The World Is Sick Of Israeli Atrocities...

[montelatici]

"In “1948 and After” (chapter 4), Benny Morris deals at greater length with the role played by Yosef Weitz, who was at the time director of the Jewish National Fund’s Lands Department. This man of noted Zionist convictions confided to his diary on 20 December 1940: “It must be clear that there is no room in the country for both people (...) the only solution is a Land of Israel, at least a western Land of Israel without Arabs. There is no room here for compromise. (...) There is no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries(...) Not one village must be left, not one (bedouin) tribe.”

Seven years later, Weitz found himself in a position to put this radical programme into effect. Already, in January 1948, he was orchestrating the expulsion of Palestinians from various parts of the country. In April he proposed - and obtained - the creation of “a body which would direct the Yishuv’s war with the aim of evicting as many Arabs as possible”. This body was unofficial at first, but was formalised at the end of August 1948 into the “Transfer Committee” which supervised the destruction of abandoned Arab villages and/or their repopulation with recent Jewish immigrants, in order to make any return of the refugees impossible. Its role was extended, in July, to take in the creation of Jewish settlements in the border areas.

Israel’s battle to bar the return of Palestinian exiles was also pursued on the diplomatic front. Here, as Henry Laurens noted in a review of the revisionist historians (12), “the opening- up, and the use, of the archives made it possible to revise a number of previously-held positions. Contrary to the widely held view, the Arab leaders were prepared for compromise.” As soon as the war ended, the Arab leadership was trying, within the context of the Lausanne Conference, to arrive at a general settlement based on Arab acceptance of the UN partition plan (Ilan Pappe gives a detailed account of their efforts (13)), in exchange for Israeli acceptance of a right of return for the refugees. Despite international pressure - with the United States to the fore - this enterprise was to founder on the intransigence of the Israeli authorities, particularly once the Jewish state had been admitted to the United Nations."

The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

 

[Beelzebub]

The British - very pointedly - refused to hand over a state or a territory to the Zionist organisations, as that had never been the deal, and was only foisted upon the world by Zionist terrorists. With US & Russian support the UN then ratified what had already been done by force of arms, and granted a state to those same terrorists.

They were given the land by the British. If you want to argue that point, you can argue it all day long. It doesn't change the facts.

By that do you mean Israel, West Bank and Gaza?

If so - then I disagree. By what authority? Do you mean the Balfour Declaration?

I will be the first to admit I know less about that period of history than some here (and I suspect you also don't know as much).

The member here who has posted the most comprehensive understanding of it (even if I don't always agree with his opinions) is RoccoR and I respect his historical knowledge.

In this post of his - he described the what the Balfour Declaration and succeeding mandates/declarations meant: Jews trying to get Americans killed - as usual Page 16 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

No where do I see where the entire area was given to the Jews or, it was it seems to be non-binding and superceded by other agreements.

They didn't want to give it up to either side, and they were made to on a mandate. It doesn't change the facts.

They were not made to.
They were offered - asked - maybe pleaded with - to extend the mandate and continue British control of the region by the UN, but refused, as there was no good end in sight with all the terrorist activity by the Jewish immigrants and US agitating against British overseas influence, and what with having no money to fund the enterprise (with no offers from anyone to pay).

So Britain left. It did not hand over the land. It did not agree to set up a Zionist state. It did not facilitate the Zionist state. It just failed to prevent it.

I have little doubt that Britain fully expected Zionism to get its comeuppance from the surrounding arab states / tribes soon after, which would have had some poetic justice (Create a state through invasion and the sword / Die by the sword). But Britain was against the Zionist enterprise. If compromised by elements in Britain who ran their own agenda.

 

[Daniyel]

THIS is all that matters. The "ancient claims" mean nothing.


The Jews were GIVEN the state of Israel, which the Arabs did not like, fought with them over it, and LOST. End of story.

Why do you just spout propaganda? Are really that thick that you believe we don't have access to the facts?

For example:

"Jewish leadership begged the local Palestinian Arabs not to abandon their homes"

Do you realize what a bunch of horseshit that is?

The facts:

" a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..."


The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

It isn't propaganda, but your links are certainly propaganda. Here is another link with the same exact information because this is EXACTLY how it happened. Also, this is an unbiased link. Too bad for you that Israel won. That's that. They won. The land is theirs. End of story.

