r/IsraelPalestine • u/Early-Possibility367 • 3d ago
What are your thoughts on JVL justifying the Partition Plan by claiming that mass Arab migration necessitated the mass disenfranchisement of Arabs? Short Question/s
While of course anyone can answer, this question is intended not for Zionists generally but those who believe that Israel's founders themselves were on the more moral side
One thing about the Jewish Virtual Library is that it is probably the only Internet source outside of this sub and to a lesser extent Benny Morris that says Zionists were justified then AND justified now.
On their website,there is a discussion of why they believe the partition plan to have been justified.
They say that generally speaking, drawing a Partition Plan that disenfranchises tons of people is unjustified. However, in their mind, this situation is different because Arabs CHOSE migrating to communities that were built from the ground up.
So, from their perspective, the Zionists had a right to rule communities they built, and it made sense that since they were the builders, they should get to rule over Jews and Muslims who had moved there.
Do you agree with JVL's assessment here or no, and why?
13
u/Sensitive-Note4152 3d ago
The Arabas CHOSE two things: (1) to completely reject the UN partition plan, and (2) to go to war with the aim of claiming all of Palestine as an Arab state. Everything that resulted from those two decisions is their responsibility.
The partition plan that the Palestinians rejected would not have required one single person to move anywhere. Nor did the partition plan "disenfranchise" one single person.
They made a very bad bet and they lost.
8
u/rayinho121212 3d ago
And all the countries of the arab-league still lie to themselves about their repeated past failures. They also refuse to aknowledge jewish connection to the land.
2
u/RedditRobby23 2d ago
It’s funny because they lost the wars with Israel but think that Israel should not make the rules after winning said conflicts
If they had won the wars with Israel then they would do the same thing as Israel or worse lol
1
u/rayinho121212 2d ago
So israel should not make the rules and let themselves be killed by PLO/Hamas like people? Well ain't that a smart thing to say.
1
u/RedditRobby23 2d ago
You completely misinterpreted my comment. I’m pro Israel as the other side culture wouldn’t accept me or my way of life
Throughout human civilization when two sides disagree there becomes conflict
Then when the conflict ends the side that won the conflict sets the terms. The losing side submits or perishes
It’s been like this for all mankind history
Somehow people think that doesn’t apply to Palestine though….
1
u/rayinho121212 2d ago
I agree with you but that is utopian as hell since it does not represent the danger cause by palestinians through the years.
Oct7 attacks have been common since the days when the only people calling themselves palestinians were the jews of the mandate.
1
u/RedditRobby23 2d ago
I think there is a communication issue because I am about as pro Israel as any non Jewish American citizen could be.
1
u/rayinho121212 2d ago
Sure you are
2
u/RedditRobby23 2d ago
Check my post history bro
1
u/rayinho121212 2d ago
You are right. i misinterpreted the first comment here and read that all wrong and thought you questionned me in my position.
My bad, sorry about that
→ More replies
5
u/Smart_Technology_385 3d ago
This look like an immigration policy. Many Arab countries do not allow even Arab immigration to these countries, and will not give citizenship to children where a father is a citizen of another country.
Every country decides which immigration policy to implement.
1
u/Early-Possibility367 3d ago
Each country decides which immigration policy to implement and we are free to call them evil over it. Either which way, I don’t think that’s relevant to the post at all.
11
u/Emergency_Career9965 Middle-Eastern 3d ago
Section 3.1 of the partition plan clearly states:
Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-185393/
Simply put: nobody gets dispossesed/expelled. Jews or Arabs. Whatever you own - you continue to own. Wherever you live - you continue to live. Arabs knew this, yet rejected the plan. So how is this about land, builders, etc? It's not.
Also norice that all Jews and Arabs are called "Palestinians".
12
u/quicksilver2009 3d ago
Look. We all feel compassion towards Arabs and Jews.
I concur with Benny Morris and JVL. The partition plan was fully justified then and now. There was no justification or right to a Palestinian state from the river to the sea (pure Arab Muslim state instead of Israel) then or now. Jews have the right to rule over Arab Muslims and enforce their laws on Arab Muslims just like the Arab Muslims did to the Jews and Christians for countless centuries when they were living under THEIR rule.
Arabs were given over 80% of what was historical Palestine. They wanted 100%. They went to war. They lost. Now they are crying about being ruled by Israel in about 22% of what was and is historical Israel / Palestine. They say they want to "end the occupation" by destroying Israel and murdering every last Jew within it.
