[pugsville]

So now the mere presence of the Jews in the region is itself inequality. Thank you of making that stuff clear.

And no, the Zionists' objectives would have been fulfilled had the Palestinian leaders accepted the bipartition of the Mandate, which in any event would have been rather convenient for them and much better than what they have now. And, since you claim to care about equality so much, it would have been way more equitable than living as second-class citizens in an Arab state - because, as we know, non-Arab citizens were treated as second-class citizens in each and every Arab state at the time, from Levantine Kurds and Assyrians to Berbers in the Maghreb.

Also, if the Mandate favored the Zionists so much, please explain why didn't the British protect the Jewish population of Hebron and Safed in 1929 and why didn't they restore ownership of Hebron's Jews' properties after they were ethnically cleansed from the city.

The Mere presence of foreign invaders determined to dispossess the Native population by force WAS in itself inequality. The Zionists were foreigners it was not a movement by Jews living in Palestine but of foreign European Jews.

The Zionists movement wanted to remove the local native population , 'transfer' in Europe even before it was certain where they were going to establish their state they were clear that the large scale removal of the native population of where ever was a good idea. Refuse them employment, refuse to sell them land. Zionism was hostile to whatever native population it chose to dispossess. The Zionists in Palestine wanted to suppress ant native political rights, and if possible remove them.

The British Mandate as long as it was forcing the Emigration of Jews against the will of the local native population was favouring them. It was helping to build them up. Foreign immigrants arriving with the intent to set up their own state , that they would run the region, and if possible force out the local native population. British bayonets enable the Zionists to grow in strength. The British allowed the Zionists to organise but not the Palestinians. When it came to revolt against British policies, the Zionists were treated carefully, the Palestinians were treated Brutal, collective Punishment. The Palestinians were disarmed, the Zionists Armed. In the economic life of the Mandate the Zionits successfully lobbied that when employed by the Mandate Jews would be paid more than Arabs even when doing the same work. The Zionsits were favoured with all government concessions, the concrete concession, the power concessions, the development of waste regions ( the Zionists claim that they made the desert bloom, well there were competing bids for the Government concession audit was just allocated to the Zionists).

Right down the line the overall impact of the British Mandate is examined it is massively favourable the Zionist settlers. It enabled them to arrive in large numbers (not in the numbers the settlers wanted and for that the British were murdered) The Zionists were allowed to organise, they got greater political rights, they were paid better when employed by the mandate and the mandate was required to employ them in favourable numbers too, their business were supported by tariff protections, business concessions granted favourably by the Mandate as well. When there was revolt the Palestinians were punished brutally collectively innocent and guilty. Many more Palestinians were executed than Zionists, mere possession of arms could be a capital crime for a Palestinians/, not for Zionists. The British Mandate heavily favoured the Zionists and made possible the state of Israel.

[wat0n]

The Mere presence of foreign invaders determined to dispossess the Native population by force WAS in itself inequality. The Zionists were foreigners it was not a movement by Jews living in Palestine but of foreign European Jews.

No, it did not. The movement's strategy was to simply buy the land from its owners, as it in fact did by paying prices way above the market rate (especially in the early years).

But even leaving this aside, many of those Jews who migrated there were trying to escape persecution in their home countries, which is hardly a crime.

The Zionists movement wanted to remove the local native population , 'transfer' in Europe even before it was certain where they were going to establish their state they were clear that the large scale removal of the native population of where ever was a good idea. Refuse them employment, refuse to sell them land. Zionism was hostile to whatever native population it chose to dispossess. The Zionists in Palestine wanted to suppress ant native political rights, and if possible remove them.

Dispossess people by buying their property from them and paying above the market price? Oh, the horror!

The British Mandate as long as it was forcing the Emigration of Jews against the will of the local native population was favouring them. It was helping to build them up.

So it favored them when the British refused to protect them while they were being dispossessed and ethnically cleansed from Hebron in 1929?

Foreign immigrants arriving with the intent to set up their own state , that they would run the region, and if possible force out the local native population.

