How the Israel-Palestine conflict began | Part 2
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 02. 2024
- 1936, British Mandatory Palestine was in flames. In response to rising Jewish immigration and economic dominance, Arab Palestinians revolted against the British attacking military installations and Jewish settlements. The British were scrambling for an answer.
In our last episode, we explored Britain’s conflicting promises made during the First World War and how it tried to resolve them. In this episode we’ll examine how the Second World War transformed the conflict in Mandate Palestine once again. Why did Britain change its mind about a Jewish homeland, how did a Zionist underground insurgency defeat the British and how were the borders of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank created?
Explore and licence the film clips used in this video from IWM Film:
film.iwmcollections.org.uk/co...
Photograph attributions:
Israeli soldiers in battle with the Arab village of Sassa in the upper Galilee. Israeli Government Press Office. CC BY 3.0. creativecommons.org/licenses/....
Amin al Husseini meeting Heinrich Himmler. Bundesarchiv, Bild 101III-Alber-164-18A. Alber, Kurt. CC-BY-SA 3.0. creativecommons.org/licenses/....
Reference maps attributions:
Map of Jewish settlements and roads in Palestine by the 1 December 1947. It's-is-not-a-genitive on Wikimedia. CC-BY-SA 3.0. creativecommons.org/licenses/....
Zones controlled by Yishuv by the 20 May 1948. It's-is-not-a-genitive on Wikimedia. CC-BY-SA 3.0. creativecommons.org/licenses/....
Follow IWM on social media:
/ i_w_m
/ imperialwarmuseums
/ iwm.london
Thanks for watching!
Please remember to be polite in the comments. Any comments that we consider to be offensive or aggressive will be removed.
Could you inform us on what measures you have taken so far in censoring the comments section, and which measures were done not by you but Google/CZcams?
-Right now only 1 of my 6 comments/replies is visible in the default setting (which everyone uses).
-Only 2 out of my 6 comments/replies is visible after changing the default "Top Comments" viewing setting to "Newest first" (which no-one switches to, and even if you switch to it you always have to manually switch from the default every time you change to another page)
-4 out of my 6 comments are totally hidden from view, so no-one can ever view them. CZcams tries to fool me by making them appear to my view normally so I have no idea I'm being censored. I had to log out and view this comments section to see what other users see.
It would be decent to at least know when we're being censored. And any reasonable platform would inform WHY we're being censored. I have not written anything against the rules or anything untrue, nothing I wrote was offensive. I'm assuming you were not behind this as this is typical behaviour of Google/CZcams, but I would be interested to know what you know about this censorship or if you were behind any of it after all.
(This is now my 7th reply here in this comments section, so anyone looking through can see for themselves how I'm correct: my comments are being heavily censored)
You washed over the Jordanian and Egyptian occupations and annexations, including the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Jerusalem and the West Bank. Both highly relevant to the current situation and territorial claims.
The map in your thumbnail on the right has the wrong date
There is no conflict. There is occupation and colonialism. The colonisers are supported financially and militarily by almost every country in the west while the indigenous population was displaced, massacred and exposed to famine and siege and became hostage in the traditional prisons and open air prisons.... Where is the conflict ?
Isreal was a survival project not a colonial project. Still is. Compare diversity in Israel with diversity in Arab Palestine. Compare democracy with theocracy.
I'm not sure one could truly say Britain "lost" to Israel. I think they more or less just threw their hands up and said to hell with it, y'all deal with it.
I mean, it was in a way a war of attrition. The UK just couldn’t afford to keep fighting, so they withdrew in relative decency. I think this is in some ways similar to Vietnam or Afghanistan-- not a complete military capitulation, but it just became politically or financially untenable to keep fighting. I would argue that it is not inaccurate to say they lost.
Same people that mite say this are the same people that claim Vietnam Beat America.
@@SomeoneFromBeijingStill the Soviets or the US didn't brought an opposing force and asked the local population to live with it.
@@AyoubusMagnus What do you mean? The Soviets didn't invade Eastern Europe and stayed there with armed force (during several generations) and an imposed political system?? And for the US, in Vietnam, Panama, the Philippines...
@@XxJokerxX_ I think victory is determined by if you achieved your aim, not casualty numbers. The US' aim was to prevent the spread of communism, and North Vietnam's goal was to reunify their country. So it was pretty clear who "won". Another example I like to use was Korea. NK's goal was to reunify their country, SK's goal was to survive, the US/UN's goal was to save SK, and China's goal was to keep NK on the map. So, everyone achieved their goal, except for NK.
“I shall leave them under the mat”
What a classic line. Imagine someone saying something like that in a press conference in 2024!!!
I think Biden would say something like that when he eventually leaves 1700 PA Avenue.
‘Good luck. There’s no money left’.
My God what a convoluted mess it is - really glad IWM is doing this and shedding some light on it for people like me - non-historians who still want to understand it all.
Read the Bible for the real truth.. it aligns perfectly with history...4000 years ago Hod gave this land to Abraham...The conflict between Ishmael and Isaac started then....Ishmael the illegitimate son of Haggar and Abraham..and Isaac the legitimate heir of Sarah and Abraham.....the rest is an endless hatrid and jealousy rooted in the Arab lfamily line of Ishmael...
Yeah likewise
He really downplayed the Arab expulsion of Jews, they didn't emigrate, the Arab countries expelled all Jews
For a better understanding of the history, you can find books on the subject by Ilan Pappe, Tom Suarez, Avi Shlaim, David Sheen, Max Blumenthal, Moeen Rabani, norman Finkelstein and many others.
Thanks for putting your archive resources into manageable format for non-historians like myself, for citizens in a democracy need to know something of the past in order to lobby representatives for a just solution to present problems.
