4 ms·

That is not true, the Arab countries decided to wage war in Israel after the UN proposed the two state solution. Herzl and many other founding figures in Zionis

by iddan 3y ago

That is not true, the Arab countries decided to wage war in Israel after the UN proposed the two state solution. Herzl and many other founding figures in Zionism called for peace and integration in the Middle East. Jewish people thought because they had no choice. Meanwhile in Europe Jews were massacred or if they were lucky bullied and harassed.

boringuser2 3y ago
Speaking of the UN, if we are to take them as the international organization with primary legitimacy on these affairs, let's do a quick check in: https://unwatch.org/un-general-assembly-condemns-israel-14-times-in-2023-rest-of-world-7/#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%2C%20December%2020%2C%202023,rest%20of%20the%20world%20combined https://unwatch.org/un-general-assembly-condemns-israel-14-t....
- iddan 3y ago
  What the hell does it have to do with the 1947 resolution??? And yeah the UN is full of countries that call for the inhalation of Israel today. They expect Israel to stay silent while its citizens are being slaughtered, kidnapped, raped and bombarded
leereeves 3y ago
Years before that, the Israelis waged war against the British. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_insurgency_in_Mandatory_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_insurgency_in_Mandatory...
- iddan 3y ago
  Mind you the Jewish helped the British to get to Palestine in the first place. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nili https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nili The British, like in many other colonies were bad rulers, and even so the majority of the Jewish population didn’t wage war on the Brits and waited patiently for the Mandate to be over
  - leereeves 3y ago
    Yeah, it was a complicated relationship. But that example seems to support the original statement that "Israel was never tenable without war." First against the Ottomans, then the British, then the Arabs.
  - wasimanitoba 3y ago
    - The British offered land that didn't belong to them because of colonialism - They offered land to Zionists to further their imperialist goals - The British enabled Jewish immigration to Palestine when it was clear that Zionists intended to take over the entire territory of Palestine - The local Arab population wasn't stupid and they understood that Zionism was an organized political program driven in large part by Jewish religious extremists to take away their home That only some Zionists resorted to terrorist bombing campaigns against the British is hardly "patiently waiting". They were only there because of the British and still waged war against them, mirroring Israel's refusal to heed US admonitions against illegal land grabs in the West Bank despite absolute dependence on American protection. It's a client state that feels it can write the rules, steal what it wants and bites the hand that feeds it.
    - vlovich123 3y ago
      > The British offered land that didn't belong to them because of colonialism I’m sorry, but the British mandate didn’t exist because of colonialism. It existed because it was at war with the Ottoman Empire during WWI and won territory. That is very different than colonialism even though it was a colonial power and that’s how it got its strength and military experience and might. The local Arab population hadn’t had sovereignty in many hundreds of years. > They offered land to Zionists to further their imperialist goals They offered the same land to both Zionists and local Arabs as a reward for helping overthrow the Ottoman Empire. Of course they kept it through the British Mandate cause the Brits are a crafty folk. As for actually honoring the agreement in 1948, a large part of legitimizing the state of Israel was because of what happened to Jews in WWII - atrocities no other people felt as deeply and the general populace was shocked into action when they learned what had been going on. Today’s Jewish population is still smaller than it was in 1939 for context. Half of all Jews worldwide are in Israel which I hope explains the emotional reaction of treating critiques and attacks on Israel as anti semitism (and of course that argument is weaponized for political purposes). > That only some Zionists resorted to terrorist bombing campaigns against the British is hardly "patiently waiting". By that line of reasoning, that only some Palestinians engage in terrorist attacks means that all Palestinians are guilty? For context, once the state of Israel was established the other groups were labeled terrorist organizations and were ordered to merge into the IDF. One group resisted and the IDF attacked it and defeated it. The same doesn’t seem to be happening with Hamas which despite being in power can barely even control other militant groups in the area. Is your suggestion to hand control over to Hamas? Cause you only have to look at what happened with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to understand what popular democracy looks like in the area (keep in mind Hamas was elected and then immediately abolished democracy).
AlecSchueler 3y ago
And why did the UN propose a 2 state solution?
- iddan 3y ago
  Because there was a formidable Jewish population in Israel before WW II and the horrors of the holocaust made the world understand the Jewish people must have their own country. On the other hand, the UN wanted to give the Palestinians (which were never an independent nation before) their own country.
  - wasimanitoba 3y ago
