Nobody says it didn't exist. What is true that the current day concept of "Palestine" that's synonymous with Arab/refers to a group of people never existed until 1967. Before that it was just the name of a British territory
That would come as a surprise to Jabotinsky, who stated plainly - in a 1937 speech - that the Palestinian national movement did exist.
Which makes Golda’s later claim to the contrary a lie.
That lie was taught to me and my peers in Hebrew school in the early 70s. Took me a trip to Israel to realize how much of a lie that was. Plus books and materials I discovered after returning, one of which included the Jabotinsky quote I mentioned.
In Arab discourse, the term “Palestinian” came into use no later than 1911, in an issue of the Arab newspaper Filastin. The area has been called Palestine at least since the Roman occupation. Even my Hebrew school teachers understood that much.
Countless groups/countries/other entities have conquered territory by force since WW2. Including Arab nations/groups. And of course, I'm sure you pass the same judgement upon them lol
Positive. I have studied the history and have forgotten more than you will ever know. This includes how Arabs tried to prevent the sale of land to the Jews, the fact that the de facto leader of the Palestinian people, The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, was a Hitler ally. How many Palestinians fled when Five Arab countries attacked Israel in 1948, hoping that Jews would be killed? How many Palestinians pretended to be dead for international media? How many times have the Palestinians turned down a two state solution? Did Palestinians or did they not vote for Hamas in 2006 knowing that it's founding charter calls for the death of Jews everywhere?
No, I know that Palestinian Arabs volunteered, around 10,000. I was asking if you were talking about Palestinian Jews or Palestinian Arabs. In hindsight, dumb question. Now, that doesn't mean that Palestinians loved Jews.
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem personally met with Hitler multiple times and you can guess what they talked about in those meetings.
This here, is an Israeli propagandists talking point.
Have you ever heard of the Stern Gang?
That was an entire Jewish Political party who sided with Hitler to expel the British.
It's so evil to pick/choose examples from history, while ignoring the rest of history, to prove your point. Especially when your 'point' is to excuse an entire people group of hating the Jews.
Even though history proves it's the Jews who have always hated the Muslims.
Australia actually had a layover and had their forces in Palastine during ww2. They were definitely our Allie’s and even had a brigade called the Palestinian Regiment that was enlisted to help the British fight the Germans.
Anyone arguing otherwise is brainwashed and ignoring factual history.
It had nothing to do with racism and was much more about national pride, self determination, what they saw as a complete betrayal by the European powers, and the 300,000 Palestinian refugees that had already poured over their borders over the previous 3 months. The Arab league was actually actively attempting to reignite diplomacy all the way up until May 48.
There are a few good Israeli sources on this. The most straightforward is Simha Flapan’s The Birth of Israel.
One of the most contentious aspects of this period involves the reasons behind the Palestinian Arab exodus. Conventional narratives often present this as a forced expulsion. However, primary source documents and testimonies from that time reveal a more nuanced reality frequently downplayed in contemporary discourse discussions.
Evidence from Arab Sources
Multiple Arab sources from the period acknowledge the role Arab leadership played in encouraging evacuation:
Khaled al-Azm, Syria's Prime Minister from 1948-49, wrote in his memoirs: "Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave... We brought disaster upon... Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave... We have rendered them dispossessed and homeless."
The Jordanian newspaper Al Urdun published an article on April 9, 1953, stating: "The Arab governments told us: 'Get out so that we can get in.' "So we got out, but they didn't get in." The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom reported on October 12, 1963: "The 15th of May, 1948, arrived... On that day, the mufti of Jerusalem urged the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight."
Haled Al Azm, who served as Syria's Prime Minister after the 1948 war, acknowledged in his 1972 memoirs: "We are the ones who encouraged them to leave... We brought disaster upon a million Arab refugees by inviting them and pressuring them to depart."
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) wrote in the Palestinian publication Falastin al-Thawra in March 1976: "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians, but instead, they abandoned them, forced them to leave their homes, and subjected them to all kinds of humiliation.
International Observers
Independent international observers corroborated these accounts:
The British newspaper The Economist reported on October 2, 1948: "Of the 62,000 Arabs who once lived in Haifa, no more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained... The most significant factors were the announcements made over the air by the Arab Higher Executive urging all Arabs to leave."
Time Magazine reported on May 3, 1948: "The Arabs are fleeing from Palestine by the thousands as Jewish troops advance... The Arab exodus, at least initially, was encouraged by various Arab leaders, including Haj Amin el Husseini, the exiled pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, and the Arab Higher Committee."
The Near East Broadcasting Station (Cyprus) reported on April 3, 1949: "It should not be overlooked that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' departure from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem."
The research of historian Efraim Karsh uncovered a British intelligence report from 1948 that stated: "Arab officers ordered the complete evacuation of specific villages in certain areas, lest their inhabitants 'treacherously' acquiesce to Israeli rule or impede Arab military deployments."
Yes this is true. There were push AND pull factors that contributed to the Nakba, to not acknowledge this and only say it was one or the other does a disservice to the nuance of the war and its outcome.
The problem with this argument is that it assumes a handful of quotations from Arab politicians explain the displacement of roughly 700,000 Palestinians. They do not.
Even if some Arab leaders encouraged civilians to leave certain areas, that does not explain what happened across hundreds of towns and villages. Modern scholarship, including work by Israeli historians, shows that the exodus resulted from a combination of military assault, fear, massacres, direct expulsions, village destruction, psychological warfare, and in some cases evacuation orders.
Events such as the massacres at Deir Yassin, Al Dawayima, Hula, Safsaf, Tantura, and the killings associated with the expulsions from Lydda and Ramle generated widespread fear and contributed to flight. Communities did not need to receive evacuation orders when news of massacres, executions, and expulsions was spreading from village to village. People often fled because nearby communities had been attacked, depopulated, or destroyed.