Is that why people like Shertok were surprised when the Palestinian exodus began?

British bayonets enable the Zionists to grow in strength. The British allowed the Zionists to organise but not the Palestinians.

Is that why they named al-Husseini as the Mufti and did not outlaw the Arab Higher Committee until it decided to resume the revolt against the British after the Peel Commission issued its recommendations in the same way the Irgun was banned after it started to launch deliberate attacks against Arab civilians?

The Jewish Agency, and by extension the Haganah, was way smarter and had a more cooperative stance with the British on these matters, to the point of launching a joint anti-Irgun operation with the British authorities in 1944 (the Saison)

When it came to revolt against British policies, the Zionists were treated carefully, the Palestinians were treated Brutal, collective Punishment. The Palestinians were disarmed, the Zionists Armed.

Nonsense, the British launched campaigns against the Irgun and other revisionist armed groups as well. Indeed, it got to a point that they made illegally carrying weapons a capital offense in the late '30s.

In the economic life of the Mandate the Zionits successfully lobbied that when employed by the Mandate Jews would be paid more than Arabs even when doing the same work. The Zionsits were favoured with all government concessions, the concrete concession, the power concessions, the development of waste regions ( the Zionists claim that they made the desert bloom, well there were competing bids for the Government concession audit was just allocated to the Zionists).

Please provide a detailed list of these concessions and show that non-Zionists outbid the Zionist groups.

Right down the line the overall impact of the British Mandate is examined it is massively favourable the Zionist settlers. It enabled them to arrive in large numbers (not in the numbers the settlers wanted and for that the British were murdered) The Zionists were allowed to organise, they got greater political rights, they were paid better when employed by the mandate and the mandate was required to employ them in favourable numbers too, their business were supported by tariff protections, business concessions granted favourably by the Mandate as well. When there was revolt the Palestinians were punished brutally collectively innocent and guilty. Many more Palestinians were executed than Zionists, mere possession of arms could be a capital crime for a Palestinians/, not for Zionists. The British Mandate heavily favoured the Zionists and made possible the state of Israel.

This is outright false, the British applied capital punishment for carrying arms on everyone to the point that all Zionist armed groups decided to halt operations for 6 months shortly after those regulations were issued on 1938. Then both the Haganah and the Irgun decided to unilaterally cease operations against the British because of WWII - indeed, Lehi itself was founded because they preferred the Nazis over the British and split from Irgun to keep fighting the latter.

If more Arabs were killed in the revolt, it was simply because there were more Arabs than Jews, and because the Jews generally refused to fight the British. Indeed, those who did (namely, Irgun and Lehi members) were ostracized by the wider Jewish community and, as I said, the official organs (namely, the Jewish Agency) even cooperated with the British to the extent of launching joint anti-Irgun operations with them during the Saison on 1944.

[Tailz]

But even leaving this aside, many of those Jews who migrated there were trying to escape persecution in their home countries, which is hardly a crime.

This is very true, many European Jews fled persecution in Europe by immigrating to Palestine. The largest influx of Zionist immigrants were European Jews fleeing persecution or were survivors of persecution. But does that then, justify their own discrimination in Palestine to build an ethno-religious mono state in an area that already had a multi-ethnic multi-religious population? I do not agree. This does not diminish the initial crime committed against them, but that crime should not be used as justification to engage in discrimination. As it sadly has been. The cry of "Never again!" has at times been twisted into justification for revenge upon a population that are in essence defending their homes from those very refugees of European persecution (it has even turned up as slogans spray painted on the walls of Palestinian homes during "Price Tag" terrorist attacks by Jewish Settlers). We even saw how the refugees themselves became pawns of the Zionists who lobbied the British and American governments in fear that increases to immigration levies during the second world war would decrease the number of Jews leaving Europe for Palestine.

Just because they (European Jews) were mistreated somewhere else, does not grant them a special privilege to engage in discriminatory practices elsewhere.

To be even more simple, one crime does not justify another crime.