    You cannot give away some thing that doesn't belong to you. If I accept stolen property which I know to be ill-gotten, then I am as responsible as the thief. A Jewish state could've been established peacefully somewhere out in Utah instead (or joined the millions of American Jews prospering safely in their communities), but Palestinians had their land taken instead. Why? Racism, plain and simple. Like the Native Americans, the Palestinians were treated as mere savages who could be dispossessed without consequence.
    - throwaway8877 3y ago
      You also can't expect to receive something that doesn't belong to you. Arabs were not natives on the historical Jewish lands. The offer to give them just anything was more than generous.
      - AlecSchueler 3y ago
        What does "historical lands" mean? What's the cut off point on being able to claim the land your ancestors lived on?
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    They were never an independent nation? What does that mean? I'm taking that to mean that you think their not being officially recognized as a state makes outside decisions about what land was and wasn't there's more valid. But I would posit that the idea of statehood that this relies on is based on a Westphalian ideal that is in colonial in this case. The people of Palestine were a nation and they had land of their own. The lack of official recognition by western powers doesn't change that. Did "the world" agree that there was a need for a Jewish state? It seems that many people disagreed both then and now. Why did it have to be built where it was? Because there was a Jewish population there? What changed for the population of Jews to change from less than 5% to almost half within the preceding century?
wasimanitoba 3y ago
No group would or should have to tolerate a foreign state being established on their soil at gunpoint by colonial powers. > the Arab countries decided to wage war in Israel after the UN proposed the two state solution - That doesn't make sense. Israel didn't exist until it was established. - The Arabs didn't voluntarily leave their villages. - And during 1947, the Arabs ejected from the Arab side of the UN partition line did not leave because they wanted to give more land to Israel or because of the Arab League intervention a year later in 1948.....They left because of ethnic cleansing by Jewish religious extremists. > other founding figures in Zionism called for peace and integration in the Middle East. To the contrary, Israeli leadership wanted all of Palestine and the UN plan was treated as a stepping stone toward Greater Israel. The current Prime Minister of Israel Netanyahu also rejects a two state solution, insisting for decades that only Israeli sovereignty should be allowed between the Jordan River and the Sea.
- throwaway8877 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - zilti 3y ago
    [flagged]
- throwaway8877 3y ago
  [flagged]
- jsmith99 3y ago
  Colonial powers? Like the Ottomans? (The previous rulers)
- tptacek 3y ago
  The countries we're referring to were generally all established colonially, in many cases very close in time to the establishment of Israel.
- DSingularity 3y ago
  While Israel does have a present problem with religious extremists I take issue with the characterization of the Irgun, Haganah, Levi and other terrorist groups that conducted the ethnic cleansing as “religious extremists”. These were terrorist thugs. They had an objective and they naturally used violence to achieve it. Whatever “religious” views they may or may not have had are secondary. The ethnic cleansing of Palestine was conducted by violent terrorists who wanted to create a country that they dominated. We can discuss and debate whether their religious views follows from or causes the Zionist terrorism that has prevailed for the past century separately. It’s a valid discussion point but in the context of the ongoing genocide and ethnics cleansing all it does is muddy the waters for many people.
nicbou 3y ago
My understanding is that the Arabs opposed a minority population suddenly and aggressively taking over half of their land. This itself is a very simplified summary. I strongly recommend "Fear and loathing in New Jerusalem" for a long, nuanced explanation of what happened there. Starting at the UN proposition is ignoring a lot of critical context.
- throwaway8877 3y ago
  [flagged]
- dotancohen 3y ago
  Where do you recommend starting? I prefer starting at the Ottoman property laws, which were adopted by the British Mandate, by which the Jewish purchase of land was perfectly legal.
  - nicbou 3y ago
    I'd start at episode 1, since it covers this with far more nuance than "it's legal therefore it's okay".
    - dotancohen 3y ago
      Thank you, I'll read episode 1. Episode 1 of what? In the meantime, I would really appreciate a summary of why "it's legal therefore it's okay" is not a good answer. The Ottomans deliberately enacted liberal property laws to increase immigration, and thus tax collection, from the area. It was literally the stated goal of the government at the time.
      - nicbou 3y ago
        Episode one of the aforementioned podcast? One answer to this point in particular is that this wholesale liquidation of the land was made by rich landowners living far away, and cannot be treated as the Palestinians selling their own land away. The people actually living on the land had no say in this.
marcosdumay 3y ago
There were wars fought on that region with the intent of exiling the Jews there since at least the 19th century. Neither them nor the Muslims got any saying on the matter. But all the discussion about who started it only serves to make it less likely that the situation will be resolved. (Or maybe we should punish the Ottoman Empire.)
jdksmdbtbdnmsm 3y ago
This is almost entirely just plain false.