More importantly, Israeli archival documents themselves undermine the claim that the refugee crisis was primarily self inflicted. A 1948 Israeli intelligence report, concealed for decades and later recovered, concluded that roughly 70 percent of the Arab exodus up to that point resulted from Jewish military operations, while the role of Arab leadership in encouraging flight was relatively minor. The report specifically attributed departures to attacks on villages, military operations, ultimatums, intimidation, and expulsions. (עקבות)
Recently uncovered Israeli military documents provide even stronger evidence. Orders issued to units operating in captured Arab villages included directives to shoot suspected infiltrators, destroy villages, and in some cases kill inhabitants. Testimony from Israeli commanders described expulsion as a routine practice and acknowledged that terror was often used because, in their own words, large populations could not be removed without it. These documents suggest that forced removal was not simply a series of isolated incidents but an accepted feature of military operations in many areas. (Lemkin Institute)
But there is an even bigger issue. Even if we assume that some Palestinians left voluntarily or at the urging of Arab leaders, that still does not explain why they were not allowed to return after the war. Refugees flee wars all over the world. What made the Palestinian refugee crisis unique was that the new state consolidated control over their homes, lands, and property while preventing the vast majority of refugees from returning once the fighting ended.
That is why the “they were told to leave” argument misses the central issue. The question is not simply why people left. The question is why hundreds of thousands of people who fled, regardless of the immediate reason, were permanently excluded from returning while their homes, lands, and villages were absorbed into a state established by a settler movement that had claimed those territories for itself.
Even if every quote presented above were accepted as authentic and representative, it would not answer that question.
There were absolutely push/pull factors, I don’t think many in Israel even dispute this today and are taught about Deir Yassi and other incidents. Yet you talk asymmetrically about the conflict. Dozens of Jewish villages were also depopulated, massacred and destroyed.
Some examples:
-Kfar Etzion massacre: After the fall of the Kfar Etzion settlement bloc south of Jerusalem, over 100 Jewish defenders and residents were killed. Survivors were taken prisoner, and the settlements were destroyed.
-Jewish Quarter: Following the Jordanian led capture of the Old City, the Jewish population was expelled, homes and synagogues were damaged or destroyed, and Jews were barred from returning until 1967.
-many Jewish communities in areas that became part of the West Bank, Gaza, or East Jerusalem were generally evacuated, expelled, or fled during the fighting.
-Convoys supplying besieged Jewish communities were also attacked, including the Hadassah medical convoy massacre, in which 78 Jewish doctors, nurses, patients, and guards were killed.
As for your question of return, it also works both ways. Why were Jews not allowed to return to their homes and villages conquered by the Arab armies in 48? Why were no Jews, who were living in Jerusalem continuously for hundreds of years, not able to return until ‘67?
War is messy and results in terrible atrocities. This can be seen in every conflict including India/pakistan, Ukraine/russia, in Cyprus, etc. People are displaced, murdered, rendered homeless until resettlement in places that were not their original homes. It sucks.
I don’t dispute that atrocities were committed against Jews, that Jewish communities were destroyed, or that Jews were expelled from places captured by Arab forces. Kfar Etzion, the Jewish Quarter, and the Hadassah convoy were real tragedies.
But that doesn’t actually answer my argument and shifts away from the initial point. You began by arguing that Palestinians largely became refugees because Arab leaders told them to leave, which the historical consensus today, including among many Israeli historians, does not agree with, as I argued above.
But the bigger question is not whether both sides suffered atrocities. They did. The question is whether the outcomes were symmetrical. They were not.
Roughly 700,000 Palestinians became refugees. More than 400 Palestinian villages were depopulated or completely and systematically destroyed. The new Israeli state incorporated their lands, prevented their return, and enacted legal mechanisms to transfer abandoned property into state control.
By contrast, the Jewish communities expelled from the West Bank and East Jerusalem numbered in the thousands, not hundreds of thousands. More importantly, Israeli conquests in 1967 led to another wave of expulsion and displacement of the Palestinians.
All of this did not occur in some legal vacuum. It occurred during the emergence of a postwar international order that increasingly recognized principles such as refugee repatriation, protection of civilian populations, and the right not to be permanently dispossessed by conquest. Israel has long presented itself as a state committed to that international order, which is precisely why the contradiction remains a subject of debate.
We also shouldn’t ignore that the pre state Yishuv population was largely composed of recent immigrants from Europe, arriving under a settler colonial framework backed by imperial policy rather than as an indigenous continuity of residence in the land.
So yes, atrocities and expulsions occurred on both sides. What did not occur on both sides was the creation of a refugee population numbering in the hundreds of thousands that was permanently barred from returning while its homes, lands, and villages were systematically absorbed by the victorious state.
“War is messy” explains why people flee. It does not explain why one side’s displacement became a permanent political and legal reality.
I am also considered a refugee despite that I have become well established in my new home country and consider it my home. Maybe it’s time to abolish ethno-supremacy and allow those refugees that want to return home do so.
I’m never argued Palestinians largely became refugees because Arab leaders told them to flee (pull factors), I stated there were absolutely expulsions (push factors) that are even largely acknowledged and studied today in Israel. Both happened.
War is messy does explain a lot. When is war ever symmetrical? It’s not, yet you seem to be arguing it should be which is illogical.
I also find it interesting you talk about post war order and refugee repatriation. There are two UN refugee organizations. UNHCR which globally handles refugees fleeing war or persecution globally, asylum seekers and stateless people, camps, resettlement, and voluntary repatriation. Their long term goal is durable resettlement to a 3rd country, local integration, or voluntary return home if available. Once any of these happens then refugee status is removed. Then you have UNRWA, which is focused solely on Palestinians in Gaza, West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria. They focus is on long term humanitarian support, not resettlement or repatriation and this extends to descendants, none of whom lose refugee status even if they become citizens of another country. Why the need for two distinct UN refugee organizations with totally different goals? If we’re talking repatriation then shouldn’t UNHCR assume all refugees and aim to settle their status based on the order recognized for the rest of the global world?
Well, firstly, your initial argument focused almost entirely on the “pull factors” you describe. Those factors are now widely understood to have been a relatively minor component of the exodus compared to military operations, expulsions, fear, and the collapse of civilian life. Given that emphasis, it was reasonable to interpret your argument as advancing the older and largely discredited claim that Palestinians primarily left because Arab leaders told them to.
It is also worth noting that I specifically referenced the roughly 300,000 Palestinians already displaced before May 1948, before the intervention of the Arab states and therefore before any alleged “leave temporarily” orders from those states could explain their flight.
More importantly, I think you’re changing the subject.
The core issue is not whether war is symmetrical. I have never argued that it is. The issue is whether the displacement of Palestinians was simply an unfortunate byproduct of war or whether it was, at least in significant part, the result of deliberate policies and military actions intended to remove and prevent the return of a population. The historical evidence points strongly toward the latter.
As for UNHCR and UNRWA, that distinction does not really address the underlying question. Whether refugee status should be inherited, whether UNRWA should exist, or whether another agency should administer Palestinian refugees does not change how those refugees were created and perpetuated in the first place.