To put this into today's terms, imagine if all of those Syrian refugees entering Europe today, demanded a Syrian exile state in France? Governed by Syrians, with political and governmental authority the preserve of ethnic Syrians alone with the local french as permanent politically dis-empowered residents. That is what Israel is. Israel is the result of the mass influx of refugee who setup a homeland to be governed purely by those refugees at the expense of the local population: who were merely, in the way.

It is sad to see the holocaust used as justification by the descendants of the holocaust to take another peoples homes.

[wat0n]

This is very true, many European Jews fled persecution in Europe by immigrating to Palestine. The largest influx of Zionist immigrants were European Jews fleeing persecution or were survivors of persecution. But does that then, justify their own discrimination in Palestine to build an ethno-religious mono state in an area that already had a multi-ethnic multi-religious population? I do not agree. This does not diminish the initial crime committed against them, but that crime should not be used as justification to engage in discrimination. As it sadly has been. The cry of "Never again!" has at times been twisted into justification for revenge upon a population that are in essence defending their homes from those very refugees of European persecution (it has even turned up as slogans spray painted on the walls of Palestinian homes during "Price Tag" terrorist attacks by Jewish Settlers). We even saw how the refugees themselves became pawns of the Zionists who lobbied the British and American governments in fear that increases to immigration levies during the second world war would decrease the number of Jews leaving Europe for Palestine.

Just because they (European Jews) were mistreated somewhere else, does not grant them a special privilege to engage in discriminatory practices elsewhere.

To be even more simple, one crime does not justify another crime.

To put this into today's terms, imagine if all of those Syrian refugees entering Europe today, demanded a Syrian exile state in France? Governed by Syrians, with political and governmental authority the preserve of ethnic Syrians alone with the local french as permanent politically dis-empowered residents. That is what Israel is. Israel is the result of the mass influx of refugee who setup a homeland to be governed purely by those refugees at the expense of the local population: who were merely, in the way.

It is sad to see the holocaust used as justification by the descendants of the holocaust to take another peoples homes.

Again with this silly theme. Israel accepted the bipartition, which addresses this concern.

It is the Arabs who, rightfully or not, rejected the idea of dividing the land in the moment it mattered the most.

As such, your analogy with regards to Syrian refugees is not really valid.

[Rich]

Again with this silly theme. Israel accepted the bipartition, which addresses this concern.

The UN partition plan was a joke. It displayed a power of Zionists over America and the world that can only be described as frightening. Even President Truman felt powerless to resist extortionate Zionist demands. The partition plan was adopted because of Zionists stranglehold over the American political system and the support of Joseph Stalin. Between them America and Stalin had immense leverage over the UN. The Soviet Union didn't really switch sides till after Stalin had died.

But don't think the Zionist trick hasn't been spotted of always making such outrageous demands that the West can never completely full fill them. Allowing Zionists not just to avoid ever expressing the slightest gratitude for all that the West have done for Israel, but to complain about latent anti Semitism. What ever the West does for Israel they will always ask for more so as they can say :"Us we have no influence."

[wat0n]

If the partition plan had not been adopted, the Zionists would have likely rebelled as soon as the British left, just like Arab states invaded as soon as this occurred. It doesn't seem to matter all that much in practice.

[layman]

Oh come on layman, you guys did so for your own convenience. Indeed, when the Arabs were stupid enough to attack your forces you started to actually repress them, without doing anything when they attacked Jews before the revolt - as far as the Zionists are concerned, you guys didn't really care about the Jews all that much.

Horseshit.

Jews wouldn’t have a country if it wasn’t for us. And other nations.

They are so arrogant though that they like to claim they did it all by them selves – with a little help from god for the religious ones

Ungrateful wretches …

you guys did so for your own convenience

Not entirely. Besides, So what?

[wat0n]

So what? So maybe you guys should stop pretending you acted out of some moral imperative as opposed to simply realpolitik?