A few comments: (1) The plight of European Jewry was a low priority for the British gov'ts before, during, and immediately after the Holocaust. Most certainly during the Baldwin and Chamberlain gov'ts, when the official policy was to appease Hitler. In 1938, not only did the Chamberlain gov't push for the Munich accords, it also issued the White Paper on Jewish Immigration to Palestine, AND in the Evian conference it also refused to accept any Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany into mainland Britain. The British gov't did everything at its disposal to prevent Jews from escaping the Nazis. (2) After WW2, Atlee and Bevin allowed a small number of Jews into the UK, but continued to enforce the 1938 White Paper. Ernie Bevin fantasized about sending the millions of Jewish refugees in Displaced Person camps to New York City. He infamously complained that "Truman doesn't want them". (3) The "Sergeant's Affair" was an Irgun reprisal to the British execution of several Irgun members in Acre prison several days prior. (4) India was partitioned in 1947, a year prior to the partition of Palestine, under similar circumstances, and also with a British withdrawal. So it is not correct that the situation in Palestine had no precedent. (5) Britain did get involved in the 1948 war - surreptitiously. A British General (Gen. John Bagot Glubb) was the commander of the Arab Legion (later renamed the Jordanian army) that captured the West Bank. Britain's Royal Air Force assisted the Egyptian army in the fighting around Gaza. Also, Jordan's subsequent annexation of the West Bank was, at the time, only recognized by one country: Britain. (6) You briefly mention British-French rivalry, and British- Soviet rivalry (in the context of the Cold War). These rivalries played a role in the 1948 war, and its immediate aftermath.
Recognised by newly formed Pakistan too ! Some endorsement !
Wait so im confused. If Britain didn't want Jews to leave why promise them a land that they had already promised to the Arabs? Why help them fight Arabs? Why train them? Why do everything they did?
@@Chama-Crystal The British also trained the newly formed Jordanian armed forces. Very ambiguous.
@@Chama-Crystal divide and conquer, basically.
divide and conquer was also used in India.
I commend this channel for telling the truth and not being racist towards Jews
Judaism is not a race
Yet it keeps saying: "palestine had been wiped off the map" which is misleading, since palestine was the whole land, not only the west bank.
There wasn't any arab state there to begin with!
The drot, You are biased, you got history, yet you still claim there wasn't people in a land that were theirs!
@TheDror410 is not about Arab state there but about people living there who happen to be majority ethnically Arabs.
this is the most neutral presentation of facts on the palestinian conflict by any channel on YT. the channel has no motive and no history of any political leanings except to present history as it was. thank you for presenting history as it was and to let the viewers make their own opinion based on the facts, who grabbed from whom and why the losers are persistent thorns on those who won.
the british mandate of palestines largest CHUNK WAS JORDAN fyi
What’s your point? The typical suggestion by Zionists that Palestinians should be transferred to Jordan?
Thanks for the video. Informative and well presented.
Lets hope there will eventually be some semblance of peace in the region, whatever that looks like. At the end of the day it is innocent people who suffer.
There are no winners in wars, as always. Only casualties....
One of the most balanced versions I have seen on YT for a while. However, the omission of Al Husseinis full and lethal collaboration with the Nazi regime should not be so truncated or airbrushed. He was , after all, an architect and major actor in this series part 3 and beyond, having been a mentor to the Egyptian, Yasser Arafat, and to 2 SS Divisions, for which he emerged untried from the WWII
tHERE WAS NO SUCH COLLABORATION THERE WAS ONE BRIEF MEETING AND HITLER HATED HIM
Truth doesn’t fix their narrative.
The story goes back earlier- the first thing Britain did when it got the mandate was to give the Golan to France (hence Syria) and the area up to the Litani to France (hence Lebanon) - in exchange for territory in Iraq. Then it hived off 76% of the remaining territory to create Trans-Jordan. Whilst mentioning the "illegal" Jewish immigration, which was legal, the White Paper was a fundamental and unauthorized breach of the mandate, Britain turned a blind eye to massive Arab immigration
How was it legal and how did Britain turn a blind eye to arab immigration? Like the Nakba you mean??
@@Chama-Crystal The British Mandate Palestine became a fairly well-off region thanks to the Jews' development of the area, and working hands were needed. Many Arabs came from Egypt, Syria, lebanon, etc. to work and settle there (before the Arab revolt).
Based off the Balufour declaration, promising the land to future home for the jews, the British had no right to cut off jewish immigration. They did so because of their own interests, and some claim that was illegal.
It’s shocking we don’t describe this issue as clear cut colonialism like we do with almost every other country in the non European country
But is it colonialism when there is no mother country? Technically the British were the last colonisers of Palestine, although it was just a protectorate.
@rewdwarf123 yes. Zionists that were mostly european jews carving out a state in the middle east is colonization
@@rewdwarf123 Idk the way i see it is the British colonized Palestine through the Zionists
Colonialism when there are 3000 year old Jewish artifacts and buildings? Most Palestinians are immigrants to the region also. Thirdly, why don’t you call the Muslims in the UK colonists?
How is it colonialism when Jews are mostly semitic people and are native to the land? On the other hand, arabs arent native to Canaan. Weird how no one talks about the Caliphates?
Thank you for the explanation
The most accurate description of events
I very much enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
Enjoyed this and would like to see a part 3 maybe even part 4/5.
You’re watching it on tv every day. It’s horrible, so far.
@@richharper8159, yeah Part 4 will be with bows and arrows though.
why didnt Egypt and Jordan create a Palestinian state in their occupied territories?
Why doesn't Europe create a country inside Europe for refugees from all.over the world?
Jordan is *_the_* Palestinian state. Jordan was supposed to be the state for the Palestinians. It still could be. But some find it more important to try to destroy Israel.
Because like always there were divided interests. One thing is supporting allies or being sympathetic with their goals and another selflessly dealing with their problems entirely.
Why doesn't anyone?
@@paolosciarpuccio That actually gives me an idea of some sorts.....
Very informative video! Thank you.
A decent attempt at being impartial, factual and informative. This is a really interesting summary into the Arab-Israeli issues in the modern era. Anyone watching just needs to keep in mind that this has been going on for much longer than 2,000 years. All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again.
What they really should keep in mind is how British greed has created so much chaos in the modern world. The British Empire was evil, and its legacy is tragedy that carries on.
@@squareinsquare2078 Chaos and "evil" empires always existed in history.
@@squareinsquare2078 And of course that has been counterbalanced by no good at all, like the Magna Carta, railroads, Shakespeare, and the defeat of fascism...
@@squareinsquare2078 Historically the British just did what "empires" have done. The British just happened to be the one that occurred during the period when humans figured out how to circumnavigate the globe using ships. It would have been exactly the same (or worse) if some other nation had become the dominant power during that period.
@@squareinsquare2078 The British Empire did a lot more good than bad. And every empire would have done similar conquests as the British if they had the opportunity and power to do so.
The Ottomans, Mongols, Russians, Mughals, Qing and so on were even more morally depraved than the British Empire. Even the Belgian Empire under Leopold was a lot more evil than the British
And modern moral standards shouldn’t be imposed on historical events anyways. Holding up any historical person or state to modern standards would paint them as being extremely bad
"On the last day of the Mandate, the Chief Secretary of the British Administration called a press conference in his Jerusalem office. One of the journalists there asked: "And to whom do you intend to give the keys to your office?". "I shall leave them under the mat", was the reply."
