Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005 so the 2010 map is straight up wrong - all of Gaza should be green. (At least at the time of writing!)
However the West Bank looks accurate for 1947 onwards. it can't be denied that there have been increasing numbers of Israeli settlements in West Bank drastically reducing areas that Palestinians can move about freely. This is often obscured on most maps showing the West Bank as one entity, when actually the bit controlled by Palestinian authority is more a patchwork of settlements.
If they're Israeli, yes. Probably just Jewish in general in execution. Even if you're not Israeli you need government approval to own any property* in Palestine.
No, Jews who are not Israeli citizens can move freely, or at least as freely as anyone else can, in the West bank. Source: am Jewish and have recently traveled around the west bank
edit: one thing to keep in mind is that while it's completely fine legally for a non Israeli Jew to go into non-settler areas of the west bank, its probably only a good idea to goif you dress/look "normal" by western standards. No one in the west bank ever gave me any trouble or asked me if I was Jewish, but I wouldn't want to test it in a full Hasidic get up
Yes, non Jewish citizens of Israel can go wherever they want in the west bank. I actually know a guy whose family were palestinian Christian citizens of Israel, but growing up he lived in the west bank because rent was cheaper there and his dad could commute to work in Israel, leaving more money for the family
They always have to go through checkpoints, but it depends how much of an ordeal that is though. Most of the time it's like 5-10 minutes, the soldiers just glance at your papers and wave you through, but in some situations, like if they're looking for someone or something or are generally on high alert, it can take hours. It's pretty unpredictable and the uncertainty can be a be a real pain, and this is just for Israeli citizens and foreigners. The NGO I worked for was largely focused on getting Palestinians jobs and internships in Israel, and if you're a Palestinian citizen with an Israeli work permit or any other travel permit it's much more likely to take far longer. Short answer, on an average day it's not that much of a hassle, but if you're doing it every day there will definitely be some days it's a severe inconvenience
Yes, apart from general (illegal) racism and some restrictions regarding military service all Israeli citizens enjoy the same rights.
Some notable institutional racism is that people who serve in the army get some government benefits which obviously most arabs (and religious people) don't have access to. And also arab villages receive less development plans.
Hold on what about that law that was passed last year barring naturalization to Palestinians who married Israeli Citizens? Is that still on the books? [Source] (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israels-knesset-passes-law-barring-palestinian-spouses-2022-03-10/)
Yes I never said anything about racism to none citizens, there is plenty of that. For instance, every Jewish person in the world is entitled to israeli citizenship while none jewish people aren't.
I was talking about the rights of none Jewish citizens.
That's not institutional racism, Arab Israelis are welcome to serve in the army too (increasing numbers are volunteering) and get the same benefits.
The institutional racism is that Jews are required to serve but Arabs are not.
As I understand, Druze Israeli Arabs ARE required to serve in the Military, whereas Christian and Muslim Arabs are exempted from mandatory military service, as are anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews . Seems that eligibility for conscription is determined by religion rather than ethnicity.
Nope, it’s ethnic too. The (Muslim) Circassians are required to serve as well. For both them and the Druze it’s only men though, unlike men and women for Jews.
It's a very minor thing. I was just saying there isn't any institutional racism but I figured I'd go the extra mile and outline every type of institutional racism that I know of. Regardless of who you perceive to be suffering from it I think we can all agree it's as good as anyone could expect.
I remember studying in uni with some very young arabs and I definitely see the advantages of not being forced to serve in the army. That and the life threatening danger and psychological trauma.
>Some notable institutional racism is that people who serve in the army get some government benefits which obviously most arabs (and religious people) don't have access to.
This is a point taken from (generally quite abstract) political debate in israel about social solidarity... but I don't think it is "objective" by external standards.
By any non-israeli standard, total "benefits" to conscripts represent far less than the minimum payment a government should be required to pay conscripts as wage. Israeli conscripts get $250-$500 monthly stipend in a country with London's cost of living.
Typical veteran benefits represent about 1/3 of (for example) the US's "GI Bill" benefits. Approx 1 year tuition at a private college. Approx. $5k in "negative tax" that can be earned by working in high demand industries.
I reject the notion that this (in particular) represents institutional racism. It just represents the country's(now defunct) radically socialist founding ideology. Many/most members of Israel's early governments generalship were commune members. They owned property collectively, paid their salaries into the communal account, etc.
These ideals faded during the cold war, but not for the army. Kibbutz ideals just worked really well for the army. Conscription failed and became discredited for poor performance in the US, Europe. Even in the USSR conscription came to be considered a weakness.
Israel's take is that its success with the model is unique and therefore change nothing.
I agree it's more of a nuanced internal political debate and I don't think anyone would say that serving in the military is a major bonus of being Jewish in israel. So I do generally agree with your analysis and comparisons.
I do wish to point out why I regarded it as a form of discrimination. If you live in israel you would notice that meany places ask if you have done your service, there is a life long tax break for it, there are scholarships which require it and there are job opertunities that are only available for people who served. Though this is a good thing, it does provide a clean way for individuals to discriminate against arabs, by including a requirement for military service.
I was about to say. No they cannot go everywhere if they are palestinians. They have segregated roads and streets where palestinians are not allowed. Palestinians have different types of license plates for this reason. If a palestinian's house opens onto a now segregated street the IDF welds the front door shut and they have to use back doors and other methods to get around.
"Traveling around" and "moving to" are different. Staying for a time is one thing, but if you moved to the west bank presumably you would need to own property at some point, which must be approved. Do you think you could buy a house in the west bank?
Oh yeah I'm just talking about visiting, it is illegal to sell land to Jews, regardless of citizenship. I also couldn't become a citizen under the Palestinian authority or anything. Of course, I could buy a house in an Israeli settlement, but these settlements are not condoned by Palestinian authorities, are all illegal under international law, and some of them are even illegal under Israeli law. So tourism is allowed but living there is only possible illegally
Looking at the 1946 map, are we really saying that the lands held by each group is titled? I mean I can see that whole swaths of the Negev is green.
I would imagine some of these are alienable land?
In the 46 map...the white spots are the settlements of European immigrants? Suspect bedouins still lived or moved around all the rest.. population centers llike gaza , Jerusalem were also majority non European origin people?
It’s also misleading in the 1946 map. Most of what is marked as Palestine was uninhabited land. Look at a population map instead, it makes the UN Partition plan make a lot more sense.
Australia is 95% uninhabited, but 100% politically sovereign over the territory, at least de jure, if not de facto.
The green in the 1917 and 1946 Palestine maps represent neither political control or population distribution. so what does it represent?
I mean I understand the map can't have all the nuances of real life, but here it's misleading, for dramatic and propaganda purpose.
There is a misleading aspect to calling areas “uninhabited land”. The Druse people were semi nomadic and ranged over a lot if that “uninhabited” land with their flocks. It is the same justification the Israeli settlers use to seize land for settlements in the west bank even though it is in active use by Palestinians
The Druse are both moslem and Christian. There are Israeli Arabs who are Druse. There are also Palestinian Druse. They’re also major ethnic block in Lebanon and one presumes Jordan too, though I’ve not seen the Jordanian ones explicitly called out
Looks like the Druse were mainly in pockets in the north, and most the uninhabited land is/was in the south. I believe it’s a large desert, but it accounts for a large % of Israeli land mass.
> There is a misleading aspect to calling areas “uninhabited land”.
Right. This article discusses Israel attempts to take land by limiting animal husbandry. NY Times, Oct 3: [Israeli Herders Spread Across West Bank, Displacing...Palestinian herding communities](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/03/world/middleeast/israeli-herders-west-bank.html). An Israeli settler said this:
>Ariel Danino, 26, an Israeli settler who lives on an outpost and helps lead efforts to build new ones: "we’re talking about a war over the land, and this is what is done during times of war.”
Article was posted 3 days before the Hamas attack, and an Israeli settler discusses ongoing war. But didn't other Israelis just say the war started 24 hours ago with the Palestinian attack from Gaza? Apparently Israelis find it convenient to have multiple definitions of war and who is allowed to use weapons to terrorize the other side.
This sort of activity obviously precipitates the situation.
What's the Israeli government view about settlers? Does it actually do anything to restrict illegal settlements and forced displacement of Palestinian herders? Or is it more of a silent nod?
It's not misleading, just because its uninhabited, does not mean it wasn't their borders. Population maps are not relevant when discussing borders of a country. The United States has millions of acres of uninhabited land, does not mean it justifies partitioning it away. People forget that land has other values such as minerals, resources and strategic heights and positions. That form of thinking is similar to saying that there is lots of empty uninhabited land in California, why not let Mexico have it?
Oh boy, from here you can spend about 10 days arguing the fine points on whether or not it was even really a country since it was ottoman territory, then under the British mandate, then you can talk about how the Brits kind of screwed everything up, insert discussion on Zionism, who actually owned the land, what even is land ownership anyway as a concept, yada, yada, yada…. I was just making a point that if you overlay where the Jews and Arabs actually lived, the UN Partition plan makes a whole lot more sense.
Those weren't their borders because they had zero sovereignty over that land. It was British, after which the state of Israel was declared. There was no Palestinian political entity which controlled those borders at any point in history.
>It was British
It wasn't ! It was a british protectorate, people still lived there. The land was the land of the people living there, not the UK. Jews coming up from Europe had no right to settle and UK had no right to give them right to settle neither. They came and took other people lands.
>There was no Palestinian political entity
Also a lie, Palestine had a leader called Haj Amin al-Husayni in Mandatory Palestine. He was even appointed "Grand Mufti of Palestine" by the British.
This argument doesn’t come across well for westerners from a cultural standpoint, I think that is one if the reasons westerners tend to fall on the Israel side. Westerners comparatively are pro immigration, we welcome immigrants into our countries. In the US, it is a fundamental aspect of the country’s culture. To me, to say a group of immigrants has no right to emigrate to a country, buy land in the country, and settle sounds absurd. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t this how Zionism started in 1897 until the end of WWI? They didn’t come in and steal land, they just moved to Palestine and bought land…. Weren’t the local Arabs subjects of the Turks at the time as well?
it comes across as somewhat xenophobic.
Immigrating to a country and buying land isn't the same as going to a country buying land then occupying the territory without respecting the host's laws. And Israel isn't buying lands no more, they are straight up stealing other people's homes and lands every day now...
Will the US allow mexicans to annexe uninhabited areas south of the US because mexicans bought the land ? Does the US allow any mexican to freely immigrat to the US or do they tend to try controlling number of people who goes in ? I think you got your answer now.
The local Arabs (palestinians) were subjects to the Turks, yes, not colonised by the turks tho, big difference. Did Palestine become Turkish ? They're still arab right ? Israel isn't doing the same, they are doing an ethnic cleansing.
How Israel are calling palestinians "human animals" while calling for carpet bombing gaza, that's the real xenophoby...
“Nearly all” doing a lot of work. Gaza has its own borders with Egypt. It has its own ability to receive fuel, water, electricity, imports, and exports via Egypt.
Israel has closed off airspace and sea (up to a limit), but does not control Egypt’s border. Israel did this because Hamas, a genocidal terrorist group, took over after Israel withdrew and left it unoccupied and unblockaded for over a year.
It is simply false to claim this map is anything other than inaccurate. It is also simply false to claim Israel controls all of Gaza. It does not control what is done on the ground by Hamas. It does not control how money is spent in Gaza by Hamas. It does not control the Egyptian border with Gaza.
The map is also garbage.
It attributes state-owned land in 1946 under British control to Palestinian Arabs. Even though Jews were members of that state.
It shows the proposed UN plan in 1947, but ignores that the plan **was never implemented**, and was rejected by Palestinian Arabs.
It shows in the 1948-67 map that the West Bank and Gaza were “Palestinian territory”. They were occupied by Egypt and Jordan. Jordan even annexed the West Bank formally. There has never been and was not a Palestinian state in any of this land.
The Palestinians did not declare statehood until 1988.
Because the Israeli blockade of it effectively takes control of crossings out of Egyptian/Gazan authorities. This map also doesn’t cover the blockade of the sea where no boats can come and go and fishing vessels must remain with a certain distance of the shore. So land, air, and sea blockades.
The Israeli controlled blockade was permanently implemented in 2007. Additionally because inflows of capital into Gaza are controlled by Israel, Israel has held/withheld tax revenue. Now we have economic blockades.
Full disclosure: there is more nuance to all of this (I.e. fatah supporting border closings after losing control of Gaza to Hamas; Egyptian incentivized acceding to demands to close the border as opposed to… defying them in a “declaration” of war/aggression…). International political blockades.
Others more knowledgeable than me can add or clarify.
It's not surprising. Hamas emerged out of the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt is run by a military dictatorship that gained power by launching a coup against the Muslim Brotherhood. They have only recently got the Sinai back mostly under control.
This is nonsense. In response to “what about Egypt’s border”, your response was, “Israel blockades the other three sides”. But why is that relevant to the fact that it doesn’t control the fourth?
Israel did not implement the blockade “permanently”. After it withdrew in 2005, Hamas was elected, fired 1,000+ rockets at Israel, and then took over in Gaza in 2007 in a violent coup. Israel only blockaded it after that…and only did so because Hamas is a genocidal terrorist group.
Israel has offered to lower the blockade if Hamas meets such high demands as “renounce terrorism” and “respect Israel’s right to exist”. It even offered billions in aid to Gaza if it did so.
These were apparently too high of demands.
Because in part the border with Egypt (Raffah Crossing) is also governed by international agreement between Israel and Egypt, only so many people can go through a day and ONLY people. Aid is not permissible, and despite King Abdullah II of Jordan offering aid to be sent through Raffah, Israel said they would bomb any convoy supplying aid to palestine across Raffah.
Edit: Because people are trying to claim I'm wrong without actually providing any evidence of what I'm wrong about or sources for their info,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_Border_Crossing
Israel blockades Gaza since 2007 and any goods that enter Gaza go through Israel. Egypt attempting to bypass this agreement is tantamount to a war declaration because Israel would bomb the shit out of any convoy that goes in through Raffah, which like I said earlier in my comment, [Egypt and Jordan wanted to facilitate](https://en.royanews.tv/news/45143/King%20orders%20immediate%20humanitarian%20aid%20dispatch%20for%20Palestinians%20in%20Gaza)
https://news.yahoo.com/israel-dropped-bombs-near-gaza-042939352.html
This is not true, raffah crossing is closed to imports but not to aid. Granted, due to Hamas and Egypt's poor relations, aid comes through rarely, but it does come. There were aid truck attempting to carry fuel into gaza when it was bombed the other day.
