• centof
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    My understanding is that after ww2 lots of Jews moved to Israel until they made up a sizable portion of the population of Palestine. There was enough conflict between the 2 races/religions that Britian petitioned the UN to come up with a solution. The solution was breaking Palestine up into Israel and Palestine. There has been on and off conflict between the two groups ever since with Israel being the most successful in the conflict. I would say it’s recently been largely a cold conflict with a few little skirmishes between them. Conventions of War only apply if there someone willing to enforce them.

    • AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s not accurate. Almost at all. Zionism started long before WWII and there wasn’t pronounced conflict with Arabs until political Zionism took hold and the Irgun began their terrorist campaign against Arabs and the British. That’s why the British left. They didn’t want to start a war against Jews right after the holocaust. But not for some great humanitarian reason, they just didn’t want the bad press as their empire was falling to pieces.

      • centof
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Which part is is inaccurate?

        The conflict I am referring to in the second sentence is Haganah or Irgun’s bombing of the british embassy. To go into more detail, the same group of people that were assisting to bring Jews to Israel was also behind an attack on the British Embassy.

        • AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You literally don’t mention Irgun or their war against the British. You said that inter-ethnic strife was the cause of Britain abandoning the region. Everything you said was wrong, misleading, or omitted crucial details.

          • centof
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, I did not fully explain all the context of the situation. I did so intentionally as I was providing a high level overview. Omitting details does not make me wrong.

    • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This makes it sound like Britain is the good guy breaking up a fight. They literally planned for the whole thing, this is public information now. They intentionally massacred Palestinians and founded Israel as a genocidal state.