Palestine 1918 to 1948

In 1947, the newly formed United Nations accepted the idea to partition Palestine into a zone for the Jews (Israel) and a zone for the Arabs (Palestine). With this United Nations proposal, the British withdrew from the region on May 14th 1948. Almost immediately, Israel was attacked by Arab nations that surrounded in a war that lasted from May 1948 to January 1949. Palestinian Arabs refused to recognise Israel and it became the turn of the Israeli government itself to suffer from terrorist attacks when fedayeen (fanatics) from the Palestinian Arabs community attacked Israel. Such attacks later became more organised with the creation of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO). To the Palestinian Arabs, the area the Jews call Israel, will always be Palestine. To the Jews it is Israel. There have been very few years of peace in the region since 1948.

My links are usually to official reports by the Mandatory to the League of Nations. You are posting propaganda pieces.

The fact is that European Jews implemented a plan to ethnically cleanse the non-Jews and were successful.

There really can't be any question of the facts.

Why would anyone recognize the establishment of a state created through their expulsion from their homes?

Are you saying this is not what happened? You are so full of it. Anyone can google it themselves to see. The above which I linked to is completely accurate and truthful. WHO do you think you're fooling?

It's propaganda it's not accurate at all. I provided a link to a scholarly work, not propaganda.

Scholarly work? its a bunch of crap posted on Youtube like every random moron can do - and does - bringing pictures like from Sefad battle during the War of Independence when the Arab hostiles [Arab Legion(of Palestinians), and Syrians] attacked a 4,000 city - Jewish one of course - completely unarmed, when the Haganah forces came miraculously to aid Sefad at the last minute, and won the Arab hostiles, or for example quoting Mordecai Maklef FROM Haifa ordering IDF to retaliate the Fadeyeen Palestinian raiders who slaughtered, stole, and rape hundreds of Jews, it happened in Hebron, Jerusalem, and many small Jewish settlements.
This is a very poor propaganda-ad, when first you read about something you never heard of, so you get curious, next you see a baby crying because mommy taking the louse out of his hair, but on first thought you think hey why is he crying and of course you see a picture of a soldier dressed like the SS, black uniforms [in the middle of the desert] heavily armed with guns Israel didn't have but who cares its for killing Palestinians so its fine to write the 'ZIONIST COMMANDO' - I can go on explaining why this is a propaganda, and a lie, but lets be honest montelitici, this video is probably yours, correct?

 

[Penelope]

TBH, The fascist Zionist are the problem in the world today. Middle America, we aren't even taking care of the America we have as we are too invested in the ME for Israel and SA and our neocons who love war.

I for one do not want 1 cent of my tax dollars going to Israel anymore.

Meanwhile, the majority of voting taxpayers who DO support Israel, thank you for your tax dollars, tasked for that purpose.

Many taxpayers do not know we are paying Israel aid and supplying extra money for weapons. and some don't even know where Israel is.

 

[ChrisL]

The British - very pointedly - refused to hand over a state or a territory to the Zionist organisations, as that had never been the deal, and was only foisted upon the world by Zionist terrorists. With US & Russian support the UN then ratified what had already been done by force of arms, and granted a state to those same terrorists.

They were given the land by the British. If you want to argue that point, you can argue it all day long. It doesn't change the facts.

By that do you mean Israel, West Bank and Gaza?

If so - then I disagree. By what authority? Do you mean the Balfour Declaration?

I will be the first to admit I know less about that period of history than some here (and I suspect you also don't know as much).

The member here who has posted the most comprehensive understanding of it (even if I don't always agree with his opinions) is RoccoR and I respect his historical knowledge.

In this post of his - he described the what the Balfour Declaration and succeeding mandates/declarations meant: Jews trying to get Americans killed - as usual Page 16 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

No where do I see where the entire area was given to the Jews or, it was it seems to be non-binding and superceded by other agreements.

They didn't want to give it up to either side, and they were made to on a mandate. It doesn't change the facts.

They were not made to.
They were offered - asked - maybe pleaded with - to extend the mandate and continue British control of the region by the UN, but refused, as there was no good end in sight with all the terrorist activity by the Jewish immigrants and US agitating against British overseas influence, and what with having no money to fund the enterprise (with no offers from anyone to pay).

So Britain left. It did not hand over the land. It did not agree to set up a Zionist state. It did not facilitate the Zionist state. It just failed to prevent it.