That was Sir Henry Gurney, his Mandate era diary (published and commented by an Israeli historian Motti Golani) makes a good read for anyone interested in the conflict beyond the headlines.
FANTASTIC Video! Did an amazing job showing how both sides are guilty of terrible acts towards one another and even towards themselves.
I hope this goes viral so people learn the actual history and not the Anti-Israel or Anti-Palestinian versions we see so often today.
Terrible acts? Interesting how other countries celebrate revolts and wars in the name of their independence, but purely because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has yet to be fully resolved, we just say both sides are guilty of terrible acts (though I would agree thar the terrorism that followed in the form of intifadas were terrible since at that point it was no longer militias fighting each other but guerrilla groups and suicide bombers killing innocent civilians)
@@YarrBr0 Well the Intifadas happened due to prior attacks. Wikipedia even shows what led up to the Intifadas
@Chama-Crystal not really, the intifadas happend despite Israelis coming to the table.
Years ago I met an Israeli guy who had been born in Egypt and his family were expelled in about 1958.
About half the Egyptian Jews went to Israel and the rest went elsewhere, mainly to western countries.
is there going to be a part 3?
Well done stating facts, and being unbiased.
Resistance movements? That is a departure from the label the British government of the day gave to Irgun, Lehi and Hagana..
Very nice summary of how we got to 1949 and the beginning of the current situation.
Is there a part 3, or is that what we have today?
Great video!
Very rare to find a video this balanced, historically accurate and informative on this topic. Kudos.
It’s not historically accurate at all. There never has been a State of Palestine.
Very balanced presentation despite made by the British. But number of Jewish immigrants from Arab states was way more than 260K
'despite [being] made by the British' ?? What is that? You have horrendous prejudices.
The british have 1000 year bias against jews
The number is considered in the region of 750,000-850,000. Roughly the same number as Arab Palestinians who fled.
@@etiennepilorget8777 why do you assume prejudice? The British ran the Mandate and were responsible for a lot of what happened. That makes it harder to be objective.
Thoroughly enjoying these documentaries. The narrator is amazing. May I ask about his accent, where is he from?
An interesting and informative documentary.
can you leave some news article sources in comments related to this.
The British gave weapons to the settlers this is common knowledge. This is why the settlers became the dominant force.
rubbish ! the opposite is true. Read Glun Pacha autobiography
The British government was more worried of the arab countries reaction during the mandate. And the larger arab population had to be kept calm. The British always favored the Arabs, except for a few individual soldiers who sympathized with the Jews.
While, depending on one's perspective, one can find issue with one aspect or another of the presentation, overall I found it to be informative and balanced -- an impossible scenario steeped in tragedy. Perhaps more mention could have been made of the Jewish fighters who were not merely trained by Britain -- they composed the Jewish Brigade that was active in So. Europe, 1944-45. In any case, kudos to the presenter and the Imperial War Museums.
These jewish fighters volonteered to fight in Europe in order to expedite the allied victory and save as much european jews as possible. They were of the fraction that decided to stop fighting the British forces in the Mandate Palestine for the duration of the war, so as to not distract from the British focus fighting the Germans. The other fraction (Lehi and the Etzel organizations) decided that they actually did need to fight the British, so as to force the British into lifting the ban of jewish immigration to Israel, thus saving as much european jews as possible. This is breifly mentioned in the video (5:18).
i wish history class was this good back in my day
Thanks for the effort. The conflict though is much older and did not start in the 20th century, like the title and the reported timespan may suggests.
That's a very important point
Here's a short history lesson about the Arab/Muslim-Israeli/Jewish conflict.
The 7th century is the time when the Arabs began to expand their Lebensraum and colonize the world.
634-38 CE:
The Arabs and Muslims invaded and colonized the land, which later became Mandatory Palestine. They not only colonized the future territory of Mandatory Palestine but also millions of square kilometers of land that belonged to other cultures. They gradually Arabized and Islamized the conquered populations.
The Arabs and Muslims ruled over that region until 1918.
During this period, Jews and Christians had dhimmi status. Dhimmis were second- or even third-class citizens with limited rights. Dhimmis had to pay a special tax (Jizya) for their protection. It is similar to what mobsters ask their victims, like small shop owners, to protect them from unexpected accidents and deaths. (So, no, they did not live in harmony or peaceful coexistence.)
A geographical entity called Palestine did not exist during the period of Arab and Muslim rule (634-1918).
There were plenty of signs, incl. statements, made by Arab leaders shortly after WWI and up until the 47 UN partition proposal, where Arabs declared that if the effort to establish a Jewish majority state continues, it will end in unrest and wars.
Part of the territory of the British Mandate for Palestine (do not confuse it with Mandatory Palestine) was the territory of modern-day Jordan.
In 1922, the British gave the Arabs 75% of the British Mandate for Palestine. (Hint: the modern-day Jordan)
On July 24, 1922, the League of Nations issued a formal recognition of the Jewish nation's connection to the Land of Israel and approved the decision to establish a Jewish national homeland in the territory of Mandatory Palestine.
In 1937-38, the British offered them 83% of the rest of the British Mandate for Palestine, which became officially known as Mandatory Palestine. All together, if the Arabs hadn’t refused the 37-38 proposals, they could have ended up with c. 96% of British Palestine under their control.
In 1947, the UN proposed a plan for the partition of Mandatory Palestine into an Arab-majority state and a Jewish-majority state. The Arabs rejected it.
Side note: The boundaries presented in this partition proposal never became official.
May 1948:
According to the principle of international law known as Uti Possidetis Juris, the whole territory of Mandatory Palestine became Israel at the moment of the declaration of independence in May 1948. (In other words, Israel is not an occupying power.)
The Arabs invaded Israel’s territory almost immediately after the declaration of Israel's independence because they wanted to erase it from the map.
Israelis failed to fully liberate their territory from the invading armies, so Judea-Samaria and the territory that later became known as the Gaza Strip remained under illegal Jordanian and Egyptian occupation until 1967.
Side note: between 1948 and 1967, the Arabs expressed zero intention to establish an Arab majority state called Palestine in Judea-Samaria and the Gaza Strip. (e.g., see the Article 24 of the PLO Charter from 1964)
Side note: The Arabs of that time didn't self-identify as "Palestinians."
