one man's terrorist is another man's war criminal
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/23/bern...
In the Palestine Mandate, Jews and Palestinians got along just fine. That all changed once the ideology that the land belonged to Jews began to make rounds following the conclusion of WW2 and awful events like Holocaust gave rise.
It would've been fine if the creation of Israel happened peacefully but its egregiously ignorant to assume the other co-habitants who assumed control much of the land previously would excuse themselves especially when the earliest attempts were violent. It's not clear who fired the first shot in the Palestine/Israeli conflict but its important that those who write the history are essentially the voice of those that won WW2.
Had Hitler won WW2, we would absolutely learn how bad one group was and why their extermination was justified. Then as economic prosperity set in, and wealth gap begins to naturally arise as well as freedom of expression, egalitarian ideology quickly spreads. Today's generation that argues that all humans are born equal and a blank slate would be defined as extremist ideology and a President who promotes that belief would be labelled a bigot, racist, and smeared 24/7 by the establishment that descended from the winning ideology.
Eventually the political spectrum shifts back to the center violently and proliferation of information via various technological mediums takes foothold, the waters become murkier and the victor's version of history begins to become shaky until it feels threatened enough to launch a purge of its ideology once and for all and those that resist it to become embroiled in a prolonged civil conflict.
This gives rise to a future where reality is so remarkably different than what we have, rather people hold a Bayesian model of reality one which is measured by statistics backed by groups of facts from both sides of the political fence. This ultimately results in a much more peaceful and less quarrelsome society one which can finally give path to true enlightenment, raising of the collective human consciousness so that we become interstellar species exactly like what we were supposed to do.
There's nothing in the least controversial in regard to this point; it's just basic history -- and certainly nothing provocative in pointing it out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercommunal_conflict_in_Mand...
It's very much as if you had just said "Protestants and Catholics got along just fine in Northern Ireland during The Troubles", and then went on to extrapolate and moralize further about that conflict -- in terms of measured statistics and Bayesian analysis, no less.
Do you not see any problem with this?
"The Irgun has been viewed as a terrorist organization or organization which carried out terrorist acts.
The Irgun policy was based on what was then called Revisionist Zionism founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky.[6] Two of the operations for which the Irgun is best known are the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 22 July 1946 and the Deir Yassin massacre that killed at least 107 Palestinian Arab villagers, including women and children, carried out together with Lehi on 9 April 1948.
The organization committed acts of terrorism against Palestinian Arabs, as well as against the British authorities, who were regarded as illegal occupiers.[7] In particular the Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, British, and United States governments; in media such as The New York Times newspaper;[8][9] as well as by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry,[10][11] the 1946 Zionist Congress[12] and the Jewish Agency.[13] Albert Einstein, in a letter to The New York Times in 1948, compared Irgun and its successor Herut party to "Nazi and Fascist parties" and described it as a "terrorist, right wing, chauvinist organization".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun
[1] The History of "Socialist" Zionism | Leftist Zionists did the Nakba & founded Israel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehp9PZo4UR0
But the statement by itself is nonsense, historically speaking.