I have little doubt that Britain fully expected Zionism to get its comeuppance from the surrounding arab states / tribes soon after, which would have had some poetic justice (Create a state through invasion and the sword / Die by the sword). But Britain was against the Zionist enterprise. If compromised by elements in Britain who ran their own agenda.

The UN set it up as a resolution mandate. It does not matter who agreed and who didn't agree. What matters is that Israel "stole" nothing. That is an outright lie.

 

[Kondor3]

TBH, The fascist Zionist are the problem in the world today. Middle America, we aren't even taking care of the America we have as we are too invested in the ME for Israel and SA and our neocons who love war.

I for one do not want 1 cent of my tax dollars going to Israel anymore.

Meanwhile, the majority of voting taxpayers who DO support Israel, thank you for your tax dollars, tasked for that purpose.

Many taxpayers do not know we are paying Israel aid and supplying extra money for weapons. and some don't even know where Israel is.

Feel free to continue to believe that, if that comforts you.

 

[montelatici]

Why do you just spout propaganda? Are really that thick that you believe we don't have access to the facts?

For example:

"Jewish leadership begged the local Palestinian Arabs not to abandon their homes"

Do you realize what a bunch of horseshit that is?

The facts:

" a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..."


The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

It isn't propaganda, but your links are certainly propaganda. Here is another link with the same exact information because this is EXACTLY how it happened. Also, this is an unbiased link. Too bad for you that Israel won. That's that. They won. The land is theirs. End of story.

Palestine 1918 to 1948

In 1947, the newly formed United Nations accepted the idea to partition Palestine into a zone for the Jews (Israel) and a zone for the Arabs (Palestine). With this United Nations proposal, the British withdrew from the region on May 14th 1948. Almost immediately, Israel was attacked by Arab nations that surrounded in a war that lasted from May 1948 to January 1949. Palestinian Arabs refused to recognise Israel and it became the turn of the Israeli government itself to suffer from terrorist attacks when fedayeen (fanatics) from the Palestinian Arabs community attacked Israel. Such attacks later became more organised with the creation of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO). To the Palestinian Arabs, the area the Jews call Israel, will always be Palestine. To the Jews it is Israel. There have been very few years of peace in the region since 1948.

My links are usually to official reports by the Mandatory to the League of Nations. You are posting propaganda pieces.

The fact is that European Jews implemented a plan to ethnically cleanse the non-Jews and were successful.

There really can't be any question of the facts.

Why would anyone recognize the establishment of a state created through their expulsion from their homes?

Are you saying this is not what happened? You are so full of it. Anyone can google it themselves to see. The above which I linked to is completely accurate and truthful. WHO do you think you're fooling?

It's propaganda it's not accurate at all. I provided a link to a scholarly work, not propaganda.

Scholarly work? its a bunch of crap posted on Youtube like every random moron can do - and does - bringing pictures like from Sefad battle during the War of Independence when the Arab hostiles [Arab Legion(of Palestinians), and Syrians] attacked a 4,000 city - Jewish one of course - completely unarmed, when the Haganah forces came miraculously to aid Sefad at the last minute, and won the Arab hostiles, or for example quoting Mordecai Maklef FROM Haifa ordering IDF to retaliate the Fadeyeen Palestinian raiders who slaughtered, stole, and rape hundreds of Jews, it happened in Hebron, Jerusalem, and many small Jewish settlements.
This is a very poor propaganda-ad, when first you read about something you never heard of, so you get curious, next you see a baby crying because mommy taking the louse out of his hair, but on first thought you think hey why is he crying and of course you see a picture of a soldier dressed like the SS, black uniforms [in the middle of the desert] heavily armed with guns Israel didn't have but who cares its for killing Palestinians so its fine to write the 'ZIONIST COMMANDO' - I can go on explaining why this is a propaganda, and a lie, but lets be honest montelitici, this video is probably yours, correct?

It is from Monde Diplomatique, a respected and scholarly publication. You believe the fairy tales that your Zionist ancestors made up to cover up the fact that they came from another continent and stole the land from the people who lived there.

Let's get down to facts. Prior to 1850 there were a handful of Jews in Palestine and hundreds of thousands of Christians and Muslims. A large number of European Jews went to Palestine. Now the Christians and Muslims in Palestine, while outnumbering Jews, are ruled by Jews. I think the facts sspeak for themselves.