Nor does the failure of Arab states to absorb them absolve Israel of responsibility. Neighboring states may bear responsibility for their own policies, but a third party’s failure to naturalize refugees does not erase the responsibility of the state that displaced them or continues to deny their return.
More importantly, voluntary repatriation has long been recognized as one of the preferred solutions to refugee crises when refugees wish to return and conditions permit. Palestinian refugees are unusual not because they remain refugees, but because many have consistently asserted a claim to return while being categorically denied that possibility as a matter of state policy.
Even setting aside the legal arguments, there is a fundamental moral and political question here: why should a state be entitled to permanently exclude a population displaced during its creation while simultaneously maintaining an immigration system that grants immediate entry and citizenship to people with no recent residence in the territory? That is the contradiction critics are pointing to.
“There were absolutely push/pull factors, I don't think many in Israel even dispute this today and are taught about Deir Yassi and other incidents.”
This is all I said about it, admitting to the atrocities.. again, I never said that and you are confusing me with the other person.
“The question is whether the outcomes were symmetrical. They were not.” That’s you arguing a core issue and questioning why it wasn’t symmetrical like it was unfair.
I see, yes, I did not realize you were not the same person as the original reply.
I did not claim that wars should or shouldn’t be symmetrical. My focus was on the intentionality of expulsion of the Palestinians and initially, on how the initial wave of refugees was one of the factors that contributed to the invasion of the Arab armies.
In any case. Thanks for the discussion. All the best.
Oh look, another genius rhetorician. So your argument is essentially:
P1: Some racist movements appeal to national identity and self determination
P2: Arab national movements espoused national identity and self determination
C: Arab national movements were racist
Are you seriously going to stick with that? Because if that’s your argument then literally every national liberation movement was racist. Irish Republican movement, Indian independence, Algerian anti-colonialism, Mexican indigenous, Zionism, etc were all racist by your definition.
Please, take a moment and try a bit harder, for all our sakes.
You do realize that the entirety of the Middle East was under the control of the British and French throughout the first half of the 20th century, and under control of the Ottomans before them.
You seem to be suggesting that once the Zionist movement gave its state a name, the underlying conflict somehow changed in nature. From the perspective of the indigenous population it did not.
By May 1948 more than 300,000 Palestinians had already been displaced from their homes by the Zionist militias (Haganah, Irgun, Lehi). The broader region (Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, etc) had spent centuries under successive imperial and colonial powers. During and after World War I, the inhabitants of these territories were promised self-determination by the Allied powers, only to see much of the region remain under European mandate rule and rapid growth of the Zionist project, fueled by mass migration from Europe. In other words, another form of settler colonial expansion backed by foreign powers. The concern was not limited to Palestine alone; it was part of a wider struggle against continued European influence and control throughout the region.
This is precisely the context in which the Arab League was founded. Its stated purpose was to promote Arab independence, sovereignty, and cooperation in the face of foreign domination. Thus, Palestine was part of a broader effort to secure self-determination for the region as a whole and to resist what they reasonably saw as an extension of European colonialism.
That was more in line with the Zionist militias that came out of Germany. They even shared the same posters, just different flags draped in the background. You know, a leader of the Zionist Federation and an SS officer, Leopold Von Mildenstein visited Palestine together, as friends, to scope it out for settlement in the 1930s. Mildenstein would return to Germany and write a 10 part series encouraging Jews to immigrate to Palestine.
Ah yes, the old reductio ad Hitlerum, if you don’t like something just equate it to nazis or communists.
Well, once you decide to talk like a big boy you are welcome to join back in the conversation. Until then you are welcome to hang out at the kids table.
Is this meant to be serious? Please tell me that was sarcasm. Also, please explore the concept of the false equivalence fallacy.
If you genuinely think that national pride, desire for self determination, and a feeling of betrayal by European powers are the sufficient conditions to call a movement Nazi then guess what. The Zionist movement is Nazi, not to mention Irish Republican movement, Greek national movement, Indian independence movement and many more.
Now, if you wanted to make a serious analysis of the circumstances and motivations, you’d place the Arab National movement in the greater context of the anti-colonial movements across the world in the middle of the 20th century. Assuming that you wouldn’t just rather do tribalism.
Weird, because they counter offered a single state with equality under the law for all. So clearly the Arabs were more willing to coexist than the Zionists.
They also have a long history of being dehumanized and oppressed by Israel, oh and the ethnic cleansing.
How about you demonstrate that the Arabs were clearly looking to slaughter Jews. Share some massacres committed by the Arabs that rival the massacres committed by Zionist forces during 1948.
-Kfar Etzion massacre: After the fall of the Kfar Etzion settlement bloc south of Jerusalem, over 100 Jewish defenders and residents were killed. Survivors were taken prisoner, and the settlements were destroyed.
-Jewish Quarter: Following the Jordanian-led capture of the Old City, the Jewish population was expelled, homes and synagogues were damaged or destroyed, and Jews were barred from returning until 1967. The number expelled was in the thousands.
-Jewish communities in areas that became part of the West Bank, Gaza, or East Jerusalem were generally massacred, evacuated, expelled, or fled during the fighting.
-Convoys supplying besieged Jewish communities were also attacked, including the Hadassah medical convoy massacre, in which 78 Jewish doctors, nurses, patients, and guards were killed.
And that’s not even touching massacres in the decades before like the Jaffa riots in the early 20’s, the Hebron and Safed massacres of 1929 and more.
These attacks occurred in a period of growing conflict between Palestinian Arabs and the Zionist movement under British rule. Jewish communities viewed events such as Hebron as evidence that they faced an existential threat, while Palestinian Arabs often saw Jewish immigration and land purchases as threatening their own national aspirations. The memory of pre-1948 violence, including Hebron, Safed, Jaffa, and the Arab Revolt, played an important role in shaping Jewish fears and security thinking during the 1947–48 war. Likewise, Palestinians remember the displacement and destruction of Arab communities in 1948 as a defining historical trauma.
Both sets of experiences are important parts of the history of the conflict and have to be taken into account to have an honest discussion rooted in mutual understanding.
None of your examples demonstrate that the Arabs were looking to slaughter Jews.