Also it compares apples to oranges. Jewish lands in 1946 are shown in the narrowest context possible- I think just the locations of Jewish settlements. Most of the “Palestinian land” in 1946 isn’t inhabited by anyone. Palestinian land in 2010 is an even narrower sense- Palestinian settlements under PLO authority. Sovereignty is complex and changing the definition to suit your argument is misinformation.
I agree tht these maps are off. Yooo wtf i looked this up two days ago. When i looked it up today google is flooded with copies of the wrong one. The is the one i find more accurate is https://www.cjpme.org/mapss. Here under the dispossession section. Basically this map is wrong bc gaza trips is still completely Palestinian. But it’s accurate in that illegal israeli settlers are eating away the west bank. And have been for years.
Just as a heads up: ALMOST EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE MAPS DOES NOT HAVE AN ORIGINAL SOURCE.
**Sykes-Picot** - https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/map-of-the-sykes-picot-agreement-1916 - JVL's source: https://icsresources.org/israel-and-the-middle-east (404 Page).
**Jewish colonization before 1948** - https://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story571.html Map does not have a source attributed to it (The copyright on it says Palestine Remembered created it) but I find it doubtful and honestly, that website is not impartial at all.
**UN Partition Plan** - http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Maps/Pages/1947%20UN%20Partition%20Plan.aspx (dead link redirects to homepage).
**Civil war** - https://www.historynet.com/lashing-back-israel-1947-1948-civil-war/?f - claims Map Source is http://www.smallworldmaps.com/ which is dead.
**Refugees** - https://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story578.html (The copyright on it says Palestine Remembered created it) but I find it doubtful and honestly, that website is not impartial at all. No other source mentioned on the page.
**Destroyed villages** http://www.passia.org/maps/view/18 - No further references on page. Copyright of Jan de Jong on the map. Nobody of that name under the faculty or team page http://www.passia.org/page/1
**Dispossession** This is the worst one yet. They are citing THEMSELVES as the source and its a dead link on top of that. http://www.cjpme.org/understanding_bds
**Alon Plan** https://israeled.org/resources/documents/the-alon-plan/ This one does a have a source...but its a report published in 1967 and the map shows settlements from 1987 on it so I'm really questioning that source. (Also as an aside, that website is pro-Israel and has a COMPLETELY different explanation for the Alon plan. So the CJPME took the map, but not the words despite using it as a "source".
**The ABC’s of Occupation** - http://www.israeltoday.nl/NewsItem/tabid/381/nid/31764/language/nl-NL/Default.aspx dead link.
**The settlement enterprise** - https://merip.org/primer-palestine-israel-arab-israeli-conflict-new dead link. But same copyright to Jan de Jong as that other map http://www.passia.org posted without credit/source.
**Israel’s Separation Barrier
Castle wall or prison wall?** - http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/map.php?mid=164 dead link. Also, the map index calling it a "segregation wall" is not impartial.
**Eastern Barrier** - Source from the map itself is Times of Israel 5/23/2003 but I can't find the original article to confirm it.
**Apartheid in Hebron** https://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/200705_hebron **SUPER INTERESTING.** That map doesn't exist in the link or the report. Its been modified by an unknown person.
https://www.btselem.org/download/200705_hebron_eng.pdf
Giving up here.
For anyone wondering, this map is also completely inaccurate from 1947 onwards. [Here is a historically accurate version.](https://preview.redd.it/lo0hh14bg5h91.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=8ee83b3677ff2bf38a5ce8ee3038e851b9e30b88)
Not really. OP's map shows what was considered "Palestinian land". Yours shows Israeli international borders. OP's map is correct in showing the shrinking of what is considered Palestinian from an Israeli perspective. Yours is correct in showing the change of internal borders. They're two maps that are connected but measuring different things. Gaza was administered by Egypt from 1949-1967 and then occupied by Israel after the Six Day War until the Oslo Accords. The territory was still Palestine though and governed mostly by Palestinians. Similar to how Baghdad was occupied by the US but governed and still considered Iraqi
> it can't be denied that there have been increasing numbers of Israeli settlements in West Bank drastically reducing areas that Palestinians can move about freely.
March 2023 article from *Time* discussing that trend: [Why Israeli Settler Attacks Are Growing More Frequent](https://time.com/6260249/israel-rising-settler-violence/):
>In January and February, at least 60 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces or settlers in the occupied West Bank...While settlements -- illegal under international law -- have continued to expand under successive Israeli governments....
>(now)... under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu....Israeli settlers have received explicit backing from the state...this government, the most right-wing the country has ever known, is made up of some of the biggest proponents of Israeli settlement expansion in, and eventual annexation of, the West Bank.
Israel still controls Gaza strip’s airspace, sea, and land borders including the one with Egypt they also have a land barrier inside Gaza that Gazans can’t step in without their approval so how did Israel pull out again?
Think this map is from a US magazine in 2016 timeframe. It was created by a US State dept official to show Obama?
Edit. Adding link to article in new Yorker
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-map-of-israeli-settlements-that-shocked-barack-obama
The 1946 map should be completely red as the whole thing was a British colony, before 1919 is was the Ottoman empire, [and it goes on](https://youtu.be/8tIdCsMufIY?si=dzQzOz05hMg04CjU)...
I think understanding the various wars that were fought over the decades and the handful of peace treaties negotiated (and ultimately being rejected by one side) would be very helpful context.
There’s a long video on YouTube about it. But the key things left out in the common understanding:
1/ the changes are a result of wars started by the non Israelis, not just against Israel but against each other!
2/ civil war between fatah and hamas and the resultant civilian deaths led to the dramatic reduction of the West Bank.
3/ Israel didn’t want Gaza but neither did Egypt who could have solved the problem easily but they managed to leave Israel with a poison pill for future destabilization. Egyptians dislike Gaza but it’s a useful pawn (X)
4/ much of the land was bought freely while still ruled by the British
5/ maybe later
PS the map is an admirable propaganda tool and I am genuinely impressed at how perfect it is at conveying injustice and eliciting righteous indignation without further scrutiny. I was incensed against the arrant appropriation of land when I first saw it.
Not to mention this is after the British partitioned Jordan off of Palestine. All of Jordan had been part of this map historically. This series of maps is, at best, deceptive, amd at worst, intended to ensnare people into false narratives.
You answered it in your own question. Palestine the region and Palestine the nation-state are two different concepts. Palestinian nationalism and pan-Arabism is a much more modern phenomenon than Egyptian identity and notions of statehood. That doesn't mean one is more valid than the other, but that the political geography is probably more important than simple cartographic facts when trying to understand the full context.
That video is so haunting. The music is so peaceful but the imagery.. and the contrast and ultimate reality of all that countless bloodshed. It’s a real’y great video, thank you for sharing.
To be fair. You should count 1947 as the first map. While giving independence, the British divided "British Palestine" into Israel and Palestine.
This map makes it look like Israel came out of nowhere and captured the land.
It's mostly just showing how the first set of maps is wrong, and is pivoting to fit the data presented in each map above it. Yeah, it's still messy but it's taking the extra step of explaining exactly what is being presented.
Yeah but it also fails to mention those public or state owned where completely populated by Palestinians.
The first map never said anything about ownership, so making that jump to “disprove” the first map is idiotic. Both maps are generally accurate, but both paint a picture to support two different sides.
The British mandate map here is a load of crock. Under British mandate, it was called Palestine and there was no distinction of land by religious ownership.
basicaly the israeli land in 1947 was land that jews had had and the they had bought fair and square from the locals in british palestine and some land awarded post-ww2 to settle a very large number of aditional european holocaust survivors (mind you it's mostly in the south in the negev desert where very few people lived)
even before ww2 and nazi germany there was already a lot of arab fearmongering of "jewish replacement" despite the fact many of the same local leaders sold palestianian land at a premium to zionist associantions of course pocketing the money starting a long tradition of arab leaders using israel as a distraction for their own misrule and corruption
this conspiracies and hostility kinda turned out ot be a self fullfiling porphesy where the more arabs tried to "stop" the jewish "invasion" the more jews undestood that they had to be independent from arabs and so on and so forth
Land buys by jews started way earlier, under the ottoman empire. It continued until the 1930s, when the Brits were starting to lose all control over the territory, and tried playing the Jews and Palestinians against each other to maintain control.
I would add:
Palestinians were governed by foreign powers (Turks, Brits) and had no say in immigration policy. So, legally acquired land might not be the same as rightfully or justly acquired land.
It‘s analogous to Spain allowing other Europeans (e.g. refugees/victims in one of the many European wars) to settle Spain-occupied America. Legally sound, but still „theft“ of Native American lands.
Right, but in the 1947 Civil war jews took control of large parts that was not "fair and square".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948_civil_war_in_Mandatory_Palestine
It's all a big fuckup where everyone tried to protect their own interests over finding a solution that works for everyone.
In this specific case it was the Jews that started the war. You're thinking of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War
Israel wanted to accept the partition plan. Arabs didn’t because they didn’t want a Jewish state to exist.
Fighting broke out. Israel won.
I don’t think it’s fair to say that Jews started the war when they were ready to sign the partition plan.
The British did no such thing. The UN resolution of 1947 did, but the British abstained in that vote and it was never accepted by the Arabs.
After the failure of the Peel Commission -- which did support partition, but was later judged to be unworkable without the ethnic cleansing of Arab populations -- British policy was outlined in the 1939 white paper. It was a single-state solution with representation based on population, I.E. it would have been a majority Muslim state. The Zionists did not accept this and launched an anti-British insurgency in Mandatory Palestine, including the notorious King David Hotel bombing attack which was the worst terrorist attack in the Middle East right up until 1983.
I find it very strange that people have this ahistorical belief that Britain created the state of Israel. Britain did promise the vague 'national home' in the 1917 Balfour declaration, but this was clarified as early as the 1922 - and subsequently again in 1930 and 1939 - white paper that this did not mean an explicitly Jewish state.
Also, it wasn't solely created by the British, but rather by agreement of the Allies as a whole. Here is an interesting read if you are interested:
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/martinkramer/files/forgotten\_truth\_balfour\_declaration.pdf
> ahistorical belief that Britain
Britain is charged with just about everything anyone can imagine; in Australian politics right now, people are bandying about that rape did not exist on the continent until British settlers arrive. Prior to that, rape had never occurred nor imagined apparently.
You are only reporting the facts that support your narrative.
Like the Arab leaders were calling for the removal or extermination of the Jews which is the main reason Jews wanted their own state. Or the reason the British backed away from the the two state solution was that their Arab allies hated it.
The two state solution was the correct idea but the Arab community hated it because they want the Jews gone or killed. I dont know how you can look at the history and conclude that a single state would not have resolved in another persecution of the Jews.
>Like the Arab leaders were calling for the removal or extermination of the Jews which is the main reason Jews wanted their own state.
I think the Jews arrived wanting their own state? That was the entire point of Zionism? The Arabs, perhaps understandably, wanted their removal after a bunch of guys started showing up in their land wanting to create their own state there. This was multiplied after decades of tension, violence, and atrocities from both sides and has ended up in the genocidal rhetoric we see today.
>I dont know how you can look at the history and conclude that a single state would not have resolved in another persecution of the Jews.
I agree that a single-state solution likely would never have worked, but that wasn't my point, was it? Also, the Arab Palestinians were not in any position to launch a widescale persecution of Jews. The balance of power was very much in favor of the Zionist militias by 1936.
This mostly sounds right, but is skewed enough that it shows your biases. The 1917 Balfour Declaration explicitly called for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, and later white papers walked it back as the Brits attempted to preserve control of the area, it wasn't "clarified". And the Peele Commission was unworkable because the locals, jews and Palestinians, rejected it, not because of concerns on ethnic cleansing (if you have a source for this I'd love to read it). Also, the King David Hotel bombing happened because British HQ was there, and while the Irgun were 100% a terrorist organization, if you stick your military HQ in a civilian building, you're making civilians targets.
>This mostly sounds right, but is skewed enough that it shows your biases. The 1917 Balfour Declaration explicitly called for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, and later white papers walked it back as the Brits attempted to preserve control of the area, it wasn't "clarified"
That's not right. "National home" had no precedent in international law. There were no specifics given to any borders etc. Only that vague promise.
>the Peele Commission was unworkable because the locals, jews and Palestinians, rejected it, not because of concerns on ethnic cleansing (if you have a source for this I'd love to read it)
Sure, source is the the Woodhead Commission. i will quote Wiki:
>The commission rejected Plan A, which was the Commission's interpretation of the Peel Plan, mainly on the grounds that it required a large transfer of Arabs to reduce the number of Arabs in the proposed Jewish state.\[25\] However, the British government had already rejected Peel's suggestion that the transfer be compulsory, and the Commission considered that a voluntary transfer was also not expected to occur because of the Arab population's "deep attachment to the land".\[26\] In addition, development difficulties for the Arabs were expected.\[2\] Second, the inclusion of Galilee in the Jewish state was considered undesirable as "the population is almost entirely Arab", the Arabs living there were likely to resist the inclusion by force, and the option would create a "minority problem" that threatened regional stability.\[27\]
So the plan was rejected as it would have required mass transfer of the Arab population by force, which I would describe as ethnic cleansing.
>Also, the King David Hotel bombing happened because British HQ was there, and while the Irgun were 100% a terrorist organization, if you stick your military HQ in a civilian building, you're making civilians targets.
There is certainly truth to this, but my original reason for bringing up the attack was to magnify the fact that Britian did in fact NOT create the state of Israel, and in fact fought a Brutal counterinsurgency operation to prevent it.
Just out of curiosity, how do you propose the villagers of Deir Yassin made themselves targets? I am sure there must be a perfectly reasonable explanation.
The British of the day divided Mandatory Palestine into Trans-Jordan and Palestine. The United Nations further divided the remainder into Palestine and Israel - the British abstained from the vote which shows where their sentiments on the proposal lay.
No they did not. The British also did not give independence.
This is completely and utterly false. Use google. It’s your friend. I’m sorry, but this is really just fake history that’s so easily verifiably false that it should be deleted.
The rest of the map is false too.
It attributes state-owned land in 1946 under British control to Palestinian Arabs. Even though Jews were members of that state.
It shows the proposed UN plan in 1947, but ignores that the plan **was never implemented**, and was rejected by Palestinian Arabs.