 

[montelatici]

The British - very pointedly - refused to hand over a state or a territory to the Zionist organisations, as that had never been the deal, and was only foisted upon the world by Zionist terrorists. With US & Russian support the UN then ratified what had already been done by force of arms, and granted a state to those same terrorists.

They were given the land by the British. If you want to argue that point, you can argue it all day long. It doesn't change the facts.

By that do you mean Israel, West Bank and Gaza?

If so - then I disagree. By what authority? Do you mean the Balfour Declaration?

I will be the first to admit I know less about that period of history than some here (and I suspect you also don't know as much).

The member here who has posted the most comprehensive understanding of it (even if I don't always agree with his opinions) is RoccoR and I respect his historical knowledge.

In this post of his - he described the what the Balfour Declaration and succeeding mandates/declarations meant: Jews trying to get Americans killed - as usual Page 16 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

No where do I see where the entire area was given to the Jews or, it was it seems to be non-binding and superceded by other agreements.

They didn't want to give it up to either side, and they were made to on a mandate. It doesn't change the facts.

They were not made to.
They were offered - asked - maybe pleaded with - to extend the mandate and continue British control of the region by the UN, but refused, as there was no good end in sight with all the terrorist activity by the Jewish immigrants and US agitating against British overseas influence, and what with having no money to fund the enterprise (with no offers from anyone to pay).

So Britain left. It did not hand over the land. It did not agree to set up a Zionist state. It did not facilitate the Zionist state. It just failed to prevent it.

I have little doubt that Britain fully expected Zionism to get its comeuppance from the surrounding arab states / tribes soon after, which would have had some poetic justice (Create a state through invasion and the sword / Die by the sword). But Britain was against the Zionist enterprise. If compromised by elements in Britain who ran their own agenda.

The UN set it up as a resolution mandate. It does not matter who agreed and who didn't agree. What matters is that Israel "stole" nothing. That is an outright lie.

Of course they stole the land. There were people living on the land and they were ethnically cleansed. The Pope gave the Americas to Spain and Portugal, the Spanish and Portuguese stole the land from the Native Americans. Same thing.

 

[Penelope]

TBH, The fascist Zionist are the problem in the world today. Middle America, we aren't even taking care of the America we have as we are too invested in the ME for Israel and SA and our neocons who love war.

I for one do not want 1 cent of my tax dollars going to Israel anymore.

Meanwhile, the majority of voting taxpayers who DO support Israel, thank you for your tax dollars, tasked for that purpose.

Many taxpayers do not know we are paying Israel aid and supplying extra money for weapons. and some don't even know where Israel is.

Feel free to continue to believe that, if that comforts you.

I find it to be so, and no its not comforting, as I wish more people were informed about what is happening in Israel, and not just listen to the propaganda on Fox for an hour here and there. I know I was taken into the propaganda for way too long.

 

[Penelope]

The British - very pointedly - refused to hand over a state or a territory to the Zionist organisations, as that had never been the deal, and was only foisted upon the world by Zionist terrorists. With US & Russian support the UN then ratified what had already been done by force of arms, and granted a state to those same terrorists.

They were given the land by the British. If you want to argue that point, you can argue it all day long. It doesn't change the facts.

By that do you mean Israel, West Bank and Gaza?

If so - then I disagree. By what authority? Do you mean the Balfour Declaration?

I will be the first to admit I know less about that period of history than some here (and I suspect you also don't know as much).

The member here who has posted the most comprehensive understanding of it (even if I don't always agree with his opinions) is RoccoR and I respect his historical knowledge.

In this post of his - he described the what the Balfour Declaration and succeeding mandates/declarations meant: Jews trying to get Americans killed - as usual Page 16 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

No where do I see where the entire area was given to the Jews or, it was it seems to be non-binding and superceded by other agreements.

They didn't want to give it up to either side, and they were made to on a mandate. It doesn't change the facts.

They were not made to.
They were offered - asked - maybe pleaded with - to extend the mandate and continue British control of the region by the UN, but refused, as there was no good end in sight with all the terrorist activity by the Jewish immigrants and US agitating against British overseas influence, and what with having no money to fund the enterprise (with no offers from anyone to pay).

So Britain left. It did not hand over the land. It did not agree to set up a Zionist state. It did not facilitate the Zionist state. It just failed to prevent it.

