"Counter-terror"
Ummm, no. Just...no.
this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2025
69 points (93.7% liked)
World News
666 readers
489 users here now
Rules:
- Be a decent person
- No spam
- Add the byline, or write a line or two in the body about the article.
Other communities of interest:
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
"Counter-"terror
Look at the source mate.
Fuck Israel, a disgusting abomination up there with Russia
Oh, I know. Just felt like pointing out that IDF are terrorists, so...yeah.
Waffen IDF is an industrial scale genocide operation
But sure you can call them terrorists too
Touche. I fully concede your point!
Why are media outlets so dead set on parroting Israel's framing of every story when they have so consistently lied?
Isn’t Ynet literally an israeli outlet. So not too suprising they are following the State’s propaganda speaking pointsz
It's an Israeli center left outlet with high factual reporting.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ynetnews/
This article quotes Tulkarm governor Abdullah Kamil, Jenin mayor Mohammed Jerar, governor of Tubas, and the IDF. That's three Palestinians and one Israeli. Seems sufficiently balanced.
Ynetnews even published an opinion piece that's very critical of this very operation.
This approach carries far-reaching consequences beyond its immediate impact on civilians. It will erode Israel’s international legitimacy, prevent Palestinian workers from entering Israel, and weaken the Palestinian Authority in three key ways: economically, politically and by undermining its security forces. If the current trajectory of collective punishment — driven largely by political motives — continues, Israel could face a third intifada within months. Unlike the second intifada, characterized by suicide bombers, the next wave of violence could involve sophisticated explosive devices within Israel’s borders and on West Bank roads. Methods of bomb placement and concealment would become increasingly advanced and deadly.
(…)Experience shows that such pressure does not deter terrorists; rather, it strengthens their resolve. (…)
Netanyahu and his inexperienced defense minister should reconsider their counterinsurgency strategy in the West Bank. The current approach — erecting countless roadblocks that do little to enhance security but significantly fuel resentment, deploying tanks unnecessarily in refugee camp operations to project strength (not against Palestinians, but to appease Jewish settlers demanding ever-harsher measures) — is deeply flawed..
Ignorance of internal Israeli politics and media landscape is notoriously widespread among self styled supporters of Palestinians.
isn't MBFC run by a zionist? no wonder israeli outlet has high factual ratings
Of course everyone who doesn't want to see Israel destroyed is an evil Zionist. Ignore everything else. /s
Of course everyone who doesn't want to see Israel destroyed is an evil Zionist. Ignore everything else. /s
Ah good catch, I thought they were an aggregator
Residents typically don’t flee unless they are being terrorized. Just sayin
Hey everyone, the comments are starting to get a bit wild. If we can please get back to talking about ~~rampart~~ the article. I don’t ideally want to have to lock the thread but may need to if it gets any more off topic or personal.
I wonder if anyone was so concerned last week while their husbands, brother and sons were stuffing explosives they were putting on Israeli buses to detonate and slaughtere hundreds? Well, once again, it sucks to suck. You want to keep threatening Israeli lives, you will reap the fucking whirlwind.
A while back, I was saying that the "you can't criticize Israel on lemmy.world" crowd should invest in some troll accounts to post absurd pro-Israel stuff just so it wouldn't be quite so obvious a strawman. I'm glad to see that somebody was listening apparently.
That account is a committed Zionist
Maybe. I wonder if I look over their account, I'll find any other curious little points of view.
Honestly, after looking, you might be right. They seem to sincerely participate in a whole bunch of different topics, it's not just some one-note merry go rounds about Biden, Russia, and Israel, and then sort of token participation in random other topics. They're a little heavy on geopolitics, and they say stuff like:
because it’s not true. nothing in trumps actions can be explained by him being compromised by russia, if you’ve payed any attention at all to his entire life history, that can’t also be explained by the simple fact he just wanted to fucking do it.
bad news, truly, this is what i believe from all evidence i’ve seen, most european nations have no standing armies, and no conventional weapons stockpiles, only uk and france have nukes. europe will begin to cauterize ukraine soon in order to concentrate on their own borders, but their defense spending has been so low, for so long, they couldn’t offer a token defense to the russians (not even mentioning the americans) in 10 years, and that’s if they started diverting enourmous parts of their gdp currrently going to social services like health care, yesterday
... but that's about all I could find. I think they might be sincere, and just sort of confused about things or sincerely pro-Israel.