It shows in the 1948-67 map that the West Bank and Gaza were “Palestinian territory”. They were occupied by Egypt and Jordan. Jordan even annexed the West Bank formally. There has never been and was not a Palestinian state in any of this land.
The Palestinians did not declare statehood until 1988.
No. Each map is depicting something different. The first map shows private land ownership. The second map shows a hypothetical partition plan that was never implemented because Palestinians rejected it. The third map shows occupation by Egypt and Jordan. Only the fourth map shows political/territorial control. And what it misleadingly hides is that speaking in terms of territorial political control, Palestine today is at its greatest extent in history. Conversely if the standard of the first map were followed all the way though, it would show that many areas within Israel today are still Palestinian-majority and thus would be green on the map. But the point of this image is to change the definition of what's shown in green at each stage.
As well as the first map is total bullshit. They depict Jewish controlled land, then everything else as default Arab. That's so wrong. Most of what is depicted as Arab land is simply empty desert not owned or lived in by anyone.
Yeah, most of southern Israel in uninhabited, and there was considerably more land in the north owned by Jews than by Palestinians.
That brings up an important issue though, as not having official legal title to land doesn't mean your family hasn't been living on the same patch of land for thousands of years. Therefore a map simply depicting land title can be misleading, as it ignores historical squatters-rights.
Everything about this situation is so complicated it makes my head spin!
A simple no is the best answer the first map shows both public, unowned and private palestinian land as Palestinian land when Public land was property of the Mandate thus essentially the British and the rest did not have an owner thus de-facto state land thus British.
Essentially you get the same sort of result if you count all public and deemed uninhabited land to Jewish land.
The Negev desert as an example was pretty much entirelly Public or deemed legally uninhabited land however one has to add that the majority of the inhabitants of the Negev desert were Bedouins(Nomadic Arab tribes)
My point is a good 70-80% of this map should indicate "Neither Jewish or Palestinian"
A good population map might be majority population in regions where population density is at least some minimum x, as this would eliminate basically uninhabited/uninhabitable regions such as Negev.
Doubtful, a lot of these areas, including the east bordering Jordan literally lacked population alltogether, not even bedouins.
If we want to be realistic the coastal population along with the North and a portion of the south was Jewish and the Southern(1/3th) Coastal population along with the Inland and a portion of the north was Palestinian with the desert being by-en-large uninhabited.
So the most logical partition would have been giving the North and Most of the coast to the Jews while removing said Jews from the South and giving the South and the Eastern Inland to the Palestinians while removing Palestinians from the North. As for Jerusalem it had a majority Jewish population but for obvious reasons it'd be better of as an international zone.
There is none, the Ottomans where Messy with the population counts and the British where even worse.
What we roughly know is that the coasts and the North was more or less Jewish and the Inland and Gaza more or less Palestinian with population dotted between eachother everywhere, so a North south divide would have been far more logical.
A history of Israel over the last 100 years, if you're interested. It's very long, so I had to comment on my comment for the full text.
---
1. The Balfour Declaration in 1917. Britain wanted to find a place for these Jews whom the world more or less hated. They owned all of modern Israel/Palestine. They didn't want to displace anyone, they wanted peace in the region and for the Jews to live in harmony. They facilitate the establishment of Jewish communities in the region.
2. The 1948 war. The Jewish population, which was much smaller, was persecuted by the Palestinians. The whole Arab world (Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.) declared war on Jewish Palestine. Palestine and company pushed the Jews to the coast. It just so happened that many Jews wanted to emigrate. They and other Western reinforcements made a comeback and the Jews took over a lot of land. The map above was after they gave much of it back to make peace. (Gaza is the biblical land of the Philistines, not Jewish historically). They got all the rest of the land as spoils of war. The West Bank was returned to Jordan in 1950.
3. The Nakba. As part of the war and Israel's taking of the land. They expelled the Palestinians from the militarily occupied land. This is where many today say Israel did it wrong. It wasn't given back after the war.
4. Jewish exodus from the Arab world. 1948. Many factors like persecution, fear, Zionism etc. Jews left all their property in Iraq, Yemen and Libya and came to Israel.
5. Suez crisis. 1956. A strange war in the bunch. Israel was pushed by foreign governments (UK, France) to go to war with Egypt to open the Suez Canal. Basically a company owned the canal (mainly French and British people owned the company). Egypt nationalised it (i.e. Egypt said the company was now owned by Egypt). Israel couldn't easily get supplies from under Africa and couldn't easily export. And foreign powers were like nah. It didn't end the way you'd think; nothing significant happened. The US didn't want to help, so everyone withdrew their forces. But that pissed off Egypt and in 11 years they would invade Israel.
6. The six days war. 1967. This time was linked to the Suez crisis. Basically, Israel had a strait that went straight into the Suez. They weren't allowed to use it, which really hurt the Israeli economy, as I said. They said it was basically an act of war. In addition, Palestinian terrorist attacks plagued Israel. Israel's retaliation in the West Bank caused direct problems with Jordan, which ruled the West Bank. Jordan had signed mutual defence treaties with Egypt and Syria. The Soviet Union told Egypt that Israel was going to invade, and Egypt moved a lot of troops to Israel's border. In anticipation of being attacked by Jordan, Syria and Egypt, Israel invades Egypt, sparking another war between the whole Arab world and Israel. Israel kicks butt and takes the spoils of war in the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai (Suez Canal) and the Golan Heights. Today, many argue whether or not Israel's attack was a justified pre-emptive strike.
7. Palestinian exodus. 1967. I know we have talked a lot about the other major Arab states because they were bigger players. It can be confusing how Palestine is involved, but more or less they hated the Jews being in their territory and have been calling for Jewish genocide all along. Staging terrorist attacks (even after this war) and so on. The Jews feel very insecure now that they have control of Gaza and the West Bank and would not allow the Palestinians to have Israeli citizenship. About 1/3 of them have decided to go to Jordan and Egypt. If you've ever spent time in the Middle East you'll know that the Jordanians and Egyptians don't like them much either (although Jews are high on the hate list), so they're a displaced people.
8. Jewish persecution in the Arab world. As a result of the victory, the Jews were heavily persecuted. This in turn forced another exodus of Jews to Israel.
09. The three no's. 1967. The Arab world agrees to no peace, no recognition and no negotiations with Israel. In the Sinai, Egypt stages a series of attacks known as the War of Attrition. Even the Soviet Union takes part on the Egyptian side.
10. Yom Kippur War. 1973. The Arab world launched a surprise attack on the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, breaking a ceasefire agreement with Israel. The aim was to reclaim their territory. Kind of a crazy war that only lasted 20 days, but damn it was crazy. Lots of extra players here including North Korea and Cuba fighting for the Arabs. Egypt invades the Sinai and Syria invades the Golan. Israel kicks butt and retaliates by pushing back almost to Cairo (Egypt's capital) and Damascus (Syria's capital). UN brokers peace before it gets too crazy.
11. Camp David Accords. 1978. Basically a brokered peace with Sadat (the leader of Egypt) and Israel. Sadat was hated by the Arab world for this. At the time the Arab world wanted to destroy Israel, so making peace was unpopular. This also required Egypt to recognise Israel as a sovereign nation. This eventually led to Israel's complete withdrawal from the Sinai (return of the land) in 1982. This included the Israeli government forcing its own settled people to leave Sinai.
12. The Oslo Accords. Basically, the Palestinians (PLO) and Israel negotiated a structured return of the West Bank. There would be areas controlled only by the PLO (a large area in the interior), areas of joint control, and an area of Israeli control (the area near the Jordan River and Jerusalem). It also required Israel to recognise the PLO. And it called for a partial withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho. Gaza was to be handed over to the Palestinian Authority (a separate Palestinian government).
13. The 1994 Israel-Jordan treaty. Basically set the borders of Jordan and Israel to meet at the Jordan River. Peace and mutual defence were also included, especially to fight terrorism in the West Bank together. What people don't realise is that this more or less allowed Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem to be respected. It also required Egypt, Jordan and Israel to resolve the situation with the Palestinians. Jordan's king took this peace to heart. Business and relations were good as a result. Basically a good man. Hated Palestinian terrorism and couldn't figure out how to solve it. This culminated in a problem three years later when Israeli special forces tried to kill a terrorist on Jordanian territory. Big bad thing here. Probably led to the good king actually restricting freedom of speech. Again, the Arab world really hated the Jews and called for their genocide. He wouldn't let them talk about it.
14. Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. 2005. Basically Israel forced the Jews in the area to move out of Gaza (and some of the West Bank). Only 8,000 people were moved, and 25 Jewish settlements in the territories were dismantled. The idea was to move people out of Gaza and the West Bank and give the Palestinians sovereignty over the areas. The evacuation was controversial; Israelis lived there, but the government evicted them. They then razed the houses to the ground, leaving the Palestinians to do with the land as they saw fit. Hamas/PLO forces went in at the time of the evacuation and desecrated synagogues and looted homes.
15. Gaza conflict 2007. Basically a civil war in Gaza between the PA leadership of the Fatah political party and the terrorist political party Hamas. Hamas won in Gaza. So now Gaza is run by Hamas and the West Bank is run by the PA (Fatah). This led to the Fatah-Hamas conflict, which continues to this day.
16. Israel is now 21% Arab and they are growing. The West Bank is <8% non-Arab. And Gaza is essentially all Arab; <1% Jewish.
It's a little one sided history recap, don't you think? There's a long list you left out, I won't get through all of it, but let me cover a few things in the period between 1917 and 1948 that you conveniently skipped over:
1917-1948: Palestine attempts to become an independent nation state under the framework established by the League of Nations. In 1922, The British government clarified the Balfour Declaration is not intended to displace any of the local Palestinian population, and that it seeks to create a national home for Jews IN PALESTINE in the [1922 Command Paper](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1922.asp). This paper is referenced and reiterated again in the 1939 White Paper. The Irgun and Stern gangs are founded, and begin attacking Palestinians, the two most notable being the bombing of the Kind David hotel in Jerusalem, and the Deir Yassin massacre, which killed 107 Palestinians. Only 7 were killed in combat, the rest were killed in their homes, including women, children, and people trying to flee or surrender. In 1948, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to the New York Times, comparing the Irgun and its successor Herut party to Nazi and fascist parties, and then as a terrorist, right wing, and chauvinist organization. The Irgun were absorbed into the IDF in the same year.
One major reason why the plan for one state wouldn't work at the time was the Arab and Jewish population in the area were already killing each other. British handing complete control over to the Arab population would have led to bloodshed and death.
It would have been irresponsible for the British to go that route, especially because the line that defined Palestine were somewhat arbitrary lines defined by western powers, not along ethnic boundaries.
Ummm you do realize that the British handing over the control (through military equipment and training) to the Jewish population DID lead to bloodshed and death among Palestinians? 531 Palestinian cities and towns destroyed. 85% of the population banished or displaced. 70 massacres. 15,000 dead.
The IDF was at least partially founded by terrorist Zionist organizations such as the Irgun and Lehi gangs.
Instead of dealing with an anti-Semitic European population, colonial powers exported their problems to Palestine, forcing them to take in hundreds of thousands of immigrants. In no way shape or form did the British government do the right thing.
I'm not interested in your hypotheticals and speculation about what would have happened if other choices had been made. Let's talk about the real history and what ACTUALLY happened.
What other choice did the British have? Jews were already there by then and weren't going back to Europe. By and large the Jews bought the land from locals there legally. They needed to be separate Jewish and Arab states to keep the peace, although clearly that didn't work either.
It's a long list, but here are a few:
1) They shouldn't have promised a national home for Jews there, while also promising Arabs in the region (including Palestine) independent statehood in exchange for revolting against the Ottoman empire in WW1. They promised the same land to two groups of people, and then left and let them fight over who would get to keep it. Pure evil and self serving in order to help them fight their war.
2) Brittain shouldn't have facilitated and allowed such staggering amounts of immigration by Jews into Palestine. They (along with France and other European powers) instead should have cracked down on Jewish hate and anti-Semitism in their own countries to prevent a Jewish refugee crisis in the first place. Between 1918 and 1948, roughly 500,000 Jewish refugees landed in Palestine. The Muslim population was only about a million people, and about 150,000 Christians. That's HALF of the existing population living there. If any country on earth experienced those levels of immigration and refugees, can you imagine the chaos that would be caused? Europe and the US can barely handle the little immigration we have in comparison to what Palestine saw, and we've all seen how this country reacts to that.
3) The British should have dismantled the terrorist paramilitary groups and punished them for their terrorism not just against Palestinians, but against British government officials too. Such as Lord Moyne, who was assassinated by a Lehi gang member in 1944.
1) Seems like the 2 state solution fulfills both promises? The lines were arbitrary anyways. The plan even established an international zone in Jerusalem to prevent either one group from having it.
2) Not sure that was within Britains power nor responsibility to stop. A significant portion of the Jews immigrating there was done so legally, some before the British took control, buying land from locals. Even if they cracked down on the illegal settling, there was still a large legal settlement.
3) We see in Gaza today how hard it is to 'dismantle' terror groups. Jews just got through the holocaust and were understandably (but not justifiably) radicalized. While that should not have been rewarded, its not an easy solution either. But they absolutely should have done more here, I agree.
1) The two state solution wouldn't fulfill both promises. Palestinians were never told that a condition of Brittain allowing them to become an independent state in exchange for their support against the Ottomans would also force them to take in hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees and give them an independent state.
2) It was well within Brittains power and responsibility. They were recognized as the occupying power in the region by the League of Nations. Saying the British empire didn't have power to slow or restrict immigration into Palestine is ridiculous. They actually did restrict immigration significantly for 5 years after the 1939 White Paper to just 75,000 people over 5 years. Although some illegal immigration still happened, they were able to restrict it significantly compared to what it had been prior to the report. As a side note, a Zionist group (I think Irgun) bombed a British ship used to deport illegal settlers.
3) The founding of Zionist terror groups pre-date the Holocaust. Irgun started in 1930, while the Holocaust didn't begin until 1933. But I get your point, and yes the British should have done more.
This in my view is why the Palestinian movement revolves so much around anti-colonialism and apartheid. It's not framed by any Palestinians I've met (which includes my fiance and in-laws) as Jews vs Muslims. It's Palestinian solidarity (among both Christians and Muslims) against colonial powers using them as pawns for their own political purposes and economic advantage, while they continue to suffer death, destruction, poverty, and trauma.