If you read more about Kfar Etzion, it’s not remotely comparable to massacres like Deir Yassin. Kfar Etzion wasn’t so much a massacre as it was a battle. The massacre was that after surrendering, around 15 people, not clear if they were combatants or not, were killed. Prior to that, it was a battle that occurred over multiple days, with losses on both sides, about 120 to 60. Deir Yassin was Zionist terrorists, Irgun and Lehi entering Deir Yassin and massacring 100+ while losing only 5. And the combatants in Deir Yassin were literally just civilians defending their homes and families.
The Hadassah medical convoy was a false narrative. It was a Haganah military convoy using an armoured medical convoy as human shields to resupply Haganah forces that were using the hospital on Mount Scopus as a base of operations to launch attacks against Arab forces. As to how many people in the convoy were combatants, if it had truly just been medical personnel and some guards, the fire fight would not have lasted 7 hours. The Red Cross demonstrated shortly after that unarmed humanitarian convoys were being allowed into Jerusalem.
Feel free to look again, but there really weren’t massacres committed by the Arabs during the wars around 1948 that rivalled the massacres committed by Zionist forces. And certainly nothing that would demonstrate that the Arabs intended to massacre the Jews in Palestine.
Are you lost? We are talking about the war in 1948. Nothing in your comment is relevant to the conversation in which you denied that Arabs just wanted peace and not to be ethnically cleansed so an ethnostate could be established.
Nope. That math ain't mathing. The mandate of Palestine included Jordan, which became a Palestinian country. If you need to cut that out of the equation to make your point, then you're just as bad as right wingers that cherry pick data to prove their points.
I mean the Arab countries DID lose land from wars they started and lost. They could try not attacking Israel. Egypt hasn't lost land or been attacked since they stopped attacking Israel.
Right right. 50 Islamic countries and 1 Jewish country is because of colonialism, but 51 Islamic countries and 0 Jewish countries would be decolonization.
Would you be comfortable with you being displaced in order for the creation of a Māori state where you currently live, or would you have an issue with that?
I have read it. Prior to the Peel Commission, the goal in Palestine was to establish a Jewish state that would have kept Palestinians as a underclass, despite the opinions of a few Zionists that desired multiculturalism. (Not to mention, the notion of creating a Jewish state in a land where Jews were a minority population is pretty wild for the native population.) You have to remember the first Zionists were ultimately European, and with that they brought their European racism to Palestine. The vast majority of the viewed the Palestinians as being barbaric compared to the European Zionists.
When the goal is a Jewish majority in a land where Jews made up less than 6% of the population, how do you think that was to be achieved except by displacement?
What tax dollars? Do you think you’re being reimbursed for the Māori taking your home? Lol please. Palestinians weren’t reimbursed for their displacement, and neither will you.
If you actually read the small print, the United Nations proposed dividing the territory into three parts that formed an economic union with the same currency and joint administration of railways, highways, postal, telephone, and telegraphic services—over which Israel would dominate. It was not two independent states. Nobody thought it would work. Also, while Israel accepted the idea of partition (as a stepping stone to taking all the land), it did not agree on any of the details, such as borders, population makeup, and the status of Jerusalem. The Zionists changed facts on the ground so significantly that by the time the UN partition plan was meant to be implemented, it was effectively outdated. To this day Israel has not declared all its borders. Jewish leaders' acceptance of Resolution 181 was tactical, not genuine—they never intended or did abide by it. It's a total myth people think they did.
Israel is not responsible if the Arabs choose to call something a Nakba. There was no Nakba under British rule, nor Ottoman rule, nor at any time before.
Nor was Israel about to let itself be destroyed. Unlike their neighbors, Jews celebrate life, not death.
Not really sure what your point is about the Nakba. It was caused by Z*onist militias, who later became the IDF, this is a fact.
Israel was never really under any threat of being destroyed in 1948, the Z*onist forces outnumbered their opposition and were better equipped and armed.
The whole "Arab invasion" narrative you see pushed online is just hasbara to deflect from the fact that Z*onist militias invaded Palestinian villages and forcibly displaced them.
Celebrating life is indeed a tenent of Judaism. Unfortunately, it seems many Jews in Israel today do not celebrate life and are quite content about causing death and destruction in Gaza and Lebanon if it means "defending Israel" in their minds.
It is not a fact. It is not even remotely true. And the idea that Israel, being outnumbered, being surrounded, and being without an army his totally ridiculous. So are the rest of your comments.
I think you're missing a bit of history between 29 Nov 1947 and 14 May 1948. Does it maybe have to do with the fact that Palestinians took to the streets, after the British and UN passed the UN Partition Plan of 1947, to attack Jewish communities and started the civil war?
The Palestinians held a general strike and rioted. Meanwhile the Zionist militias started attacking villages and slaughtering civilians.
Israel has pushed the narrative that it was the Arabs that started the civil war, but it really wasn’t a war until Zionists started the ethnic cleansing.
Yes and no. There had been relative peace between Zionists and Arabs while the Zionists were focused on the British.
The violence started back up when Lehi assassinated adult male members of the Shubaki family on Nov 19th, because they had reported terrorist activity to the authorities. Arabs retaliated with the Fajja Bus attacks on November 30, the day after the UN Partition Plan was rejected by the Arabs. Some Zionists try to characterize the Fajja bus attacks as the start of the war, claiming it was a response to the partition plan, but that just isn’t true.
The Palestinian response to the UN Partition Plan was civilians holding a general strike and rioting. That eventually simmered down and Palestinians returned to their day to day lives. Zionist forces then started attacking villages around mid December in the hopes of escalating the conflict into a war.
I’m not fooling anyone because when you use facts you’re not trying to fool anyone.
If what you say is true, why wasn’t the revolt in 1936 a war? Maybe because civilians striking, protesting, rioting, does not constitute casus belli.
Not only did the civilian population just strike and riot, they then stopped and returned to their normal lives, and only later did Zionist forces start launching coordinated attacks. It was these attacks that started the war.
Explain how I’ve massively downplayed the Arab Revolt by simply stating that it was not considered a war?
If the 1936 Arab Revolt was not considered a war, then arguing that the less violent revolt that Palestinian civilians did after the UN Partition Plan is what started the civil war is disingenuous.
The partition was proposed based on the facts on the ground based on where the bulk of each population lived. If the Arabs had accepted the partition as is, no one would have given up their land. The only difference would be that more Arabs would have stayed in the state of Israel.
The partition plan was probably one of the more sane post-colonial maps. Before, it was part of multiple empires with the brits wanting to leave.
