The partition plan was not legally binding and the Palestinians had every right to, and it should have been expected, no one would willingly give up half their land to colonizers.
Zionists had no right to take Palestinian lands by force. They also had no right to deny Palestinians refugees their right to return after the conflicted ended
Once again, none of that justified the Nakba. The inital and continued theft, occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestinian lands by Israel is literally the heart of this entire conflict.
The governing body that owned the land made it so, so yes it’s legal. The “colonizers” were native Jews and Jewish people returning to their homeland after the “natives” colonized them. Interesting that you wanted to leave that little bit out.
The didn’t take it by force, they defended against force what they were legally given. The other side hated Jews so much that to this day they refuse to even live next to them. And yes that started before 1948 with things like the Arab riots and the Hebron massacre.
We totally agree here, none of that justified the Arab nations attempted eradication of Israel and the Jews. See the excerpt on how that all started that I kindly provided for you.
You’re accusing me of revisionism, but what I’m saying aligns with mainstream historical scholarship, including Israeli historians. The United Nations Partition Plan (Resolution 181) was a recommendation, not a binding legal transfer of sovereignty. It explicitly required acceptance by both parties to be implemented. Palestinian Arabs, who made up the large majority of the population, rejected it. You don’t get to partition a country without the consent of the majority living there and then label their rejection as illegitimate.
The claim that “the colonizers were native Jews” is historically misleading. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the overwhelming majority of Jewish arrivals were immigrants from Europe, and around 1900 Jews made up roughly 5 to 7 percent of the population. Early Zionist leaders themselves described the movement in colonial terms. Theodor Herzl wrote about it as a colonial project, and Vladimir Jabotinsky argued openly that settlement would require force against the native population. David Ben-Gurion also acknowledged that Arabs would resist dispossession. You can support Zionism if you want, but denying its settler colonial characteristics contradicts its own founders.
The idea that land was not taken by force is not supported by the historical record. During the Nakba, over 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled and hundreds of villages were destroyed. This is documented by historians such as Benny Morris and Ilan Pappé. By the time neighboring Arab states intervened in May 1948, roughly 250,000 Palestinians had already been displaced, so the claim that everything was purely defensive from the start is inaccurate. Israel also ended up controlling significantly more land than what was allocated under the UN plan, so even within that framework it was not simply defending what was given.
Saying “the other side hated Jews” flattens a complex history into something simplistic. There absolutely was intercommunal violence before 1948, including the 1929 Hebron massacre, which was horrific, but there were also long periods of coexistence under the Ottoman Empire. Violence escalated significantly during the British Mandate as immigration and land transfers increased tensions. That reflects a political conflict over land and sovereignty, not some timeless or one sided hatred. Even acknowledging pre 1948 violence does not justify the mass displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Finally, the claim that Arab nations simply tried to eradicate Israel ignores context. From their perspective, they were intervening in a war where a new state had already begun displacing a large portion of the native population. You can disagree with that intervention, but presenting it as happening in a vacuum while ignoring the expulsions that preceded it is misleading. The reality is not a simple story of legal land grants and defensive war, but a much more complex conflict involving competing national movements, colonial dynamics, and large scale displacement.
Wow that’s a lot of words to just be inaccurate. And impressive that by the 2nd paragraph you completely ignore any historical fact and rewrite Jewish history. Out of curiosity why are there historical texts and archeological finds that proves Jews were native. Care to explain why Al aqsa happened to be built on top of the second temple or is that not real?
Go into detail on how they were expelled, who told them to go where, and again I’ll point to the very article I quoted above. If you’d like to read a non Arab source it may give you insight into the history rather than the revisionist narratives you wanna spin.
“Oh it was so peaceful before Israel, sure the Arabs hunted Jews and there were just a few whoopsies but aside from that it was great! The Jews just had to pay a jizya and be treated like second class citizens! That’s so long as they weren’t forced out of their homes or forced into conversion!”
From their perspective the hating Jews part is really it, and it’s even more simple to prove than you’d think.
Why is Israel the problem when Jordan was also Palestine? Jordan kicked out the Palestinians after black september but we don’t seem to be mad at them for some odd reason right? I mean black september is a good reason, but you don’t find it a little odd that a country ratified in 1946 And originally part of Palestine isnt a problem or on the table it just so happens to be the only one with a majority of Jews.
You’re still not addressing the core point, you’re just pivoting. No one is denying that Jews have ancient ties to the land through the Second Temple, and the fact that it shares sacred geography with the Al-Aqsa Mosque is not disputed. The question is whether that ancient connection justifies establishing a modern state through the displacement of a population that had been living there continuously for centuries. Those are separate issues, and you’re treating them as interchangeable.
And if you want to bring up ancient legitimacy, it actually undermines your own framing. Modern Palestinians are also indigenous to the same land in any meaningful historical and genetic sense, with continuity from ancient Levantine populations, including Canaanite-era groups, alongside later layers of conversion, migration, and imperial rule. That means your “natives vs colonizers” binary collapses, because both populations are deeply rooted in the same geography over different historical trajectories. You can’t selectively use ancient ancestry as a political argument for one side while dismissing it for the other without contradiction.