I have little doubt that Britain fully expected Zionism to get its comeuppance from the surrounding arab states / tribes soon after, which would have had some poetic justice (Create a state through invasion and the sword / Die by the sword). But Britain was against the Zionist enterprise. If compromised by elements in Britain who ran their own agenda.

The UN set it up as a resolution mandate. It does not matter who agreed and who didn't agree. What matters is that Israel "stole" nothing. That is an outright lie.

Maybe you should check out the mandate again , and look at the division lines. How can you even make such a statement.

 

[Hossfly]

...Land has shifted back and forth over the centuries...

Indeed. Just as it has since 1948.

...If people have been living on land for generations - it is theirs for all effective purposes.

Indeed. Just ask the 2nd and 3rd and 4th -generation Israelis now in possession of that land.

Agree - when you get to that point, the original owners are dead and there is no sense in displacing people. But the land theft that occurred in 1967 and later - the original people are still alive, and return of the land or compensation should be addressed as well as a complete stop to more taking of land through "settlements".

Right of Return will no longer work, in connection with 1948-1949.

Return to the 1967 borders will no longer work, in connection with Israeli security and safety.

Compensation has marvelous possibilities.

But there is no longer enough land with which to make-up a sustainable nation-state.

That leaves population transfer - relocation - as the only practical outcome.

I know that this does not sit well, but the Losing Side is just going to have to suck it up, eventually, and move on.

If they did so voluntarily and with the blessing and large-scale assistance of the outside world, that would be best.

But, sooner or later, it's going to happen.

The Palestinians might as well leverage that as best they can, while they still can.

I sense time running out for the Palestinians to get anything whatsoever.

Yes there is.

Start negotiations at the 1967 borders and negotiate landswaps.

Israel needs to give up some things too.

Where exactly are there any '67 borders? I can't seem to find them on a map.

 

[Coyote]

...Land has shifted back and forth over the centuries...

Indeed. Just as it has since 1948.

...If people have been living on land for generations - it is theirs for all effective purposes.

Indeed. Just ask the 2nd and 3rd and 4th -generation Israelis now in possession of that land.

Agree - when you get to that point, the original owners are dead and there is no sense in displacing people. But the land theft that occurred in 1967 and later - the original people are still alive, and return of the land or compensation should be addressed as well as a complete stop to more taking of land through "settlements".

Right of Return will no longer work, in connection with 1948-1949.

Return to the 1967 borders will no longer work, in connection with Israeli security and safety.

Compensation has marvelous possibilities.

But there is no longer enough land with which to make-up a sustainable nation-state.

That leaves population transfer - relocation - as the only practical outcome.

I know that this does not sit well, but the Losing Side is just going to have to suck it up, eventually, and move on.

If they did so voluntarily and with the blessing and large-scale assistance of the outside world, that would be best.

But, sooner or later, it's going to happen.

The Palestinians might as well leverage that as best they can, while they still can.

I sense time running out for the Palestinians to get anything whatsoever.

Yes there is.

Start negotiations at the 1967 borders and negotiate landswaps.

Israel needs to give up some things too.

Where exactly are there any '67 borders? I can't seem to find them on a map.

Green Line Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Green Line is often referred to as the "pre-1967 borders", the "1967 borders" by the United States president Barack Obama,[2] Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas,[3] and by the United Nations in informal texts[4] and in the text of UN GA Resolutions.[5]

 

[Coyote]

Lets stick to the topic guys.

 

[Hossfly]

Indeed. Just as it has since 1948.

Indeed. Just ask the 2nd and 3rd and 4th -generation Israelis now in possession of that land.

Agree - when you get to that point, the original owners are dead and there is no sense in displacing people. But the land theft that occurred in 1967 and later - the original people are still alive, and return of the land or compensation should be addressed as well as a complete stop to more taking of land through "settlements".

Right of Return will no longer work, in connection with 1948-1949.

Return to the 1967 borders will no longer work, in connection with Israeli security and safety.

Compensation has marvelous possibilities.

But there is no longer enough land with which to make-up a sustainable nation-state.

That leaves population transfer - relocation - as the only practical outcome.

I know that this does not sit well, but the Losing Side is just going to have to suck it up, eventually, and move on.

If they did so voluntarily and with the blessing and large-scale assistance of the outside world, that would be best.

But, sooner or later, it's going to happen.

The Palestinians might as well leverage that as best they can, while they still can.

