Why did they split Palestine and Israel in that awful way? | Hacker News Reader

Why did they split Palestine and Israel in that awful way?

old.reddit.com

23 pointsthunderbong19 comments

Pretty sure the answer is "United Nations"[1] with further changes happening after 1967's Six Day War[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

The story goes back to the British control of Palestine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine

Well, [1] was a recommendation for an implementation that the article above says was never implemented. And of course also mentioned in [1] "Subsequently a civil war broke out in Palestine and the plan was not implemented.".

W.r.t. [2], that wasn't the "United Nations"; it's Isreal and the neighboring Arab states. Most importantly not "Palestinians"; the Arab states ran over Palestinians and failed to run over Isreal resulting in only Isreal having a tenable country.

Jordan actually annexed west bank. And Egypt get Gaza fenced off

So should United Nations be hold accountable?

Why there are so many deleted comments?

The question should be, why did they split Palestine and create a new state for people coming from all over the world?

"They" didn't. The ones coming from all over the world legally bought the land from previous owners, both British and Arab. Prior to that there was no such thing as a state of Palestine[1] there. It was much later that UN decided to invent this entity.

[1]: A different thing from the region called Palestine, mind you.

> legally bought

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

Then

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine

I'm pretty sure that Crimean lands were that "legally bought" by Russians after 2014.

All I find in those links is that the Arabs may have complaints about the conduct of the British, since it's the British that didn't keep their promises. However, those promises weren't made by the Jews who bought the land (and Arabs were among the people who sold it to them...).

Also, this doesn't contradict anything I said. There is a difference between not keeping a promise to create a country, and splitting a pre-existing country.

> I'm pretty sure that Crimean lands were that "legally bought" by Russians after 2014.

Please stay cool and on-topic.

> Please stay cool and on-topic.

The use of analogy/contrast here is a valid usage of language. People here always use analogies and do comparisons.

I understand that this is sensitive as these comparisons sometimes gives people impression that they are being sometimes hypocrites. But anyway I will not participate in a discussion like this because it is not useful and some feel the need to dictate what could and couldn't be said.

Comparing a major world power taking more land for itself by force and a bunch of refugees creating a new little country for themselves by buying the land is dishonest. Further suggesting that someone seeing something wrong with this comparison is a hypocrite is just further digging the hole. Good day.

> Comparing a major world power taking more land for itself by force

No, I was Comparing a Major world power (British Empire) taking more land for "other people from all over the world"

Good day for you too.

They weren’t taking it with the intention of creating Israel. They had more selfish reasons. It’s just that after WWI the British Empire was disintegrating, its resources were spread thin, and they had no interest in keeping the mandate, but at the same time didn’t want to allow Russia to extend its sphere of influence (which would happen if they had handed it to Arab states), so they handed it to future Israel. Just realpolitik.

But I have no intention of defending the British Empire. If that’s what you meant, then fair enough. Valid comparison.

I don't have the impression that I am a hypocrite.

I have the impression that you decided that some people don't belong in the area. Your reasoning is that some immigrated that never were home in that area, but I am not convinced by that. I also have more impressions, but no evidence for them, so I hold them back.

>Prior to that there was no such thing as a state of Palestine

This is like saying there was no Algeria or UAE because those those have not been formed as sovereign states. There was a 'state'. It just was not membe/observer in the UN.

There wasn’t. Previously there was the British mandate. Prior to that there was the Ottoman Empire. That’s centuries before the UN even existed. You might as well be talking about a state of Apaches at this point. Or better you might just look at what was the state of the world when Israel was created. Commenter upthread is clearly displeased with its existence and claims that it was created through splitting something else. I’m pointing out that it wasn’t. That’s all.

Israel could have chosen a less conflict ridden destination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Autonomous_Oblast A Jewish state has/had multiple viable locations

Or just given some of their own land. Like in UK for example...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com