I think it's possible that they are meant to be caricaturing the "other side," they are overtly super-insulting and hostile about how it's all the voters' fault that Harris lost, and Israel is the good guys, and Russia is super strong and dangerous and we need to go be against Russia, guys. But they don't look a whole lot like a troll account just paging over their history for a little while.
They’re a little heavy on geopolitics
God fordbid people have special interests and express a different opinion on an online message board.
I wasn't saying that as any bad thing. Just saying that in my experience, the accounts that post only about geopolitics, and always with one of a handful of the same pretty suspect takes on it, and then a thin veneer of other stuff they supposedly care about besides, are pretty identifiable and to me they're pretty notable as a thing to talk about.
There's a big difference obviously between someone who takes an interest in geopolitics (I am one), and someone who only cares about geopolitics, and tries to shoehorn the same series of weird takes about it into every conversation. Like, for example, what the fuck is this whole conversation about Zelensky doing in this particular comments section? You can find the second one notable, without god-forbidding the first one.
what the fuck is this whole conversation about Zelensky doing in this particular comments section?
Every discussion of Israel attracts antisemites.
Dude accused Zelensky of being a Zionist yesterday and when asked to explain, he didn't engage.
I wrote it off as a shit post.
Accusing Zelensky of being a Zionist? From his past statements on Israel, he seems to a supporter of Israel's right to exist and admires the country for its steadfastness while being surrounded by enemies.
https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraines-zelenskiy-condemns-terrorist-attack-israel-2023-10-07/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/29/ukraine-israel-gaza-russia-support/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/zelensky-happy-in-wake-of-netanyahu-meeting-ukrainian-official-says/
I don't think it's unfair to characterize him as a Zionist or that he would object. He has supported Israel's right to self defense and has repeatedly sought closer relations with Israel over the years.
mp3 has removed a comment by @[email protected] avatar shoulderoforion -
If the same thread allows shitposts like this
Funding Ukrainian Nazis.
then that post is fine as well.
shoulderoforion is a Zionist himself. This is not the antisemitic accusation, you might suspect.
Other gems from the thread
why is u mad tho?
lol
Moar
Truly a deeply intellectual debate on the highest level!
Here's the bus bombing you reference. The main reason nobody died was because the detonators were set to PM instead of AM time.
I find such harsh measures questionable with tens of thousands of people fleeing from their homes is a justifiable response.
The PA had been fighting terrorists in the West Bank pretty well over the last couple of months. However something like this will be hard to swallow for them. Their legitimacy comes from keeping the IDF out of people's lives in area A. A short IDF raid like we have seen before is something else than the talk now about wanting to stay for a year.
You could talk about just reprisals, terrorism and defense, the limits of collective punishment, and all that. But, of all the people who've spilled however much ink about it, David Ben-Gurion did some of the best in just getting to the heart of the matter.
Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs.
Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country.
I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?
You could be honest and provide the full quote. This was said during the early years of Israel's founding.
'I don't understand your optimism,' Ben-Gurion declared. 'Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: THEY THINK we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?
They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out.'
Some more context of what the Arabs were saying around the same time.
