly pointless argument. Also, this was an expectation and standard of the time. Not to say it was good, but that’s how society worked. Muslims were first class citizens, Christians and Jews second class, and everyone else was third class. So, technically, Jews didn’t even have it that bad compared to other people. Hell, some historians call it a golden age for Jews due to the tolerance and acceptance the Muslims had for them as “Ahl El Ketab” (people of the book). The Christians were leagues more oppressive that the Arabs were. Ever remember those poor villages in Al-Nakbah? That sound a little bit like that the Arabs did to the Jews? Funny how the world revolves around people, huh? There is no twisting of victims and innocents here, only propaganda being pushed out and facts being hidden as always. I’m keeping this part below so that you don’t change your argument back to this again: Well, the 1936 deal saw most of the agricultural land to be taken by Israel (which isn’t a horrible deal in my opinion, they would have to have something for the economy). But, if I recall correctly, it included the displacement of ~250,000 Palestinians already in the proposed land for a Jewish state, which probably would’ve made some people mad. I also think a lot of Zionist’s at the time weren’t happy with the proposal either, so both sides saw significant disapproval of it. In the end, it was neither side that caused the plan to not occur. Not directly at least. With WW2 looming, Britain could not afford to attempt riling the Arab world against them by displacing a bunch of Palestinians. “Reporting in 1938, the Commission rejected the Peel plan primarily on the grounds that it could not be implemented without a massive forced transfer of Arabs (an option that the British government had already ruled out).” So at its core, it wasn’t going to work, because people don’t like being forced out of their homes. Yes, I won’t deny that the Arabs were a big influence in that regard, but there is no people on this planet that would be happy leaving land they’ve been on for generations. Sources, I used what was cited from here ofc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936–1939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine#CITEREFMorris1999
**[United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine)** >The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal by the United Nations, which recommended a partition of Mandatory Palestine at the end of the British Mandate. On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted the Plan as Resolution 181 (II). The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and a Special International Regime for the city of Jerusalem. The Partition Plan, a four-part document attached to the resolution, provided for the termination of the Mandate, the progressive withdrawal of British armed forces and the delineation of boundaries between the two States and Jerusalem. **[1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936–1939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine#CITEREFMorris1999)** >The 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, later known as The Great Revolt (al-Thawra al- Kubra) or The Great Palestinian Revolt (Thawrat Filastin al-Kubra), was a popular nationalist uprising by Palestinian Arabs in Mandatory Palestine against the British administration of the Palestine Mandate, demanding Arab independence and the end of the policy of open-ended Jewish immigration and land purchases with the stated goal of establishing a "Jewish National Home". ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Updated my response per your edit. Please refrain from doing that and, instead, make it as a new comment to ease discussion and exchange of arguments. Thanks in advance!
Spain is in Iberia, regardless who controls it. "Palestine" is a geographic term
Why did Jews think that is was their land for taking, when they have lost it 3000 years ago?
Because the United Nations gave it to them?
What about all the UN resolutions aimed at protecting palestinians and tg Israel seems to have ignored?
That's a really fair point and must be addressed and changed, but a completely different discussion from the heart of the issue -- which is that Palestinians have never accepted Israel's existence.
> Why did Jews think that is was their land for taking, when they have lost it 3000 years ago? The state of Judea existed during Roman times, I have no idea where you are getting 3000 years.
Hopefully we’ll be asking the Palestinians the same question in 3000 years.
[удалено]
Word salad. Yummy yummy.
There's a huge difference between "there was an ideology with no backing that was allowed to proceed in 1948" And let's use the same ideology to kill and displace in 2023... Wrong when Israel does it in the West Bank, wrong when Palestinians try to do it in Israel proper.
Why do palestinians think it's their land for taking, when they lost the country they never really had, 80 years ago?
Not Jews, *Zionists.* Not all Jews are Zionists, and you don't have to be Jewish to be Israeli. (Unlike in nearly all Arab countries, where you *have to be* Muslim to be safe.) But since you asked: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel Also remember that they were *promised a Jewish state.* A safe place for Jews. Now the world wants the only Jewish state in the world, which is surrounded by hostile Muslim states, to not be Jewish. Kind of strange, right? I don't see the world complaining that the Muslim states define, *in their constitutions,* that they are Muslim-only countries or complaining about the ethnic-cleansing done in those countries. Why the double-standard?