If Israel arose it was a byproduct (and it's not even clear if it was a desired one), rather than as a goal of British policy. Indeed, one can't help but note that the UK simply stopped exercising its own obligations under the Mandate Charter as soon as the bipartition resolution was passed, without even waiting to terminate the Mandate before doing so. Maybe if they hadn't done so, the war might have been stopped.

[Zionist Nationalist]

The Soviet Union was the one who actually helped Israel more than anyne else in 1948 by supplying weapons and voting in favor of establishment of Israel

Brits did nothing just stood there and watched how Arabs and Jews kill each other

We have nothing to thank you for

[Rich]

For some reason I always find ZN's nationalism endearing, as opposed to many Zionists whose claims to innocent victimhood I find irritating. I guess ZN doesn't pretend to be anything he's not.

[Tailz]

Again with this silly theme. Israel accepted the bipartition, which addresses this concern.

The early Zionists accepted anything that come their way, and always grumbled it was not good enough or it was not big enough. But let us be honest, both sides wanted all of Palestine. The Zionists wanted it all for a Jewish state, the Palestinians wanted it because they already lived there. Nether side was committed to sharing the place - certainly they played lip service to the idea - but each wanted to be the soul authority of the territory.

It is the Arabs who, rightfully or not, rejected the idea of dividing the land in the moment it mattered the most.

Of course, as any people would today if a bunch of foreign people showed up on the beach demanding half the territory for an exclusive state all to themselves that the local people will have to make way for or be political dis-empowered residents of.

As such, your analogy with regards to Syrian refugees is not really valid.

Of course it is, the majority of Zionists were refugees from Europe who immigrated to Palestine to setup a Jewish state in an already populated area. Switch out Zionist refugees for Syrian refugees and change the place from Palestine to Fsomewhere in France (or Germany, Italy, etc). Do you think the French would permit the same to happen? Or imagine if those Syrian refugees immigrated to Israel and asked if the Israeli's will "share" the land with them in the same way the Zionists did? Do you think Israelis would share the land, or react the same way the Palestinians did?

Come on, share the land of Israel. They asked nicely.

If the partition plan had not been adopted, the Zionists would have likely rebelled as soon as the British left, just like Arab states invaded as soon as this occurred. It doesn't seem to matter all that much in practice.

The Zionists were already rebelling even before they knew the British forces were leaving, just as the Arab states took advantage of the same situation.

[skinster]

Waton, here's an article about that thing you were skeptical about:

Yair Lapid distributes anti-BDS booklet to Israeli travelers at Ben-Gurion airport

[redcarpet]

For some reason I always find ZN's nationalism endearing, as opposed to many Zionists whose claims to innocent victimhood I find irritating. I guess ZN doesn't pretend to be anything he's not.

Why should Israeli Jews have to accept being a minority in an Arab majority state? So what if the pal.s & the Arab states are raging; they're sore losers that complain about 'humiliation' because they can't lose gracefully and get on with their lives.

[wat0n]

The early Zionists accepted anything that come their way, and always grumbled it was not good enough or it was not big enough. But let us be honest, both sides wanted all of Palestine. The Zionists wanted it all for a Jewish state, the Palestinians wanted it because they already lived there. Nether side was committed to sharing the place - certainly they played lip service to the idea - but each wanted to be the soul authority of the territory.

The Palestinians didn't even bother to play lip service to an idea of sharing the land. They were unequivocally clear in opposing any notion of partition.

Certainly the Zionists would have very much loved to get as much territory as possible, but the Jewish Agency (i.e. the most important group of all in terms of membership and support) accepted the bipartition as presented because it realized it was clearly about the best it could get...

...Which of course does mean they accepted the idea that the Palestinians had a right to self-determine in the form of a different political entity.

Of course, as any people would today if a bunch of foreign people showed up on the beach demanding half the territory for an exclusive state all to themselves that the local people will have to make way for or be political dis-empowered residents of.

Oh, come on. The Israeli Arabs enjoy full political and civil rights and their status is not significantly different from that of other minorities in the West - including in terms of economic conditions and discrimination.

