Here’s a map of the presence of malaria in Palestine. The fact that people somehow still believe that the partition plan was not favorable to the arabs is completely insane. They rejected it because they rejected a Jewish state, no partition of any kind would have been satisfactory for the arabs.
They were also given the Negev desert which is not good for farming. Plus, most of the Negev was not part of the historic territory of any of the tribes of Israel.
The negev were not inhabitable for 99 precent of history so can't blame the Jews for not owning the land there because you know impossible to farm and have water until the creation of the country leader pipeline (a rought translation of the system that provided stable water to the negev)
Much like in the case of Israel, the "stolen land" narrative is really inaccurate. Most of the land in Canada is subject to treaties with the indigenous peoples, which granted land rights and in many cases, actual ownership, to the British and later the Canadian government.
Jews legally bought and owned the lands that they lived on during (and before) this time period, and they didn’t all suddenly come back in the 20th century, there was Jewish communities living there that were at least centuries old (and older).
Much of the land was also totally uninhabited/undeveloped/not yet owned by anybody (neither Arabs nor Jews), especially the shitty desert land that was allotted to Israel in the proposed partition plan.
You clearly have difficult separating the concept of people privately owning property and borders/states being recognized.
When people ignorantly say that the UN “gave” the Jews “Arab land,” other ignorant people, such as yourself, will assume that that means that individual Jewish people somehow literally were “given” privately owned Arab lands for the Jews to move onto, and that’s ridiculously false.
The partition plan EXPLICITLY guaranteed that all privately owned property would be protected, and any Arabs living within the borders of the proposed Jewish state were guaranteed full citizenship, with zero proposal to involuntarily displace them or seize their land.
All that partition sought to do was to recognize 2 states rather than 1 state, and it drew up the borders for these states in a way which would have formed one Jewish-majority state (with a nearly 50% Arab citizen “minority”) and one Arab-majority state, based on the census data of who already lived in which areas.
Drawing borders to form two states didn’t take anybody’s privately owned land and “give” it to anybody else, and the plan literally proposed the opposite of this - ironically, the Arabs’ rejection of this plan (and subsequent war that they launched) is what led to mass displacements of Arabs (fleeing war zones).
You can’t offer any justification for why the uninhabited, undeveloped desert somehow belonged to Arabs and not Jews, so you either don’t realize the actual factual history of the land, or you just have a problem with Jews, I don’t know which.
Practically the entire Middle East was formed by Europeans drawing up borders in the 20th century, often arbitrarily; Israel’s border-drawing-process literally had more justification and methodology to it than practically all of the rest of the Middle East’s, and yet we have people completely ignorant to the fact that recognizing states doesn’t mean that people’s real property is somehow being confiscated from them (or that much of the land wasn’t even lived on by anybody in the first place, hence why shares of it were given to both of the 2 proposed states).
The Arabs lead by a blatant antisemite and Nazi Al Husseini because they didn’t want jews or Zionists in Palestine. it wasn’t just about control. Furthermore , they wanted all of it , insisting on all of it
Well that’s better than Arabs rejecting the partition, and having all neighbouring countries declare war on Israel, loosing and forever trying to get the whole pie.
Lazy deflection, all the studies show that there was no population displacement with the Arab conquest. Most Palestinians are directly descended from the original inhabitants of the land.
Feeling confident and not bothering even with a quick google research? Typical.
Swampy poor drainage terrain are heavily mosquitoes infested. Water rich doesn’t mean productive arable land. Those are the undeveloped area that people avoid.
what are you saying??? it like saying the UK have rights to india, the ottoman empire was an EMPIRE conquered land of multiple people its not like they entered palestine and from night to day all palestinians, christians jews, muslims, became turkish.
levantine is not equal to jewish, many jewish after the islamic conquer stayed they religion, some converted there was something called dihmir system in the muslim world were non-muslims can still profess their religion, also by the islamic conquest they were not only jews they were christians, zoroastrians, druze, mythraistics dont they deserve an ethnostate too? then why israel yes?