To be sure, while mentioning "God," Ben-Gurion - a child of Eastern European social democracy and nationalism who knew no Arabic (though, as prime minister, he found time to study ancient Greek, to read Plato in the original, and Spanish, to read Don Quixote) - had failed fully to appreciate the depth of the Arabs' abhorrence of the Zionist-Jewish presence in Palestine, an abhorrence anchored in centuries of Islamic Judeophobia with deep religious and historical roots. The Jewish rejection of the Prophet Muhammad is embedded in the Qur'an and is etched in the psyche of those brought up on its suras. As the Muslim Brotherhood put it in 1948: "Jews are the historic enemies of Muslims and carry the greatest hatred for the nation of Muhammad." Such thinking characterized the Arab world, where the overwhelming majority of the population were, and remain, believers. In 1943, when President Franklin Roosevelt sent out feelers about a negotiated settlement of the Palestine problem, King Ibn Sa'ud of Saudi Arabia responded that he was "prepared to receive anyone of any religion except (repeat except) a Jew." A few weeks earlier, Ibn Sa'ud had explained, in a letter to Roosevelt: "Palestine... has been an Arab country since the dawn of history and... was never inhabited by the Jews for more than a period of time, during which their history in the land was full of murder and cruelty... [There is] religious hostility... between the Muslims and the Jews from the beginning of Islam... which arose from the treacherous conduct of the Jews towards Islam and the Muslims and their prophet." Jews were seen as unclean; indeed, even those who had contact with them were seen as beyond the pale. In late 1947 the Al-Azhar University 'ulema, major authorities in the Islamic world, issued a fatwa that anyone dealing with "the Jews," commercially or economically (such as by "buying their produce"), "is a sinner and criminal... who will be regarded as an apostate to Islam, he will be separated from his spouse. It is prohibited to be in contact with him." This anti-Semitic mindset was not restricted to Wahhabi chieftains or fundamentalist imams. Samir Rifahi, Jordan's prime minister, in 1947 told visiting newsmen, "The Jews are a people to be feared... Give them another 25 years and they will be all over the Middle East, in our country and Syria and Lebanon, in Iraq and Egypt... They were responsible for starting the two world wars... Yes, I have read and studied, and I know they were behind Hitler at the beginning of his movement."
The eternal war against Israel's existence has cost Palestinians very dearly over the decades. Accepting defeat and peace would be in their self interest, even if it's unjust.
Why are you accusing me of being dishonest?
There's a broader context (I actually thought about providing some of Ben-Gurion's quotes explicitly approving of ethnic cleansing, just to provide a bitter reminder of the context, but decided it was a distraction), sure. My point was focused purely on the idea that if we're going to look to assign "questionable ness" to any actions, we need to start with who is the injured party, not just treat it as a neutral situation. Ben-Gurion's hope that things would die down with the generations wasn't the way it worked out, and the calculus of blame he laid out honestly hasn't changed.
What exactly is dishonest about that? It's incomplete about one aspect, because it wasn't a history lesson, just some words that I felt applied to the present day.
You weren't, yet at the same time he conflated Palestinians with Arabs in general...
Far more Zionist leaders, since it's founding in the late 1880s, have discussed the ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinian population, and were doing so during the British Occupation up til the Nakba and to present day
Israel was founded on ethnic cleansing and has never stopped being an Apartheid. Zionism has always been a fascist ideology. Zionism is not Judaism. The leaders of other Arab or Muslim nations do not represent Palestine or Palestinians. There is no point to conflate either of those other than to justify Israel's Settler Colonialism. Land grabbing is antithetical to peace. Peace requires the end of the Apartheid.
Quote
Zionism’s aims in Palestine, its deeply-held conviction that the Land of Israel belonged exclusively to the Jewish people as a whole, and the idea of Palestine’s “civilizational barrenness" or “emptiness” against the background of European imperialist ideologies all converged in the logical conclusion that the native population should make way for thenewcomers.
The idea that the Palestinian Arabs must find a place for themselves elsewhere was articulated early on. Indeed, the founder of the movement, Theodor Herzl, provided an early reference to transfer even before he formally outlined his theory of Zionist rebirth in his Judenstat.