Side note: The so-called Palestinian ethnicity and the myth about the stolen Arab land of Palestine were invented by a handful of Arab leaders with some help from the USSR during the early 1960s. In other words, there's no scientific or historical evidence that supports this myth. For example, there's no archeological evidence that an ethnic group called Palestinians or a geopolitical entity (e.g., kingdom or state) with the name Palestine existed before the invention of this myth in the 1960s.
In the 1948 war, Israel acquired c. 6480 km2 of land allocated for the Arab state in the UN's partition proposal. Neither the UN nor other organizations label those territories as occupied.
Side note: The 1949 armistice lines (aka "the 1967 lines," aka "the Green Line") were neither political nor territorial boundaries (aka official borders between Israel and its neighbors).
Yes, some Arabs were expelled, while others left because their leaders promised them that after they crushed the Jews and their state, the Arabs could return.
After the Arab defeat in the 1948 war, the Arabs expelled almost 100% of Jews (c.850k) from Arab controlled territories (e.g., North Africa and Judea-Samaria).
Between 1949 and the early 2000s, Israel offered the chance to return to over 100k Arab refugees multiple times (e.g., during the 1949 Lausanne Conference). The Arabs rejected those offers.
In 1967, during the Six-Day war Israel legally captured territories from the Arabs.
Now,
Take a look at the logos of Fatah and Hamas.
Both of them show the silhouette map of "Palestine" (which they want to liberate). It is quite odd that it resembles the silhouette map of Mandatory Palestine. In other words, both Fatah and Hamas would love to erase Israel from the map and replace it with an Arab and Muslim majority state.
As I said before, the Arabs had many opportunities for establishing an Arab state called Palestine. Instead of focusing their efforts to hinder the Jews from establishing and maintaining the only Jewish-majority state, the Arabs could have turned that energy into creating a peaceful Arab state, something like Singapore 2.0.
Conclusion:
The Arab/Muslim-Israeli/Jewish conflict exists because the Arab/Muslim ego cannot accept the reality that they lost to Jews (their former Dhimmis) a tiny piece (c.0.22%) of their colonized territories.
The Arabs and Muslims rejected even the idea of an independent Jewish majority state.
Between 1937 and the first two decades of the 2000s, the Arabs and Muslims rejected every offer to establish an independent Arab state called, e.g., "Palestine." (Here's an example: Check out the CZcams video with the title "Olmert offered Abbas 20 sq.km more than size of West Bank, according to PLO Chief Negotiator.")
In other words, the goal of the Jews is to have a state, while the goal of the Arabs is not to allow the existence of that Jewish state.
Historical facts prove that the only ones that make the lives of the Arab people miserable are those (e.g., Arab leaders, Arab states, the EU and its members, the UN, and various NGOs that made a lucrative business model out of it) who perpetuate this conflict, those (e.g., UNRWA) who teach hatred towards Israel and Jews to Arab people, not Israel. Again, the Arabs could have built a Singapore 2.0 if they truly wanted a better life.
Fun fact:
According to an Arab (pcpsr dot org) survey from 2022, 51% of Arabs in Arab-controlled territories in Judea and Samaria and in the Gaza Strip (61% Gazans) want to wage war with Israel, while 21% support negotiations.
(Text by @t77szilagyi, 2023)
Thank you!
What's written there is about as islamophobic you can get without outright making things up.
To give one example of how facts are twisted for an anti-islam/arab narrative is the claim that the tax on "dhimmi" (literally meaning "protected people") was basically mob extortion. The fact of the matter is that while it was a tax specific for "dhimmi", muslims payed other taxes and were subject to military recruitment, something "dhimmi" were exempted from.
It should also be added that despite not having to do military service "dhimmi" would still be influential people in muslim society and not as "tiborkosz" claims "2nd or 3rd rate citizens", but generally treated no worse than muslims (they were after all a protected people as fellow believers in the same abrahamic god). One of the best examples of influential "dhimmi" would be the jewish scholar Ḥasdai ibn Shaprut of Cordova, who became in all but name the second most influential person in Andalusia second only to the calif himself.
www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7304-hasdai-abu-yusuf-ben-isaac-ben-ezra-ibn-shaprut
Reading the charter of Hamas, it seems they are still quite bitter about the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Thank you for your analysis
You really think someone will bother to read your propaganda?
Indeed ! There actually was "some Palestine" before Israel's independence: the Bank of Palestine was founded by Jews, the Palestine Football League of 1935 was all Jewish, the now Jerusalem Post started out as the Palestine Post, and there was even a flag of Palestine, which had a Star of David in the middle !
Thank you for providing details to the background of the creation of Israel. Most sources skim over the history.
The video states that the White Paper of 1939 (issued in May 1939) was issued a mere 30 minutes before the death of Herr von Rath, the German diplomat in Paris whose murder, shot on 7th November 1938 dying 2 days later, was the pretext for Kristallnacht. It is difficult to reconcile the fact that Kristallnach was on 9th and 10th November 1938 with the White Paper of 1939 having been issued before the murder of 9th November 1938 which was the pretext for Kristallnacht given the chronology outlined above. Or TLDR: The Imperial War Museum is totally wrong about a chronology and cause and effect.
Hmmmm, true. But they didn't claim that the white paper was the pretext for Kristallnacht. How could it, if it was issues 30 mins before?They claimed it was a weird coinsidence. But anyway, i guess it wasn't.
"The Palestinian people do not exist. There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are part of one people, the Arab nation. Lo and behold, I have relatives with Palestinian, Lebanese, Jordanian and Syrian citizenship. We are one people. It is only for political reasons that we carefully endorse our Palestinian identity. Indeed, it is of national interest for the Arabs to encourage the existence of the Palestinians in the face of Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new means to continue the struggle against Israel and for Arab unity."
Zuheir Mohsen (1936 - 25 July 1979) was a Palestinian leader of the Syria-controlled as-Sa'iqa faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) between 1971 and 1979.
Firstly are you a hasbara shill bot justifying the genocide to fit your ideal ?
Secondly regardless of what title has what motivation labels help to categorise.
Thirdly although no official state with king and coin, there was " a people " in the land .
It was not "a land without a people for a people without a land"
That was definitely a lie . Therefore Israel is built on lie .
Brits always messing things....
Min 12.50 "some left by choice". What exactly do you mean "left by choice". Fishy use of words. Because this is the most important point of this whole story. When Zi on leaders in the early 1900s planned their project, what did they imagine should happen to the people already living there? For those who don't have an answer, imagine it upon yourself, your family, your kids, your town.
