International [Arab-Israeli Conflict, v4] Israel Sets Goal of Doubling the Jewish Population on the Golan Heights

This is true, ancient religious claims should really hold no claim to land in the modern world. The fact of the matter is that the British that won the land from the Ottomans supported a Jewish national home in Palestine with the Balfour Deceleration. Jews purchased land from 1918-1948 and the British passed the mandate to the UN which created Resolution 181. The 2 state solution passed with 33 votes in favor, 13 against, and 10 abstentions. The Arab rejection of the UN resolution and subsequent military attack is what caused most of the Arab land loss. This is what they could have had:

3355-004-FDFC2ECD.jpg

The british never had a right to sell the land in the first place. Their occupation of palestine was also illegitimate. The jews themselves bombed them.
 
Honestly even the original partition plan was bullshit. Look at that fucking map, does that look like a sustainable map to you? And besides, it awarded more than half the land to the Jews despite the fact that they were less than a third of the population of the mandate at the time. That's horseshit.

Well how much did they own? They purchased a lot of land and I honestly do not know how the UN came up with this partition. What was the Arab's counter offer before rejecting and attacking?
 
Last edited:
The british never had a right to sell the land in the first place. Their occupation of palestine was also illegitimate. The jews themselves bombed them.

Didn't they win the land from the Turks in WW1, who won the land from the Mamlukes, who won the land from the Crusaders, who won it from the Umayyad, who won it from the Byzantines, who absorbed it from the Romans that renamed it from Judea, who won it from the Persians, who won it from the Babylonians, who won it from the Israelites, who won it from the Cananites?
 
Well how much did they own? They purchased a lot of land and I honestly do not know how the UN came up with this partition. What was the Arab's counter offer before rejecting and attacking?
They did not own all that land I think.

The Arabs didn't just attack them for declaring independence, they attacked them because the Israelis were ethnically cleansing the native Palestinians. No counter offer to be made when the other side is expelling hundreds of thousands of people
Didn't they win the land from the Turks in WW1, who won the land from the Mamlukes, who won the land from the Crusaders, who won it from the Umayyad, who won it from the Byzantines, who absorbed it from the Romans that renamed it from Judea, who won it from the Persians, who won it from the Babylonians, who won it from the Israelites, who won it from the Cananites?
They didn't just "own it", it was supposed to be their Mandate which they were supposed to govern temporarily with the ultimate goal being the self-governance of the people there. Instead they ended up sowing the seeds of one of the longest active conflicts in the world.
 
They did not own all that land I think.

The Arabs didn't just attack them for declaring independence, they attacked them because the Israelis were ethnically cleansing the native Palestinians. No counter offer to be made when the other side is expelling hundreds of thousands of people

And why not? Like today a UN ceasefire could have been called and further negotiations taken place. The partition plan was ratified in Nov 1947, before the hostilities began. The Arab League could have fashioned their own proposal during the UN talks.

They didn't just "own it", it was supposed to be their Mandate which they were supposed to govern temporarily with the ultimate goal being the self-governance of the people there. Instead they ended up sowing the seeds of one of the longest active conflicts in the world.

I agree that they didn't want the issue on their plate after WW2, that's why they passed it over to the UN.
 
And why not? Like today a UN ceasefire could have been called and further negotiations taken place. The partition plan was ratified in Nov 1947, before the hostilities began. The Arab League could have fashioned their own proposal during the UN talks.
Because people were being ethnically cleansed, kind of want to act quickly when that happens
I agree that they didn't want the issue on their plate after WW2, that's why they passed it over to the UN.
They mismanaged it from the beginning.
 
Because people were being ethnically cleansed, kind of want to act quickly when that happens

They were not being ethnically cleansed before the mandate, why didn't the Arabs propose their plan immediately after or even during the UN talks. The Arab League should have made it their immediate mission after 1945.

They mismanaged it from the beginning.

Agreed.
 
They were not being ethnically cleansed before the mandate, why didn't the Arabs propose their plan immediately after or even during the UN talks. The Arab League should have made it their immediate mission after 1945.
The Palestinians were being ethnically cleansed before the attack by the Arab neighbors. Even before the Zionists were displacing large numbers of Palestinians which led to the Arab revolt in 1936-1939.
 