An 1895 entry in his diary provides in embryonic form many of the elements that were to be demonstrated repeatedly in the Zionist quest for solutions to the “Arab problem ”-the idea of dealing with state governments over the heads of the indigenous population, Jewish acquisition of property that would be inalienable, “Hebrew Land" and “Hebrew Labor,” and the removal of the native population.
-
10 myths of Israel by Ilan Pappe, summerized and full book
-
Transfer Committee and the JNF led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate.
-
Israel Martial Law and Defence (Emergency) Regulations practiced in the occupied territories after 1967
Peace Process and Solution
Both Hamas and Fatah have agreed to a Two-State solution based on the 1967 borders for decades.
Oslo and Camp David were used by Israel to continue settlements in the West Bank and maintain an Apartheid, while preventing any actual Two-State solution
(Oslo Accord Sources: MEE, NYT, Haaretz, AJ).
The settlements have created hundreds of isolated bantustans within the West Bank, preventing any two-state solution that may have been possible before the Israeli occupation in 1967
The settlements represent land-grabbing, and land-grabbing and peace-making don’t go together, it is one or the other. By its actions, if not always in its rhetoric, Israel has opted for land-grabbing and as we speak Israel is expanding settlements. So, Israel has been systematically destroying the basis for a viable Palestinian state and this is the declared objective of the Likud and Netanyahu who used to pretend to accept a two-state solution. In the lead up to the last election, he said there will be no Palestinian state on his watch. The expansion of settlements and the wall mean that there cannot be a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. The most that the Palestinians can hope for is Bantustans, a series of enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements and Israeli military bases.
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
One State Solution, Foreign Affairs
Historian Works on the History
-
Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History - Nur Masalha
-
The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948 - Nur Masalha
-
A History of Modern Palestine - Ilan Pappe
-
The Hundred Years' War on Palestine - Rashid Khalidi
-
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine - Ilan Pappe
-
The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences - Avi Shlaim
-
The Biggest Prison on Earth: A History of the Occupied Territories - Ilan Pappe
-
The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-development - Sara Roy
-
10 Myths About Israel - Ilan Pappe (summery)
You didn't see fit to answer me about how I was dishonest, which isn't surprising.
Just to add. You quoted Rifahi as saying:
"The Jews are a people to be feared… Give them another 25 years and they will be all over the Middle East, in our country and Syria and Lebanon, in Iraq and Egypt…
... as well as a variety of antisemitism. You quoted Ben-Gurion very misleadingly though, implying that the strategy was in contrast to that, to maintain "a powerful army" and wait until the next generation forgot that Israel used to be theirs. That sort of became the strategy, as time went on and "facts on the ground" eventuated in their way, but it wasn't the original strategy. Here are some other things he said:
The present map of Palestine was drawn by the British mandate. The Jewish people have another map which our youth and adults should strive to fulfill: from the Nile to the Euphrates.
We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai.
The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan: one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today, but the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.
It's not a matter of maintaining the status quo. We have to create a dynamic state, oriented towards expansion.
We do not recognize the right of the Palestinian Arabs to rule the country, since Palestine is still undeveloped and awaits its builders.
I wonder where Rifahi got his antisemitic ideas from. For centuries, the Middle East was a lot safer place for Jews to be than Europe, and then in the early 20th century, things all of a sudden shifted. For some reason.
I think you replied to the wrong comment. You and I are in agreement lol
Oh no! You are completely correct, I replied to the wrong comment.
I felt bad about it, since I thought what I said was useful context, but the chance of a productive continuation to the conversation is almost 0. So in a way replying to the wrong comment is the best of both worlds.
Edit: Typo
One major thing you left out in your history is the forced displacement of 800,000 Jews from Muslim dominated countries in the Middle East.
Hamas and Fatah
These two parties can't even make peace among themselves.
Two-State solution based on the 1967 borders
The so-called 1967 borders were offered in 1948, but refused. Instead war was chosen again and again, and lost every time. Losing wars has consequences.
Palestinians refused this offer among other similar ones like Camp David.