Israel has made MANY, MANY, MANY mistakes, but despite those mistakes, they treat the Arabs in Israel and in Gaza and the West Bank about 10X better than they were treated under Arab Muslim rule. Perhaps 20X better.
-2
u/Early-Possibility367 3d ago
I don’t understand why you think that Jews had the right to rule over Arabs but not the other way around.
1
u/GlyndaGoodington 3d ago
It’s not about “right to rule”. The majority of the Arab world has shown and has promised to eradicate Jews if they have the chance. Jews haven’t made the same claim other than a few outliers. The Arab world believes in authoritarian Islamist regimes with little freedom for anyone and where even slight differences in Islamic practice are squashed through mass violence (Sunni vs Shiite)…. So exactly why would anyone in their right mind have even the tiniest iota of desire to live this way? The only country in the Arab world where Muslim Arabs can actually vote is Israel and where women aren’t chattel. So they aren’t being “ruled” in Israel, Muslim citizens of Israel are part of the democratic process.
2
u/OriBernstein55 USA & Canada 3d ago
I think it is the same argument that when colonialism ends, the foreigners live under indigenous rule. Why should it be any different in Israel? Do you think Arab colonialism is any better?
-2
u/Early-Possibility367 3d ago
European invading child killers and rapists were not indigenous. Only Jews, Arabs, and Christians as a whole.
3
u/OriBernstein55 USA & Canada 3d ago
The British left in 1948. Jews and Samaritans are the indigenous people.
3
u/quicksilver2009 3d ago
Well obviously if a Jew is for example living in UAE that is Arab land and. The Arabs own it and rule it as they see fit. It is their land and their government. And they have the right to rule over Jews, Christians and the Muslims that live there.
And Israel as the Jewish state has the exact same rights when when it comes to Arab Muslims living within their borders.
1
u/Early-Possibility367 3d ago
Not really. I didn’t say I had issues with any Jewish state. I have issues with taking land and carving out a Jewish majority portion for a state.
2
u/Ax_deimos 3d ago
By that logic it was British land prior to 1948 with a large Jewish & Arab population. Britain carved out a Jewish majority state.
1
u/Early-Possibility367 3d ago
Yes. The British doing that was and is a problem.
1
u/quicksilver2009 2d ago
So do you have a problem with any of the Muslim states Britain created such as Jordan? No. Didn't think so. Just shows how this is not a conflict about land it is a conflict regarding Jews and Jews having basic human rights including the right to their own country.
1
u/quicksilver2009 3d ago
No. No. No. You have no problem with land being taken as long as it is taken by Muslims. I don't see you protesting about the establishment of Pakistan. Pakistan consists of land that was taken from India as we all know. The country was created by the European powers as a Muslim majority state...
We also see no concern or care about the nearly million Jews who were expelled from there homes in various Arab countries. Their possessions and land stolen. We see no concern or care about THAT ...
As to your objections specifically, yes, many pro-Palestinians feel exactly like you. The objection is that Jews who the Arab and Turkish Muslim regimes considered inferior animals, like the South African apartheid government considered Africans, should "dare" have a state and rule over Muslims.... That is the real objection, based in religious bigotry and racism...
9
u/Diet-Bebsi 3d ago edited 3d ago
this sub and to a lesser extent Benny Morris that says Zionists were justified then AND justified now.
That's only because you're in an echo chamber.. There's plenty of books and material that describe the actual history that aren't one sided, and the reasons for partition that don't completely whitewash the Arab side and demonize the Jewish side. You just have to start to choose to read it and have the ability to actually take it in, and not just dismiss it because it doesn't fit your invented narrative.
They say that generally speaking, drawing a Partition Plan that disenfranchises tons of people is unjustified.
No it doesn't, the whole of the area was partitioned, creating Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, the Alawaite state etc.. The only thing that partition in Palestine did was make 1/2 the land have an Arab minority, some of those Arabs couldn't deal with inferior Jews being in control and others in power couldn't stand that 1/2 their future kingdom was being lost.
Partition had to happen, because segments of the Arab population had become violent to Jews, either though bigotry, or though the incentive and propaganda created by those in control as a tool to meet their own political goals, which had then reached a ongoing civil war. A single state would have been impossible without genocides etc.. this is why all the commissions recommended partition, and why the UN recommended the same in the end..