Good point. Left by choice is a very vage definiton, but i don't think it is fishy, as they do say somebody was forced too. Maybe some were bought out, or someone just chose to leave because they was shy of conflict, or maybe they wanted to join bigger "arab" communites because many had left before them. What do you think?
Some numbers of them left by choice because the invading Arab armies told them to leave, to clear up the place for the fight, with a promise that they would be able to come back home after the jews are expelled. But the Arab armies didn't win, so...
What Zionist leaders imagined should happen to people already living there - exactly what it is today in Israel, I suppose. The israeli declaration of independence, written in 1948, states that all nationalities will live together within Israel, having the same rights, and this is how it works out to this day, with israeli arabs, bedoin, druze and cherkess populations. You have to remember that after 1948, the arabs that didn't end up in Israel (the ones that fled or were displaced), ended up either in Jordan or in Egypt, so at that time there was no issue with arab popuplations that have no citizenship. That whole mess started only in 1967.
Thank you for let us know the true.
When britain received the mandate over the region palestina included jordan. Britain divided palestina in two and gave the eastern part to the Hashemite family from Saudi arabia in exchange for their help in first world war. before that during the ottoman rule the entire region was called syria palestina. Britain and france divided the territory between them in a secret agreement called sais picot agreement frane received syria and lebanon and britain received palestina that includes today jordan. The arab were angry because they want big arab state, big syria. there for the agreement between Faisal and weizmann from 1921 was faild.
They go through this in Part 1.
Valid or failed??
As a jew im impressed with how much you got right missed a few things but well done
The borders in this part of the world seem especially temporary. I would expect that to continue. The problem with war is, sometimes things just don't go as planned. Someday, the borders in Palestine and Israel and for that matter the greater Levant will probably change again and of course as a result of military or civil war.
you missed the fact that the polestine is a name given by British empire to the land, when they got the mandate. It is relevant to the story.
No. It was the name of the Ottomon provience of Syria Palestina. The Brits cut the proveince in half. The French took the north, Syria. And the Brits took the south.
And this is the explanation about why there can't be a peaceful solution to this conflict. The UN two states solution has been botched by both parts, and although the original one state ideal in which both Arabs and Jews could live together in peace would be the ultimate solution, this will never happen.
Because the Arabs do not want two states. They never did. They want Israel wiped off the map.
Semitic people lived together in the past, so there is no reason why they should not live together in the future.
The names themselves will have to change. Israel itself is a name which lends credence and bias to Judaism. The flag must be changed, official languages added, politics drastically modified, etc. The identities of Israel and Palestine will have to die in order for something new to be born. I can present one possible name. Middle Eastern Federation. Any supporters?
😂@@2460-1
@@2460-1 Given that there are 22 Arab states and I do not know how many Muslim states I do not see why there should not be one state for the Jewish / Israelite . and Given that the jews in arab states has been slaughtered and made to flee , I think it would be a utopia. The Palestinians, need to learn to accept Israel and than there maybe a possibility for their own state or maybe a confederation. but there is so much mistrust now sadly
Run when the Brits make false promises.
Sound - particularly in terms of the neighbouring Arab states, willing to use the Palestinian Arabs as a cause but not wanting them as a people.
The same situation applies today.
UK has no influence on this issue now - protests in London and squabbling in the House of Commons just comes over as self-regarding politics.
There never was a " Palestinian " people. That was invented by the KGB in 1964.
No, UK still have influence. Just stop supplying the weapons.
I don't agree, the ICJ is currently hearing submissions about the legality of Israel's occupation which takes us back to the Arab Revolt and General Allenby's defeat of the Ottoman Empire in Palestine. Also the Balfour Declaration of 1917 to the British Federation of Zionists. Presently, the UK is supplying arms to Israel, that counts as influence, and if the ICJ rules that way, complicity in genocide. As a citizen of the UK, i don't want my country complicit in genocide, so i protest. Not self-regard, but empathy for a dispossessed people.
At 12:30 the information on Plan Dalet is false, Dalet is the 4th letter of the Hebrew alephbet and was the 4th plan of intelligence gathering by the young Israeli state. It was not implemented, as it was information, not actions.
If you included the events from b4 1930s it would be a lil more helpful for pl to understand that there was native jews still living in the land
I thought the Nakba was the fact that the Arab forces lost the war, not that the Palestinians left or were forced to leave.
Where did the newly formed Israel get its arms?
Some were stolen from the British. Some given by British troops sympathetic to the Jewish cause. Other arms were bought on the bmack market in Europe where there was a thriving trade. The Russians allowed the Czechoslovakia send arms and planes to the new State
SALaM, SHLAMa, SHLOMo, SHALoM, NAMASTe, PEACe.
Vedas [Hindu Bible]:
“One may amass wealth with hundreds of hands but one should also distribute it with thousands of hands''.
''If someone keeps all that he accumulates for himself and does not give it to others the horded wealth will eventually prove to be the cause of ruin.”
(Arthava Veda 3.24-25)
Avesta [Zoroastrian Bible]:
Praise and homage to the righteous God, who, by (the gift of) speech, elevated man over all creatures of the world, and who gave him the power of reasoning, the power of rising superior to time, and the gift of ruling over the creations for the purpose of fighting, warring against, and shunning Daevas (evil influences).
Canon [Buddhist Bible]:
These five guidelines for ethical living are integral to the Buddha's path of practice: refrain from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, false and harmful speech, and intoxication.
Psalms: 140:12
“I know that the Lord secures justice for the poor [Native Palestinians] and upholds the cause of the needy [Gaza].”
Torah [Old Testament]:
"You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him [Native Palestinians], for you were strangers in the land of Egypt [Children Of Israel]" (22:21) Isaiah.
Gospel [New Testament]:
Matthew 5:7
“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
Quran [Last Testament]:
''Adhere to justice, for that is nearer to piety, and fear God.''
Possibly Russia
The story of the establishment of the israeli Air Force is a fascinating story. 3000 volunteers, most of them jews from around the world mainly from the United States voluter to help the new state. see the tcomntary film: Above and beyond, director by Roberta Grossman. The volunteers purchased 23 S199 aircraft in czechoslovakia, which are a czech version of messershmit aircraft. Half of the planes did not work. The Arabs armies did not know about those planes. There is a fascinating story of how 4 planes managed to stop the Egyptian army.
Didn’t the same thing happen to Prussia?
Why 1947 and then 1949 Who will talk about the War in 1948 ??