I sense time running out for the Palestinians to get anything whatsoever.

Yes there is.

Start negotiations at the 1967 borders and negotiate landswaps.

Israel needs to give up some things too.

Where exactly are there any '67 borders? I can't seem to find them on a map.

Green Line Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Green Line is often referred to as the "pre-1967 borders", the "1967 borders" by the United States president Barack Obama,[2] Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas,[3] and by the United Nations in informal texts[4] and in the text of UN GA Resolutions.[5]

The Green Line is a demarcation line that is not and never was an International border. It merely shows where the front lines were at the end of fighting.

 

[Penelope]

The British - very pointedly - refused to hand over a state or a territory to the Zionist organisations, as that had never been the deal, and was only foisted upon the world by Zionist terrorists. With US & Russian support the UN then ratified what had already been done by force of arms, and granted a state to those same terrorists.

They were given the land by the British. If you want to argue that point, you can argue it all day long. It doesn't change the facts.

By that do you mean Israel, West Bank and Gaza?

If so - then I disagree. By what authority? Do you mean the Balfour Declaration?

I will be the first to admit I know less about that period of history than some here (and I suspect you also don't know as much).

The member here who has posted the most comprehensive understanding of it (even if I don't always agree with his opinions) is RoccoR and I respect his historical knowledge.

In this post of his - he described the what the Balfour Declaration and succeeding mandates/declarations meant: Jews trying to get Americans killed - as usual Page 16 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

No where do I see where the entire area was given to the Jews or, it was it seems to be non-binding and superceded by other agreements.

They didn't want to give it up to either side, and they were made to on a mandate. It doesn't change the facts.

They were not made to.
They were offered - asked - maybe pleaded with - to extend the mandate and continue British control of the region by the UN, but refused, as there was no good end in sight with all the terrorist activity by the Jewish immigrants and US agitating against British overseas influence, and what with having no money to fund the enterprise (with no offers from anyone to pay).

So Britain left. It did not hand over the land. It did not agree to set up a Zionist state. It did not facilitate the Zionist state. It just failed to prevent it.

I have little doubt that Britain fully expected Zionism to get its comeuppance from the surrounding arab states / tribes soon after, which would have had some poetic justice (Create a state through invasion and the sword / Die by the sword). But Britain was against the Zionist enterprise. If compromised by elements in Britain who ran their own agenda.

The UN set it up as a resolution mandate. It does not matter who agreed and who didn't agree. What matters is that Israel "stole" nothing. That is an outright lie.

No its not, and they are continuously stealing the Pals land, why do you think everyone is so upset about the 2400 new builds they are starting on. Thieves. plan and simple.

 

[Coyote]

Agree - when you get to that point, the original owners are dead and there is no sense in displacing people. But the land theft that occurred in 1967 and later - the original people are still alive, and return of the land or compensation should be addressed as well as a complete stop to more taking of land through "settlements".

Right of Return will no longer work, in connection with 1948-1949.

Return to the 1967 borders will no longer work, in connection with Israeli security and safety.

Compensation has marvelous possibilities.

But there is no longer enough land with which to make-up a sustainable nation-state.

That leaves population transfer - relocation - as the only practical outcome.

I know that this does not sit well, but the Losing Side is just going to have to suck it up, eventually, and move on.

If they did so voluntarily and with the blessing and large-scale assistance of the outside world, that would be best.

But, sooner or later, it's going to happen.

The Palestinians might as well leverage that as best they can, while they still can.

I sense time running out for the Palestinians to get anything whatsoever.

Yes there is.

Start negotiations at the 1967 borders and negotiate landswaps.

Israel needs to give up some things too.

Where exactly are there any '67 borders? I can't seem to find them on a map.

Green Line Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Green Line is often referred to as the "pre-1967 borders", the "1967 borders" by the United States president Barack Obama,[2] Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas,[3] and by the United Nations in informal texts[4] and in the text of UN GA Resolutions.[5]

The Green Line is a demarcation line that is not and never was an International border. It merely shows where the front lines were at the end of fighting.

It is what is referred to as the 1967 borders.

 

[Hossfly]

Right of Return will no longer work, in connection with 1948-1949.

Return to the 1967 borders will no longer work, in connection with Israeli security and safety.

Compensation has marvelous possibilities.

But there is no longer enough land with which to make-up a sustainable nation-state.

