Don’t fall into the trap of ‘picking sides’ over Gaza: Hamas’s attacks were unconscionable, razing Gaza to the ground would be abhorrent. In both cases, basic humanity is at stake --- [Opinion]
Don’t fall into the trap of ‘picking sides’ over Gaza: Hamas’s attacks were unconscionable, razing Gaza to the ground would be abhorrent. In both cases, basic humanity is at stake --- [Opinion]
![Don’t fall into the trap of ‘picking sides’ over Gaza: Hamas’s attacks were unconscionable, razing Gaza to the ground would be abhorrent. In both cases, basic humanity is at stake --- [Opinion] - Feddit](https://lemdro.id/pictrs/image/1324bc6b-631c-4d59-bec7-2da603cb6fd7.png?format=webp&thumbnail=256)
Cross-posted from: https://feddit.de/post/5185724
Original link is here: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/world/israel/gaza-war/63691/alan-rusbridger-gaza-war-israel-hamas
You're viewing part of a thread.
What vote?
- UN resolution 181 - https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Nations-Resolution-181
Timeline:
- 1947 - The resolution was voted on by the UN
- Arab countries didn't accept it
- Civil war between Zionists and non-Zionists
- 1948 - A day before Britain's retreat, Israel claims all the land
- A day later, Arab countries attack Israel in order to "push the Jews into the sea"
- Israel wins most of the land, except Gaza and Cisjordania
Jews were given the land
Well... kind of, but not really, not exactly that land, and the result wasn't truly agreed upon by anyone.
the 6 day war
That's in 1967. Israel wasn't "given" any land there, it used a provocation by Egypt in order to claim all of it (and have Egypt give thanks for not claiming all of Sinai too... for now).
There was also a lot of bribery and intimidation involved to get the vote to come out a certain way.
Jews were given the land
Well... kind of, but not really, not exactly that land, and the result wasn't truly agreed upon by anyone.
They were given the land by UN at the start of the partition. I want discussing whether it was just.
the 6 day war
That's in 1967.
Yep, just as I said.
Israel wasn't "given" any land there
Didn't say it was dune in 1967. It was given by UN straight after WW2. I was being as brief as possible.
It seems we agree on everything except the following. Hopefully you can clarify for me please...
1948 - A day before Britain's retreat, Israel claims all the land
Not explicitly AFAIK. This is my understanding...
Arabs were not OK with the UN partition but Jews were. Jews therefore understood that would mean Arabs would annul the partition as soon as the Brits exited so they declared independence from the day of the exit but I cannot find any borders mentioned. Then the Arabs really did attack.
Do you know of any borders mentioned by Jews then? Did they state "we want to be observed of the Arab partitions?" Certainly that is how it ended up but was that the plan on Independence Day? Wikipedia is vague.
There is a funny tidbit on the Wikipedia page:
Although Ben-Gurion had told the audience that he was reading from the scroll of independence, he was actually reading from handwritten notes because only the bottom part of the scroll had been finished by artist and calligrapher Otte Wallish by the time of the declaration (he did not complete the entire document until June)
https://catalog.archives.gov.il/en/chapter/the-declaration-of-independence/
Because there was no time to spare, the Declaration was read from a mimeographed sheet, and the 37 signatories – members of the Provisional Council of State – signed their names to a blank parchment sheet. The official copy of the Declaration was later inscribed by an artist.
As for borders, by following the Declaration of Independence itself:
THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.
The UN resolution called for an economic union of "Israel and Palestine", which would imply that "Eretz-Israel" was supposed to mean the whole land of the "Mandatory Palestine".
Prior to that:
ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.
The British mandate was over the whole "Mandatory Palestine"... but the declaration talks about the State of Israel being "in Eretz-Israel", without specifying any explicit borders.
The "spirit" of the text can be interpreted as intended to follow the borders of the UN resolution... maybe.
Since the resolution clearly was not accepted by the Arab states, it would require some further analysis whether that means Israel is supposed to prioritize establishing an economic union of the whole land, or strictly follow the resolution.
MVP! Thanks.
So it sounds like the UN presumed the states would form a union (like the EU) without caring if the member states wanted it.
Arabs I think were not happy even with the initial borders since Israel were a smaller population but handed a larger land area than Arabs. Maybe some anti-semitism too but that disparity must have stung.
Israel was happy with the allotment and even with the union as long as they were the masters of the union. Islamophobia too perhaps.
Chicken and the egg. Each side had a reason to distrust the other and it has just been spiralling ever since.
Seems like Britain should have stayed on a few more years but were probably too tired after WW2.
I am mainly learning only now. Are you also researching as we go or have you already familiarized yourself with much of the detail? Either way I appreciate having someone who is polite to discuss this with.
Indeed, the UN expected a sort of conjoined two-state arrangement.
The problem with the Declaration of Independence, is that, not only it was signed before getting written, rising the question of whether should the notes, the speech, or the document crafted after the fact to be considered the "official" one... but also Israel still lacks a proper Constitution; it has a set of Basic Laws, the last one of which got approved in 2018, but it's expected more should follow, so it can still be seen as a "not fully established" state, making stuff up on the go.
Are you also researching as we go
Some of this stuff I've double checked, but most had already looked up before. One thing it would be interesting to know more about, are the nuances in the Hebrew text of the Declaration of Independence... but my knowledge of Hebrew barely goes as far as realizing that the English version is not a word for word translation.
Maybe by reading multiple translations you can at least narrow down to which the problematic passages are so then you could concentrate on them with a fluent Hebrew speaker.
I know one but it is hard to get him to stop once he gets started and he is right wing (I am left) so I don't want to listen to his preaching. Nevertheless if you give me a specific question I will ask.