British empire has a lot to answer for shocking 😮
SO DO OTHER COUNTRIES FOR OCCUPATION
MODERN DAY COUNTRIES ARE OCCUPIED LANDS
Didn't our government do well? Not, our finest hour.
The British Mandate included Jordan, and the deal was Jordan for the Arabs and Israel for the Jews, but this was not enough for them and they started a war.
Story didn't add up for me tho
The way the British took hold of Palestine and the way they left remain a sign of the weakness of the British politically and will haunt them forever.
So the British area in the ME was given to Hussain as promised via Iraq and Jordan - whilst initially the remaining mandate was to be for the Jews.
And when the British limited migration to the area now understood to be Israel and the Occupied territories it was basically a stab in the back. It would seem from this that the Arabs in the region have no right of ownership only of residency?
As the video points out the Arabs were the majority by a large margin. They only have no right to live there if you believe that any body can have their land taken.
But why are these foreigners including the Saudis decide the fate of the natives.
Why not Michael? The Peel committee, the UN after that , gave them land . they just refused and went for riots and war , and lost. Israeli Arabs today have rights of ownership , residency and citizenship
The big size of the map is a dessert
I'm not picking a side, but it is rather impressive how Isreal started with nothing and 75 years later they are a regional superpower.
Lol yeah they did that alllllllll alone. Definitely not as a client state of America which vetoes any and all economic and political consequences for its actions 😂
US side to Israel, 1951-2022, totals about $92.7 B. That was a part of approximately $319B of foreign aid. Additional private donations are not known.
@@nrsrymjduring the Cold War the Arabs decided to back the Soviet Union just like some are are now allied to Russia they keep backing the wrong horse
@@nrsrymj Gaining the right allies and friends is part of the achievement, yes.
damn right you're not picking a side.
I think its hard to understand 1939. How scary it really was. Having entire nations fall.And people just gone. What if Germany had won? We can overlook the war. But should not. We are to close to wars again.
Historical note: the hanging of the sergeants was a response to the Brits hanging members of Irgun in Acre prison.
It really tarnishes the whole video to leave out that context. And the video was not a half bad attempt at summarizing while remaining neutral. But this one little thing really does almost ruin it all.
Ok, they did not say it. But it does not 'ruin the video' and is not even necessary to follow the story. On the one hand you have a legal sentence which whose carried out by a legal authority, following a regular trial, in order to punish people who were in prison because they were charged for committing unlawful acts (or so I presume the situation was); on the other hand you have terrorists who killed innocent people just to be nasty and cruel. There is no parallel in it. So the fact remains that all in all the murders were not justified. It was plain dirty terrorism.
Historical note addendum: the Brits hanged the members of the Irgun because they were the ones who were captured in the Acre prison break, found guilty by the British court and sentenced to death by hanging. Members of the Irgun conducted a prison break operation at Acre prison to release their members from captivity but also caused the escape of 214 other prisoners. Look up this episode for more context.
Let's not make it sound like the Brits hanged Irgun members for no reason. The two British sergeants were extra judicially hanged as a reaction to the judicial hanging of the Irgun prison break operatives who were captured in the raid.
@etiennepilorget8777 soldiers arent innocent. The british military took part in massacres of jews and even gave weapons to arabs. UK was just as antisemitic as Germany.
They were hanged as a legal punishment from the legal justiciary at the time for violent crimes. The two sergeants - one of whom had Jewish parents - had committed no crimes whatsoever and were murdered.
I applaud IWM for exploring this topic.
at this time.
however.
the word "imperial" in the title of the institution does not instil,
in me, at least, the sense that it is a fair summary.
the machinations of the British imperial élite in the Near East made conflict inevitable.
it is striking that almost everywhere the empire upped and left,
usually in the lurch, was subsequently consumed by violence.
The opening map resembles the modern borders of Israel - very different from the British Mandate. Please may I point out that is rather misleading without a clear explanation? Thank you
Oh dear oh dear, up until 12.00 its an interesting perspective. After 12.00 this video becomes more and more misleading.
You want to know what really happened?
Dig deeper, see other videos, note the archive sources, look for painting, photographs & periond journals.
What did happen?
In the future, there must be a way that Palestinians and Israelis can live together in peace.
Really? They are terrorists! Get out!
To correct your Orwellian statement on the Nakba. The "catastrophe" wasn't the displacement of Arabs living there, but the humiliating loss against the Jews. That is why they want to destory Israel; not for justice, but to avenge their conmtinuing humiliation.
Here's some facts as oppossed to lies:
The word “nakba” to describe the consequences of the 1948 War was coined by Dr. Constantin Zureiq, a Syrian historian who taught at the American University of Beirut. Writing in his 1948 book, The Meaning of the Disaster, Zureiq said, “The defeat of the Arabs in Palestine is not a small downfall - naksa … It is a catastrophe - nakba - in every sense of the word.”
Zureiq also wrote, “Seven Arab countries declare war on Zionism in Palestine….Seven countries go to war to abolish the partition and to defeat Zionism, and quickly leave the battle after losing much of the land of Palestine - and even the part that was given to the Arabs in the Partition Plan.”
“When the battle broke out,” Zureiq wrote, “our public diplomacy began to speak of our imaginary victories, to put the Arab public to sleep and talk of the ability to overcome and win easily - until the nakba happened.”
There would be peace today if jordan army had not crossed the jordan river in 1948 and colonized judea, samaria and east jersusalem.
In 1948 after Israel declared independence (end of british rule), Jordan army crossed the Jordan river into Judea & Samaria (known as the west bank by MSM) and east Jerusalem. The Jordan army killed or drove away the Jewish people. The Jordan army then destroyed Jewish property or took it over. Jordan then encouraged Jordanian settlement in the occupied land. Jewish property not destroyed became occupied by Jordanians. After the Israeli victory in 1967 and Jordnian disillusionment with their expansion effort (1988), Jordan revoked the Jordanian citizenship of "palestinians" in Judea & Samaria (known as the west bank by MSM) and east Jerusalem. For the most part "palestinians" are leftover Jordanian colonist (Gaza residents more closely tied to Egypt). The homeland of the majority of "palestinians" is Jordan.
in the late 1890s Jews were only 3% of Palestine's population. European Jews should get their rights from their Europe abusers, instead of creating another genocide.
You do realise that Palestine had 8% Jews living there. Modern day Israel is Jews immigrating from Europe and taking land by force from the indigenous population. This video states this. If someone came to your house and just took it by force and asks you why you don't just move to neighbouring land, I'm sure you'd voluntarily leave your house..