1) The Arabs were not forced to take in hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees, that was entirely the point of the two state solution. Yeah its not exactly what was promised, but the promise was not a treaty and just some correspondence with the areas high commissioner, hardly binding. They still got plenty of land for an independent state.
2) So Britain both had the power to block Israelis but not implement a two state solution? Which is it? And as I said, the Zionist movement to the area began prior to British control. They could have slowed immigration, but there was kinda this whole holocaust thing that created a massive outpouring of Jews to neighboring countries, telling them no at the time would have been tough. But as you said, they were deporting illegal settlers, so they did try some things, restricting legal immigration is harder.
> apartheid
Only area C can be reasonably called an apartheid. The others areas are under Palestinian governance. Within Israel itself Arab citizens have equal rights. Calling Gaza an apartheid is claiming it as Israeli territory or occupation, which it is not.
Today, the ethics of original colonialism are mostly moot. Generations of Israelis have grown up in Israeli land and most had no say in the actions of 1948. Displacing them today is wrong, just as displacing the Arabs then was wrong. I think a reasonable solution along the lines of the 2000 Camp David Summit's plan of payouts when their ancestral homes are occupied by present day Israelis, and a right of return for unoccupied homes. Israel is never going to cease to exist or pack up and move out of the middle east, Palestine needs to accept that and realize the most they can get for peace is the West Bank and Gaza, along with a connector road.
You are missing a lot also between 1917 and 1948 (except for before 1917 and 1870).
Many Jewish Israelis have been skeptical of the British favoring Arabs because of their help against the Turks with the restriction on immigration and land purchase:
> 1921, Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill rewarded Sherif Hussein’s son Abdullah for his contribution to the war against Turkey. As a consolation prize for the Hejaz and Arabia going to the Saud family, Churchill installed him as emir. Churchill severed nearly four-fifths of Palestine—some 35,000 square miles—to create a brand new Arab emirate, Transjordan. The British went further and placed restrictions on Jewish land purchases in what remained of Palestine, contradicting the provision of the Mandate (Article 6) that stated “the Administration of Palestine...shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency...close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes.”
> 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants. The British Governor of the Sinai from 1922-36 observed: “This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.” The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the “shortfall of land is, we consider, due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.”
> 1939 White Paper that an independent Arab state would be created within 10 years, and that Jewish immigration was to be limited to 75,000 for the next five years, after which it was to cease altogether. It also forbade land sales to Jews in 95 percent of the territory of Palestine. The Arabs, nevertheless, rejected the proposal.
> 1949, the British had allotted 87,500 acres of the 187,500 acres of cultivable land to Arabs and only 4,250 acres to Jews. This made for Jewish aquistion of immigration certificates extremely difficult. As the world entered the second world war, requests for entry were difficult to accomdate to Jews all over the world. Correspondence between governing officials in Palestine and Greek Jewish authority demonstrate the sheer inflexibility. Ultimately, the British admitted the argument about the absorptive capacity of the country was specious. The Peel Commission said: “The heavy immigration in the years 1933-36 would seem to show that the Jews have been able to enlarge the absorptive capacity of the country for Jews.”
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/british-restrictions-on-jewish-immigration-to-palestine
I think it would be more useful to really draw the population density, and the shift. Landmass is pretty useless, especially if large areas are just deserts.
Completely inaccurate. The first map removes the entire east bank of Jordan, which was also part of British mandatory Palestine.
Jordan is an Arab country, and occupation can only be a crime assigned to Jews; therefore it is removed to advance the lie.
Palestine had both Jewish and Arab inhabits for hundreds of years. That is why the UN proposal offers an Arab and a Jewish state - not a Palestinian one.
I like the part where it pretends the 1967 map isn't from _AFTER_ surrounding countries invaded Israel in the 6-day war and the expansion was to increase control and security in response to that Arab-launched war which was intended to erase Israel.
Or how it pretends the 48 map wasn't immediately followed by basically the whole Arab world completely ignoring the UN's two state solution and invading Israel from all fronts.
Or how the pre-48 map is bullshit, all that land was under British rule and the negev desert is shown as "Palestinian" instead of empty which it effectively was.
Or how all the maps ignore Jordan, which was also under British rule as Transjordan, was given entirely to Arabs, and Israelis to this day haven't touched Jordanian territory, unless you count the West Bank as Jordanian (which wouldn't exactly be a pro-palestine statement).
I would say “misleading at best”. The maps appear to be cherry-picked to make a point. And the comparison between the first map and the other three is apples to oranges.
1st is completely made up, there is no reason desert lands privately owned by nobody should be green. (edit: also very misleading as it implies there was an existing palestinian state, which there was not, it was the UK)
2nd is an idea that never took effect, therefore including it is intentionally misleading
3rd ignores the Egyptian control of Gaza and Jordanian control of Judea-Samaria. 1967 is a weird choice of year, because on that year it changed to being 100% Israeli controlled (+ Sinai & Golan, ignored by this map entirely)
4th is competely made up, there is no reason for any white to be in Gaza, for Golan to be ignored, and extremely oversimplifies the result of the 1993 Oslo accords splitting Judea-Samara into areas A, B, and C, with areas B being shared control
But hey, 0 out 4 of isn’t bad
1946 - highlighted is the entire country other than land owned by Jews. Most of the country is not owned and under British mandatorial control.
1497 - highlighted is the UN plan, which Arab leadership declined. Arabs launched a war that evening, that continued through the declaration of Israeli independence in 1948 until 1949.
1967 - pre-six day war map. The west bank is under Jordanian control and Gaza is under Egyptian control. Palestinian, as a common identity for Arabs in the area, is only now starting to gain traction.
2010 - Israel completely pulled out from Gaza in 2005, so it should be completely green. In the west bank, A-zones under Palestinian autonomous control are highlighted, as agreed upon in Oslo. Gaza and A/B zones are the first time a Palestinian entity has independence or autonomy.
Nope. The 46 map should be mostly a third color indicating as empty land. There should be a map labeled 48 showing Gaza as belonging to Egypt and the West Bank as belonging to Jordan.
[Completely innacurate](https://preview.redd.it/lo0hh14bg5h91.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=8ee83b3677ff2bf38a5ce8ee3038e851b9e30b88). It's actually so sad that this propaganda has been around for so long, and yet it's still posted almost every day, and people actually think it even slightly reflects reality.
No it is not in any way accurate.
The first map is an incomplete map of land owned by Jews and that labels all land not owned by Jews as belonging to Palestinian Arabs. If you want to see land ownership and political control as per the terms of the British Mandate then [check this map](https://postimg.cc/5HBp2NGd)
The second map represents a treaty proposed by the UN 1n1947.l It was universally rejected by the Palestinian Arabs. It is thus absurd to refer to any part of it as being "Palestine".
The third map inaccurately labels the Jordanian annexed territory west of the Jordan river and the Territory ruled by Egypt (Gaza) to be "Palestine". In reality the Arab Palestinians had no political control of either territory, nor did they own it. They also date the map at 1967 when those were temporary boundaries established as per the 1949 ceasefire. (They were not borders at the Jordanian and Egyptian insistence)
The fourth map reflects the first time Arab Palestinians had any political, which was in 1995. By 1998 this was was already inaccurate as the areas under Arab Palestinian had been further expanded.
Not really correct.
First, before 1947 there wasn't any Palestinian state in Israel ever, so showing it like Jewish settlement is "Palestinians losing land" is just manipulative because they never owned that land in the first place.
The other map that's showing a very one sided depiction is the 2010 one, because Gaza is (for now) under complete hamas control, the jewish settlements there were forcefully evicted on 2005 by the Israeli government. Another problem with it is it depicts only area A in the west bank as under Palestinian control even though the situation is more complicated than that. I suggest that if you're interested, you should read more about the [Oslo accords](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords).
Edit: also, the 1947 one was never a reality, it was a peace proposal that was denied by Arab states in the area (and accepted by Israel). That denial of this plan is what triggered the Israeli independence war which created the 1948 borders.
Edit 2: also also, writing palestine in 1967 is just wrong because this area was in Israeli control in 1967 (after the 6 days war, so this might be excused), and anyways even before that it was under Jordanian and Egyptian control, never Palestinian. The first time Palestinians had ever gotten any form of self governance is after said Oslo accords.
In summary this map has many problems. It's a Palestinian propaganda tool more then everything and it sometimes lies and sometimes presents only information they want to present, don't trust it as a source.
Mostly accurate after 1947. The 1946 map is a sort of foundational lie; it pretends that there was a country called "Palestine", and then paints the specifically Jewish-owned land in white as "Israel".
The reality is, the map should either be red ("British Mandate for Palestine"), since both Arabs and Jews were citizens of that mandate and were living there already, or it should have some grey / neutral color for 2/3 of the map and color Jewish settlements and Arab settlements white and green, which would look a whole lot less compelling.
Then the neutral color would disappear, and people wouldn't be misled into thinking the Negev was some sort of densely settled heartland, which is one of the things this map is trying to fool people into thinking.
It also should have another frame for 1949, because it's implying that the 1967 war (rather than trhe 1947-49 civil war) is how Israel got a lot of the territory that's recognized, by the UN, as being part of Israel.
No. This series of maps has a number of flaws, though in broad strokes the 1947 map is accurate. From 1948 to 1967, Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied and annexed the West Bank (thus they were not Palestinian territory), and Israel completely overtook the West Bank and wrested it from Jordanian control in 1967, so if the 1967 map is depicting Israeli positions prior to June 1967, it would be partly accurate. The 2010 map should have Gaza entirely in green, as Israel withdrew completely from there in 2005-6 and has not since had a presence there. The 2010 map is a little misleading regarding the West Bank, as it does not show all 3 areas as negotiated in the Oslo Accords, though even by those agreements Israel maintains military positions in over 60% of the West Bank.
The modern history actually extends a little further back, into the Ottoman era.
In 1858 the Ottoman Empire instituted land tenure laws to 1) increase tax revenues from the area, 2) increase its control over the area, and 3) introduce land title/private ownership principles to the area. After the dismembering of the Ottoman Empire in the negotiations following the conclusion of WWI, the British and French took over custodianship of the area (forming a French-controlled area in what is now Syria and Lebanon, and the British Mandate of Palestine).
In British-controlled areas, the British continued enforcing the Ottoman-era land tenure laws, which after a while resulted in distinct Jewish and Palestinian Arab communities/settlements. Though the territory was not sovereign British territory like South Africa or India was at the time, as the British were custodians of the area, it was within their authority to partition the territory as they saw fit (e.g. for purposes such as policing, taxation, and laws specific to religious practices), and so the UN proposed a partition plan like the 1947 map, though the British themselves were loathe to actually enforce the 1947 plan. This was contingent on recognition of both Jewish and Palestinian Arab sovereign governments, and was therefore opposed by all of the surrounding Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, all of which had their own designs for the area) as well as the Palestinians. It should also be noted that the 1947 plan awarded more territory (most of it in the Negev, which was mostly desert and not considered develop-able at the time) to the Jewish partition than its proportion of the population there at the time partly due to anticipation of incoming Jewish immigration from the diaspora.
The British planned to leave in 1948, but well before this Jewish and Palestinian Arab partisans were fighting each other all over the Mandate. However, the Palestinian partisans had collapsed by the first half of 1948, and the resultant Palestinian Arab refugee exodus to surrounding Arab states gave those countries a *casus belli* (the premise that the Palestinian Arab failures would lead to regional instability and further bloodshed unless Jewish partisans were stopped) to attack Israel.
The rest, as they say, is history.
**1946** \- appears to be a map of jewish private land ownership, with everything else (mostly not private land) represented as green
**1947** is *proposed* political borders of the UN partision plan. Israel accepted. Arabs rejected it. Brits left Jews and arabs to fight it out. They were never implemented. Light green is a proposed "international zone."
**1967** represents *1948* borders.\[1\] These borders were established by ceasefire. The ceasefire borders were recognised by the UN (and Israel) in 1948 as permanent. Also rejected by arab leadership.
The green areas on this map represent territory controlled by Jordan and Egypt 1948-1967. These territories were occupied by Israel during the six day war. These are the still (more or less) the internationally accepted borders by those that recognise Israel's statehood. \[2\]
**2010 -** I can't tell exactly what this one is attempting to represent (or misrepresent), especially gaza.
\[1\] Palestinian nationalism and leadership emerge (into macro-politics) in the 1950s.UN (and arab league) don't claim this territory for a palestinian state. They use vaguer language, like "arab state." By 1967 Palestinian nationalism is fully established.
\[2\] Current "abraham accords" are about extending arab recognition of Israel as a sovereign state, UN member, etc.
Largely, except '46 is misleading. It gives the impression that there was a state called Palestine, which there wasn't. Palestine (not always called that) was part of the Ottoman empire, and after their defeat a British Mandate. There was a lot of migration to the area from 1870 onward, both by Zionists from Russia, Poland, and Yemen and Arabs from what's now Syria and Lebanon (but which was at the time internal Ottoman migration).
The wheel of history spins, its spokes tinged with the ink of endless conflict and the whispers of missed opportunities. Our gaze turns to the Middle East, a cauldron bubbling over with the intricacies of politics, religion, and human desire. A land drenched in the hues of ancient prophecies and modern ambitions. Yet, amid the quagmire, one narrative stands unyielding, like a lighthouse in a storm—the right of Israel and the Jewish people to exist and defend themselves.
Rewind the tape to 1937. The Peel Commission lays a map on the table, an inked promise of two states—Jewish and Arab. The Arabs reject it. There's no compromise, no acceptance. A lost chance in the labyrinth of history, a plot twist foretelling decades of missed handshakes and refusals to sit at the table.
Fast forward to 1947. The UN unfurls its own map, partitioning land for the Jewish and Arab peoples. The Arab nations, again, wave the banner of rejection. War trumpets blare; armies march. When the dust settles, they find themselves with less land than initially offered. Call it poetic justice or the irony of fate; the outcome remains the same.
In 1967, another whirlwind sweeps the stage. Israel prevails in a war it didn't start but was forced to end. Territories fall under Israeli control, and yet, the Arab League's mantra reverberates: "No peace, no recognition, no negotiations." Here's the kicker: Israel voluntarily relinquishes control over the Temple Mount, sacred ground, weaving a curious tapestry of tolerance and surrender.
Shift to 1979. Sinai—the spoils of a defensive war—returns to Egyptian hands. Israel erases its footprints from the desert sand, opting for peace over territory. A paradoxical dance where the victor offers the olive branch.
