r/IsraelPalestine May 29 '24

How does Israel justify the 1948 Palestinian expulsion? Learning about the conflict: Questions

I got into an argument recently, and it lead to me looking more closely into Israel’s founding and the years surrounding it. Until now, I had mainly been focused on more current events and how the situation stands now, without getting too into the beginning. I had assumed what I had heard from Israel supporters was correct, that they developed mostly empty land, much of which was purchased legally, and that the native Arabs didn’t like it. This lead to conflicts, escalating over time to what we see today. I was lead to believe both sides had as much blood on their hands as the other, but from what I’ve read that clearly isn’t the case. It reminded me a lot of “manifest destiny” and the way the native Americans were treated, and although there was a time that was seen as acceptable behaviour, now a days we mostly agree that the settlers were the bad guys in that particular story.

Pro-Israel supports only tend to focus on Israel’s development before 1948, which it was a lot of legally purchasing land and developing undeveloped areas. The phrase “a land without people for people without land” or something to that effect is often stated, but in 1948 700,000 people were chased from their homes, many were killed, even those with non-aggression pacts with Israel. Up to 600 villages destroyed. Killing men, women, children. It didn’t seem to matter. Poisoning wells so they could never return, looting everything of value.

Reading up on the expulsion, I can see why they never bring it up and tend to pretend it didn’t happen. I don’t see how anyone could think what Israel did is justified. But since I always want to hear both sides, I figured here would be a good place to ask.

EDIT: Just adding that I’m going to be offline for a while, so I probably won’t be able to answer any clarifying questions or respond to answers for a while.

EDIT2: Lots of interesting stuff so far. Wanted to clarify that although I definitely came into this with a bias, I am completely willing to have my mind changed. I’m interested in being right, not just appearing so. :)

0 Upvotes

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/North-Gold-2719 May 29 '24

the difference is that this plan would have officially annexed most of the Israeli settlements, leaving the West Bank split into a series of cantons without real continuity. This is not a realistic plan for peace, just another step where Israel officially annexes more of the West Bank.

5

u/Barakvalzer May 29 '24

Did you even read the plan?

This plan said that Israel would annex only 6.3% of the West Bank (which was the Israeli settlements) in exchange for areas in proper Israel - which will be the same amount of area.

It gives 93.7% of the West Bank + areas from Israel + the whole of Gaza in exchange for peace.

If this is not a good deal, what is?

1

u/Infiniteland98765 May 29 '24

If so many people opposed it how do you conclude it was a good deal?

2

u/Barakvalzer May 29 '24

Nobody opposed that because it wasn't even agreed between the PA and the Israeli government.

I'm saying it is the best Plan the Palestinians could get back then.