Hacker News Reader

Comment by mupuff1234 | Hacker News Reader

Didn't Palestinians attack Israel in 1948 and end up losing?

Palestine never attacked Europe. European Jews attacked Palestine and started killing Palestinians to remove them in order to create the state of Israel. They invaded with boatloads of weapons brought in from Europe, starting in 1947 before the state of Israel even existed.

And they were doing the same stuff back then as they are doing now, such as burning children alive, as witnesses recalled during the Deir Yassin massacre, as well as rapes of Palestinians, as their own soldiers recalled. (see the amazing "Tantura" documentary describing war crimes committed by the European Jews during the Nakba)

Israel never won this war they started. They never got Palestine to surrender. This is why their homes are required to have bomb shelters, since all the Israeli colonists are living in an active war zone from a war they started.

Palestine didn't exist in 1948 to issue a declaration of war. Egypt, Jordan and Syria declared war. After the 1948 war, the Gaza Strip was given to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan.

No country on Earth and no people on Earth would accept what the UN declared for Palestine and the Palestinians in 1947.

So violence is the answer?

The UN partition was an act of violence. Violence leads to violence. It's not even about right or wrong, it's just eminently predictable and blaming the Arabs for not accepting it is just ridiculous. Of course they didn't accept it. Nobody would have accepted it in their position.

Do you also agree that with the same logic it makes no sense for Israel to agree to something like the right of return? Nobody else in their position would accept it.

I can certainly see why the Israelis don't want it. I would start with ending the ongoing colonisation of the West Bank and end the war in Gaza before Israel ends up any more of a pariah state than it already is.

Colonisation in 2025 is a really, really bad look tbh.

Fair, although I I think it's pretty clear that no one would want that, just as you claim no one would agree to the UN partition.

And I think colonization is really the wrong term here, it's just two native populations fighting over a piece of land - not exactly a new historical concept.

Right, "settler colonialism" is probably the more precise term. Colonialism is too vague.

> it's just two native populations fighting over a piece of land - not exactly a new historical concept

That doesn't mean it's not colonialism. And the Israelis have less right to the West Bank than I, as an Anglo-Saxon, have to Lower Saxony, which is still not very much.

TIL Americans and Europeans are native to Palestine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com