I'll be pithy, but you've cherry picked various sentences here to suggest I'm 100% pro-Palestine...
I don't think anyone here is "100%" pro/anti either side... At least I'd hope not... Kiwis tend to be good folks. Your comments simply seemed to ignore a lot of relevant history - which, to be fair, tends not to be the most important thing to most people because BEHEADED BABIES and dead raver thots.
It would have been insane to allow the wholesale "right of return" to the Palestinian people for the exact reasons you outline.
I'm glad you think so.
I'm completely aware that the 1947 partition plan was not the only partition plan that ever existed.
Sure, but the consensus seems to be it's the only one that mattered and its the only one that is "legitimate" because......reasons?
You do, however, miss the point where the League of Nations plan never was supposed to represent a Jewish controlled state and an Arab controlled state but the British Mandates, that would be administered directly by Britain.
You're not wrong, though I'm not sure it's relevant; the foundations of the "Jewish State" had been laid long before the Mandates came into effect; it wasn't some secret that Jewish persons intended to create a nation-state there, and it wasn't, contrary to the language of the Hamas Charter, a concept that first appeared with the Balfour Declaration.
Churchill drew a line down the Jordan Valley to let King Abdullah act as their puppet emir in TransJordan, since the UK had backstabbed the Arabs and didn't want Abdullah joining up with Mandatory Iraq since he'd been kicked out of French Mandatory Syria. The British Mandate of Palestine was made with the proviso that it would help establish a Jewish homeland, but it was not signed off as "the homeland is only for the Jews", because as you observe, there were Jews and Muslims and Christians living there side by side.
I don't believe even the Jews of the area believed that the nation would be "Jews only". I believe they expected that non-Jews living there would do so peacefully as they'd done during that groundwork-laying stage that had been in progress for approximately least seventy years prior to 1920.
The 1948 UN partition plan was instead examining how the lands of Israel could be divided to become self-administering.
Perhaps I've been a little harsh with regard to it. Yes, it was an attempt at recognizing the reality that, in the aftermath of WWII, things weren't going back to the relative peace of pre-Mandatory Palestine.
There's various other complicating factors at play here. I don't think Israel should have been established as a Jewish homeland in the way it was because most of the Ashkenazim hadn't lived there for centuries and centuries (we're dealing with people who cite the actions of the Roman Empire as part of their claim, that's so long ago as to be irrelevant to literally everyone else on Earth)...
The Jews huffing their own farts about being the "chosen" of "god" is a separate issue altogether, and only they imagine they "deserved" that land because people they're
extremely far removed from [if not totally] possessed it in antiquity; that said, very few people actually lived there when people first started talking about a "Jewish national homeland" in the Levant; circa-1850,
no one was being displaced by Jewish migration and Jewish nation-building and, frankly, no one
ever needed to be displaced by it.
...while the "migratory Arabs" had lived there continuously for centuries...
When I speak of migratory Arabs, I don't mean people who actually lived in and around the West Bank or had established towns and homesteads for decades or more; I refer
specifically to people that migrated there looking for opportunities in response to Jewish nation-building efforts from 1850 onward. Mostly Egyptian, but also from places that would become Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. These people formed the majority of the Arabs "forced" from what would become Israel in 1948, and their descendants now make up the vast majority of the "palestinians".
Nevertheless, many in Israel would concede a long term goal to ethnically cleanse Gaza and the West Bank...
I'm almost certain they'd like to - in the way some Americans may privately want all blacks to be sent "back" to Africa or all migrants sent back south of the border - but unless they have and don't mind using weapons of mass destruction, it will
never happen.
...and I've heard a surprising number of Israelis argue that by rights they should also have control of most or all of Jordan and they want to force all the Arabs out of there, because they're entitled to Eretz Israel and Jordan is a fake country invented by the British and with a foreign ruling dynasty and so does not have legitimacy as a country so gib Jews now.
I can understand in a place like the ME, especially in the current climate [which is to say the one that's existed pretty much since 2001], why people would be more inclined to say crazy/extreme things but, again, it's one thing to wish a certain thing would happen or even openly discuss it, and another for it to actually be feasible. I'm also going to make allowances for the fact that the other side believes they have the right - and responsibility - to literally drive an entire nation of people "into the sea" and would rather live as refugees in perpetuity across several generations to have a chance to accomplish that goal.
We're very much dealing with people on both sides who
may not be of sound mind.
Unsurprisingly the entire thing is a giant clusterfuck and anyone who's 100% for Israel or 100% for Palestine is someone I'm suspicious of. Although I think you're conceding that some concessions need to be made to the extant Palestinians so I wouldn't necessarily include you in that umbrella, I just think your comment was kneejerk and reactionary and made a lot of assumptions about my perspective. Although then again, we're on this website, so that's sometimes what we're here to do.
It wasn't meant to be, so for that I apologize.
