Bye Bye Gary

[Deleted member 323070]

6 arab countries invaded Israel 24 hours after the creation of the state of Israel.

Palestinians were offered the same terms under UN re 181, they declined the offer choosing to go to war with Israel instead.

The resolution was adopted in November 1947. Then the Nakba began.
The Nakba ended when the Arab states attacked Israel in May 1948. Some 6 months after the beginning of the Nakba, and the creation of the Israeli state.

Palestinians did not go to war with Israel, Israel conducted a genocidal campaign to chase Palestinians from Palestine. That was the Nalba.

 

[fillyboy]

The resolution was adopted in November 1947. Then the Nakba began.
The Nakba ended when the Arab states attacked Israel in May 1948. Some 6 months after the beginning of the Nakba, and the creation of the Israeli state.

Palestinians did not go to war with Israel, Israel conducted a genocidal campaign to chase Palestinians from Palestine. That was the Nalba.

Israel declared statehood on 14th May 1948, 6 arab countries went to war with them the following day.
Whilst many Palestinans were driven out, nobody knows how many, maybe as much as 100,000 but Jordan persuaded huge numbers to go to Jordan until they were victorious in the war against Israel and it would be safe to return.

Lets not forget that an equal number chose to remain in Israel benefitting from Israeli citizenship and equal rights. Plenty of Palestinian Israeli Arabs fighting in the IDF.

 

[JohnD]

I'm not interested in who you've met. It is very common, though, these days, for people to say that they are against Zionism.

It seems you move in different circles. How many anti-Zionists have you met?

Is it greater or smaller than the number of people you have met who are opposed to racism, apartheid, genocide and invasion, which are all practiced by the State of Israel?

 

[Vinty]

Doesn't Zionism mean being in favour of a homeland for Jews in what was Palestine

There is a big difference between a homeland for Jewish people and a state for Jews.
The Balfour declaration referred to a homeland in Palestine as long as the rights of the people already living there were not affected.
The authors envisaged a state for Jews and Palestinians, the Zionist movement had other ideas.

 

[fillyboy]

The authors envisaged a state for Jews and Palestinians, the Zionist movement had other ideas.

As did the Palestinians.

 

[JohnD]

As did the Palestinians.

? Why would anybody object to a bunch of foreigners deciding that more than half of their country should be given away to some other foreigners?

Not filly, I'm sure.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Israel declared statehood on 14th May 1948, 6 arab countries went to war with them the following day.
Whilst many Palestinans were driven out, nobody knows how many, maybe as much as 100,000 but Jordan persuaded huge numbers to go to Jordan until they were victorious in the war against Israel and it would be safe to return.

Sorry my explanation was not sufficiently precise.
Yes, resolution 181 (November 1947) granted a homeland for Jews, but not at the expense of the indigenous inhabitants:

The Plan also called for an economic union between the proposed states and for the protection of religious and minority rights.

Resolution 181.
Between November 1947 and may 1948 that resolution was trashed by the then Jews, when they embarked on the crusade of genocide, against the Palestinians who were the indigenous inhabitants, now recognised as the Nakba
And as you point out "Israel" declared Unilateral Independence in May 1948, which was not ever envisaged in the resolution 181. The resolution always called for economic union between the partitioned parts of Palestine.

So Israel trashed the resolution in the 6 months from November 1947 and May 1948, then again when they declared Unilateral Independence.

Agreed the Arab nations never accepted the authority of Resolution 181, but why should they, it was their land, not to be divided by some overarching authority created by mostly western nations, with their self interest foremost, i.e. Britain's desire for the support of Jews in WW1.

The Arab nations generally supported Britain in WW1, and they were promised a unified Arab territory, but Britain reneged on that promise.

Many Arabs supported Britain during World War I, particularly in the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire. This support was driven by promises of independence and support for a unified Arab state in exchange for their cooperation against the Ottomans.

In conclusion I believe that Resolution 181 was fundamentally flawed and has led us to this present position.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Lets not forget that an equal number chose to remain in Israel benefitting from Israeli citizenship and equal rights. Plenty of Palestinian Israeli Arabs fighting in the IDF.

Many Blacks in South Africa and USA became slave bosses.
Everyone has right to choose a side. it doesn't nullify any crimes against humanity because their choice is for their own selfish reasons.