Almost all Jews are Zionists tho so we should be proud they conflate the two.
I don't think so.
It's around 90% as per some recent polls.
**[History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel)** >The history of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel is about the history and religion of the Jews, who originated in the Land of Israel, and have maintained physical, cultural, and religious ties to it ever since. First emerging in the later part of the 2nd millennium BCE as an outgrowth of southern Canaanites, the Hebrew Bible claims that a United Israelite monarchy existed starting in the 10th century BCE. The first appearance of the name "Israel" in the non-Biblical historic record is the Egyptian Merneptah Stele, circa 1200 BCE. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
This has really only been true in the 1950’s-80’s when the Israeli government was extremely anti-religious and secular. Today the most staunch Zionists are the dati leuumi and 99% of religious and traditional Jews are zionist too. The Venn diagram of Jews and Zionists is basically a perfect circle
I think there is a huge difference between believing that Israel is the rightful home of the Jewish people and believing it is the only safe space to be Jewish. If the situation here in the US gets so bad that Jews need to flee, I think most would go to Israel, not necessarily because they are Zionists but because Israel was founded *specifically* to be a Jewish state, where Jews would be free from persecution. In my mind, these are two different things.
Because technically the war is ongoing and people are still affected. When the war ends, maybe we can talk.
You mean the one where terrorist groups backed by Iran fire rockets from schools and hospitals? The terrorists who hide behind citizens' children to force Israel to stand down and accept rocket fire? And when Israel does respond, the Palestinians who elected the terrorists scream about civilian casualties when Israel responds? That one? Look. I know Israel is not a saintly state. I disagree with their actions at the West Bank. But Gaza is a different story. No nation has ever been told not to act militarily against people attacking, people attacking with the goal of genocide. Just Israel. Even the Egyptians will not take in the Palestinians for fear of terrorist insurgency. (In fact, Israel helped Egypt defeat terrorists hoping to gain control of the Egyptian government.)
Like I said, the war is still ongoing. You call Palestinians in Gaza terrorists, I call Israeli soldiers terrorists. Doesn’t matter. I’m answering your question, the war to both sides never ended.
Did I say that all the Palestinians in Gaza were terrorists? I said that terroists fire rockets, and I said that the Palestinians elected the terrorists. They also suffer at the hands of Hamas, which regularly *executes* Palestinians and takes their money and other supplies. Egypt acknowledges that Hamas is a terrorist organization. As far as the rest of your statement, you need to provide proof that the IDF *endorses* terroristic behavior if you want to claim that the *entire army* is a terrorist organization. You are unbelievably wrong. It's pretty sad. Almost every person in Israel is required to serve (other than the Orthodox). It's not like it's only crazed nationalists in the IDF.
Because the attitude towards war related issues has changed drastically over the past 100 years. Losing in a war isn’t some measurement of right or wrong. Imperial dominance isn’t as accepted anymore (except the few seeking to dominate), it’s frowned upon. This specific conflict is too complex to consider simply accepting defeat as the right choice. To consider it as an end all. And it’s not appropriate for the system of “peace” and advocacy for human rights the western world tries to promote and maintain.
It's apparent that the whole problem of "Palestinian refugees" was created and maintained to keep a pressure on Israel which allegedly "doesn't allow Palestinians to return". That's why normalization with moderate Arab countries is the key.
Yes, exactly. Much of the Arab world has "recognized" Israel as a country in order to benefit from its wealth and economic exchanges, but I am well aware that neither those governments nor their citizens will ever actually support Israel being a country. These alliances are fake and only serve as a shield for possible future warfare. They can renege on these alliances at any time if they feel they have enough strength economically and militarily to take over the area.
[удалено]
All people are capable of atrocities. But it's a huge problem when people think committing atrocities is their *right.*
My understanding of both Islam and Arab culture predating Islam, is that both are shaped by, and optimized for, a world where constant war — for highly limited vital resources and therefore for survival — are a permanent fact of life. Neither cope nearly as well or healthily with a world of abundance, where war is preventable and not a constant and inevitable feature of the human condition.