@@F1R3EMBLEM your opinion is never stated in the video, please rewatch both videos.
Jewish settlers were purchasing land as they settled. Up until 1948 when Jewish and Palestinian militias fought each other is the only time when land was allegedly taken by force, which the video even points out is disputed up to today…
Do you know that Al-Aqsa is built above the ruins of the Jewish Second Temple?
Palestine as a country never existed, so it could not "wiped of the map".
Very intelligent remark. So, there was no independant State nammed 'Palestine'; thus it could not be wipped out nor painted in pink nor sent to the moon. And then what?? What is your remark aiming at? What does that change?
In the 1600s, William Shakespeare makes mention of the land he called "Palestine". In the 1700s a town in Illinois, USA was named after a land they called: "Palestine". What exactly are you trying to say? That a country called Palestine didn't exist 100 years ago? 90% of all countries on earth didn't exist until fairly recently.
@@etiennepilorget8777they are simply trying to point out that there was no national drive to statehood among the Palestinian Arabs. You need to try and understand Middle East mentality.
Palestine as an Arab majority British protectorate existed. And upon the expiry of the mandate, Palestine as an independent state technically did exist in a legal sense, which Israel ceded from and took most of the land from to form Israel.
@@etiennepilorget8777 It puts an end to the BS argument of an occupation that Arab and woke apologists use now to justify their hatred for a Jewish state. Even celebrated Palestinian leader was an Arab born in Egypt with parents who were born in Jordan. All premise behind a country called Palestine are factually incorrect.
As I tell my Bulgarian friends when there, as they ask about the problems of today with the West and Russia vying for domination of Eastern Europe and the Black Sea Littoral region, I say it's probably best for you to be aligned with the EU but be Bulgarians first.
I also say it's probably wise not to Trust either the Americans or the Russians as both have their own agendas and neither are probably too strongly aligned with Bulgaria's. Which is interesting as I am American having married once into a Bulgarian family years ago, and still own property there.
But the parallel in the Balkans with those post WW2 Soviet Warsaw Pact countries trying to figure out their future and who to trust or why, even amongst their own political parties and leaders of the year.
I am fearful of the survival of the EU, only because traditionally much of Europe has had very little historically and culturally in common with the countries of Eastern Europe and the Black Sea Littoral region. Perhaps enlargement wasn't the best idea?
Perhaps the right thing to try to achieve is a parallel Eastern Europe Union? But that would be as difficult to form and sustain as that failed Pan Arab League. I suspect that eventually the countries will gravitate to the winner of the current struggle between Ukraine and Russia, depending on the Results.
I would not be surprised if there is a break in the war sometime in 2025 if Biden retains the Presidency as his age and ability to be strongly involved in the affairs of the World will wane. I can't see his successor Kamala Harris being that much of a Free Europe proponent, having spent the bulk of her professional and personal life in California, where most people are more concerned with the border issues and wildfires and drought than a distant war.
But should Trump pull off an upset victory, then Ukraine could be cut into two very soon after with Russia taking the Eastern Third of the pre-2014 border area right up to Kiev and the Dnieper River becoming the border between Ukraine and Russia.
The only hope Kiev has now is to try to push south from Kherson into the lower Kherson Oblast to cut off the supply of Crimea from the coastal cities along the Sea of Azov. That is probably too much for Kiev to do as it is now consistently at a manpower deficit to the need just to hold the current line of control.
it is blatanly incorrect to say that "many" arabs supported the allied cause. In fact most wished for a Nazi vistory particulatly in North Africa. In fact their spiritual leader Hajj Amin al Husayni visited Hitler in November 1941 and offered his suppprt & friendship ! However all Palestine Jews either fully supported the cause or volunteered for military service
Ironic that the prospect for Palestinian statehood emerged as a result of Israel's Six-Day War and its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip but not before that when these territories were under Arab control by Jordan and Egypt respectively.
More than ironic.!! Neither the Egyptians or Jordanians had any intention of ever granting the arab residents any form of autonomy or independence. Arabs blatantly refused to discuss this or ever answer the simple question WHY not ? Of course its only convenient once Israel, having been provoked into the 6 Day war, by various Arab states that the subject has been resurrected and become such a good idea for Israel to be so compliant
Im confused how is an army comprised of five different nations unprepared for war, they were prepared, they just underestimated the determination of the Jews that had just been through the holocaust.
A history of racism... and of racism😢
when territory was granted, violance was started by arab groups in the region, you missed that.
The 'West Bank' is Judea, the ancient land of the Jews.
The Jews are from Judea, where the Judean mountains runs along the spine of Israel, where the tribe of Judah had its tribal allotment. The Jews are the native people of the Holy Land. The ‘Philistines’ came from the Greek Isles, originally; these modern ‘Palestinians’ have no relation to them at all. They are Persian, Egyptian, Bedouin, Turkish, Syrian, & Arabian, mostly.
The term 'West Bank' is a modern term with no historical significance. There was never a country called 'Jordan' before the modern state of Jordan was created out of whole cloth by Great Britain using 75% of the 'mandate for Palestine'.
The 'mandate for Palestine' was split into two. One became 'Jordan', the other became 'Palestine'.
'Palestine' was split into two. One part became 'Israel', one part became 'Palestine'.
See the pattern yet?
Yep I see that a geno cidal force has massacred 15,000 children with international cover
Germany, Italy Austria and France should have gave land to form Israeli
Correct but why france?
there was never a palestinian nation - the name been given to the land. during that time jews, muslims, christians druze and others lived here.
Nations are made up of people. Religions are also made up of people. Regions of land tend to be named for the peoples(ie. Nations) living there. There was a region, identified on maps, and referred by governments, as Palestine, with a people called Palestinians.
well it is abundantly clear what is the source of the present conflict and who is largely responsible for it. Clearly Britain should have no role or influence and indeed scarcely has a right to an opinion on what is currently transpiring in Palestine. Remains how is this to be resolved?
It's been tragedy heaped upon tragedy for both countries and the people living there.
With brute force and terrible reprisals and apathy for the other side, one side has been able to partly forget about this.
Until recently anyway..
they can forget about it because they are the one subsuming all the land and oppressing the other side.
What both countries? There was never a Palestinian country in All of history.
Not a bad rendition of the start of this conflict, but there are some glaring omissions most of which have been mentioned in comments.