That leaves population transfer - relocation - as the only practical outcome.

I know that this does not sit well, but the Losing Side is just going to have to suck it up, eventually, and move on.

If they did so voluntarily and with the blessing and large-scale assistance of the outside world, that would be best.

But, sooner or later, it's going to happen.

The Palestinians might as well leverage that as best they can, while they still can.

I sense time running out for the Palestinians to get anything whatsoever.

Yes there is.

Start negotiations at the 1967 borders and negotiate landswaps.

Israel needs to give up some things too.

Where exactly are there any '67 borders? I can't seem to find them on a map.

Green Line Israel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Green Line is often referred to as the "pre-1967 borders", the "1967 borders" by the United States president Barack Obama,[2] Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas,[3] and by the United Nations in informal texts[4] and in the text of UN GA Resolutions.[5]

The Green Line is a demarcation line that is not and never was an International border. It merely shows where the front lines were at the end of fighting.

It is what is referred to as the 1967 borders.

Only by the Arabs and not by the Israelis.

The term Green Line is used to refer to the 1949 Armistice lines established between Israel and its neighbours (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon andSyria) after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Demarcation line - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[montelatici]

Well, why doesn't Israel annex all of Palestine? What's the problem?

 

[Hossfly]

Well, why doesn't Israel annex all of Palestine? What's the problem?

Waiting to see if BDS starts hurting. Then, annexation.

 

[Daniyel]

It isn't propaganda, but your links are certainly propaganda. Here is another link with the same exact information because this is EXACTLY how it happened. Also, this is an unbiased link. Too bad for you that Israel won. That's that. They won. The land is theirs. End of story.

Palestine 1918 to 1948

My links are usually to official reports by the Mandatory to the League of Nations. You are posting propaganda pieces.

The fact is that European Jews implemented a plan to ethnically cleanse the non-Jews and were successful.

There really can't be any question of the facts.

Why would anyone recognize the establishment of a state created through their expulsion from their homes?

Are you saying this is not what happened? You are so full of it. Anyone can google it themselves to see. The above which I linked to is completely accurate and truthful. WHO do you think you're fooling?

It's propaganda it's not accurate at all. I provided a link to a scholarly work, not propaganda.

Scholarly work? its a bunch of crap posted on Youtube like every random moron can do - and does - bringing pictures like from Sefad battle during the War of Independence when the Arab hostiles [Arab Legion(of Palestinians), and Syrians] attacked a 4,000 city - Jewish one of course - completely unarmed, when the Haganah forces came miraculously to aid Sefad at the last minute, and won the Arab hostiles, or for example quoting Mordecai Maklef FROM Haifa ordering IDF to retaliate the Fadeyeen Palestinian raiders who slaughtered, stole, and rape hundreds of Jews, it happened in Hebron, Jerusalem, and many small Jewish settlements.
This is a very poor propaganda-ad, when first you read about something you never heard of, so you get curious, next you see a baby crying because mommy taking the louse out of his hair, but on first thought you think hey why is he crying and of course you see a picture of a soldier dressed like the SS, black uniforms [in the middle of the desert] heavily armed with guns Israel didn't have but who cares its for killing Palestinians so its fine to write the 'ZIONIST COMMANDO' - I can go on explaining why this is a propaganda, and a lie, but lets be honest montelitici, this video is probably yours, correct?

It is from Monde Diplomatique, a respected and scholarly publication. You believe the fairy tales that your Zionist ancestors made up to cover up the fact that they came from another continent and stole the land from the people who lived there.

Let's get down to facts. Prior to 1850 there were a handful of Jews in Palestine and hundreds of thousands of Christians and Muslims. A large number of European Jews went to Palestine. Now the Christians and Muslims in Palestine, while outnumbering Jews, are ruled by Jews. I think the facts sspeak for themselves.

Sorry I'm not following, a handful of Jews over hundreds of thousands of Christians and Muslims? and you really think they were ruled by Jews? spare me the world is flat academics.
What year do you consider the 'prior to 1800'? The Jews never left but were always under upraising Muslim migration ruled by Muslims, the Christians did not show any significant migration past the crusaders, and wasn't necessarily ARAB Christians, lets let the facts speak for themselves.
Demographic history of Jerusalem - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The Jews were always vulnerable to the attacks from other religions, always been because Jews did not have any form sovereignty, believing otherwise is fairy-tales for shmucks.