by iddan 3y ago

boringuser2 3y ago

Speaking of the UN, if we are to take them as the international organization with primary legitimacy on these affairs, let's do a quick check in: https://unwatch.org/un-general-assembly-condemns-israel-14-times-in-2023-rest-of-world-7/#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%2C%20December%2020%2C%202023,rest%20of%20the%20world%20combined https://unwatch.org/un-general-assembly-condemns-israel-14-t....

iddan 3y ago
What the hell does it have to do with the 1947 resolution??? And yeah the UN is full of countries that call for the inhalation of Israel today. They expect Israel to stay silent while its citizens are being slaughtered, kidnapped, raped and bombarded

leereeves 3y ago

Years before that, the Israelis waged war against the British. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_insurgency_in_Mandatory_Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_insurgency_in_Mandatory...

iddan 3y ago
Mind you the Jewish helped the British to get to Palestine in the first place. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nili https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nili The British, like in many other colonies were bad rulers, and even so the majority of the Jewish population didn’t wage war on the Brits and waited patiently for the Mandate to be over
- leereeves 3y ago
  Yeah, it was a complicated relationship. But that example seems to support the original statement that "Israel was never tenable without war." First against the Ottomans, then the British, then the Arabs.
- wasimanitoba 3y ago
  - The British offered land that didn't belong to them because of colonialism - They offered land to Zionists to further their imperialist goals - The British enabled Jewish immigration to Palestine when it was clear that Zionists intended to take over the entire territory of Palestine - The local Arab population wasn't stupid and they understood that Zionism was an organized political program driven in large part by Jewish religious extremists to take away their home That only some Zionists resorted to terrorist bombing campaigns against the British is hardly "patiently waiting". They were only there because of the British and still waged war against them, mirroring Israel's refusal to heed US admonitions against illegal land grabs in the West Bank despite absolute dependence on American protection. It's a client state that feels it can write the rules, steal what it wants and bites the hand that feeds it.
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    > The British offered land that didn't belong to them because of colonialism I’m sorry, but the British mandate didn’t exist because of colonialism. It existed because it was at war with the Ottoman Empire during WWI and won territory. That is very different than colonialism even though it was a colonial power and that’s how it got its strength and military experience and might. The local Arab population hadn’t had sovereignty in many hundreds of years. > They offered land to Zionists to further their imperialist goals They offered the same land to both Zionists and local Arabs as a reward for helping overthrow the Ottoman Empire. Of course they kept it through the British Mandate cause the Brits are a crafty folk. As for actually honoring the agreement in 1948, a large part of legitimizing the state of Israel was because of what happened to Jews in WWII - atrocities no other people felt as deeply and the general populace was shocked into action when they learned what had been going on. Today’s Jewish population is still smaller than it was in 1939 for context. Half of all Jews worldwide are in Israel which I hope explains the emotional reaction of treating critiques and attacks on Israel as anti semitism (and of course that argument is weaponized for political purposes). > That only some Zionists resorted to terrorist bombing campaigns against the British is hardly "patiently waiting". By that line of reasoning, that only some Palestinians engage in terrorist attacks means that all Palestinians are guilty? For context, once the state of Israel was established the other groups were labeled terrorist organizations and were ordered to merge into the IDF. One group resisted and the IDF attacked it and defeated it. The same doesn’t seem to be happening with Hamas which despite being in power can barely even control other militant groups in the area. Is your suggestion to hand control over to Hamas? Cause you only have to look at what happened with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to understand what popular democracy looks like in the area (keep in mind Hamas was elected and then immediately abolished democracy).

