You cannot give away some thing that doesn't belong to you.
If I accept stolen property which I know to be ill-gotten, then I am as responsible as the thief.
A Jewish state could've been established peacefully somewhere out in Utah instead (or joined the millions of American Jews prospering safely in their communities), but Palestinians had their land taken instead.
Why? Racism, plain and simple. Like the Native Americans, the Palestinians were treated as mere savages who could be dispossessed without consequence.
You also can't expect to receive something that doesn't belong to you. Arabs were not natives on the historical Jewish lands. The offer to give them just anything was more than generous.
- 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.
No group would or should have to tolerate a foreign state being established on their soil at gunpoint by colonial powers.
> the Arab countries decided to wage war in Israel after the UN proposed the two state solution
- That doesn't make sense. Israel didn't exist until it was established.
- The Arabs didn't voluntarily leave their villages.
- And during 1947, the Arabs ejected from the Arab side of the UN partition line did not leave because they wanted to give more land to Israel or because of the Arab League intervention a year later in 1948.....They left because of ethnic cleansing by Jewish religious extremists.
> other founding figures in Zionism called for peace and integration in the Middle East.
To the contrary, Israeli leadership wanted all of Palestine and the UN plan was treated as a stepping stone toward Greater Israel.
The current Prime Minister of Israel Netanyahu also rejects a two state solution, insisting for decades that only Israeli sovereignty should be allowed between the Jordan River and the Sea.
While Israel does have a present problem with religious extremists I take issue with the characterization of the Irgun, Haganah, Levi and other terrorist groups that conducted the ethnic cleansing as “religious extremists”.
These were terrorist thugs. They had an objective and they naturally used violence to achieve it. Whatever “religious” views they may or may not have had are secondary. The ethnic cleansing of Palestine was conducted by violent terrorists who wanted to create a country that they dominated.
We can discuss and debate whether their religious views follows from or causes the Zionist terrorism that has prevailed for the past century separately. It’s a valid discussion point but in the context of the ongoing genocide and ethnics cleansing all it does is muddy the waters for many people.
At the time, there was no significant population of settlers in the area. Most people were either fully or at least partly Indigenous like the Metis.
The goal was to protect First Nations from American settlers and prevent violence between the two which would trigger US military intervention.
This occurred in the wake of the Cypress Hills Massacre:
> The Cypress Hills Massacre occurred on June 1, 1873 [...]. It involved a group of American [...] hunters, and a camp of Assiniboine people. [...] The Cypress Hills Massacre prompted the Canadian government to accelerate the recruitment and deployment of the newly formed North-West Mounted Police.
> [Canadian Prime Minister John A.] MacDonald's principal fear was that the activities of American traders such as the Cypress Hills Massacre would lead to the First Nations peoples killing the American traders, which would lead to the United States military being deployed into the NWT to protect the lives of American citizens on the grounds that Canada was unable to maintain law and order in the region.
> The creation of the police force also had a political motive. The investigation into the massacre was to ensure that First Nations in the area were able to trust the Canadian government. The investigation would require international cooperation of two federal governments, and the North-West Mounted Police would take measures to make examples out of international criminals. Although ultimately no prosecution took place, the willingness to seek justice for any Canadian contributed to the establishment of peace between the NWMP and First Nations.[9]
Establishing trust and security with the First Nations was a key motivation:
> The creation of the police force also had a political motive. The investigation into the massacre was to ensure that First Nations in the area were able to trust the Canadian government. The investigation would require international cooperation of two federal governments, and the North-West Mounted Police would take measures to make examples out of international criminals. Although ultimately no prosecution took place, the willingness to seek justice for any Canadian contributed to the establishment of peace between the NWMP and First Nations.
The North-West Mounted Police was established in 1873 by the government of John A. MacDonald. The Cypress Hills massacre as well as the increasing number of conflicts on the U.S border due to alcohol smuggling are often cited as the main reasons the MacDonald government passed the bill creating the new military-style police force. However, most historians agree that the primary reason for establishing the force was to control First Nations and Métis populations, as the government sought to populate the West with settlers. Under the central authority of Ottawa, the NWMP marched West in 1874. The NWMP served as an arm of colonial control for politicians and lawmakers in Ottawa. For Indigenous communities in the Northwest, it represented an additional source of repression. The newly formed para-military style force was entrusted with wide-ranging powers and duties. Officers acted as Justices of the Peace, able to apprehend and sentence offenders, as well as impose Indian Act polices such as the Pass System. Since western courthouses did not exist at the time on the Prairies, NWMP barracks were often used for court proceedings and as temporary prisons. The NWMP assisted Indian Agents with the ration system, as well as enforcing laws obliging Indigenous students to attend residential schools. Government policies such as the Residential School system, the Sixties Scoop and gender discrimination in the Indian Act subjected Indigenous families to violence, cultural dislocation and land dispossession. The NWMP was successful in instituting a system of surveillance and curtailment, restricting Indigenous people to their reserves, regulating their land use and criminalizing livestock theft to benefit settler farmers and ranchers.
> The companies point out that, in a city that sees dozens of traffic deaths caused by human-driven cars each year, their driverless taxis have never killed or seriously injured anyone in the millions of miles they’ve traveled.
So, by your logic, the public policy we should be looking at is reducing human diven car miles to a minimum.
If you ignore the rate at which the events are occuring and don't bother to collect any data on the relative rates of other things like standard taxis and delivery vehicles, then your "data" is worthless from a public policy perspective.