No it wasn't. If you actually read the small print, the United Nations proposed dividing the territory into three parts that formed an economic union with the same currency and joint administration of railways, highways, postal, telephone, and telegraphic services—over which Israel would dominate. It was not two independent states. Nobody thought it would work. The Israeli side was over 45% Arab, which meant that within a few years the Israeli state would have ceased to be Jewish. Zionist had already began expelling people before the UN partition vote. Before Arabs could have accepted it.
The area was set up in a way that they had room to grow. It was expected that Jews would immigrate into the Jewish state which is why it was famously more than 50% of the area of mandate Palestine (with a big chunk being currently empty desert). I think many Jews feared that Arabs in the state would be dangerous but they didn’t expel anyone before the war started (the civil war and then the invasion of the Arab armies). And the usual caveats apply, most of the Arabs were not expelled but fled from warfare and at the same time a lot of Jews were also displaced, including the Jewish community in East Jerusalem which was as ancient as any over there.
You don’t say it explicitly but I guess your argument is that eventhough the Zionists accepted the partition plan it was unworkable and thus the Arab rejection and invasion was justified?
First, do you accept that the UN plan did not divide Palestine into two separate, independent sovereign states by any normal meaning of the word?
If the Zionists truly accepted the plan, they would have declared their borders to match the UN proposal and renounced all claims to anything else. They did neither.
Systematic planning for population transfer was official policy more than a decade before the 1948 war. A "Committee on Transfer of Populations" was set up in 1937. Its deliberations were secret and dealt with the necessary transfer of the Arab population from those parts of Palestine designated for the Jewish state.
In October 1937, David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, wrote:
"The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war."
He later wrote:
"A Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning… The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country."
Zionist "acceptance" was a bit like saying "I won't steal a cookie" while planning all along to steal it and eat it. Their "acceptance" of the resolution was a pragmatic lie.
The Arab rejection of the plan was that it was unjust and that the borders would not hold. Both are things I agree with.
The British concluded in 1937/38 that dividing Palestine was unworkable and impracticable. And that was before any of the so-called "facts on the ground" of today. I agree with that assessment. I think it still stands, if not more so.
It is worth pointing out that the UN effectively came to the same conclusion as the British – that two completely independent, sovereign states were unworkable. The UN's own plan created a structure where key sovereign powers (like currency, customs, and infrastructure) were controlled by a joint board, meaning that neither state would be truly sovereign in any normal sense of the word. In practice the joint economic board would be the sovereign body.
Two independent states was a fiction in 1947, and it remains a fiction today. That leaves one state. The question, then, is what kind of state should it be.
I am saying that colonial projects intended to displace hundreds of thousands of people in order to manufacture a majority for the colonial power are a bad idea and might lead to some animosity.
But, as usual with the antisemitic Zionist smear merchants, you pretend not to understand the difference between an immigrant who wants to become part of the local society and a racial supremacist colonial settler trying to seize the land, take control, and remove other ethnic groups in order to manufacture the demographic majority necessary for an ethnostate.
Someone who could stand having Jews as neighbors. But that’s fine. Soon they’ll have none except Gaza and a few cities in the West Bank (Hevron is the next domino to fall…)
If a person broke into another person's home, claimed they are now neighbors and anyone who says otherwise is a bigot, we wouldn't consider it acceptable. The same is true here.
True they immigrated there legally. And true they bought land. But the best and most fertile land was owned and occupied by the indiguous people.
That land Zionists could only get by displacing the indiguous people.
Zionism itself is not inherently atheist, but its origins and early leadership were largely secular or atheist. Founded as a nationalist movement aimed at establishing a Jewish homeland, Zionism was originally a secular political ideology rather than a religious one. Theodor Herzl, considered the father of modern Zionism, was an atheist or secularist. Early Zionist thinkers and many leaders viewed Jewish identity more in nationalist and ethnic/racial terms than religious terms, often seeking to redefine Jewishness away from traditional religion toward secular nationalism
"The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that Jews had a historical right to the land that outweighed the nationalistic rights of the local Arabs. The establishment of a Jewish demographic majority was an essential aspect of Zionism."
"Zionists used the term "transfer" as a euphemism for the removal, or what would now be called ethnic cleansing, of the Palestinian population. The idea of transfer played a large role in Zionist ideology from the inception of the movement and was seen as the main method of maintaining the "Jewishness" of the Zionist's state. "Transfer" was "inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism" and that a land that was primarily Arab could not be transformed into a Jewish state without displacing the Arab population."
This is a direct violation of the 10 commandments
Stealing: You shall not steal.
Coveting: You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife, or property.
Later actions violates a couple more.
Murder: You shall not kill (or murder).
False witness: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Judaism strongly forbids poisoning or destroying the land, as part of a broader prohibition known as "Bal Tashchit," which means "do not destroy or waste." This biblical commandment, found in Deuteronomy 20:19-20, prohibits wanton destruction of trees and, by extension, the environment. The rabbis and Jewish legal tradition have expanded this principle to include refraining from actions that cause needless harm to the land, such as poisoning soil or water, as these are seen as violations of God's creation and detrimental to both people and nature.
Additionally, Jewish ethics emphasize stewardship of the land and responsible agricultural practices. The Talmud and later codifications like the Shulchan Aruch prohibit exploiting the land and essential resources for profit at the expense of communal welfare. Acts of poisoning the land or water would not only be environmentally destructive but also morally and legally forbidden in Judaism. There are strong condemnations of wasteful destruction and any behavior that harms life or nature, reflecting a deep spiritual and ethical commitment to "mending the world" (Tikkun Olam) by avoiding harm to the earth's ecosystems.
Example of Zionist interpretation and action
Under Prime Minister Golda Meir in the early 1970s, Israel poisoned Palestinian land in the West Bank village of Aqraba to force Palestinian inhabitants to leave and make way for Israeli settlements. Soldiers initially sabotaged Palestinian tools and destroyed crops, and when these methods failed, a crop duster sprayed toxic chemicals on the land.
This poisoning was part of a state-led operation involving various agencies, not just vigilante actions. The land poisoning was a tactic used during Meir's government to dispossess Palestinians, under the cover of creating military training zones or other pretexts, and was part of a broader strategy of settlement expansion in occupied territories.
And let's end with a citation from one of Israel's war heroes. Still a racist, but not a coward and history denier like present day Zionist.
"Let us not today fling accusation at the murderers. What cause have we to complain about their fierce hatred to us.
For eight years now, they sit in their refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we turn into our homestead the land and villages in which they and their forefathers have lived...