AlecSchueler 3y ago

And why did the UN propose a 2 state solution?

iddan 3y ago
Because there was a formidable Jewish population in Israel before WW II and the horrors of the holocaust made the world understand the Jewish people must have their own country. On the other hand, the UN wanted to give the Palestinians (which were never an independent nation before) their own country.
- wasimanitoba 3y ago
  You cannot give away some thing that doesn't belong to you. If I accept stolen property which I know to be ill-gotten, then I am as responsible as the thief. A Jewish state could've been established peacefully somewhere out in Utah instead (or joined the millions of American Jews prospering safely in their communities), but Palestinians had their land taken instead. Why? Racism, plain and simple. Like the Native Americans, the Palestinians were treated as mere savages who could be dispossessed without consequence.
  - throwaway8877 3y ago
    You also can't expect to receive something that doesn't belong to you. Arabs were not natives on the historical Jewish lands. The offer to give them just anything was more than generous.
    - AlecSchueler 3y ago
      What does "historical lands" mean? What's the cut off point on being able to claim the land your ancestors lived on?
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  They were never an independent nation? What does that mean? I'm taking that to mean that you think their not being officially recognized as a state makes outside decisions about what land was and wasn't there's more valid. But I would posit that the idea of statehood that this relies on is based on a Westphalian ideal that is in colonial in this case. The people of Palestine were a nation and they had land of their own. The lack of official recognition by western powers doesn't change that. Did "the world" agree that there was a need for a Jewish state? It seems that many people disagreed both then and now. Why did it have to be built where it was? Because there was a Jewish population there? What changed for the population of Jews to change from less than 5% to almost half within the preceding century?

wasimanitoba 3y ago

No group would or should have to tolerate a foreign state being established on their soil at gunpoint by colonial powers. > the Arab countries decided to wage war in Israel after the UN proposed the two state solution - That doesn't make sense. Israel didn't exist until it was established. - The Arabs didn't voluntarily leave their villages. - And during 1947, the Arabs ejected from the Arab side of the UN partition line did not leave because they wanted to give more land to Israel or because of the Arab League intervention a year later in 1948.....They left because of ethnic cleansing by Jewish religious extremists. > other founding figures in Zionism called for peace and integration in the Middle East. To the contrary, Israeli leadership wanted all of Palestine and the UN plan was treated as a stepping stone toward Greater Israel. The current Prime Minister of Israel Netanyahu also rejects a two state solution, insisting for decades that only Israeli sovereignty should be allowed between the Jordan River and the Sea.

throwaway8877 3y ago
[flagged]
- zilti 3y ago
  [flagged]
throwaway8877 3y ago
[flagged]
jsmith99 3y ago
Colonial powers? Like the Ottomans? (The previous rulers)
tptacek 3y ago
The countries we're referring to were generally all established colonially, in many cases very close in time to the establishment of Israel.
DSingularity 3y ago
While Israel does have a present problem with religious extremists I take issue with the characterization of the Irgun, Haganah, Levi and other terrorist groups that conducted the ethnic cleansing as “religious extremists”. These were terrorist thugs. They had an objective and they naturally used violence to achieve it. Whatever “religious” views they may or may not have had are secondary. The ethnic cleansing of Palestine was conducted by violent terrorists who wanted to create a country that they dominated. We can discuss and debate whether their religious views follows from or causes the Zionist terrorism that has prevailed for the past century separately. It’s a valid discussion point but in the context of the ongoing genocide and ethnics cleansing all it does is muddy the waters for many people.

nicbou 3y ago

My understanding is that the Arabs opposed a minority population suddenly and aggressively taking over half of their land. This itself is a very simplified summary. I strongly recommend "Fear and loathing in New Jerusalem" for a long, nuanced explanation of what happened there. Starting at the UN proposition is ignoring a lot of critical context.

throwaway8877 3y ago
[flagged]
dotancohen 3y ago
Where do you recommend starting? I prefer starting at the Ottoman property laws, which were adopted by the British Mandate, by which the Jewish purchase of land was perfectly legal.
- nicbou 3y ago
  I'd start at episode 1, since it covers this with far more nuance than "it's legal therefore it's okay".
  - dotancohen 3y ago
    Thank you, I'll read episode 1. Episode 1 of what? In the meantime, I would really appreciate a summary of why "it's legal therefore it's okay" is not a good answer. The Ottomans deliberately enacted liberal property laws to increase immigration, and thus tax collection, from the area. It was literally the stated goal of the government at the time.
    - nicbou 3y ago
      Episode one of the aforementioned podcast? One answer to this point in particular is that this wholesale liquidation of the land was made by rich landowners living far away, and cannot be treated as the Palestinians selling their own land away. The people actually living on the land had no say in this.

marcosdumay 3y ago

There were wars fought on that region with the intent of exiling the Jews there since at least the 19th century. Neither them nor the Muslims got any saying on the matter. But all the discussion about who started it only serves to make it less likely that the situation will be resolved. (Or maybe we should punish the Ottoman Empire.)

jdksmdbtbdnmsm 3y ago

This is almost entirely just plain false.