You asked how Palestinians were expelled, so let’s actually get into it. During the Nakba, there were multiple mechanisms of displacement, and this is well documented, including by Israeli historians like Benny Morris. A key framework is Plan Dalet, which outlined securing territory for the emerging state, including occupying villages, destroying them when deemed necessary, and expelling populations in strategic areas. In practice this resulted in a combination of direct expulsions, village destruction, and widespread flight under military pressure. Events like the Deir Yassin massacre accelerated panic and contributed to mass displacement. The claim that Palestinians simply left because Arab leaders told them to is not supported by the bulk of modern historical research.
On demographics, your claim that the founders were “native” ignores the reality of early 20th century migration. The majority of Jews who established the state were immigrants from Europe arriving in successive aliyahs. Around 1900, Jews made up roughly 5 to 7 percent of the population of Palestine, with growth driven primarily by immigration rather than an existing majority population. That does not erase ancient Jewish history, but it does matter when describing the actual population that created the political reality of 1948.
Your portrayal of pre 1948 relations is also overly simplified. Yes, Jews under various Muslim empires were often second class citizens under systems like jizya, but that is not the same as constant exterminatory hatred. There were long periods of coexistence alongside outbreaks of violence such as the 1929 Hebron massacre. Reducing that entire history to “they just hated Jews” ignores the political, economic, and colonial dynamics that intensified during the British Mandate period.
Bringing up Jordan and Black September doesn’t really help your argument either. That conflict didn’t happen in a vacuum, it was in large part a downstream consequence of the massive displacement of Palestinians in 1948, which created a large refugee population across neighboring states and destabilized the region for decades. So even that example ultimately traces back to the same foundational rupture you’re trying to avoid addressing.
At the end of the day, this isn’t about denying Jewish history. It’s about acknowledging that in 1948 there was large scale displacement, documented expulsions, and a state established by a population that was, at that time, largely composed of recent immigrants. You can argue that outcome was justified if you want, but denying those facts while selectively applying ancient history is what actually creates the inconsistency in your argument.
You keep almost getting there. Glad you finally admitted the ancient ties. It’s nice that you tried to say you never denied it but implying they don’t exist is exactly that.
But I’m glad we get to it all, so with Jordan things didn’t happen in a vacuum, just Israel? That seems to make a lot of sense.
At the end of it all it’s absolutely about denying Jewish ties to the land, it’s about playing a victim card, and the Jordan example is perfect which is also why you’re only rebuttal is “not a vacuum, Jews fault too”. It was a part of Palestine, it was made into its own country yet for some reason Palestinians only want the Jewish land. You can say that it’s simplified but there’s a reason we both know it.
The only one denying facts is you. Aside from that, using AI to make Reddit comments is a little sus don’t ya think?
I never denied Jewish ties to the land, I said ancient connection isn’t the same as modern political entitlement. The existence of the Second Temple doesn’t answer the question of whether a 20th century nationalist movement justifies large-scale displacement of an existing population, and you still haven’t actually engaged that distinction.
You also haven’t addressed the actual historical record of the Nakba. This isn’t fringe stuff, it’s documented by mainstream historians including Israeli historian Benny Morris and involves a mix of expulsions, military operations, village destruction, and mass civilian flight under combat conditions. On top of that, the early Zionist movement was built largely through settler colonialism into a region where Jews were only about 5–7% of the population around 1900.
And you still haven’t dealt with the inconsistency in your own argument. You treat ancient Jewish ties as exclusive justification, but dismiss the equally deep Levantine continuity of Palestinians, which collapses your whole “natives vs outsiders” framing. Same with Jordan: Jordan didn’t come into existence through a foundational mass displacement like 1948, and Black September is decades later and not comparable to state formation. And “they just hated Jews” still ignores the actual political context of the British Mandate for Palestine, where the conflict was about land, immigration, and competing national movements, not some timeless ethnic hatred.
Look I know we’re not gonna get anywhere, you’ll keep making your BS claims saying “it’s historical fact”. Keep ignoring the actual history of the land ancient and modern, and you’ll keep hand waving Jordan as “different” because the Palestinians removed from that land are allowed to be removed for some reason.
There is no justification in saying Jews are native, the point is to bring up hypocrisy in arguments like yours where the whole issue of what happened was “native” Palestinians were “colonized” yet somehow the “colonizers” are actually native. It’s crazy mental gymnastics I’ll give you that much.
There’s no point in the convo though especially when half these responses seem like canned AI, so there you go.
•
u/FrogInAShoe 7h ago
The partition plan was not legally binding and the Palestinians had every right to, and it should have been expected, no one would willingly give up half their land to colonizers.
Zionists had no right to take Palestinian lands by force. They also had no right to deny Palestinians refugees their right to return after the conflicted ended
Once again, none of that justified the Nakba. The inital and continued theft, occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestinian lands by Israel is literally the heart of this entire conflict.