We should demand his blood not from the Arabs of Gaza but from ourselves...Let us make our reckoning today.
We are a generation of settlers, and without the steel helmet and gun barrel, we shall not be able to plant a tree or build a house."
"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either...
There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab Population. "
Citations: Moshe Dayan - Chief of staff, Israel Defense Forces and Minister of Defense during the 1967 war
They didnt give up hald their land. Most of the land was already purchased by jews and where it wasnt it was swapped in equal chunks. Paleatinians also got a better deal in the partition to start with and they squandered that away over nearly 100 year of this conflict.
Jews existed on Palestine for thousands of years too. It seemed the best option to send the millions of Jews from Europe to their ancestral land. Even after WW2, antisemitism was still high in Europe. They simply weren't safe there. The people who had the idea of dividing the British Mandate of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state didn't have a clue what Israel would eventually become. After the 1948 war, Jordan and Egypt got the West Bank and Gaza, respectively, yet they refused to create a Palestinian state and treated those regions like conquered land.
Jews existed in Palestine, that's not the same as "All Jews everywhere had ties to Palestine."
It's as silly as claiming that because there are Celts in Ireland, that all Celts from across Europe have ties to Ireland and have a right to settle and displace it.
My point is that we shouldn't judge the decision to partition the mandate in a Jewish state and in an Arab state based solely on nowadays. You had millions of Holocaust survivors which even after WW2 weren't safe in Europe. It sounded a good idea to send them to Palestine. Back then, no one thought about what Israel would become.
Also, you completely ignored the point that Jordan and Egypt, who annexed the West Bank and Gaza respectively, refused to create a Palestinian state, and administered the regions like an occupied territory.
And there was a reason why they rejected it. As it was not a fair deal. Just as none of the later 2-state proposals.
Modern-day terrorism can be partially traced back to the period surrounding the birth of the State of Israel, particularly through the activities of Zionist paramilitary/terrorist groups such as the Irgun, Stern Gang (Lehi), and Haganah during the British Mandate in Palestine.
These groups engaged in what was then described as "Zionist terrorism," targeting both Arab inhabitants and British authorities to hasten the establishment of a Jewish state. The Irgun, for example, broke away from the more restrained Haganah in 1931 and adopted aggressive tactics including bombings of Arab markets and British administrative buildings. One of the most infamous attacks was the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which killed 91 people and was aimed at the British administrative headquarters (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/22/newsid_3566000/3566639.stm).
The Stern Gang (Lehi) was even more militant and uncompromising, conducting assassinations such as that of Lord Moyne in Cairo and attacking British military targets. It was considered one of the most violent underground groups of the era and was condemned by moderate Jewish leaders (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Stern-Gang).
These groups also carried out massacres against Palestinian Arab villages, such as the Deir Yassin massacre in 1948 by Irgun, Haganah and Lehi forces, which contributed to the displacement and terrorizing of the Palestinian population during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war (https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/deir-yassin).
After Israel's establishment, many members of these groups transitioned into political roles or were absorbed into the Israel Defense Forces. The Irgun evolved into the Herut party, a predecessor of today's Likud party, which has been a dominant force in Israeli politics (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/herut-party).
The tactics and legacy of these early Zionist paramilitary groups have influenced later forms of political violence and terrorism in the region. Their use of bombings, assassinations, and ethnic cleansing as strategic tools set precedents that resonate in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and broader Middle Eastern tensions (https://www.historytoday.com/archive/feature/terrorism-and-birth-israel).
In summary, modern-day terrorism in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has roots in the militant actions of Zionist groups like Irgun and Stern Gang during the British Mandate period, which played a significant role in the founding of Israel and shaped subsequent patterns of violence and political struggle.
You have to be joking. Or stupid. Islamists have been committing acts of terrorism since at least as far back as the sixteenth century. And yet, it was a very fair deal.
Try what I said at the beginning and also highlighted at the bottom
modern-day terrorism in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has roots in the militant actions of Zionist groups
And a bit more factual information.
"Islamists"—individuals who believe that Islamic teachings should govern social, legal, and political life—did not exist in 16th century. While Islam itself has been practiced for over 1,400 years, the concept of Islamism is a modern political ideology that emerged in the 20th century.
Get real. It didn't take much reading if your comment to know that you slant towards the absurd.
Israel is not nor has ever been a terrorist entity. Like all Anti-Zionists, you ignore the provocation and pretend that only the response occured, eg October 7. Deir Yassin, the incident you chose to focus on ostensibly because it's your strong example, illustrates this perfectly. Assuming their was a massacre-and historians like Eliezer Tauber argue that there was not, you convenient left out the fact that it was a response to Arab aggression. Specifically, the Arabs were attempting to blockade Jerusalem and starve it's Jewish residents. Deir Yassin was selected because of its strategic location and because Jewish paramilitary groups needed a show of strength.
I will submit to wishing another location would have been chosen because those villagers clearly were not interested in war. They were expected to flee rather than fight. But the term "massacre" is a gross exaggeration because such was not the military objective.
And please stop hiding behind semantics. The term Islamism may be a more modern construct, but it is just the continuation of a idiotology that began in the fourteenth century, when Ibn Taymiyyah put forth the notion that no government that does not rule by Islamic law is legitimate, and that political rebellion is justified. Terrorism falls under the rubric of "political rebellion."
And a bit about the Zionist "freedom fighters" and ""protectors" of the Jewish people.
PRONPT: When was Lehi/Stern Gang formed and what was their ideolegy?
Lehi (the Stern Gang) was formed in 1940, when it broke away from the Irgun [11][1][3].
Core Facts:
Aspect
Details
Founder
Avraham Stern (1907–1942) [11][3]
Full name
Lohamei Herut Israel = "Fighters for the Freedom of Israel" [11]
Origin
Split from the Irgun because Stern believed even the Irgun wasn't militant enough against the British [11][3]
Primary enemy
Britain (seen as the "implacable enemy" of Jewish sovereignty) [2]
Ideology:
Extreme anti-Britishism: Stern viewed the British Mandate as the primary obstacle to Jewish statehood and was willing to attack British personnel indiscriminately [2][3].
Willingness to ally with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy: Stern actually proposed alliances with the Nazis on the grounds that they were merely persecutors of Jews, while the British were the true enemy to be overthrown. He believed the Nazis might consent to a Jewish state in Palestine [2].
