- The British offered land that didn't belong to them because of colonialism
- They offered land to Zionists to further their imperialist goals
- The British enabled Jewish immigration to Palestine when it was clear that Zionists intended to take over the entire territory of Palestine
- The local Arab population wasn't stupid and they understood that Zionism was an organized political program driven in large part by Jewish religious extremists to take away their home
That only some Zionists resorted to terrorist bombing campaigns against the British is hardly "patiently waiting".
They were only there because of the British and still waged war against them, mirroring Israel's refusal to heed US admonitions against illegal land grabs in the West Bank despite absolute dependence on American protection.
It's a client state that feels it can write the rules, steal what it wants and bites the hand that feeds it.
> The British offered land that didn't belong to them because of colonialism
I’m sorry, but the British mandate didn’t exist because of colonialism. It existed because it was at war with the Ottoman Empire during WWI and won territory. That is very different than colonialism even though it was a colonial power and that’s how it got its strength and military experience and might. The local Arab population hadn’t had sovereignty in many hundreds of years.
> They offered land to Zionists to further their imperialist goals
They offered the same land to both Zionists and local Arabs as a reward for helping overthrow the Ottoman Empire. Of course they kept it through the British Mandate cause the Brits are a crafty folk. As for actually honoring the agreement in 1948, a large part of legitimizing the state of Israel was because of what happened to Jews in WWII - atrocities no other people felt as deeply and the general populace was shocked into action when they learned what had been going on. Today’s Jewish population is still smaller than it was in 1939 for context. Half of all Jews worldwide are in Israel which I hope explains the emotional reaction of treating critiques and attacks on Israel as anti semitism (and of course that argument is weaponized for political purposes).
> That only some Zionists resorted to terrorist bombing campaigns against the British is hardly "patiently waiting".
By that line of reasoning, that only some Palestinians engage in terrorist attacks means that all Palestinians are guilty? For context, once the state of Israel was established the other groups were labeled terrorist organizations and were ordered to merge into the IDF. One group resisted and the IDF attacked it and defeated it. The same doesn’t seem to be happening with Hamas which despite being in power can barely even control other militant groups in the area. Is your suggestion to hand control over to Hamas? Cause you only have to look at what happened with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to understand what popular democracy looks like in the area (keep in mind Hamas was elected and then immediately abolished democracy).
The land didn't belong to British. Nor did it belong to Ottomans and nor to Arabs. The only rightful option for the defacto controllers of the land was to return it to Jews.
- They offered land to Zionists to further their imperialist goals
- The British enabled Jewish immigration to Palestine when it was clear that Zionists intended to take over the entire territory of Palestine
- The local Arab population wasn't stupid and they understood that Zionism was an organized political program driven in large part by Jewish religious extremists to take away their home
That only some Zionists resorted to terrorist bombing campaigns against the British is hardly "patiently waiting".
They were only there because of the British and still waged war against them, mirroring Israel's refusal to heed US admonitions against illegal land grabs in the West Bank despite absolute dependence on American protection.
It's a client state that feels it can write the rules, steal what it wants and bites the hand that feeds it.