Deeper understanding of why Israel was created

What on earth are you on about now?

It's possible to criticize the Israeli state while still using the words 'apartheid' and 'democracy' correctly- in fact it would strengthen your argument.

There is a list of over 65 Israeli laws that discriminate directly or indirectly against Palestinian citizens in Israel and/or Palestinian residents of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) on the basis of their national belonging. Since the establishment of the state, Israel has relied upon these laws to ground their discriminatory treatment of Arab citizens and allow the unequal status and unequal treatment of Jewish and Arab citizens to persist.

It’s an apartheid state, not a democracy.

Arab Palestinians / Israelis who live in Israel proper do indeed have the right to vote. Palestinians who live in what should be the official Palestinian State also vote, heard of Fatah? Hamas? Who voted for them if Palestinians can't vote?

Or are you arguing for a one state solution? Have you thought through what that wpuld mean for the only Jewish nation in the world?

But don't worry, you've made yourself clear with this-

'Of course this would mean it could no longer call itself a Jewish state but if that is a set in stone requirement, perhaps they should have found some land that wasn’t already populated.'

That put you firmly in the camp of Not Worth Responding To.

Artificially created countries breed conflict through a festering sense of injustice. Look at India/Pakistan, N/S Ireland.

I do not see an end to this conflict. This is the legacy of how the "solution" was drafted in the first place. Western countries are notoriously bad at understanding indigenous peoples, but still wade in with their solutions like ignorant magicians.

It was in my view right to create a homeland for Jewish people, the holocaust was the most horrific and horrible manifestation of prejudice against jewish people, sadly not the first time such prejudice occurred. Israel is in comparison with much of the Middle East freer and democratic. Israel needed to build up its defence to protect itself, I have heard people blame Israel's poor defence for allowing October 7th to take place which I just find increadable. Israel is surrounded by countries that do not really want it to exist and tolerate its existence rather than support its existence.

I said as an apartheid state. I would have said the same of South Africa in the 80’s. If, on the other hand, it gives the Palestinians complete equal rights including the right to vote, as South Africa did, I would have a lot more sympathy for them. Of course this would mean it could no longer call itself a Jewish state but if that is a set in stone requirement, perhaps they should have found some land that wasn’t already populated.

Occupied Nothern Cyprus. Shouldn’t exist.

At the expense of the indigenous population. By your logic then, if someone steals from me, it is perfectly fair for me to steal from someone else.

So you think Israel has no moral right to exist as it is?

OK, thats quite extreme, and very bold of you.

Any other countries you think have no moral right to exist as they are? Or just Israel?

At least we can agree that it was an unfair solution which, by logical deduction, means that Israel only has a right to exist afforded to it by might as a result of near unconditional support from the West but has no moral right to exist as the apartheid state that it is.

I’d love a response to this one by the historian that is the OP!

Nothing is ever fair!

But, you need to understand that the area that was Palesine and is now Israel was actually placed under a British Mandate* as of the treaty of Versailles... before that it was part of the Otterman Empire. The creation of Israel was indeed done under the British Mandate as a solution to the problem. People living in these areas haven't had autonomy for centuries. There was indeed very little that they could do other than low level guerilla warfare...

• posh word for colony to make is easier to understand. Although there is more to it than being simply a colony...

I now REALLY understand why the British Mandate in Palestine created Israel. Even after the war ended Jews were still ostracised, blamed, killed, turned out of lands, unwelcome in many, many nations in Europe. The number of Jews were decimated, many survivors had to use assumed fake identification to survive, some fled to America, to Australia and Europe still wasn't safe or friendly for them hence Israel. One little bit of land where Jewish people originated, where the religion was first founded thousands of years before. A 2 state solution would have been good if both agreed and both wanted to live in peace and prosper. Israel never felt safe so built up a massive defence, built up a country and industry and wanted to prosper.

I find it extraordinary that someone would not know this already.

Or know that Jews were expelled from across Britain several centuries ago, and that as recently as the middle of the nineteenth century - so around 150 years ago - you couldn't take a degree or hold public office if you were Jewish. In this country.

There is a 2,000 year history of extrme prejudice and violence against Jews. Hitler was just doing what a lot of other leaders have wanted to do for a long time.

And it hasn't gone away.

Not much of history is 'fair'.

However, I do think that the creation of Israel after millenia of persecution culminating in the Holocaust is one of the 'fairer' events.