There is a point in which these arguments really stop making sense.

Of course it is, the majority of Zionists were refugees from Europe who immigrated to Palestine to setup a Jewish state in an already populated area. Switch out Zionist refugees for Syrian refugees and change the place from Palestine to Fsomewhere in France (or Germany, Italy, etc). Do you think the French would permit the same to happen? Or imagine if those Syrian refugees immigrated to Israel and asked if the Israeli's will "share" the land with them in the same way the Zionists did? Do you think Israelis would share the land, or react the same way the Palestinians did?

Come on, share the land of Israel. They asked nicely.

Probably they might try to solve the underlying cause for the existence of Syrian refugees, i.e. intervene in the war and set up a safe zone for them - just like Turkey is trying to get support for.

And it's what the Europeans were trying to do, arguably.

The Zionists were already rebelling even before they knew the British forces were leaving, just as the Arab states took advantage of the same situation.

True, though in this case I mean they would rebel and set up a state if successful, UN resolution or not.

Waton, here's an article about that thing you were skeptical about:

Yair Lapid distributes anti-BDS booklet to Israeli travelers at Ben-Gurion airport

Yes, a new political stunt which is why it was featured on Israeli press. It is obviously not a normal occurrence to have a MP handing out leaflets in an airport.

As such, Cook's claim remains unproven. Lapid might have just gotten the idea from his article FWIW.

[skinster]

Why should Israeli Jews have to accept being a minority in an Arab majority state? So what if the pal.s & the Arab states are raging; they're sore losers that complain about 'humiliation' because they can't lose gracefully and get on with their lives.

How do you expect the Palestinians to get on with their lives when they're living under Israeli military control, without rights, etc.?

Yes, a new political stunt which is why it was featured on Israeli press. It is obviously not a normal occurrence to have a MP handing out leaflets in an airport.

As such, Cook's claim remains unproven. Lapid might have just gotten the idea from his article FWIW.

The link proves what Cook wrote about, except with an Israeli politician doing it. Of course it'd be in the Israeli press now, considering you have Lapid sharing the leaflets. That's funny you think the journalist made it up and then a politician decided to play a publicity stunt around a made-up claim about something that would make Israel look like a shit state. Very amusing.

Once upon a time you talked about BDS being useless. You should trust me on this stuff.

[redcarpet]

They do have rights, they're set out in the Fourth Geneva Convention. Civilians have less rights than usual when under foreigner military occupation and there are reasons for that. Everyone knows that.

Israelis don't have to be inundated with new Arab citizens just so that Palestine as a nation-state is established.

[Tailz]

Tailz wrote:
The early Zionists accepted anything that come their way, and always grumbled it was not good enough or it was not big enough. But let us be honest, both sides wanted all of Palestine. The Zionists wanted it all for a Jewish state, the Palestinians wanted it because they already lived there. Nether side was committed to sharing the place - certainly they played lip service to the idea - but each wanted to be the soul authority of the territory.

The Palestinians didn't even bother to play lip service to an idea of sharing the land.

Why should they share in the first place, when they already lived there? It is like expecting the native Indians of America to happily accept being shoved into reservations instead of roaming their tribal lands because a bunch of white settlers showed up from Europe.

They were unequivocally clear in opposing any notion of partition.

Indeed, as any population today - including Israel - would be, if found in the same situation. Everywhere accepts immigrants, just not immigrants who plan to take over.

Certainly the Zionists would have very much loved to get as much territory as possible, but the Jewish Agency (i.e. the most important group of all in terms of membership and support) accepted the bipartition as presented because it realized it was clearly about the best it could get...

Although David Ben-Gurion wrote in a letter to his son (October 1937):

"No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land Of Israel. A Jewish state in part of Palestine is not an end, but a beginning... Our possession is important not only for itself... through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a small state... will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country."

Meanwhile Ben-Gurion was far more direct to the June 1938 meeting of the Jewish Agency executive:

"I am satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state, we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel."

They saw these concessions as stepping stones for future conquest...