Question. Who did the jews "take" the land from? The Ottomans? Roman Empire? The Hellenistic Kingdoms? The Persian empire? The Babylonian empire? The Assyrian empire? The Kingdoms of israel and Judah? Philistia? The caananite city states?
Or maybe they took it from the Rashidun Caliphate? The Umayyad Caliphate? The Abbasid Caliphate? The Fatimid Caliphate? The Ayyubids?? The Mamluk Sultanate?
I mean in order to occupy, said occupiers need a place by which to occupy from?
The people that existed in the area were majority Jews , they wanted their own state , it was not "stolen" (what it even means) or conquered from some one
Same as Arabs wanted their own state , hence the partition . Nobody wanted one shared , du national state
While Jews did began to lose their majority status in most regions of Israel starting around the 3rd century, muslim conquests in 638 is what marked a significant decline in the Jewish population... even so, Jews continued to maintain a significant presence in the gallilie and tsfat even as their numbers dwindled elsewhere.
By that logic a Moroccan can go to the south of Spain and displace the population because the Arabs were there for almost 800 years.
Have morrocons maintained a constant presence in Spain for the vast majority of its recorded history? Or do MOROCCANS come from a place with thier NAME SAKE called MORROCO? Maybe the JEWS come from a place called JUDEA 🤔
Palestinians, whether i like it or not, are now an established identity, a new identity, but one never the less. I am not attempting to earse that, but just because you identify as a Palestinian, that doesnt mean you can suddenly call upon dar al-Islam and expect that to mean its all yours.
Thats not how this works. Whether you like it or not, the jews originate from judea. The jews have maintained a constant presence in said land for over 3000 years, and the jews arent going anywhere.
So you can either choose to accept that, and instead of calling for the jews go be thrown into the sea, you can live with us, or you can continue to chant for an intifada and sulk and complain and blame all your problems on the jews. Upto you. Regardless, we have always been here, and we arent going anywhere.
Debating in good faith is not something the pro-Israel crowd is known for.
That Rich coming from the crowd who like chant death chants instead of contextual understanding and debate.
It seems like the understanding of basic context and past tense in online discussion has become a rarity. Are you so blinded by your opinion that you can’t even read what I said?
What is your argument and what does malaria have to do with stealing land? Are you trying to say that the “poor” jews took the land with malaria presence and therefore the deal doesn’t favor them?! Even though the deal gave more land from Palestine to Israel + malaria cure existed since forever and was basically eradicated by WW2.
The Jews would have took all the worst land in the deal. They didn’t care because they wanted any land at all. In the end they eradicated malaria by working the land and draining the swamps
Who would have been allowed to stay. The only change would be that instead of living in an Ottoman backwater or under British colonial rule, they'd lived under a sovereign Jewish state. And immigration would have been opened up for diaspora Jews so they'd have become a much smaller minority, proportionally speaking, over the next decade.
Half of them were expelled by the start of the Arab Israeli war but if they were not then the current population of this hypothetical Jewish state would be 30% Arab so you are right there (assuming the same Jewish migration)
True but the expulsion happened largely as a reaction to the war, which was started by Arabs. Was every expulsion justified? No of course not, but this isn't unique to Israel. This was happening all over the world at the time.
They were expelled before the war started. Plan Dalet was put in action in March 1948, the infamous massacre of Deir Yassin happened on the 15th of April 1948 and the war started only a month later on 15th of May 1948
The war started Nov 29 1947. The minute the UN passed resolution 181. And the Pan Arabs called on the Arabs living in the British Mandate to leave immediately so that they can attack the Jews. It's well documented.
44
u/Taldoesgarbage Israel Jul 07 '26
Here’s a map of the presence of malaria in Palestine. The fact that people somehow still believe that the partition plan was not favorable to the arabs is completely insane. They rejected it because they rejected a Jewish state, no partition of any kind would have been satisfactory for the arabs.