Really, the fault lies with the UN. To create two countries, one without contiguous borders was the height of stupidity. Realistically, they should have allocated either the whole of the north to one side and the south to the other. If the had done their survey properly, they'd have made sure that both states had a sea front, one shared border with a UN controlled five mile wide buffer zone, fresh water access for both, and most importantly, a separate independent city-state of Jerusalem. They didn't, so the blame lies with them.😊😊😊😊
The US has a territory with which it has no contiguous border - Alaska. Russia has a a territory with which it has no contiguous border - Kaliningrad. One can claim that Italy and Sicily don't have a contiguous border, or any state that has islands. So? They all manage just fine. It's not an issue over which you start a war.
Looking at the territory managed by Egypt and and yet ruled by Iran imams , and what has become of it. And now looking at the land managed by Jews ,
and makes you see literally what it means to have proper leadership and unity of people.
I mean that's a dumb comparison when one side has been blockaded, killed on the daily have almost non existent self rule and another side having full support from the West even the West willing to fight wars for them. Also finance and arm that side to the extreme.
Like for example the only country in the world to have F35 other than the US is Israel, along with nukes and a safety net of American tax dollars and literally taking no responsibility for human rights violation that normally gets any other country on its knees from sanctions.
Lets go to 200 years before that.
People forget that israel in 1900 was almost empty. Half million people lived there barely
19th travellers confirm it was mostly barren and very very poor
And the people were mostly Arab.
Not once did you mention arab oil money
The Arab Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was in Berlin in the 1930s discussing extermination of Jews with Hitler and Eichmann.
Just like a copy of the situation that the British left in India.
A country where 2 majority ethnics had lived peacefully for centuries where the peace had been destroyed by the British occupation and resorted to civil war and separatism after Britain left.
What a terrible legacy of British colonialism.
Why dont they rename everything Caanan again ?
Merge them all in one. It predates 80yr kingdom of judah anyways
It was merged into one before Balfour decided "ok we need to separate them"
uh, ok
The Canaanites evolved into Israelites, Phoenicians, Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites. Of these five Canaanite groups, only the Israelites still exist - they are today's Jews and Samaritans.
There has been a constant small Jewish population in Israel from after the colonialist Romans left after destroying nearly every trace of the ancient Jewish civilisation including erasing the name Judea with Palestine. Jews were the majority group in Jerusalem. Arabs entered the Palestine territory during the Arab expansion in 7th century.
The League of Nations Sam Remo conference of 1920 created the legal basis for Israel. The new UN in 1945 adopted L of N legal mandates and the Partition Plan was a recommendation, rejected by the Arabs. Britain’s behaviour was shocking. They armed and trained the Egyptian and Jordanian armies, before leaving.
DID THEY.ATTACK THE OTTOMAN FORCES AS THEY ATTACK BRITISH FORCES
Interesting how in post WW2 the Jewish "terrorist" or "independence" groups began attacking the British civil and military structures in Palestine. Wasn't the British the principal Benefactor to aiding the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine?
But as the commentator said, the British Empire was in financial decline, being virtually bankrupt, and of course a War Weary English people probably wanted a resolution with no more English Blood being spilt. This became England's Vietnam to compare with America in Indochina.
I wonder how going forward American public opinion will change toward Israel and how Israeli Jews often holding American citizenship too will be toward America. If history is any lesson to learn, then one might expect that these Jewish "Americans" might just be less American than Israeli in sympathy. I wonder what harm that will cause America?
There's a lot of more puzzles to connect, for instance the faisal-weizmann agreement isn't mentioned here and it's quite important especially given the context of how deceptive it was. King emir faisal himself verbatim stated that the "new settlers (those immigrating from europe)" were vastly different and correctly assumed there will be immense tensions to downright war in the future, he stated this in 1919 iirc.
I didnt listen
But pretty sure what will be in the video
Just wanted to share something
Just today i watched about history of Cyprus
Its close to israel
And i have noticed some similarities
1) greek and turkish. In cyprus
Jews and arab in israel
2) christian greek cyprisian against muslim turksish cyprisian
Israel muslim arabs - israel jew israeli
3) way Cyprus got subernity from british mandate
Way
Israel got suvernity from british mandate
4) the most interesting
How British left
Seperating land into non sustainable borders
In cyprus the seperation was
On governing factor
Tear drops of hostile populations
Whith unsolvable governing system
Where muslim turks are woting for turks and christian turks are voting for
Greeks
Muslims have their army and police
Christian have theirs
In israel
Land separation
Two territories that kiss
And no border line is possible
The populations are hostel
Ideologicaly incompatible
Territory has tear drops of each other in each other territory
Each has its own view of governing system
That dont corelste
5) outside conflict
Turks want the land to be turkish
Greeks want the land to be greek
Both heat up the conflict
While both are danger to the other population
If land becomes greek - turks will be persecuted
Same the other way around
In israel
Arab countries want the land without jews
Jews are fugitives that have no were to go
(Ethnicly cleansed fron all around the world and genocide heavily )
Both populations are in fear
If israel becomes part of arab world
Jews will be persecuted
If not
Than jews will have to do what needs to be done to prevent conquest of israel
And that means that local arabs are in danger
And also fear the victory of the other side
(Israel had no support then )
Very interesting
That on both situations
Brits left a long ticking bomb
Of conflicts
That are unsolvable
Had the chosen the borders differently and not annex Jerusalem there wouldn't have been such a big mess. So it's all sides' fault. Jews wanted a stepping stone to expanding the boarders, Arabs sensed it, but at the same time they refused to compromise. Arab nations helped them first but then they made peace with Israel, while Palestinian resistance /terror hasn't ended since. So 3 sides of intelligent adults should have gotten vetter results.
There would be peace today if jordan army had not crossed the jordan river in 1948 and colonized judea, samaria and east jersusalem.
In 1948 after Israel declared independence (end of british rule), Jordan army crossed the Jordan river into Judea & Samaria (known as the west bank by MSM) and east Jerusalem. The Jordan army killed or drove away the Jewish people. The Jordan army then destroyed Jewish property or took it over. Jordan then encouraged Jordanian settlement in the occupied land. Jewish property not destroyed became occupied by Jordanians. After the Israeli victory in 1967 and Jordnian disillusionment with their expansion effort (1988), Jordan revoked the Jordanian citizenship of "palestinians" in Judea & Samaria (known as the west bank by MSM) and east Jerusalem. For the most part "palestinians" are leftover Jordanian colonist (Gaza residents more closely tied to Egypt). The homeland of the majority of "palestinians" is Jordan.