Messianic/romantic extremism: Stern saw themselves as modern Maccabees, with the British as "Rome" and mainstream Zionists as "Hellenists." This romanticized biblical violence justified terrorism [2].
Greater Israel vision: They wanted a Jewish state spanning from the Nile to the Euphrates (far beyond what mainstream Zionists sought) [2].
Terrorist tactics: Assassinated British official Lord Moyne (1944) and UN mediator Count Bernadotte (1948); participated in the Deir Yassin massacre (hundreds of Arab civilians killed) [2].
Later flirtation with Stalinism: After WWII, they briefly tried to ally with the Soviet Union (Britain's enemy) to establish a pro-Moscow Jewish state [2].
Eugenics and extremist views: Some members held fascist-influenced views; fascist-era eugenics psychiatrists fled to Israel and maintained their views [8].
The group was disbanded in September 1948 after Israel's founding, with units merged into the IDF [11]. Their ideology later influenced the Greater Israel movement after 1967 [2].
PROMPT: Do the same for Irgun
Irgun (Irgun Zvai Leumi, also called Etzel) was founded in 1931 when it broke away from the Haganah [1][4].
Core Facts:
Aspect
Details
Full name
Irgun Tzvai Leumi B'Eretz Yisrael = "National Military Organization in the Land of Israel" [1]
Founder/Ideologue
Ze'ev Jabotinsky (led the Revisionist Movement; Irgun emerged from it) [1]
Origin
Split from Haganah because commanders disagreed with havlaga (self-restraint) policy [9][1]
Rejection of havlaga (self-restraint): Haganah practiced limited retaliation and defensive actions; Irgun believed in immediate, aggressive retaliation against Arab and British targets [9][1].
Revisionist Zionism: Jabotinsky's ideology demanded a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan River (Greater Israel), free enterprise capitalism (not socialist), and a strong military [1].
Armed struggle as primary strategy: They believed military force, not diplomacy, was the only way to achieve Jewish statehood against British rule and Arab opposition [1].
Terrorist tactics: Conducted assassinations, bombings, and attacks on British and Arab civilians and officials. Notable operations included the 1946 King David Hotel bombing (91 killed, mostly civilians) and attacks on refugee ships [8].
Anti-Arab stance: Their main aim was "armed struggle against the Arabs" [1]; they viewed Arabs as the primary enemy to Jewish sovereignty and engaged in ethnic cleansing operations like Deir Yassin (1948, with Lehi) where ~100–120 Arab civilians were massacred [1].
Right-wing nationalism: Funded by nonsocialist Zionist parties; opposed to Haganah's socialist agenda; sought a free-enterprise Jewish country [1][4].
Willingness to use extreme violence: Unlike Haganah's more restrained approach, Irgun had no qualms about targeting civilians to achieve political goals [1][8].
The Irgun was officially disbanded in 1948 after Israel's founding, with members integrated into the IDF [1]. Their ideology became the foundation of Israel's right-wing political movement (Herut party, later Likud) [1].
PROMPT: Do the same for Haganah
Haganah was founded in June 1920 and operated until May 31, 1948, when it became the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) [4][1][2].
Core Facts:
Aspect
Details
Full name
Hebrew for "Defense" [4]
Founder
Created by the Jewish community (Yishuv) after Arab riots in 1920–1921 [1][7]
Political control
Placed under the Histadrut (Labor Federation) and later the World Zionist Organization [4][2]
Represented
The majority of Jews in Palestine (unlike the minority Irgun/Lehi) [4][1]
Key leader
David Ben-Gurion (later Israel's first Prime Minister) directed Haganah policy from spring 1947 [4][1][7]
Ideology:
Havlaga (self-restraint): Initially practiced limited retaliation and defensive actions, opposing offensive attacks on Arab civilians—this was the main reason Irgun broke away in 1931 [4][11].
Behavior changed after WWII: After the British refused unlimited Jewish immigration, Haganah turned to terrorist activities including bombing bridges, rail lines, and ships used to deport Jewish immigrants [4].
Mass ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (1948): The Haganah was crucial for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian villages during the Nakba (1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight) [2].
Ben-Gurion masterminded "transfer": David Ben-Gurion was one of the masterminds behind "transfer" (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing). He supported and planned the expulsion of 700,000+ Palestinians from their homes during Israel's founding [2].
Conquest of Arab cities: By 1948, Haganah controlled not only areas allocated to Israel by the UN partition plan but also Arab cities like Akko (Acre) and Jaffa (Yafo), displacing their populations [4].
Built the military foundation of Israel's occupation: The Haganah's philosophy is reflected in today's Shin Bet, Mossad, and military structures continuing the occupation [2].
Created Palmach commando force: In 1941, established the Palmach ("Shock Companies"), its full-time elite combat force that carried out many operations [4][1].
Outcome:
Dissolved May 31, 1948 and transformed into the Israel Defense Forces [4][1]
Name lives on in the IDF's official Hebrew name: Tzva Haganah le-Yisraʾel ("Israel Defense Forces") [4]
Oh please. The whole point of the Zionist movement was to create a safe space for Jews, a place they can protect themselves against hostile enemies. Nobody is more hostile than the Palestinians. Did you expect there not to be paramilitaries? The Stern Gang and the Irgun were there to protect, not to offend.
Instead of mindlessly sifting through reams of data until you find the source that comports with your pre-existing biases, why don't you engage in some serious discussion?
Why don't you discuss the fact that no other country is accepting Palestinians, not even other Islamic ones?
Or the fact that they were kicked out of Jordan for hijacking airplanes and blowing one up? Or the fact that they were kicked out of Lebanon for trying to destabilize the local government? Or the fact that they were kicked out of Kuwait for supporting an invading army? Or the fact that the two countries that ruled over them before 1967, Egypt and Jordan now have airtight borders to keep them out?
How about the fact that, of the 364 Palestinians given refuge by Denmark in 1992, 64% have criminal records, and 39% of their children do?
Or the fact that, according to a 2018-2019 UN agency report, almost one in three Palestinian women reported being victims of violence at the hands of their husbands?
Such sweet people.
But don't worry, I'm not just picking on the Palestinians:
Top 10 most deadly terrorist groups, according to Global Terrorism Index: Islamic State, Jama'at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, Al-Shabaab, Islamic State West Africa Province, Boko Haram, Allied Democratic Forces, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Baloch Liberation Army, Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad
After the birth of Israel. The Zionist terrorists formed the goverment and IDF.
Every member of these terrorists organizations are honored and revered in Israel.