 

[Odds]

Sorry my explanation was not sufficiently precise.
Yes, resolution 181 (November 1947) granted a homeland for Jews, but not at the expense of the indigenous inhabitants:

Resolution 181.
Between November 1947 and may 1948 that resolution was trashed by the then Jews, when they embarked on the crusade of genocide, against the Palestinians who were the indigenous inhabitants, now recognised as the Nakba
And as you point out "Israel" declared Unilateral Independence in May 1948, which was not ever envisaged in the resolution 181. The resolution always called for economic union between the partitioned parts of Palestine.

So Israel trashed the resolution in the 6 months from November 1947 and May 1948, then again when they declared Unilateral Independence.

Agreed the Arab nations never accepted the authority of Resolution 181, but why should they, it was their land, not to be divided by some overarching authority created by mostly western nations, with their self interest foremost, i.e. Britain's desire for the support of Jews in WW1.

The Arab nations generally supported Britain in WW1, and they were promised a unified Arab territory, but Britain reneged on that promise.



In conclusion I believe that Resolution 181 was fundamentally flawed and has led us to this present position.

T'is a well trod path but he needs reminding regularly.

 

[fillyboy]

Agreed the Arab nations never accepted the authority of Resolution 181, but why should they, it was their land, not to be divided by some overarching authority created by mostly western nations, with their self interest foremost, i.e. Britain's desire for the support of Jews in WW1.

Plenty of arabs have said not accepting UN resolution 181 was their biggest mistake, today a lot of arabs would accept a 2 state solution based on the 1967 borders, which is significantly less land than UN181 offered them.
And it wasn't their land, it was part of Turkey for over 400 years before UK took on a caretake role after WW1.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Plenty of arabs have said not accepting UN resolution 181 was their biggest mistake, today a lot of arabs would accept a 2 state solution based on the 1967 borders, which is significantly less land than UN181 offered them.

National and international policy are not formed by a minority comprising some individuals.
Otherwise Brexit would never have occurred.

And it wasn't their land, it was part of Turkey for over 400 years before UK took on a caretake role after WW1.

The countries occupied by Germany were not partitioned after WW2. They were returned to their rightful owners.
Palestine was partitioned, purley for the reason of rewarding Jews for their support in WW2, but at the expense of reneging on a similar promise that was made to the Arabs for their support during WW2.
So a promise of a unified state was made to Arabs for their support. No such promise was made to Jews for their support.
But the Jews were rewarded with more than half of Palestine, while the Arabs were, not only not rewarded, but were dispossessed of some of their ancestral land.

As I said, Resolution 181 was, IMO, fundamentally flawed and the end result is the conflict between Israel and Arabs.
It was an almighty UN cock up and requires a UN solution.

 

[fillyboy]

But the Jews were rewarded with more than half of Palestine, while the Arabs were, not only not rewarded, but were dispossessed of some of their ancestral land.

The land split was tilted slightly in the Jews favour, from what I've read the percentages allocated weren't solely based on numbers, but land ownership. The Jews had been buying land from Turkey for decades. The Arabs chose not to.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

The land split was tilted slightly in the Jews favour, from what I've read the percentages allocated weren't solely based on numbers, but land ownership. The Jews had been buying land from Turkey for decades. The Arabs chose not to.

It's important to note that the allocation of land was not solely based on ownership or demographics, but also on other factors like the potential for future economic development and the need to create viable states for both communities. The partition plan was a compromise, and its unequal land distribution was a source of significant controversy and ongoing conflict.

As I said the UN Resolution 181 was fundamentally flawed.
In addition the promise made to the Arabs was reneged, while no such promise made to Jews was enacted.

In addition, if for some inexplicable religious reason was made for partitioning London, would it be acceptable to award non-doms a major portion, and the indigenous population a smaller portion?

 

[Vinty]

The Jews had been buying land from Turkey for decades. The Arabs chose not to

The Zionist movement approached the Turkish government and offered to "regulate" the imperial finances of the empire in return for Palestine.
The Turks turned them down, they said that they didn't have the authority to sell Palestine.
Zionist Jews had been buying land in Palestine before WW1, they claimed it was for farming but when it became clear that it was in fact part of a colonisation project the practice was banned.
They then resorted to using Arab and Turkish middle men to buy the land for them.

 

[fillyboy]

Zionist Jews had been buying land in Palestine before WW1, they claimed it was for farming but when it became clear that it was in fact part of a colonisation project the practice was banned.
They then resorted to using Arab and Turkish middle men to buy the land for them.

And they farmed it?

Claimed it was for farming FFS.