Of course this was desperately unfair to many many native Arabs who lost their homes and livelihoods.

But again, it didn't have to mean war. Palestinians could have accepted the division of land, and declared a state, and now theyd be much better off. The leadership of that time is absolutely partly to blame for what has become of Palestinians since. Thats not fair on them either is it?

You think it was 'fair' to try to wipe out people who'd just escaped the Nazis?

So let me get this straight. You are saying that because the Jewish people, all over Europe, were relentlessly persecuted for centuries culminating in the holocaust and then none of the European counties would help them, it is okay that not only the Palestinians, who had lived for centuries in Palestine, but the Mizrahi Jews, who lived happily all over the Middle East, had to suffer for crimes committed by Europeans. Could you explain to me how that is fair.

@Wedonttalkaboutboris
The Israeli military itself estimated earlier this year that around two-thirds of those killed were civilians.

Which is what a 2:1 ratio is, so exactly what I said. The lowest estimates for Mosul are 1:1 (50%), with other estimates ranging higher. Some wars have been up to 10:1 (Yugoslavia).

And let's not ignore or forget the fact the Hamas actively put their civilians in harm's way, whereas every other country tries to protect its civilians. Not only isn't there a single bomb shelter in all of Gaza, but the civilians weren't given access to the vast network of tunnels.

The high civilian death isn't a bug but a feature of Hamas's fighting style.

Exactly! It's also interesting to note that a lot of the funds for Haganah and Mossad l'Aliyah Bet came from American Jews.... there was definitely a game of pass the buck with a sprinkle of not in my backyard going on.
I try not to take sides as this is such a complex issue unless one has a very deep understanding of 1900 - 1940 politics and knows both their European & middle Eastern history inside out, no-one can get a true understanding of the issues.

Thinking Allowed by Laurie Taylor, also did a very interesting programme on the origins of Yiddish and how it differs between different geographical areas.... again great for some interesting insights.

Even Israeli intelligence sources and independent analysts acknowledge that the civilian toll has been devastating.
The Israeli military itself estimated earlier this year that around two-thirds of those killed were civilians. The Associated Press, analysing Israel’s own figures, found the same pattern- a “combatant-to-civilian ratio” far worse than almost any modern urban war.

For comparison, in the Battle of Mosul (which Israel often cites), about one-third of the deaths were civilians and that was already considered catastrophic by US and UN officials.

So even if someone thinks 2:1 is “acceptable,” Gaza’s reality has been much higher than that and the result has been thousands of dead children. There’s really no moral version of that statistic that can be called a success.

I was coming to say this. And what's more, Europe and the US and Canada all refused entry to most of them. Israel exists to solve a European problem, and then Europe turns around and blames Israel for existing. I'm not even much of a Zionist, but I find it galling.

There was a distinction between public and private land under the British Mandate. But “public land” didn’t mean it was empty or uninhabited. Much of it was farmland, grazing areas, and villages used collectively by Palestinian communities for generations.

Even according to Zionist and British sources at the time, Jewish ownership was around 6–7% of the total land, while Palestinians (both private and communal) held the vast majority of the rest. The UN Partition Plan still allocated 55% of the land to a new Jewish state (ncluding many areas with a large Palestinian population) which is why Palestinians rejected it.

The “mostly desert” argument also doesn’t hold up well- the Jewish state was allocated some of the most fertile coastal and northern regions (like the Jezreel Valley and parts of Galilee), while much of the Negev desert later became developed after 1948.

A 2:1 or even 3:1 civilian:combatant ratio in urban warfare is not only acceptable, but a really good outcome. You'll be hard pressed to find a other war with such a low rate of collateral damage.

It's amazing how Israel has managed to keep the civilian death rate so low despite Hamas's best attempts at getting as many of their innocent people killed as possible.

You're confusing public land and private. The Jews owned about 6-7%, the Arabs 12-13%. The rest was public/unowned land. And the majority of what was offered to the Jews was dessert.

Yes it was. The Brits/League of Nations had taken it from the Ottomans. That was a time when empire and conquest still existed everywhere.

Later, when the British Empire was dismantled - because that was when the world was transitioning from empires to nations states - it was partially granted to the Jews who had a strong, historic claim to the land.

What it never was, was Palestine, and it never belonged (as a state) to the 'Palestinians' (who hadn't even been invented at the time).