The Palestinians were being ethnically cleansed before the attack by the Arab neighbors. Even before the Zionists were displacing large numbers of Palestinians which led to the Arab revolt in 1936-1939.

Yet they waited to 1948 to attack? Why not put your plan in before the multi nation attack on Israel?
 
Yet they waited to 1948 to attack?Why not put your plan in before the multi nation attack on Israel?
Have you read what I wrote? The Zionists were ethnically cleansing the Palestinians, you expect the Arabs to just draw up some plan and present it to the UN while hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are being expelled?
 
Have you read what I wrote? The Zionists were ethnically cleansing the Palestinians, you expect the Arabs to just draw up some plan and present it to the UN while hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are being expelled?

Of course I read what you wrote, but let's be honest here, they were attacking each other but the Jews escalated the attacks in 1948 which led to the Nakba. They had time up until and during the partition plan in 1947 to draft up a counter to Resolution 181.
 
Of course I read what you wrote, but let's be honest here, they were attacking each other but the Jews escalated the attacks in 1948 which led to the Nakba. They had time up until and during the partition plan in 1947 to draft up a counter to Resolution 181.
There was a year and the fact is the UN, meaning the world powers, were behind the original partition plan meaning its an uphill contest to try and go through the international institutions which were overwhelmingly biased in favor of the powers. You're essentially blaming the Arabs for not responding to the ethnic cleansing of their neighbors ideally instead of the Zionists doing the ethnic cleansing.
 
There was a year and the fact is the UN, meaning the world powers, were behind the original partition plan meaning its an uphill contest to try and go through the international institutions which were overwhelmingly biased in favor of the powers. You're essentially blaming the Arabs for not responding to the ethnic cleansing of their neighbors ideally instead of the Zionists doing the ethnic cleansing.

What I saw were both parties attacking each other, but the Israelis escalating violence. I give them the blame for the escalation definitely but do not give the Arabs a free pass because they were attacking the Israelis viciously as well. Do you place no blame at all on the Arabs for their attacks?

Also do you really believe that the Arab states reason for attack was as simplistic as stopping the ethnic cleansing or do you believe they could have had other more selfish reasons as well.
 
What I saw were both parties attacking each other, but the Israelis escalating violence. I give them the blame for the escalation definitely but do not give the Arabs a free pass because they were attacking the Israelis viciously as well. Do you place no blame at all on the Arabs for their attacks?
This is some "all sides" BS. One side escalated it to the point of expelling 70x the number the other side did. They can't hide behind "all sides" when they were actively ethnically cleansing the Palestinians who they easily defeated militarily.

Of course everyone who engages in violence takes some blame but in the Palestine civil war the violence was overwhelming one sided. Under this logic Armenians also deserve blame in their "conflict" with the Turks.
Also do you really believe that the Arab states reason for attack was as simplistic as stopping the ethnic cleansing or do you believe they could have had other more selfish reasons as well.
I've said before ITT, or maybe the other one, that they did and that it was partly why they lost in the end. But that doesn't change the fact that the ostensible trigger was the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
 
This is some "all sides" BS. One side escalated it to the point of expelling 70x the number the other side did. They can't hide behind "all sides" when they were actively ethnically cleansing the Palestinians who they easily defeated militarily.

Of course everyone who engages in violence takes some blame but in the Palestine civil war the violence was overwhelming one sided. Under this logic Armenians also deserve blame in their "conflict" with the Turks.

I am comparing this list, I haven't counted each up but I'm willing to bet that it isn't even close to the scale of the Turkish-Armenian genocide. For you to compare the two is a little hyperbolic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine

I've said before ITT, or maybe the other one, that they did and that it was partly why they lost in the end. But that doesn't change the fact that the ostensible trigger was the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

Trigger-Excuse, I'll agree with that. The Arab states ultimately did not want a 2 state solution and they saw this as their opportunity to squash the Jews and carve up Palestine for themselves. That is why they never tried to negotiate the UN Resolution, they were bound and determined to have the entire region Arab dominated and could not tolerate even a small Jewish state.
 