Listen to what Prince Bandar has to say about Arafat's (Abu Ammar) missed opportunities to reach a peace agreement during the Oslo process.
All of that stuff is decades old by now. The reality on the ground has changed, as has the regional political landscape.
If you're actually interested in novel grassroots peace initiatives, check out One Land for All. If you support BDS, then of course even talking to Israelis is haram.
One major thing you left out in your history is the forced displacement of 800,000 Jews from Muslim dominated countries in the Middle East.
The Jewish exodus from middle eastern countries was certainly tragic and unjust. It was also certainly connected to what was going on in Palestine in multiple ways. The exodus, a mix of immigration and ethnic cleansings, was multi-faceted. It was absolutely not incited by Palestinian elites. Nor would that justify the Nakba if it was true. Let's go through the main factors for the exodus. Most of the new middle eastern countries were very anti-british, in particular anti-occupation, during and after WWII. Zionism was seen as a British project of Occupation at this time. The expressed aim of Zionism throughout the mandate was to ethnically cleanse the Arabs (distinctions were not made, they were all considered savages to European powers at the time). Anti-british and anti-zionist sentiment was heavily exploited by Nazi Germany, who deliberately pushed European anti-semitism and framed themselves as an opposition to the colonialism and occupations middle eastern countries were facing from the Allied forces. That said, it's still entirely on the the leaders of these middle eastern nations for falling to this anti-Semitic rhetoric and implementing ethnic cleansing. However none of this was done at the behest of the Palestinian elite. While the populations of these countries did have some semblance of solidarity with Palestinians being victim to occupation and colonialism, that is not the case for the leadership of these countries. They were looking out for themselves.
The so-called 1967 borders were offered in 1948, but refused. Instead war was chosen again and again, and lost every time. Losing wars has consequences.
Partition was never an acceptable solution, it was always just a justification to ethnically cleanse parts of Palestine. Palestinian leadership agreed to parity, a binational One-State Solution with equal rights for all since the 1920s. Israel has always chosen war as the aims are settler colonialism which is the opposite of peace.
I already linked plenty about the peace process, please read before you mention things already discussed at length in the sources provided. The Oslo Accords were just a way for Israel to continue it's Setter Colonialism and Apartheid under the guise of a "peace process"
And a two-state solution is outdated, it's completely impossible when considering the situation on the ground, where the West Bank has been divided into hundreds of isolated enclaves (bantustans). It's already a One-State Reality. Which is exactly why an end to the Apartheid and Emancipation for Palestinians is the only way forward to peace.
All of this history is long and endlessly complex.
The Jewish exodus from middle eastern countries was certainly tragic and unjust
For persecution of Jews, it's of course let bygones be bygones. No need to do anything about it now. /s Pure hypocrisy from you.
Zionism was seen as a British project of Occupation
There Mandate was granted by the League of Nations to build a homeland for the Jewish people. From the 1940s on some Zionists started fighting the British directly, leading to them leaving the messy situation by 1948.
expressed aim of Zionism throughout the mandate was to ethnically cleanse the Arabs
The goal was a homeland for the Jewish people. Peaceful coexistence with the Arabs was a wish, but it turned out not be viable in practice. Expulsions from some areas were then considered a necessary evil for lack of other options.
The UN partition plan from 1947, which was accepted by the Zionists and rejected by Arabs, would have meant zero expulsions.
Israel today has 20% of Arab citizens with full rights inside Israel proper of 1948. There was never a complete ethnic cleansing. Few Palestinians were forcibly removed from their homes, most fled.
none of this was done at the behest of the Palestinian elite
Don't infantilize Palestinians. They have agency and were not powerless.
in the sources provided
Ilan Pappe, Nur Masalha, Rashid Khalidi, …
You should have at least listed Benny Morris as well, so you could pretend to not be fully propagandized by one side. You didn't list Finkelstein, which is a plus I guess. But then you linked to propaganda rag mondoweiss.