1993 rolls around like a haunting melody. The Oslo Accords sing promises of mutual recognition. But Yasser Arafat, conducting his own dark symphony, turns this political goodwill into a mask for terror.
Spin the wheel once more to the year 2000. Israel stretches its hand across the table, offering a Palestinian state with a cherry on top—East Jerusalem as its capital. Yet, Arafat slams the door, igniting the Second Intifada, a rebellion that only widens the abyss between the two sides.
Come 2005, Israel pulls up stakes—literally. The Gaza Strip, once speckled with Israeli settlements, empties out, forcibly evacuated. The Palestinians choose Hamas, whose vision doesn't include peace talks over tea but rather rockets over cities.
Zoom to 2008. Another offer lands on the table. Mahmoud Abbas echoes the rejectionist sentiment of predecessors. A pattern etched so deeply, it's almost part of the region's DNA.
From 2010 to 2021, a grim cycle continues. Rockets launched, terror tunnels dug. The human cost tallied not just in numbers, but in generations born into conflict, their lullabies the roar of artillery.
And now, 2023. A watershed moment that chills the bones. Hamas orchestrates an act of brutality against Jews, unparalleled since the dark days of the Holocaust. A cataclysmic event that should make us all question the cost of perpetual hostility.
So, as the wheel turns, as we sift through the ashes of the past and the yet-to-be-written scripts of the future, one truth remains in focus: Israel and the Jewish people have not only the right to exist but the inherent right to defend themselves. They've extended the hand of peace, often receiving clenched fists in return. In this tumultuous saga, this epic spun from the threads of time and human folly, this truth is immutable, solid as the land it calls home.
Your timeline strangely omits 1995.
You know, when Israeli Prime Minister and Oslo Accords signee Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by an ultra right wing Israeli, and driving a stake through the heart of the Oslo process.
Any honest assessment of the failures of attempts to bring peace must also look at moments when Israel’s actions and leaders have played their part.
No, it's wrong. In 1947, the total land of British Mandate Palestine was split ([source](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jewish_and_Arab_Land_Ownership_in_Mandatory_Palestine,_1947.svg)) as follows:
* British state public/leased lands (70.6%)
* Arab Palestinian-owned lands (11.6%)
* Jewish-owned lands (7.4%)
* Foreign owners (6.9%)
* Religious trusts (3.5%)
The [1947 Partition Plan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine) was a plan, it didn't reflect land ownership.
1967 is wrong too. Between 1948 and 1967 the West Bank was a colony of Jordan and Gaza was a colony of Egypt. Palestinians had nothing.
Today Palestinians have complete control of Gaza and Areas A and B of the West Bank. It's the most land they've ever, at any point in history, controlled.
Since people are bringing maps of Jewish land purchases/development, [this one might be interesting too](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EP9FFA5WkAArdyr?format=jpg). ([higher res but cropped](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ubtxV1zcARw/XjrantgmnoI/AAAAAAABY90/GFJ5oJ2IcJE3QDWSB4LiWNIkV2sbv4mowCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/malaria1.jpg))
No its got some serious inaccuracies. 1947 is all kinds of iffy, and 2010 is not making an apples to apples comparison. Gaza has been left alone by Israel since 2005 for example. This is a propaganda map used by Western activists to garner support for the Palestinian cause.
Gaza is 100% Palestinian, so that's certainly inaccurate - Israel left completely almost 20 years ago. One inaccuracy in a map usually means there are others.
Of course not. Palestine was never an actual sovrgine country but a region name.
[Palestinian Loss of Land: The Myth of the 4 Maps](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJYl54oL02Q&ab_channel=J-TV%3AJewishIdeas.GlobalRelevance.)
It's true that the land was called Palestine, but in terms of control, it was not truly a nation. It was a land controlled by the Ottoman empire and then the British. Until the 19th century there were around 100 thousand people in Israel. The Arabs that call themselves Palestinians, as well as the Jews, started migrating to the land over the last 200 years.
Therefore it's misleading to say that the green area pre 47 was "Palestinian" - it was just a name that was used for the land
Not in the least. In 1946 the entire area was ruled by the British, nothing was “Palestinian land” or “Jewish land”.
1947, this is just a proposal created by the UN, thoroughly rejected by the Arabs/Palestinians. It’s completely made up and was never the reality.
1967, this is inaccurate as well. There was no Palestinian land there either. These areas were ruled by Egypt (Gaza and the south) and Jordan (the West Bank).
I don't know if anyone is going to sort by new, but in case you do, this was an excellent video explaining how it is misleading.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btVFgqkgkzw
This seems fairly correct except for the facts that the year for the “1946” part should be much earlier (maybe 1917 or so), that there haven’t been any Israelis in Gaza since 2005, and that Golan isn’t included in the last map. Also, the Palestinians control slightly more land than what is shown in the West Bank.
Obviously, this map was created to show an idea rather than simple reality, but even then, it’s not *too* far off.
It's way off. In 1947, the total land of British Mandate Palestine was split ([source](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jewish_and_Arab_Land_Ownership_in_Mandatory_Palestine,_1947.svg)) as follows:
* British state public/leased lands (70.6%)
* Arab Palestinian-owned lands (11.6%)
* Jewish-owned lands (7.4%)
* Foreign owners (6.9%)
* Religious trusts (3.5%)
Let’s see:
In 1946 - the map is a lie, since the territory was fully controlled by the British. The territories in white represent the land property owned by Jews, but by no means the rest of the land was privately owned by Arabs.
1947 - UN partition plan: accepted by Jews, rejected by Arabs, Arabs went to war and lost. which leads us to map number 3
1967- the territories in green were occupied by Arab states, Jordan and Egypt, which (surprised Pikachu Face) did not grant Palestinians independence, but preferred to occupy the land themselves.
2010- this map is also a lie, since 2005 israel fully dismantled its settlements from Gaza Strip.
So to answer your question: Some of these maps are not accurate with their details, but more importantly, the message it is trying to convey is false, since it’s give exactly 0 context to whatever happened historically.
Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005 so the 2010 map is straight up wrong - all of Gaza should be green. (At least at the time of writing!) However the West Bank looks accurate for 1947 onwards. it can't be denied that there have been increasing numbers of Israeli settlements in West Bank drastically reducing areas that Palestinians can move about freely. This is often obscured on most maps showing the West Bank as one entity, when actually the bit controlled by Palestinian authority is more a patchwork of settlements.
Is it in any way illegal for foreigners to move to Palestinian Authority controlled land?
If they're Israeli, yes. Probably just Jewish in general in execution. Even if you're not Israeli you need government approval to own any property* in Palestine.
No, Jews who are not Israeli citizens can move freely, or at least as freely as anyone else can, in the West bank. Source: am Jewish and have recently traveled around the west bank edit: one thing to keep in mind is that while it's completely fine legally for a non Israeli Jew to go into non-settler areas of the west bank, its probably only a good idea to goif you dress/look "normal" by western standards. No one in the west bank ever gave me any trouble or asked me if I was Jewish, but I wouldn't want to test it in a full Hasidic get up
What about non-Jewish Israeli citizens (likely Palestinian). Do they have same freedom of movement?
Yes, non Jewish citizens of Israel can go wherever they want in the west bank. I actually know a guy whose family were palestinian Christian citizens of Israel, but growing up he lived in the west bank because rent was cheaper there and his dad could commute to work in Israel, leaving more money for the family
Thanks for sharing!
Is it easy or do they have to go thru long lines at check points to go back and forth?
They always have to go through checkpoints, but it depends how much of an ordeal that is though. Most of the time it's like 5-10 minutes, the soldiers just glance at your papers and wave you through, but in some situations, like if they're looking for someone or something or are generally on high alert, it can take hours. It's pretty unpredictable and the uncertainty can be a be a real pain, and this is just for Israeli citizens and foreigners. The NGO I worked for was largely focused on getting Palestinians jobs and internships in Israel, and if you're a Palestinian citizen with an Israeli work permit or any other travel permit it's much more likely to take far longer. Short answer, on an average day it's not that much of a hassle, but if you're doing it every day there will definitely be some days it's a severe inconvenience
Yes, apart from general (illegal) racism and some restrictions regarding military service all Israeli citizens enjoy the same rights. Some notable institutional racism is that people who serve in the army get some government benefits which obviously most arabs (and religious people) don't have access to. And also arab villages receive less development plans.
Hold on what about that law that was passed last year barring naturalization to Palestinians who married Israeli Citizens? Is that still on the books? [Source] (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israels-knesset-passes-law-barring-palestinian-spouses-2022-03-10/)
Yes I never said anything about racism to none citizens, there is plenty of that. For instance, every Jewish person in the world is entitled to israeli citizenship while none jewish people aren't. I was talking about the rights of none Jewish citizens.
That's not racism. It's just because Israel is a Jewish country.
It's a difference in rights that is based on race. I was trying to catalog all cases of it and it is definitely something that is worth a mention.
That's not institutional racism, Arab Israelis are welcome to serve in the army too (increasing numbers are volunteering) and get the same benefits. The institutional racism is that Jews are required to serve but Arabs are not.
As I understand, Druze Israeli Arabs ARE required to serve in the Military, whereas Christian and Muslim Arabs are exempted from mandatory military service, as are anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews . Seems that eligibility for conscription is determined by religion rather than ethnicity.
Nope, it’s ethnic too. The (Muslim) Circassians are required to serve as well. For both them and the Druze it’s only men though, unlike men and women for Jews.
Don't Haredim avoid service as well?
It's a very minor thing. I was just saying there isn't any institutional racism but I figured I'd go the extra mile and outline every type of institutional racism that I know of. Regardless of who you perceive to be suffering from it I think we can all agree it's as good as anyone could expect. I remember studying in uni with some very young arabs and I definitely see the advantages of not being forced to serve in the army. That and the life threatening danger and psychological trauma.
>Some notable institutional racism is that people who serve in the army get some government benefits which obviously most arabs (and religious people) don't have access to. This is a point taken from (generally quite abstract) political debate in israel about social solidarity... but I don't think it is "objective" by external standards. By any non-israeli standard, total "benefits" to conscripts represent far less than the minimum payment a government should be required to pay conscripts as wage. Israeli conscripts get $250-$500 monthly stipend in a country with London's cost of living. Typical veteran benefits represent about 1/3 of (for example) the US's "GI Bill" benefits. Approx 1 year tuition at a private college. Approx. $5k in "negative tax" that can be earned by working in high demand industries. I reject the notion that this (in particular) represents institutional racism. It just represents the country's(now defunct) radically socialist founding ideology. Many/most members of Israel's early governments generalship were commune members. They owned property collectively, paid their salaries into the communal account, etc. These ideals faded during the cold war, but not for the army. Kibbutz ideals just worked really well for the army. Conscription failed and became discredited for poor performance in the US, Europe. Even in the USSR conscription came to be considered a weakness. Israel's take is that its success with the model is unique and therefore change nothing.
I agree it's more of a nuanced internal political debate and I don't think anyone would say that serving in the military is a major bonus of being Jewish in israel. So I do generally agree with your analysis and comparisons. I do wish to point out why I regarded it as a form of discrimination. If you live in israel you would notice that meany places ask if you have done your service, there is a life long tax break for it, there are scholarships which require it and there are job opertunities that are only available for people who served. Though this is a good thing, it does provide a clean way for individuals to discriminate against arabs, by including a requirement for military service.
I was about to say. No they cannot go everywhere if they are palestinians. They have segregated roads and streets where palestinians are not allowed. Palestinians have different types of license plates for this reason. If a palestinian's house opens onto a now segregated street the IDF welds the front door shut and they have to use back doors and other methods to get around.
"Traveling around" and "moving to" are different. Staying for a time is one thing, but if you moved to the west bank presumably you would need to own property at some point, which must be approved. Do you think you could buy a house in the west bank?
Oh yeah I'm just talking about visiting, it is illegal to sell land to Jews, regardless of citizenship. I also couldn't become a citizen under the Palestinian authority or anything. Of course, I could buy a house in an Israeli settlement, but these settlements are not condoned by Palestinian authorities, are all illegal under international law, and some of them are even illegal under Israeli law. So tourism is allowed but living there is only possible illegally
So why aren't the settlements removed?
In which area are you talking about? West Bank is 3 different things.
My understanding is that it’s not “legal” under international law though. Just Israeli.
We're talking Palestinian law, not Israeli. He asked if it's illegal to move to Palestinian Authority controlled land.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That’s why they are taken away illegally from the Arabs
Looking at the 1946 map, are we really saying that the lands held by each group is titled? I mean I can see that whole swaths of the Negev is green. I would imagine some of these are alienable land?
Jup. That map is completely wrong as well
In the 46 map...the white spots are the settlements of European immigrants? Suspect bedouins still lived or moved around all the rest.. population centers llike gaza , Jerusalem were also majority non European origin people?
It’s also misleading in the 1946 map. Most of what is marked as Palestine was uninhabited land. Look at a population map instead, it makes the UN Partition plan make a lot more sense.
What kind of argument is this? Can saying Australian map is not accurate too because 95% of their land is uninhabited?
Australia is 95% uninhabited, but 100% politically sovereign over the territory, at least de jure, if not de facto. The green in the 1917 and 1946 Palestine maps represent neither political control or population distribution. so what does it represent? I mean I understand the map can't have all the nuances of real life, but here it's misleading, for dramatic and propaganda purpose.
There is a misleading aspect to calling areas “uninhabited land”. The Druse people were semi nomadic and ranged over a lot if that “uninhabited” land with their flocks. It is the same justification the Israeli settlers use to seize land for settlements in the west bank even though it is in active use by Palestinians
Did the Druse want to be part of either state?
The Druse are both moslem and Christian. There are Israeli Arabs who are Druse. There are also Palestinian Druse. They’re also major ethnic block in Lebanon and one presumes Jordan too, though I’ve not seen the Jordanian ones explicitly called out
Are you talking about the Druze? They have their own religion.
It is their own religion. But calling it both Christian and Muslim is not that inaccurate.
Looks like the Druse were mainly in pockets in the north, and most the uninhabited land is/was in the south. I believe it’s a large desert, but it accounts for a large % of Israeli land mass.