...Which of course does mean they accepted the idea that the Palestinians had a right to self-determine in the form of a different political entity.

I seriously doubt they were far too concerned about what happened to the Palestinians, they were just unfortunately, in the way. But maybe they thought the same as todays far-right, "the Palestinians can go back to Jordan."

Tailz wrote:
Of course, as any people would today if a bunch of foreign people showed up on the beach demanding half the territory for an exclusive state all to themselves that the local people will have to make way for or be political dis-empowered residents of.

Oh, come on. The Israeli Arabs enjoy full political and civil rights and their status is not significantly different from that of other minorities in the West - including in terms of economic conditions and discrimination.

Indeed according to the law the Israeli-Arabs should be of equal status. You are correct in principle, but not in execution... The demographics worry, the discrimination in the allocation of state funds between Arab and Jewish municipalities, the difficulties Arabs have with housing (especially in communities that have vetting boards), representation in the courts. Meanwhile Netanyahu's government has given clear indications it would be more than willing de-annex suburbs with high Arab populations in order to exclude as many Arabs as possible from Israel's population... that does not bode well for equal status. The very notion of Zionism makes it clear to everyone, the ethno-religious character which is more important.

Tailz wrote:
Of course it is, the majority of Zionists were refugees from Europe who immigrated to Palestine to setup a Jewish state in an already populated area. Switch out Zionist refugees for Syrian refugees and change the place from Palestine to Fsomewhere in France (or Germany, Italy, etc). Do you think the French would permit the same to happen? Or imagine if those Syrian refugees immigrated to Israel and asked if the Israeli's will "share" the land with them in the same way the Zionists did? Do you think Israelis would share the land, or react the same way the Palestinians did?

Come on, share the land of Israel. They asked nicely.

Probably they might try to solve the underlying cause for the existence of Syrian refugees, i.e. intervene in the war and set up a safe zone for them - just like Turkey is trying to get support for.

Your just avoiding the comparison. Given the same situation, everyone, even the Israeli's, would refuse to share. So why gasp in shock and horror that the Palestinians didn't want to share and lobbied the British Mandate Powers and League of Nations against the break up of the territory into different political entities, and lobbied against such a massive and sudden influx of Jewish refugees - just as today in Europe some states are lobbying against being forced to accept sudden massive influxes of refugees, demanding the refugee load be spread out.

So why didn't the Zionists accept living in Palestine with the local population as a part of the local population? Instead insisting on separation and separate political control, which is what ultimately caused the conflict.

And it's what the Europeans were trying to do, arguably.

Zionism was a European idea. Zionism didn't find a warm reception in Palestine - even from Palestinian Jews who thought the movement would create friction between Jews and Arabs - until after the Second World War, by which time the immigrant Zionists outnumbered the local Palestinian Jews.

Tailz wrote:
The Zionists were already rebelling even before they knew the British forces were leaving, just as the Arab states took advantage of the same situation.

True, though in this case I mean they would rebel and set up a state if successful, UN resolution or not.

Um... they did. Ben-Gurion didn't rely on the UN for legitimacy, that is one of many reasons why the declaration of Israel was done in secret and outside the auspicious of UN resolution 181. Ben-Gurion did this as it was felt that future UN votes may fail as the major powers were turning against the Partition plan, for example, upon consulting the International Court of Justice it was deemed that the partition plan was “contrary to the principles of the United Nations Charter, and the United Nations has no power to give effect to it.” The U.N. could not deprive the majority of the people of Palestine of their territory and transfer it to the exclusive use of a minority in the country. The United Nations Organization has no power to create a new State. Such a decision can only be taken by the free will of the people of the territories in question. That condition is not fulfilled in the case of the majority proposal (the Jews of Palestine were at this time the minority compared to the Arab majority), as it involves the establishment of a Jewish State in complete disregard of the wishes and interests of the Arabs of Palestine.