Palestinian leadership agreed to parity, a binational One-State Solution with equal rights for all since the 1920s
I don't think you're being quite honest here.
High Commissioner Samuel tried to establish self-governing institutions in Palestine, as required by the mandate, but the Arab leadership refused to co-operate with any institution which included Jewish participation
Palestinian Arabs weren't ready to accept Jewish refugees fleeing persecution, who didn't have anywhere else to go. They had a whole armed Arab Revolt about this in the 1930s. This lead to the British imposing very hard restrictions on immigration of Jewish refugees from then on.
I already linked plenty about the peace process
Listen to Prince Bandar, a first hand witness, and you might actually learn something new.
And a two-state solution is outdated
Why do you even mention Fatah and Hamas supposedly accepting it, then?
One-State
As of now, it would immediately collapse into civil war and we would be where we started.
I will also recommend you a book, and it's only one.
Read The war of return : how Western indulgence of the Palestinian dream has obstructed the path to peace by Einat Wilf and Adi Schwartz to get a different perspective on this conflict.
What you are doing is fueling this forever war, not working towards peaceful coexistence.
For persecution of Jews, it's of course let bygones be bygones. No need to do anything about it now. /s Pure hypocrisy from you.
That may be your view on the persecution of Palestinians, but no. Those countries should of course institute legal protections Jewish people and reparations for those families that lost valuables and property. Like how Europe should have done during and after WWII, instead European countries didn't even lift limits on asylum for the Jewish people feeling persecution, in an effort to divert Jewish people to Palestine instead. This goes back to the connection between European Antisemitism and Christian Zionism.
There Mandate was granted by the League of Nations to build a homeland for the Jewish people. From the 1940s on some Zionists started fighting the British directly, leading to them leaving the messy situation by 1948.
From Nur Masalha Ch 1 Pg 15-16
At the time the Balfour Declaration was issued, Jews constituted about 10 percent of the population of Palestine, and owned about 2 percent of the land. While Zionist land purchases remained relatively limited during the Mandate period (6 percent until 1948), Jewish immigration into Pales tine began eroding the immense numerical superiority of the Palestinians.32 Growing Arab awareness of Zionist aims in Palestine, reinforced by Zionist calls for unrestricted Jew ish immigration and unhindered transfer of Arab lands to exclusive Jewish control, triggered escalating protests and resistance that were eventually to culminate in the peasant- based great Arab Rebellion of 1936-39.
Already at the time of the Balfour Declaration, apprehen sions concerning the fate of the “non-Jewish communities’ had been voiced in British establishment circles. Edward Montagu, a Jewish cabinet minister at the India Office, had expressed in 1917 his belief that the Zionist drive to create a Jewish state in Palestine would end by “driving out the present inhabitants.”33 Even the enthusiastically pro-Zionist Winston Churchill had written in his review of Palestinian affairs dated 25 October 1919 that “there are the Jews, whom we are pledged to introduce into Palestine, and who take it for granted that the local population will be cleared out to suit their convenience."
A History of Modern Palestine Ch 3
By February 1947, Britain had had enough. It had more soldiers in Palestine than on the Indian subcontinent, and had been constantly involved in direct clashes with both political leaderships. The number of British casualties had also risen, mainly due to a terror campaign waged by Zionist extremists, the most notorious being the Stern Gang. This terror campaign peaked with the blowing up of British headquarters in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946. But it was not terror that forced the British out. A particularly bad winter in 1946–47, and a harsh American attitude towards Britain’s debt to the United States, created an economic crisis in Britain that served as an incentive for a limited process of decolonization, mainly in India and Palestine
The goal was a homeland for the Jewish people. Peaceful coexistence with the Arabs was a wish, but it turned out not be viable in practice. Expulsions from some areas were then considered a necessary evil for lack of other options.