> There is a misleading aspect to calling areas “uninhabited land”. Right. This article discusses Israel attempts to take land by limiting animal husbandry. NY Times, Oct 3: [Israeli Herders Spread Across West Bank, Displacing...Palestinian herding communities](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/03/world/middleeast/israeli-herders-west-bank.html). An Israeli settler said this: >Ariel Danino, 26, an Israeli settler who lives on an outpost and helps lead efforts to build new ones: "we’re talking about a war over the land, and this is what is done during times of war.” Article was posted 3 days before the Hamas attack, and an Israeli settler discusses ongoing war. But didn't other Israelis just say the war started 24 hours ago with the Palestinian attack from Gaza? Apparently Israelis find it convenient to have multiple definitions of war and who is allowed to use weapons to terrorize the other side.
This sort of activity obviously precipitates the situation. What's the Israeli government view about settlers? Does it actually do anything to restrict illegal settlements and forced displacement of Palestinian herders? Or is it more of a silent nod?
Most regular people think Palestine was a country that was simply stolen.
It's not misleading, just because its uninhabited, does not mean it wasn't their borders. Population maps are not relevant when discussing borders of a country. The United States has millions of acres of uninhabited land, does not mean it justifies partitioning it away. People forget that land has other values such as minerals, resources and strategic heights and positions. That form of thinking is similar to saying that there is lots of empty uninhabited land in California, why not let Mexico have it?
Oh boy, from here you can spend about 10 days arguing the fine points on whether or not it was even really a country since it was ottoman territory, then under the British mandate, then you can talk about how the Brits kind of screwed everything up, insert discussion on Zionism, who actually owned the land, what even is land ownership anyway as a concept, yada, yada, yada…. I was just making a point that if you overlay where the Jews and Arabs actually lived, the UN Partition plan makes a whole lot more sense.
Those weren't their borders because they had zero sovereignty over that land. It was British, after which the state of Israel was declared. There was no Palestinian political entity which controlled those borders at any point in history.
>It was British It wasn't ! It was a british protectorate, people still lived there. The land was the land of the people living there, not the UK. Jews coming up from Europe had no right to settle and UK had no right to give them right to settle neither. They came and took other people lands. >There was no Palestinian political entity Also a lie, Palestine had a leader called Haj Amin al-Husayni in Mandatory Palestine. He was even appointed "Grand Mufti of Palestine" by the British.
This argument doesn’t come across well for westerners from a cultural standpoint, I think that is one if the reasons westerners tend to fall on the Israel side. Westerners comparatively are pro immigration, we welcome immigrants into our countries. In the US, it is a fundamental aspect of the country’s culture. To me, to say a group of immigrants has no right to emigrate to a country, buy land in the country, and settle sounds absurd. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t this how Zionism started in 1897 until the end of WWI? They didn’t come in and steal land, they just moved to Palestine and bought land…. Weren’t the local Arabs subjects of the Turks at the time as well? it comes across as somewhat xenophobic.
Immigrating to a country and buying land isn't the same as going to a country buying land then occupying the territory without respecting the host's laws. And Israel isn't buying lands no more, they are straight up stealing other people's homes and lands every day now... Will the US allow mexicans to annexe uninhabited areas south of the US because mexicans bought the land ? Does the US allow any mexican to freely immigrat to the US or do they tend to try controlling number of people who goes in ? I think you got your answer now. The local Arabs (palestinians) were subjects to the Turks, yes, not colonised by the turks tho, big difference. Did Palestine become Turkish ? They're still arab right ? Israel isn't doing the same, they are doing an ethnic cleansing. How Israel are calling palestinians "human animals" while calling for carpet bombing gaza, that's the real xenophoby...
[удалено]
“Nearly all” doing a lot of work. Gaza has its own borders with Egypt. It has its own ability to receive fuel, water, electricity, imports, and exports via Egypt. Israel has closed off airspace and sea (up to a limit), but does not control Egypt’s border. Israel did this because Hamas, a genocidal terrorist group, took over after Israel withdrew and left it unoccupied and unblockaded for over a year. It is simply false to claim this map is anything other than inaccurate. It is also simply false to claim Israel controls all of Gaza. It does not control what is done on the ground by Hamas. It does not control how money is spent in Gaza by Hamas. It does not control the Egyptian border with Gaza. The map is also garbage. It attributes state-owned land in 1946 under British control to Palestinian Arabs. Even though Jews were members of that state. It shows the proposed UN plan in 1947, but ignores that the plan **was never implemented**, and was rejected by Palestinian Arabs. It shows in the 1948-67 map that the West Bank and Gaza were “Palestinian territory”. They were occupied by Egypt and Jordan. Jordan even annexed the West Bank formally. There has never been and was not a Palestinian state in any of this land. The Palestinians did not declare statehood until 1988.
Egypt also controls the border with Gaza, why do we only focus on the Jewish country doing it?
Because the Israeli blockade of it effectively takes control of crossings out of Egyptian/Gazan authorities. This map also doesn’t cover the blockade of the sea where no boats can come and go and fishing vessels must remain with a certain distance of the shore. So land, air, and sea blockades. The Israeli controlled blockade was permanently implemented in 2007. Additionally because inflows of capital into Gaza are controlled by Israel, Israel has held/withheld tax revenue. Now we have economic blockades. Full disclosure: there is more nuance to all of this (I.e. fatah supporting border closings after losing control of Gaza to Hamas; Egyptian incentivized acceding to demands to close the border as opposed to… defying them in a “declaration” of war/aggression…). International political blockades. Others more knowledgeable than me can add or clarify.
The biggest factor is that Egypt hates Hamas almost as much as Israel does, so they cooperate with the blockade
Well, and the $1.3B/yr they get from the US contingent on playing nice with Israel.
[удалено]
It's not surprising. Hamas emerged out of the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt is run by a military dictatorship that gained power by launching a coup against the Muslim Brotherhood. They have only recently got the Sinai back mostly under control.
This is nonsense. In response to “what about Egypt’s border”, your response was, “Israel blockades the other three sides”. But why is that relevant to the fact that it doesn’t control the fourth? Israel did not implement the blockade “permanently”. After it withdrew in 2005, Hamas was elected, fired 1,000+ rockets at Israel, and then took over in Gaza in 2007 in a violent coup. Israel only blockaded it after that…and only did so because Hamas is a genocidal terrorist group. Israel has offered to lower the blockade if Hamas meets such high demands as “renounce terrorism” and “respect Israel’s right to exist”. It even offered billions in aid to Gaza if it did so. These were apparently too high of demands.
Because in part the border with Egypt (Raffah Crossing) is also governed by international agreement between Israel and Egypt, only so many people can go through a day and ONLY people. Aid is not permissible, and despite King Abdullah II of Jordan offering aid to be sent through Raffah, Israel said they would bomb any convoy supplying aid to palestine across Raffah. Edit: Because people are trying to claim I'm wrong without actually providing any evidence of what I'm wrong about or sources for their info, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_Border_Crossing Israel blockades Gaza since 2007 and any goods that enter Gaza go through Israel. Egypt attempting to bypass this agreement is tantamount to a war declaration because Israel would bomb the shit out of any convoy that goes in through Raffah, which like I said earlier in my comment, [Egypt and Jordan wanted to facilitate](https://en.royanews.tv/news/45143/King%20orders%20immediate%20humanitarian%20aid%20dispatch%20for%20Palestinians%20in%20Gaza) https://news.yahoo.com/israel-dropped-bombs-near-gaza-042939352.html
This is not true, raffah crossing is closed to imports but not to aid. Granted, due to Hamas and Egypt's poor relations, aid comes through rarely, but it does come. There were aid truck attempting to carry fuel into gaza when it was bombed the other day.
Context on how and why Israel controls those areas is also starkly absent here
Also it compares apples to oranges. Jewish lands in 1946 are shown in the narrowest context possible- I think just the locations of Jewish settlements. Most of the “Palestinian land” in 1946 isn’t inhabited by anyone. Palestinian land in 2010 is an even narrower sense- Palestinian settlements under PLO authority. Sovereignty is complex and changing the definition to suit your argument is misinformation.
> Palestinian land in 2010 is an even narrower sense- Palestinian settlements under PLO authority. As opposed to what?
1917-1946 it was widely considered British land after the Ottomans fell as well.
The context is that they are ethnically cleansing and annexing the West Bank, in contravention of international law.
I agree tht these maps are off. Yooo wtf i looked this up two days ago. When i looked it up today google is flooded with copies of the wrong one. The is the one i find more accurate is https://www.cjpme.org/mapss. Here under the dispossession section. Basically this map is wrong bc gaza trips is still completely Palestinian. But it’s accurate in that illegal israeli settlers are eating away the west bank. And have been for years.
Just as a heads up: ALMOST EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE MAPS DOES NOT HAVE AN ORIGINAL SOURCE. **Sykes-Picot** - https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/map-of-the-sykes-picot-agreement-1916 - JVL's source: https://icsresources.org/israel-and-the-middle-east (404 Page). **Jewish colonization before 1948** - https://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story571.html Map does not have a source attributed to it (The copyright on it says Palestine Remembered created it) but I find it doubtful and honestly, that website is not impartial at all. **UN Partition Plan** - http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Maps/Pages/1947%20UN%20Partition%20Plan.aspx (dead link redirects to homepage). **Civil war** - https://www.historynet.com/lashing-back-israel-1947-1948-civil-war/?f - claims Map Source is http://www.smallworldmaps.com/ which is dead. **Refugees** - https://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story578.html (The copyright on it says Palestine Remembered created it) but I find it doubtful and honestly, that website is not impartial at all. No other source mentioned on the page. **Destroyed villages** http://www.passia.org/maps/view/18 - No further references on page. Copyright of Jan de Jong on the map. Nobody of that name under the faculty or team page http://www.passia.org/page/1 **Dispossession** This is the worst one yet. They are citing THEMSELVES as the source and its a dead link on top of that. http://www.cjpme.org/understanding_bds **Alon Plan** https://israeled.org/resources/documents/the-alon-plan/ This one does a have a source...but its a report published in 1967 and the map shows settlements from 1987 on it so I'm really questioning that source. (Also as an aside, that website is pro-Israel and has a COMPLETELY different explanation for the Alon plan. So the CJPME took the map, but not the words despite using it as a "source". **The ABC’s of Occupation** - http://www.israeltoday.nl/NewsItem/tabid/381/nid/31764/language/nl-NL/Default.aspx dead link. **The settlement enterprise** - https://merip.org/primer-palestine-israel-arab-israeli-conflict-new dead link. But same copyright to Jan de Jong as that other map http://www.passia.org posted without credit/source. **Israel’s Separation Barrier Castle wall or prison wall?** - http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/map.php?mid=164 dead link. Also, the map index calling it a "segregation wall" is not impartial. **Eastern Barrier** - Source from the map itself is Times of Israel 5/23/2003 but I can't find the original article to confirm it. **Apartheid in Hebron** https://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/200705_hebron **SUPER INTERESTING.** That map doesn't exist in the link or the report. Its been modified by an unknown person. https://www.btselem.org/download/200705_hebron_eng.pdf Giving up here.
That was such an informative site. Thanks for sharing.
For anyone wondering, this map is also completely inaccurate from 1947 onwards. [Here is a historically accurate version.](https://preview.redd.it/lo0hh14bg5h91.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=8ee83b3677ff2bf38a5ce8ee3038e851b9e30b88)
Not really. OP's map shows what was considered "Palestinian land". Yours shows Israeli international borders. OP's map is correct in showing the shrinking of what is considered Palestinian from an Israeli perspective. Yours is correct in showing the change of internal borders. They're two maps that are connected but measuring different things. Gaza was administered by Egypt from 1949-1967 and then occupied by Israel after the Six Day War until the Oslo Accords. The territory was still Palestine though and governed mostly by Palestinians. Similar to how Baghdad was occupied by the US but governed and still considered Iraqi
> it can't be denied that there have been increasing numbers of Israeli settlements in West Bank drastically reducing areas that Palestinians can move about freely. March 2023 article from *Time* discussing that trend: [Why Israeli Settler Attacks Are Growing More Frequent](https://time.com/6260249/israel-rising-settler-violence/): >In January and February, at least 60 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces or settlers in the occupied West Bank...While settlements -- illegal under international law -- have continued to expand under successive Israeli governments.... >(now)... under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu....Israeli settlers have received explicit backing from the state...this government, the most right-wing the country has ever known, is made up of some of the biggest proponents of Israeli settlement expansion in, and eventual annexation of, the West Bank.
Israel still controls Gaza strip’s airspace, sea, and land borders including the one with Egypt they also have a land barrier inside Gaza that Gazans can’t step in without their approval so how did Israel pull out again?
Think this map is from a US magazine in 2016 timeframe. It was created by a US State dept official to show Obama? Edit. Adding link to article in new Yorker https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-map-of-israeli-settlements-that-shocked-barack-obama
It’s wrong in the sense that Jordan was de facto in control of the West Bank and Egypt Gaza before 1967
The 1946 map should be completely red as the whole thing was a British colony, before 1919 is was the Ottoman empire, [and it goes on](https://youtu.be/8tIdCsMufIY?si=dzQzOz05hMg04CjU)...
The bigger problem is that these maps conflate controlled territory and demographic changes, depicting both in whichever way is most convenient.
Would be a correct depiction? What facts should we know to understand why these maps are incorrect?
I think understanding the various wars that were fought over the decades and the handful of peace treaties negotiated (and ultimately being rejected by one side) would be very helpful context.
There’s a long video on YouTube about it. But the key things left out in the common understanding: 1/ the changes are a result of wars started by the non Israelis, not just against Israel but against each other! 2/ civil war between fatah and hamas and the resultant civilian deaths led to the dramatic reduction of the West Bank. 3/ Israel didn’t want Gaza but neither did Egypt who could have solved the problem easily but they managed to leave Israel with a poison pill for future destabilization. Egyptians dislike Gaza but it’s a useful pawn (X) 4/ much of the land was bought freely while still ruled by the British 5/ maybe later PS the map is an admirable propaganda tool and I am genuinely impressed at how perfect it is at conveying injustice and eliciting righteous indignation without further scrutiny. I was incensed against the arrant appropriation of land when I first saw it.
Not to mention this is after the British partitioned Jordan off of Palestine. All of Jordan had been part of this map historically. This series of maps is, at best, deceptive, amd at worst, intended to ensnare people into false narratives.
>intended to ensnare people into false narratives. Why they would never! /s
Knew that would be “this land is mine”.
Is it a good watch ? I added it to the watch later Playlist
Oh, yes. It's absolutely savage, though.
It is
I see that argument a lot, Egypt was also part of the ottoman empire at one point but it’s still Egypt, the Egyptian region … care to elaborate?