With support failing, Ben-Gurion declared the state of Israel regardless of the UN which created a fait accompli as far as UN Resolution 181 which ultimately ended up in the dust bin of history since it could not be implemented when the Zionists and Arabs were shooting at each other - and once the smoke had cleared, Israel was not going to give up territory it had just won in battle to fulfill any UN partition plan.

[redcarpet]

Your just avoiding the comparison. Given the same situation, everyone, even the Israeli's, would refuse to share. So why gasp in shock and horror that the Palestinians didn't want to share and lobbied the British Mandate Powers and League of Nations against the break up of the territory into different political entities, and lobbied against such a massive and sudden influx of Jewish refugees.

So why didn't the Zionists accept living in Palestine with the local population as a part of the local population? Instead insisting on separation and separate political control, which is what ultimately caused the conflict.

That's no secret.

On Feb. 18, 1947, British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, not an ardent Zionist by any stretch of the imagination, addressed the British parliament to explain why the UK was taking “the question of Palestine,” which was in its care, to the United Nations. He opened by saying that “His Majesty’s government has been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles.” He then goes on to describe the essence of that conflict: “For the Jews, the essential point of principle is the creation of a sovereign Jewish state. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.” (my bold)

Mr. Bevin’s description of the “irreconcilable conflict” is telling. He does not argue that the Jews and Arabs in Palestine can’t agree about how to rationally and fairly divide the land. He explains that the Jews want a state – of whatever size – and that the Arabs want the Jews not to have a state at all. This is an existential conflict by definition, as it involves the very existence, rather than the size, of the state of the Jewish people. Such a conflict is indeed irreconcilable, barring the annihilation of the State of Israel, and as Bevin concluded, “There is no prospect of resolving this conflict by any settlement negotiated between the parties.”

[Tailz]

Tailz wrote:
Your just avoiding the comparison. Given the same situation, everyone, even the Israeli's, would refuse to share. So why gasp in shock and horror that the Palestinians didn't want to share and lobbied the British Mandate Powers and League of Nations against the break up of the territory into different political entities, and lobbied against such a massive and sudden influx of Jewish refugees.

So why didn't the Zionists accept living in Palestine with the local population as a part of the local population? Instead insisting on separation and separate political control, which is what ultimately caused the conflict.

That's no secret.

On Feb. 18, 1947, British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, not an ardent Zionist by any stretch of the imagination, addressed the British parliament to explain why the UK was taking “the question of Palestine,” which was in its care, to the United Nations. He opened by saying that “His Majesty’s government has been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles.” He then goes on to describe the essence of that conflict: “For the Jews, the essential point of principle is the creation of a sovereign Jewish state. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.” (my bold)

Mr. Bevin’s description of the “irreconcilable conflict” is telling. He does not argue that the Jews and Arabs in Palestine can’t agree about how to rationally and fairly divide the land. He explains that the Jews want a state – of whatever size – and that the Arabs want the Jews not to have a state at all. This is an existential conflict by definition, as it involves the very existence, rather than the size, of the state of the Jewish people. Such a conflict is indeed irreconcilable, barring the annihilation of the State of Israel, and as Bevin concluded, “There is no prospect of resolving this conflict by any settlement negotiated between the parties.”

I'm not disagreeing with your statement, although I feel it necessary to elaborate on the element I have highlighted in Red. Did the Arabs simply not want the Jews to have a state, out of spite for the Jews (as some would have us think) or was the problem actually caused by the fact that where the Zionists wanted to create the Jewish state of Israel, was right where the Palestinians actually already lived?

[wat0n]

The link proves what Cook wrote about, except with an Israeli politician doing it.

No, it does not. The link doesn't claim it is an usual activity in the Ben Gurion airport, indeed, it makes it seem like it is a rather unusual occurrence which is why it is featured on press.

Of course it'd be in the Israeli press now, considering you have Lapid sharing the leaflets. That's funny you think the journalist made it up and then a politician decided to play a publicity stunt around a made-up claim about something that would make Israel look like a shit state. Very amusing.

Once upon a time you talked about BDS being useless. You should trust me on this stuff.