Far from it
The UN partition plan from 1947, which was accepted by the Zionists and rejected by Arabs, would have meant zero expulsions
It would have meant the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians within the area defined as the "Jewish State"
Israel today has 20% of Arab citizens with full rights inside Israel proper of 1948. There was never a complete ethnic cleansing. Few Palestinians were forcibly removed from their homes, most fled.
Entirely false
The mass ethnic cleansing campaign of 1948:
After the Nakba the Palestinians within now Israel that survived the ethnic cleansing were under the draconic Israel Martial Law and Defence (Emergency) Regulations, which we're then practiced in the occupied territories instead after 1967. Even then, Arab Israelis continued to be second class citizens for many reasons including Education (2001 report)
This second class citizenship has only gotten worse.
You should have at least listed Benny Morris as well, so you could pretend to not be fully propagandized by one side. You didn't list Finkelstein, which is a plus I guess. But then you linked to propaganda rag mondoweiss.
Benny Morris considers Ethnic Cleansing justified, so if that's what you consider a balance to those who don't, that's quite telling.
how Europe should have done during and after WWII
During the same decade Palestinians were displaced in 1948 and Jews were expelled from Muslim countries, millions (Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars, etc.) were displaced in Europe. Today their descendants aren't counted as refugees. Poles don't blow up buses in Lviv today. Neither do Germans shoot rockets into Czechia. People lost everything, built new lives, and got over it.
connection between European Antisemitism and Christian Zionism
That exists, but is an alliance of convenience, not friendship. Christian Antisemitism, failure of assimilation, and escalating persecution was the reason Zionism was established in the first place. Jews had to flee Europe or face extinction. Most had no choice but to go to their ancestral homeland.
The mass ethnic cleansing campaign of 1948:
I was referring to how this happened in practice. Many Arab Palestinians had fled their homes before the fighting even started. The well off wanted to sit out the war in Beirut, Cairo, and Damascus. Arab radio had called for civilians to evacuate and wait at a safe place for the inevitable Arab victory. Most had left before Operation Nachshon started. Not every village or town was forcibly cleared. The news of one massacre or destroyed village spread fast and people understandably fled. Most villages that were destroyed, were destroyed after the war to prevent the refugees from returning.
Plan Dalet
Read the original text yourself, instead of relying on misrepresentation after the fact.
It would have meant the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians within the area defined as the “Jewish State”
You are so incredibly misinformed by only reading one sided narrative.
Here the original UN resolution 181. Page 138 Chapter 3.1
- Citiz1mship. Palestinian citizcns rcsiding in l'alestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citi- zenship reside in Palestine outside the City of Jeru- salem shall, upon the recognition of indepcndenc~, become citizcns of the State in which they are rcsi- dent and enjoy full civil and political rights. Per- sons over the age of eighteen years may opt, within one year from the date of recognition of indepen- dence of the State in which they reside, for citizen- ship of the other State, provicling that no Arab residing in the arca of the proposed Arab State shall have the right to opt for citizcnship in the proposed Jewish State and no Jew resicling in the proposcd Jewish State shall have the right to opt for citizen- ship in the proposed Arab State. The exercise of this right of option will be taken to include the wives and cliildren under eightccn years of age of persons so opting.
Arabs rcsiding in the arca of the proposed Jewish State and Jews residing in the area of the proposed Arab State who have signed a notice of intention to opt for citizcnship of the other State shall be cli- ~ble to vote in the clections to the Constituent As- sembly of that State, but not in the clections to the Constituent Assembly of the State in which they reside.
I highly recommend actually reading the UN resolutions and other documents as they are often misrepresented in the media by both sides.
second-class citizens
Yes, there's discrimination in Israel against Arabs. Similar to discrimination against minorities around the world.
Benny Morris considers Ethnic Cleansing justified
More like he sees it as inevitable. The Jews in Palestine were surrounded by numerically superior forces and feared being exterminated. They did what they had to to ensure their own survival.
balanced
Peace comes from mutual understanding of the other side.
Find whatever the fuck you want questionable
I thought that was Zelensky and his people bro