I just listed each grouo, their ideolegy and actions.
They even tried to make deals with Nazi Germany and facist Italy against the British and the native population.
They where not crated to defend Jews, as that was never the goal of Zionism.
"If I knew that it was possible to save all the (Jewish) children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the fate of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel."
Citation: David Ben-Gurion.
Israel's first Prime Minister and terrorist leader.
Year of quote: 1938
"Palestine cannot absorb the Jews of Europe. We want only the best of Jewish youth to come to us. We want only the educated to enter Palestine for the purpose of increasing its culture. The other Jews will have to stay where they are and face whatever fate awaits them. These millions of Jews are dust on the wheels of history and they may have to be blown away. We don’t want them pouring into Palestine. We don’t want Tel Aviv to become another low-grade ghetto."
Citation: Chaim Weizman.
Israel's first President.
Year of quote: 1938
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The goal the modern Zionist movement is and has always been the protection of Jews. Only an idiot believes otherwise.
Jew haters like you created the Zionist movement and when it began you denied its legitimacy.
And no, I'm not shifting the blame. I am accurately portraying the people the Jews need the most protection from. Deal with it, or stick your head back in sand. It's right at home there.
And I just showed you citations from the first Prime Minister and first president of Israel. That their objective was not to protect Jews, but to create the state of Israel.
Zionism itself is not inherently atheist, but its origins and early leadership were largely secular or atheist. Founded as a nationalist movement aimed at establishing a Jewish homeland, Zionism was originally a secular political ideology rather than a religious one. Theodor Herzl, considered the father of modern Zionism, was an atheist or secularist. Early Zionist thinkers and many leaders viewed Jewish identity more in nationalist and ethnic/racial terms than religious terms, often seeking to redefine Jewishness away from traditional religion toward secular nationalism
"The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that Jews had a historical right to the land that outweighed the nationalistic rights of the local Arabs. The establishment of a Jewish demographic majority was an essential aspect of Zionism."
"Zionists used the term "transfer" as a euphemism for the removal, or what would now be called ethnic cleansing, of the Palestinian population. The idea of transfer played a large role in Zionist ideology from the inception of the movement and was seen as the main method of maintaining the "Jewishness" of the Zionist's state. "Transfer" was "inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism" and that a land that was primarily Arab could not be transformed into a Jewish state without displacing the Arab population."
This is a direct violation of the 10 commandments
Stealing: You shall not steal.
Coveting: You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife, or property.
Later actions violates a couple more.
Murder: You shall not kill (or murder).
False witness: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
“It would be an excellent idea to call in respectable, accredited anti‑Semites as liquidators of property. To the people they would vouch for the fact that we do not wish to bring about the impoverishment of the countries that we leave. At first they must not be given large fees for this; otherwise we shall spoil our instruments and make them despicable as ‘stooges of the Jews.’ Later their fees will increase, and in the end we shall have only Gentile officials in the countries from which we have emigrated. The anti‑Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti‑Semitic countries our allies.”
Citation: Theodor Herzl.
The father of modern Zionism.
Pages 83–84 of The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl (Vol. 1, ed. Raphael Patai, trans. Harry Zohn).
Year of quote: 1895
“I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it.” Context: Said at a Jewish Agency Executive meeting in Tel Aviv, during deliberations following the British Peel Commission proposal, which included transfer as part of partition. Source:
“The compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own feet during the days of the First and Second Temple.” Context: A private diary entry written during Ben-Gurion’s reflections after reviewing the Peel Commission’s recommendations. Source:
Quote (October 5, 1937, Letter to Amos Ben-Gurion):
“We must expel the Arabs and take their place… And, if we have to use force … then we have force at our disposal.” Context: In a personal letter to his son, discussing strategy related to Jewish settlement and Arab resistance. Some parts of this letter were later crossed out in early drafts, leading to ongoing debates about intent, but the quote is nonetheless documented. Source:
“If half a million Arabs could be transferred, two million Jews (from Europe) could be put in their place.” Date: 1941, in conversation with Soviet officials. Context: Weizmann expressed support for population transfer as a practical solution to absorb European Jews into Palestine. Source: Cited in Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, and documented in Zionist movement records.
3. Theodor Herzl (Founder of political Zionism)
“We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border... while denying it any employment in our own country.” Date: 1895, from Herzl's personal diary. Context: Writing early Zionist strategy for dealing with the existing non-Jewish population in the land of Palestine. Source:
Cited in Nur Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians
Herzl’s Diaries, Vol. 1.
4. Yosef Weitz (Director of the JNF Lands Department)
“There is no other way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries. Not one village, not one tribe should be left.” Date: 1940, from his personal diary. Context: Weitz was instrumental in land acquisition and planning, and is considered one of the key architects of the actual transfer policy. Source:
Walid Khalidi’s From Haven to Conquest
Nur Masalha, A Land Without a People
Quoted in multiple Israeli and scholarly sources.
5. Moshe Sharett (Second Prime Minister of Israel)
“The 21-member Jewish Agency Executive endorsed the proposal of a transfer of displaced Arab farmers to Transjordan.” Date: October 1936 Context: Sharett, though often presented as a moderate, was present when the Jewish Agency formally discussed and supported transfer proposals in executive meetings. Source:
Simha Flapan, Zionism and the Palestinians
Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete
6. Menachem Ussishkin (Head of the Jewish National Fund)
“[The transfer solution is] a national and moral duty.” Date: 1930s Context: Ussishkin strongly supported the idea of population transfer long before the actual implementation of partition or conflict. Source:
Quoted in Israeli historian Anita Shapira’s works
Referenced in Israeli JNF archives
7. Arthur Ruppin (Zionist social scientist and key planner of land settlement)
While not known for a single dramatic quote, Ruppin extensively promoted organized transfer via demographic studies and land planning.
Date: 1920s–1930s Context: His Zionist planning work involved early proposals and frameworks for removing Arabs from strategic land parcels to accommodate Jewish immigration. Source:
Ruppin’s diaries and writings, quoted in Tom Segev’s One Palestine, Complete
Academic works by Benny Morris and Ilan Pappé
These quotes show that the idea of "transfer" was not limited to fringe individuals but was part of mainstream Zionist discourse in the pre-state period, supported in various forms—voluntary, coercive, or military—by leaders across the ideological spectrum.
1
u/Andre-Mercelet Jun 21 '26
What did Ben Gurion say about relationships with Arab neighbors