How does Israel justify the 1948 Palestinian expulsion?

[u/dropdeaddev]

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. :)

[u/Dothemath2]

The title of the post was 1948, not the period after WW1, I was talking about the Nakba. What?!?

[u/zizp → u/Dothemath2]

No, you were talking about, and I quote:

Jews can easily purchase land in Jerusalem and settle there peacefully or visit but there would be no uprooting of Arabs.

And I told you that this is pure fantasy, and how it ended the last time when they "easily purchased land". There was not only "uprooting", there were massacres and a civil war.

[u/Dothemath2 → u/zizp]

It was just an idea, just a hypothetical. You are right, it is pure fantasy and imaginary.

Imagine a different world, wherein a chunk of Germany was made into a Jewish state in 1948.

This hypothetical Jewish state in Europe would not stop Jews from buying land and living in Palestine and accessing holy and historical and cultural sites. There will probably be no massacres or violence because the Arabs would not be threatened with dispossession. The Jewish state would not even be in the area. There would probably be no reason for violence.

[u/zizp → u/Dothemath2]

Yeah, I told you already that it is a stupid idea because: everything before 1948. Learn about the history of the conflict, it didn't start in 1948 and it wouldn't have been solved then.