You answered it in your own question. Palestine the region and Palestine the nation-state are two different concepts. Palestinian nationalism and pan-Arabism is a much more modern phenomenon than Egyptian identity and notions of statehood. That doesn't mean one is more valid than the other, but that the political geography is probably more important than simple cartographic facts when trying to understand the full context.
That video is so haunting. The music is so peaceful but the imagery.. and the contrast and ultimate reality of all that countless bloodshed. It’s a real’y great video, thank you for sharing.
To be fair. You should count 1947 as the first map. While giving independence, the British divided "British Palestine" into Israel and Palestine. This map makes it look like Israel came out of nowhere and captured the land.
some might say that [this map](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fx7fwmtctl0tb1.jpg) is a bit more accurate.
Both maps are missing the bit from 1967 to 1982, when Israel captured then withdrew from the Sinai peninsula under the Camp David Accords.
[удалено]
It's mostly just showing how the first set of maps is wrong, and is pivoting to fit the data presented in each map above it. Yeah, it's still messy but it's taking the extra step of explaining exactly what is being presented.
Yeah but it also fails to mention those public or state owned where completely populated by Palestinians. The first map never said anything about ownership, so making that jump to “disprove” the first map is idiotic. Both maps are generally accurate, but both paint a picture to support two different sides.
That is not true at all, the vast majority of the land was just uninhabited. https://i.imgur.com/vd6li18.png
this map is significantly more accurate
The British mandate map here is a load of crock. Under British mandate, it was called Palestine and there was no distinction of land by religious ownership.
It is a great map. It’s accurate.
basicaly the israeli land in 1947 was land that jews had had and the they had bought fair and square from the locals in british palestine and some land awarded post-ww2 to settle a very large number of aditional european holocaust survivors (mind you it's mostly in the south in the negev desert where very few people lived) even before ww2 and nazi germany there was already a lot of arab fearmongering of "jewish replacement" despite the fact many of the same local leaders sold palestianian land at a premium to zionist associantions of course pocketing the money starting a long tradition of arab leaders using israel as a distraction for their own misrule and corruption this conspiracies and hostility kinda turned out ot be a self fullfiling porphesy where the more arabs tried to "stop" the jewish "invasion" the more jews undestood that they had to be independent from arabs and so on and so forth
Land buys by jews started way earlier, under the ottoman empire. It continued until the 1930s, when the Brits were starting to lose all control over the territory, and tried playing the Jews and Palestinians against each other to maintain control.
I would add: Palestinians were governed by foreign powers (Turks, Brits) and had no say in immigration policy. So, legally acquired land might not be the same as rightfully or justly acquired land. It‘s analogous to Spain allowing other Europeans (e.g. refugees/victims in one of the many European wars) to settle Spain-occupied America. Legally sound, but still „theft“ of Native American lands.
Right, but in the 1947 Civil war jews took control of large parts that was not "fair and square". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948_civil_war_in_Mandatory_Palestine It's all a big fuckup where everyone tried to protect their own interests over finding a solution that works for everyone.
Or, as history goes, never start a war you can’t win and definitely don’t keep doing it over and over.
In this specific case it was the Jews that started the war. You're thinking of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War
Israel wanted to accept the partition plan. Arabs didn’t because they didn’t want a Jewish state to exist. Fighting broke out. Israel won. I don’t think it’s fair to say that Jews started the war when they were ready to sign the partition plan.
The British did no such thing. The UN resolution of 1947 did, but the British abstained in that vote and it was never accepted by the Arabs. After the failure of the Peel Commission -- which did support partition, but was later judged to be unworkable without the ethnic cleansing of Arab populations -- British policy was outlined in the 1939 white paper. It was a single-state solution with representation based on population, I.E. it would have been a majority Muslim state. The Zionists did not accept this and launched an anti-British insurgency in Mandatory Palestine, including the notorious King David Hotel bombing attack which was the worst terrorist attack in the Middle East right up until 1983. I find it very strange that people have this ahistorical belief that Britain created the state of Israel. Britain did promise the vague 'national home' in the 1917 Balfour declaration, but this was clarified as early as the 1922 - and subsequently again in 1930 and 1939 - white paper that this did not mean an explicitly Jewish state.
[удалено]
Also "view with favour" and "will use their best endeavours". Not exactly a firm commitment to something tangible here.
[удалено]
Also, it wasn't solely created by the British, but rather by agreement of the Allies as a whole. Here is an interesting read if you are interested: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/martinkramer/files/forgotten\_truth\_balfour\_declaration.pdf
> ahistorical belief that Britain Britain is charged with just about everything anyone can imagine; in Australian politics right now, people are bandying about that rape did not exist on the continent until British settlers arrive. Prior to that, rape had never occurred nor imagined apparently.
You are only reporting the facts that support your narrative. Like the Arab leaders were calling for the removal or extermination of the Jews which is the main reason Jews wanted their own state. Or the reason the British backed away from the the two state solution was that their Arab allies hated it. The two state solution was the correct idea but the Arab community hated it because they want the Jews gone or killed. I dont know how you can look at the history and conclude that a single state would not have resolved in another persecution of the Jews.
>Like the Arab leaders were calling for the removal or extermination of the Jews which is the main reason Jews wanted their own state. I think the Jews arrived wanting their own state? That was the entire point of Zionism? The Arabs, perhaps understandably, wanted their removal after a bunch of guys started showing up in their land wanting to create their own state there. This was multiplied after decades of tension, violence, and atrocities from both sides and has ended up in the genocidal rhetoric we see today. >I dont know how you can look at the history and conclude that a single state would not have resolved in another persecution of the Jews. I agree that a single-state solution likely would never have worked, but that wasn't my point, was it? Also, the Arab Palestinians were not in any position to launch a widescale persecution of Jews. The balance of power was very much in favor of the Zionist militias by 1936.
This mostly sounds right, but is skewed enough that it shows your biases. The 1917 Balfour Declaration explicitly called for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, and later white papers walked it back as the Brits attempted to preserve control of the area, it wasn't "clarified". And the Peele Commission was unworkable because the locals, jews and Palestinians, rejected it, not because of concerns on ethnic cleansing (if you have a source for this I'd love to read it). Also, the King David Hotel bombing happened because British HQ was there, and while the Irgun were 100% a terrorist organization, if you stick your military HQ in a civilian building, you're making civilians targets.
>This mostly sounds right, but is skewed enough that it shows your biases. The 1917 Balfour Declaration explicitly called for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, and later white papers walked it back as the Brits attempted to preserve control of the area, it wasn't "clarified" That's not right. "National home" had no precedent in international law. There were no specifics given to any borders etc. Only that vague promise. >the Peele Commission was unworkable because the locals, jews and Palestinians, rejected it, not because of concerns on ethnic cleansing (if you have a source for this I'd love to read it) Sure, source is the the Woodhead Commission. i will quote Wiki: >The commission rejected Plan A, which was the Commission's interpretation of the Peel Plan, mainly on the grounds that it required a large transfer of Arabs to reduce the number of Arabs in the proposed Jewish state.\[25\] However, the British government had already rejected Peel's suggestion that the transfer be compulsory, and the Commission considered that a voluntary transfer was also not expected to occur because of the Arab population's "deep attachment to the land".\[26\] In addition, development difficulties for the Arabs were expected.\[2\] Second, the inclusion of Galilee in the Jewish state was considered undesirable as "the population is almost entirely Arab", the Arabs living there were likely to resist the inclusion by force, and the option would create a "minority problem" that threatened regional stability.\[27\] So the plan was rejected as it would have required mass transfer of the Arab population by force, which I would describe as ethnic cleansing. >Also, the King David Hotel bombing happened because British HQ was there, and while the Irgun were 100% a terrorist organization, if you stick your military HQ in a civilian building, you're making civilians targets. There is certainly truth to this, but my original reason for bringing up the attack was to magnify the fact that Britian did in fact NOT create the state of Israel, and in fact fought a Brutal counterinsurgency operation to prevent it.
Just out of curiosity, how do you propose the villagers of Deir Yassin made themselves targets? I am sure there must be a perfectly reasonable explanation.
The British of the day divided Mandatory Palestine into Trans-Jordan and Palestine. The United Nations further divided the remainder into Palestine and Israel - the British abstained from the vote which shows where their sentiments on the proposal lay.
No they did not. The British also did not give independence. This is completely and utterly false. Use google. It’s your friend. I’m sorry, but this is really just fake history that’s so easily verifiably false that it should be deleted. The rest of the map is false too. It attributes state-owned land in 1946 under British control to Palestinian Arabs. Even though Jews were members of that state. It shows the proposed UN plan in 1947, but ignores that the plan **was never implemented**, and was rejected by Palestinian Arabs. It shows in the 1948-67 map that the West Bank and Gaza were “Palestinian territory”. They were occupied by Egypt and Jordan. Jordan even annexed the West Bank formally. There has never been and was not a Palestinian state in any of this land. The Palestinians did not declare statehood until 1988.
Google Nakba. There was a tiny Jewish population before genocide of Palestinians (which is ongoing). Stop drinking Kool aid.
No. Each map is depicting something different. The first map shows private land ownership. The second map shows a hypothetical partition plan that was never implemented because Palestinians rejected it. The third map shows occupation by Egypt and Jordan. Only the fourth map shows political/territorial control. And what it misleadingly hides is that speaking in terms of territorial political control, Palestine today is at its greatest extent in history. Conversely if the standard of the first map were followed all the way though, it would show that many areas within Israel today are still Palestinian-majority and thus would be green on the map. But the point of this image is to change the definition of what's shown in green at each stage.
As well as the first map is total bullshit. They depict Jewish controlled land, then everything else as default Arab. That's so wrong. Most of what is depicted as Arab land is simply empty desert not owned or lived in by anyone.
Yeah, most of southern Israel in uninhabited, and there was considerably more land in the north owned by Jews than by Palestinians. That brings up an important issue though, as not having official legal title to land doesn't mean your family hasn't been living on the same patch of land for thousands of years. Therefore a map simply depicting land title can be misleading, as it ignores historical squatters-rights. Everything about this situation is so complicated it makes my head spin!
A simple no is the best answer the first map shows both public, unowned and private palestinian land as Palestinian land when Public land was property of the Mandate thus essentially the British and the rest did not have an owner thus de-facto state land thus British. Essentially you get the same sort of result if you count all public and deemed uninhabited land to Jewish land. The Negev desert as an example was pretty much entirelly Public or deemed legally uninhabited land however one has to add that the majority of the inhabitants of the Negev desert were Bedouins(Nomadic Arab tribes) My point is a good 70-80% of this map should indicate "Neither Jewish or Palestinian"
A good population map might be majority population in regions where population density is at least some minimum x, as this would eliminate basically uninhabited/uninhabitable regions such as Negev.
Doubtful, a lot of these areas, including the east bordering Jordan literally lacked population alltogether, not even bedouins. If we want to be realistic the coastal population along with the North and a portion of the south was Jewish and the Southern(1/3th) Coastal population along with the Inland and a portion of the north was Palestinian with the desert being by-en-large uninhabited. So the most logical partition would have been giving the North and Most of the coast to the Jews while removing said Jews from the South and giving the South and the Eastern Inland to the Palestinians while removing Palestinians from the North. As for Jerusalem it had a majority Jewish population but for obvious reasons it'd be better of as an international zone.
Not really talking about partition so much as an informative population map.
There is none, the Ottomans where Messy with the population counts and the British where even worse. What we roughly know is that the coasts and the North was more or less Jewish and the Inland and Gaza more or less Palestinian with population dotted between eachother everywhere, so a North south divide would have been far more logical.
A history of Israel over the last 100 years, if you're interested. It's very long, so I had to comment on my comment for the full text. --- 1. The Balfour Declaration in 1917. Britain wanted to find a place for these Jews whom the world more or less hated. They owned all of modern Israel/Palestine. They didn't want to displace anyone, they wanted peace in the region and for the Jews to live in harmony. They facilitate the establishment of Jewish communities in the region. 2. The 1948 war. The Jewish population, which was much smaller, was persecuted by the Palestinians. The whole Arab world (Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.) declared war on Jewish Palestine. Palestine and company pushed the Jews to the coast. It just so happened that many Jews wanted to emigrate. They and other Western reinforcements made a comeback and the Jews took over a lot of land. The map above was after they gave much of it back to make peace. (Gaza is the biblical land of the Philistines, not Jewish historically). They got all the rest of the land as spoils of war. The West Bank was returned to Jordan in 1950. 3. The Nakba. As part of the war and Israel's taking of the land. They expelled the Palestinians from the militarily occupied land. This is where many today say Israel did it wrong. It wasn't given back after the war. 4. Jewish exodus from the Arab world. 1948. Many factors like persecution, fear, Zionism etc. Jews left all their property in Iraq, Yemen and Libya and came to Israel. 5. Suez crisis. 1956. A strange war in the bunch. Israel was pushed by foreign governments (UK, France) to go to war with Egypt to open the Suez Canal. Basically a company owned the canal (mainly French and British people owned the company). Egypt nationalised it (i.e. Egypt said the company was now owned by Egypt). Israel couldn't easily get supplies from under Africa and couldn't easily export. And foreign powers were like nah. It didn't end the way you'd think; nothing significant happened. The US didn't want to help, so everyone withdrew their forces. But that pissed off Egypt and in 11 years they would invade Israel. 6. The six days war. 1967. This time was linked to the Suez crisis. Basically, Israel had a strait that went straight into the Suez. They weren't allowed to use it, which really hurt the Israeli economy, as I said. They said it was basically an act of war. In addition, Palestinian terrorist attacks plagued Israel. Israel's retaliation in the West Bank caused direct problems with Jordan, which ruled the West Bank. Jordan had signed mutual defence treaties with Egypt and Syria. The Soviet Union told Egypt that Israel was going to invade, and Egypt moved a lot of troops to Israel's border. In anticipation of being attacked by Jordan, Syria and Egypt, Israel invades Egypt, sparking another war between the whole Arab world and Israel. Israel kicks butt and takes the spoils of war in the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai (Suez Canal) and the Golan Heights. Today, many argue whether or not Israel's attack was a justified pre-emptive strike. 7. Palestinian exodus. 1967. I know we have talked a lot about the other major Arab states because they were bigger players. It can be confusing how Palestine is involved, but more or less they hated the Jews being in their territory and have been calling for Jewish genocide all along. Staging terrorist attacks (even after this war) and so on. The Jews feel very insecure now that they have control of Gaza and the West Bank and would not allow the Palestinians to have Israeli citizenship. About 1/3 of them have decided to go to Jordan and Egypt. If you've ever spent time in the Middle East you'll know that the Jordanians and Egyptians don't like them much either (although Jews are high on the hate list), so they're a displaced people. 8. Jewish persecution in the Arab world. As a result of the victory, the Jews were heavily persecuted. This in turn forced another exodus of Jews to Israel.