I am comparing this list, I haven't counted each up but I'm willing to bet that it isn't even close to the scale of the Turkish-Armenian genocide. For you to compare the two is a little hyperbolic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine
I didn't compare them in scale, I'm comparing them because the Turks use the same sort of "all sides" BS you are using here to down play the ethnic cleansing of the Armenians.
Trigger-Excuse, I'll agree with that. The Arab states ultimately did not want a 2 state solution and they saw this as their opportunity to squash the Jews and carve up Palestine for themselves. That is why they never tried to negotiate the UN Resolution, they were bound and determined to have the entire region Arab dominated and could not tolerate even a small Jewish state.
And honestly I don't think the Arabs had any moral reason to have to tolerate a Jewish state. They were supposed to be leaving colonialism behind and here you have European powers trying to carve out a state for foreigners at the expense of Arabs. It was BS. Its all in the pat now and Israel is not going anywhere so the Arabs can and should move on but let's not pretend it wasn't an injustice done to the Palestinians
 
I didn't compare them in scale, I'm comparing them because the Turks use the same sort of "all sides" BS you are using here to down play the ethnic cleansing of the Armenians.

I believe every situation or conflict has to be examined from both sides (even ones as extreme as the holocaust) and then weighed upon, everyone is granted due process.

- The conflicts in the Palestinian Mandate looked to be proportional.
- The casualties looked proportional to the population but much more Arabs displaced in the Civil War.
- 1948 Arab-Israel war. 6,373 killed (about 4,000 troops and 2,400 civilians) -Israeli, Between 12,000 and 20,000 (troops and civilians)among which 4,000 soldiers for Egypt, Jordan and Syria with much more Arabs displaced

Now really, you don't think both sides casualties and attacks deserve a mention?

And honestly I don't think the Arabs had any moral reason to have to tolerate a Jewish state. They were supposed to be leaving colonialism behind and here you have European powers trying to carve out a state for foreigners at the expense of Arabs. It was BS. Its all in the pat now and Israel is not going anywhere so the Arabs can and should move on but let's not pretend it wasn't an injustice done to the Palestinians

However small it was there was always a Jewish presence in Judea/Palestine and by 1948 they had purchased enough land to have a claim on at least a part of a currently stateless region. The Arabs could not tolerate even a sliver of "Muslim" lands being controlled by the Jews so they went to war. This seems a lot more obvious then "They didn't have time for a counter agreement cause they were getting ethnically cleansed". Also when you talk about a raw deal for the Palestinians, the Arabs couldn't even from 1948-1967 form a state for the Palestinians when they had control of the West Bank and Gaza. Do you know why they didn't even try?
 
Last edited:
I didn't compare them in scale, I'm comparing them because the Turks use the same sort of "all sides" BS you are using here to down play the ethnic cleansing of the Armenians.

And honestly I don't think the Arabs had any moral reason to have to tolerate a Jewish state. They were supposed to be leaving colonialism behind and here you have European powers trying to carve out a state for foreigners at the expense of Arabs. It was BS. Its all in the pat now and Israel is not going anywhere so the Arabs can and should move on but let's not pretend it wasn't an injustice done to the Palestinians
Guess they were on the wrong side of too many wars in a row huh? Starting at ww2 (earlier really) and just kept losing. Probably should have made peace at some point and not wait until the6th or 7th loss to complain about your lot huh
 
Of course I read what you wrote, but let's be honest here, they were attacking each other but the Jews escalated the attacks in 1948 which led to the Nakba. They had time up until and during the partition plan in 1947 to draft up a counter to Resolution 181.

the arabs escalated it. They always did.

yes some jews did violate the British mandate. The original british plan was for an arab sunni palestinian ethno state in Jordan and a jewish homeland for jews in what is today Israel. However the jewish homeland for jews in Israel meant the jews had to share with the muslims but it was the defacto jewish state. THe muslims broke that by attacking the jews in 1948 and ever since then launching genocidal wars and terrorist attacks. They could of had a state in west bank when jordan controlled it for 20 years but they not did instead like we all know they wanted all israel and jews gone
 
Guess they were on the wrong side of too many wars in a row huh? Starting at ww2 (earlier really) and just kept losing. Probably should have made peace at some point and not wait until the6th or 7th loss to complain about your lot huh
Some did make peace along the way. In fact much of the Arab world(Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan etc) have aligned with Israel as a counterweight to the Persians.

But yeah its been imperfect to say the least.
 
Back
Top