Oh but it is a publicity stunt, one meant for internal consumption mostly.

As I said, the BDS movement essentially gives a lifeline for politicians who want to get votes for fighting boycotts against Israel, even if there is no realistic prospect of one.

Why should they share in the first place, when they already lived there? It is like expecting the native Indians of America to happily accept being shoved into reservations instead of roaming their tribal lands because a bunch of white settlers showed up from Europe.

Oh, so you are backtracking on your claim that the Arabs did play a lip service on sharing the land now, good to know.

Who says the Jewish Agency wanted to shove Palestinians into reservations, anyway? This is an awful analogy, and in fact that did not happen to the Arabs living in Israeli territory.

Although David Ben-Gurion wrote in a letter to his son (October 1937):

"No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land Of Israel. A Jewish state in part of Palestine is not an end, but a beginning... Our possession is important not only for itself... through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a small state... will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country."

Meanwhile Ben-Gurion was far more direct to the June 1938 meeting of the Jewish Agency executive:

"I am satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state, we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel."

They saw these concessions as stepping stones for future conquest...

Back in the '30s, maybe, though even this is rather arguable, particularly if you provide no sources.

This was clearly not the case in 1947, when the bipartition was passed and the Zionists weren't even sure that their State would be able to hold, let alone expand. Speeches are one thing, actual decisive moments are a completely different issue - simply put, had the bipartition been implemented it would have been very unlikely Israel would have been in a position to expand.

I seriously doubt they were far too concerned about what happened to the Palestinians, they were just unfortunately, in the way. But maybe they thought the same as todays far-right, "the Palestinians can go back to Jordan."

Oh but they were, especially during the 1948 war. In particular, they were rather concerned about the diplomatic consequences of a Palestinian exodus, and I'm also sure they generally didn't want things to develop as they did.

Indeed according to the law the Israeli-Arabs should be of equal status. You are correct in principle, but not in execution... The demographics worry, the discrimination in the allocation of state funds between Arab and Jewish municipalities, the difficulties Arabs have with housing (especially in communities that have vetting boards), representation in the courts.

None of these seem to be outside the norm in Western States, however. Or am I to assume that there is no institutional discrimination in the West?

Meanwhile Netanyahu's government has given clear indications it would be more than willing de-annex suburbs with high Arab populations in order to exclude as many Arabs as possible from Israel's population... that does not bode well for equal status. The very notion of Zionism makes it clear to everyone, the ethno-religious character which is more important.

Aren't you confusing Netanyahu with Lieberman, maybe? I don't recall Netanyahu saying something like this. The closest would be his occasional statements that unilateral withdrawals from the West Bank are not out of the table, but so is annexation so it doesn't really amount to much.

Your just avoiding the comparison. Given the same situation, everyone, even the Israeli's, would refuse to share. So why gasp in shock and horror that the Palestinians didn't want to share and lobbied the British Mandate Powers and League of Nations against the break up of the territory into different political entities, and lobbied against such a massive and sudden influx of Jewish refugees - just as today in Europe some states are lobbying against being forced to accept sudden massive influxes of refugees, demanding the refugee load be spread out.

Oh, I don't find their rejection surprising, but it is clear it would bring war, and if they prefer war they should not whine if they lose it.

So why didn't the Zionists accept living in Palestine with the local population as a part of the local population? Instead insisting on separation and separate political control, which is what ultimately caused the conflict.

Because they wanted independence, which is not an illegitimate wish.

But even more importantly, because they did not want to live as second-class citizens in an Arab state. For all your whining about Israel, the fact is that it is way better to be a non-Jew in Israel than being a non-Arab in each and every Arab state at the time of the bipartition. Heck, it is better to be a Palestinian living under Israeli occupation than to be a Kurd in pre-war Syria. Certainly this fact played and still plays a major role on whether the Jews (Zionist or not) would want to live in a single Arab state or not.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the Jews of the Mandate saw the conflict as an existential one given the political stance of the Arab leaders.