Comment by Cyph0n
7 days ago
Yes, it is completely ahistorical - if you buy in to the blessed Zionist narrative, that is.
> The British famously backed the Palestinians
No, the British backed the Jordanians, not the Palestinians. Jordan had its own goals as I alluded to elsewhere. I would recommend reading a bit further on the subtleties and limits to that backing, as well as the strategic reasons for said backing. But I wasn’t talking about the war at all here.
They withdrew because they did not know how to balance the two sides. It was a hot potato, so they threw into the lap of the US.
> And I can't even begin to fathom what this means.
How many seats were there at the UNGA at the time? And how many of those seats belonged to countries who could make sovereign decisions without fear of repercussion from the newly emerged world powers? Keep in mind that WWII ended less than two years ago at this point.
> As you noted in an another comment, Plan Dalet was corroborated by Israeli historians. Which is false.
So there was no ethnic cleansing at all? I suppose 700k or so Palestinians just oopsied their way out of their homes and villages.
> And "war starts" is a very nice and PG way to phrase "attempted to genocide Jews".
Oh boy, not this again..
> No, the British backed the Jordanians, not the Palestinians.
What is the difference between Jordanians and Palestinians given that the line that separates them is drown by the Brits?
> So there was no ethnic cleansing at all? I suppose 700k or so Palestinians just oopsied their way out of their homes and villages.
So they all left because Israel kicked them all out? What about the interviews and news articles from the time where Arabs themselves said that Jordan Army asked them to leave for the duration of the fights?
And you are the one talking about narratives?
I find it interesting that all of your arguments rely on emotion, not fact.