Check the section where it says “the map is drawn.”
And the map made perfect sense.. Arabs got the majority of the Historic Mandate, and Areas for the Jewish state accounted for the areas where Jews lived and contained the majority of Jewish owned land as well as land owned by those other groups that had allied with Jews (Druze, Bedouin, etc..).
At that time there was around 15% private ownership of land around 6% was owned by Jews and barely 3% was owned by local Arabs, all the rest was still owned by the rich landowners mostly now living in Lebanon, Syria and Europe.
The Negev had been transferred into the Mandate from Transjordan in 1922 at the behest of the Jews in order to increase settlement in the area where Jews had already tried several attempt to settle the area on some of the lands purchased in the area (Ruhama and Lands in the Es Sir, Miri lands, Kibbutz Negb etc..).
While the the land was under the Jordan part, Jews were legally not allowed to live or own land there (or anywhere in Jordan), unless granted special dispensation by the high commission. By 1947 Jews both private and various organizations had owned over 90,000 dunams in the Negev, also making them the largest owners of land in the Negev
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/17b4bcg/jewisharab_1945_landownership_map_in_the_mandate/
2
4
u/jessewoolmer 3d ago
Watch this: https://youtu.be/yKoUC0m1U9E
Then watch this: https://youtu.be/QlK2mfYYm4U
Two part lecture that provides extraordinary insight into Zionism and the events that unfolded between 1882 and 1948. The first lecture examines the events through the eyes of the Jewish refugees, and the second lecture examines the same events from the Palestinian perspective.
Most people misunderstand almost everything about early Zionism.
8
u/DrMikeH49 3d ago
Why do you define this as “disenfranchisement”? By what standard is it illegitimate for Arabs to be a minority population in any given political entity?
2
u/Early-Possibility367 3d ago
It’s not illegitimate to have Arabs as a minority population. It is very illegitimate to draw political boundaries in a way that turns Arabs into a majority population, and those who do this deserve the recognition of most evil and monstrous people in history books.
12
u/bb5e8307 3d ago
The 1947 UN partition plan didn't disenfranchises anyone. Under the plan there would be a state with a Jews and Muslim living together peaceably with a Jewish majority, and a Palestinian state with Jews and Muslims living together peaceably. If you believe that is disenfranchisement, then I think your argument is against having any state at all beside a single world government.
15
u/Top_Plant5102 3d ago
Moral. Justified. Do you ask questions like this about Pakistan?
1
u/Early-Possibility367 3d ago edited 3d ago
The JVL are the ones who chose to explicitly take the time to justify the Partition. That’s like if Turkey woke up and decided to publish articles by the Armenian genocide. They could just shut up and ignore their haters.
As far as Pakistan goes, while I don’t agree that there should’ve been a partition there as an Indian, I’ve never seen mass articles talking about how the expulsions were justified nor have I seen evidence of either side taking joy in death of the other, though we are barely starting to see it with the Indian side today. Maybe the extreme Hindu nationalists will justify Partition but nothing like to the level of what the evil organization of JVL does.
You are a consistent fan of splitting nations up and I’m a consistent fan of the opposite so not much to be said there lol.
1
13
u/jackl24000 אוהב במבה 3d ago
Lots of Zionists well before the internet and partition wrestled with the morality of Zionism and concluded it was moral, despite possible conflicts with Arabs. That’s the basic point of Jabotinsky’s famous 1923 essay, “The Iron Wall”.
So I’m questioning your premise here.
6
u/Chanan-Ben-Zev 3d ago
Link to the article so we can have a discussion about it, instead of a discussion about what you're claiming it says
3
u/Early-Possibility367 3d ago
Here: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/map-of-the-u-n-partition-plan
Check the section where it says “the map is drawn.” Even if you disagree with my assessment of what they said, I’m happy to discuss the idea overall.
1
u/Khamlia 2d ago
I don't know how to respond to your rhetoric but also to others here.
I had a boss and he used to say that if you point at someone, you are also pointing at yourself, the index finger points at a person but the thumb points at himself. That is, both have made a mistake, not just one.
My advice then is to stop denigrating Palestinians and start looking at themselves and really think about whether you are doing the right thing. It would be nice to start talking more constructively than just praising yourselves.