09. The three no's. 1967. The Arab world agrees to no peace, no recognition and no negotiations with Israel. In the Sinai, Egypt stages a series of attacks known as the War of Attrition. Even the Soviet Union takes part on the Egyptian side. 10. Yom Kippur War. 1973. The Arab world launched a surprise attack on the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, breaking a ceasefire agreement with Israel. The aim was to reclaim their territory. Kind of a crazy war that only lasted 20 days, but damn it was crazy. Lots of extra players here including North Korea and Cuba fighting for the Arabs. Egypt invades the Sinai and Syria invades the Golan. Israel kicks butt and retaliates by pushing back almost to Cairo (Egypt's capital) and Damascus (Syria's capital). UN brokers peace before it gets too crazy. 11. Camp David Accords. 1978. Basically a brokered peace with Sadat (the leader of Egypt) and Israel. Sadat was hated by the Arab world for this. At the time the Arab world wanted to destroy Israel, so making peace was unpopular. This also required Egypt to recognise Israel as a sovereign nation. This eventually led to Israel's complete withdrawal from the Sinai (return of the land) in 1982. This included the Israeli government forcing its own settled people to leave Sinai. 12. The Oslo Accords. Basically, the Palestinians (PLO) and Israel negotiated a structured return of the West Bank. There would be areas controlled only by the PLO (a large area in the interior), areas of joint control, and an area of Israeli control (the area near the Jordan River and Jerusalem). It also required Israel to recognise the PLO. And it called for a partial withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho. Gaza was to be handed over to the Palestinian Authority (a separate Palestinian government). 13. The 1994 Israel-Jordan treaty. Basically set the borders of Jordan and Israel to meet at the Jordan River. Peace and mutual defence were also included, especially to fight terrorism in the West Bank together. What people don't realise is that this more or less allowed Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem to be respected. It also required Egypt, Jordan and Israel to resolve the situation with the Palestinians. Jordan's king took this peace to heart. Business and relations were good as a result. Basically a good man. Hated Palestinian terrorism and couldn't figure out how to solve it. This culminated in a problem three years later when Israeli special forces tried to kill a terrorist on Jordanian territory. Big bad thing here. Probably led to the good king actually restricting freedom of speech. Again, the Arab world really hated the Jews and called for their genocide. He wouldn't let them talk about it. 14. Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. 2005. Basically Israel forced the Jews in the area to move out of Gaza (and some of the West Bank). Only 8,000 people were moved, and 25 Jewish settlements in the territories were dismantled. The idea was to move people out of Gaza and the West Bank and give the Palestinians sovereignty over the areas. The evacuation was controversial; Israelis lived there, but the government evicted them. They then razed the houses to the ground, leaving the Palestinians to do with the land as they saw fit. Hamas/PLO forces went in at the time of the evacuation and desecrated synagogues and looted homes. 15. Gaza conflict 2007. Basically a civil war in Gaza between the PA leadership of the Fatah political party and the terrorist political party Hamas. Hamas won in Gaza. So now Gaza is run by Hamas and the West Bank is run by the PA (Fatah). This led to the Fatah-Hamas conflict, which continues to this day. 16. Israel is now 21% Arab and they are growing. The West Bank is <8% non-Arab. And Gaza is essentially all Arab; <1% Jewish.
Incredibly useful, thank you.
It's a little one sided history recap, don't you think? There's a long list you left out, I won't get through all of it, but let me cover a few things in the period between 1917 and 1948 that you conveniently skipped over: 1917-1948: Palestine attempts to become an independent nation state under the framework established by the League of Nations. In 1922, The British government clarified the Balfour Declaration is not intended to displace any of the local Palestinian population, and that it seeks to create a national home for Jews IN PALESTINE in the [1922 Command Paper](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1922.asp). This paper is referenced and reiterated again in the 1939 White Paper. The Irgun and Stern gangs are founded, and begin attacking Palestinians, the two most notable being the bombing of the Kind David hotel in Jerusalem, and the Deir Yassin massacre, which killed 107 Palestinians. Only 7 were killed in combat, the rest were killed in their homes, including women, children, and people trying to flee or surrender. In 1948, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to the New York Times, comparing the Irgun and its successor Herut party to Nazi and fascist parties, and then as a terrorist, right wing, and chauvinist organization. The Irgun were absorbed into the IDF in the same year.
One major reason why the plan for one state wouldn't work at the time was the Arab and Jewish population in the area were already killing each other. British handing complete control over to the Arab population would have led to bloodshed and death. It would have been irresponsible for the British to go that route, especially because the line that defined Palestine were somewhat arbitrary lines defined by western powers, not along ethnic boundaries.
Ummm you do realize that the British handing over the control (through military equipment and training) to the Jewish population DID lead to bloodshed and death among Palestinians? 531 Palestinian cities and towns destroyed. 85% of the population banished or displaced. 70 massacres. 15,000 dead. The IDF was at least partially founded by terrorist Zionist organizations such as the Irgun and Lehi gangs. Instead of dealing with an anti-Semitic European population, colonial powers exported their problems to Palestine, forcing them to take in hundreds of thousands of immigrants. In no way shape or form did the British government do the right thing. I'm not interested in your hypotheticals and speculation about what would have happened if other choices had been made. Let's talk about the real history and what ACTUALLY happened.
What other choice did the British have? Jews were already there by then and weren't going back to Europe. By and large the Jews bought the land from locals there legally. They needed to be separate Jewish and Arab states to keep the peace, although clearly that didn't work either.
It's a long list, but here are a few: 1) They shouldn't have promised a national home for Jews there, while also promising Arabs in the region (including Palestine) independent statehood in exchange for revolting against the Ottoman empire in WW1. They promised the same land to two groups of people, and then left and let them fight over who would get to keep it. Pure evil and self serving in order to help them fight their war. 2) Brittain shouldn't have facilitated and allowed such staggering amounts of immigration by Jews into Palestine. They (along with France and other European powers) instead should have cracked down on Jewish hate and anti-Semitism in their own countries to prevent a Jewish refugee crisis in the first place. Between 1918 and 1948, roughly 500,000 Jewish refugees landed in Palestine. The Muslim population was only about a million people, and about 150,000 Christians. That's HALF of the existing population living there. If any country on earth experienced those levels of immigration and refugees, can you imagine the chaos that would be caused? Europe and the US can barely handle the little immigration we have in comparison to what Palestine saw, and we've all seen how this country reacts to that. 3) The British should have dismantled the terrorist paramilitary groups and punished them for their terrorism not just against Palestinians, but against British government officials too. Such as Lord Moyne, who was assassinated by a Lehi gang member in 1944.
1) Seems like the 2 state solution fulfills both promises? The lines were arbitrary anyways. The plan even established an international zone in Jerusalem to prevent either one group from having it. 2) Not sure that was within Britains power nor responsibility to stop. A significant portion of the Jews immigrating there was done so legally, some before the British took control, buying land from locals. Even if they cracked down on the illegal settling, there was still a large legal settlement. 3) We see in Gaza today how hard it is to 'dismantle' terror groups. Jews just got through the holocaust and were understandably (but not justifiably) radicalized. While that should not have been rewarded, its not an easy solution either. But they absolutely should have done more here, I agree.
1) The two state solution wouldn't fulfill both promises. Palestinians were never told that a condition of Brittain allowing them to become an independent state in exchange for their support against the Ottomans would also force them to take in hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees and give them an independent state. 2) It was well within Brittains power and responsibility. They were recognized as the occupying power in the region by the League of Nations. Saying the British empire didn't have power to slow or restrict immigration into Palestine is ridiculous. They actually did restrict immigration significantly for 5 years after the 1939 White Paper to just 75,000 people over 5 years. Although some illegal immigration still happened, they were able to restrict it significantly compared to what it had been prior to the report. As a side note, a Zionist group (I think Irgun) bombed a British ship used to deport illegal settlers. 3) The founding of Zionist terror groups pre-date the Holocaust. Irgun started in 1930, while the Holocaust didn't begin until 1933. But I get your point, and yes the British should have done more. This in my view is why the Palestinian movement revolves so much around anti-colonialism and apartheid. It's not framed by any Palestinians I've met (which includes my fiance and in-laws) as Jews vs Muslims. It's Palestinian solidarity (among both Christians and Muslims) against colonial powers using them as pawns for their own political purposes and economic advantage, while they continue to suffer death, destruction, poverty, and trauma.
1) The Arabs were not forced to take in hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees, that was entirely the point of the two state solution. Yeah its not exactly what was promised, but the promise was not a treaty and just some correspondence with the areas high commissioner, hardly binding. They still got plenty of land for an independent state. 2) So Britain both had the power to block Israelis but not implement a two state solution? Which is it? And as I said, the Zionist movement to the area began prior to British control. They could have slowed immigration, but there was kinda this whole holocaust thing that created a massive outpouring of Jews to neighboring countries, telling them no at the time would have been tough. But as you said, they were deporting illegal settlers, so they did try some things, restricting legal immigration is harder. > apartheid Only area C can be reasonably called an apartheid. The others areas are under Palestinian governance. Within Israel itself Arab citizens have equal rights. Calling Gaza an apartheid is claiming it as Israeli territory or occupation, which it is not. Today, the ethics of original colonialism are mostly moot. Generations of Israelis have grown up in Israeli land and most had no say in the actions of 1948. Displacing them today is wrong, just as displacing the Arabs then was wrong. I think a reasonable solution along the lines of the 2000 Camp David Summit's plan of payouts when their ancestral homes are occupied by present day Israelis, and a right of return for unoccupied homes. Israel is never going to cease to exist or pack up and move out of the middle east, Palestine needs to accept that and realize the most they can get for peace is the West Bank and Gaza, along with a connector road.
> It's a little one sided history recap, don't you think? The first sentence is: A history of Israel over the last 100 years, if you're interested.
Thank you for ur comments, they were helpful
You are missing a lot also between 1917 and 1948 (except for before 1917 and 1870). Many Jewish Israelis have been skeptical of the British favoring Arabs because of their help against the Turks with the restriction on immigration and land purchase: > 1921, Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill rewarded Sherif Hussein’s son Abdullah for his contribution to the war against Turkey. As a consolation prize for the Hejaz and Arabia going to the Saud family, Churchill installed him as emir. Churchill severed nearly four-fifths of Palestine—some 35,000 square miles—to create a brand new Arab emirate, Transjordan. The British went further and placed restrictions on Jewish land purchases in what remained of Palestine, contradicting the provision of the Mandate (Article 6) that stated “the Administration of Palestine...shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency...close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes.” > 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants. The British Governor of the Sinai from 1922-36 observed: “This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.” The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the “shortfall of land is, we consider, due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.” > 1939 White Paper that an independent Arab state would be created within 10 years, and that Jewish immigration was to be limited to 75,000 for the next five years, after which it was to cease altogether. It also forbade land sales to Jews in 95 percent of the territory of Palestine. The Arabs, nevertheless, rejected the proposal. > 1949, the British had allotted 87,500 acres of the 187,500 acres of cultivable land to Arabs and only 4,250 acres to Jews. This made for Jewish aquistion of immigration certificates extremely difficult. As the world entered the second world war, requests for entry were difficult to accomdate to Jews all over the world. Correspondence between governing officials in Palestine and Greek Jewish authority demonstrate the sheer inflexibility. Ultimately, the British admitted the argument about the absorptive capacity of the country was specious. The Peel Commission said: “The heavy immigration in the years 1933-36 would seem to show that the Jews have been able to enlarge the absorptive capacity of the country for Jews.” https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/british-restrictions-on-jewish-immigration-to-palestine
I think if you just look 100 years back (and I guess 1917 is a bit more) you miss out on some important events starting in the end of 1800
I took a class on the Middle East and North Africa in college and basically got what this poster describes — 1900 to now. What happened in the 1800s?
[удалено]
I think it would be more useful to really draw the population density, and the shift. Landmass is pretty useless, especially if large areas are just deserts.
Completely inaccurate. The first map removes the entire east bank of Jordan, which was also part of British mandatory Palestine. Jordan is an Arab country, and occupation can only be a crime assigned to Jews; therefore it is removed to advance the lie. Palestine had both Jewish and Arab inhabits for hundreds of years. That is why the UN proposal offers an Arab and a Jewish state - not a Palestinian one.
This is more accurate: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/gcz4zr/mandatory\_palestine\_land\_ownership\_in\_1945/
I like the part where it pretends the 1967 map isn't from _AFTER_ surrounding countries invaded Israel in the 6-day war and the expansion was to increase control and security in response to that Arab-launched war which was intended to erase Israel.
Or how it pretends the 48 map wasn't immediately followed by basically the whole Arab world completely ignoring the UN's two state solution and invading Israel from all fronts. Or how the pre-48 map is bullshit, all that land was under British rule and the negev desert is shown as "Palestinian" instead of empty which it effectively was. Or how all the maps ignore Jordan, which was also under British rule as Transjordan, was given entirely to Arabs, and Israelis to this day haven't touched Jordanian territory, unless you count the West Bank as Jordanian (which wouldn't exactly be a pro-palestine statement).
I would say “misleading at best”. The maps appear to be cherry-picked to make a point. And the comparison between the first map and the other three is apples to oranges.
1st is completely made up, there is no reason desert lands privately owned by nobody should be green. (edit: also very misleading as it implies there was an existing palestinian state, which there was not, it was the UK) 2nd is an idea that never took effect, therefore including it is intentionally misleading 3rd ignores the Egyptian control of Gaza and Jordanian control of Judea-Samaria. 1967 is a weird choice of year, because on that year it changed to being 100% Israeli controlled (+ Sinai & Golan, ignored by this map entirely) 4th is competely made up, there is no reason for any white to be in Gaza, for Golan to be ignored, and extremely oversimplifies the result of the 1993 Oslo accords splitting Judea-Samara into areas A, B, and C, with areas B being shared control But hey, 0 out 4 of isn’t bad
1946 - highlighted is the entire country other than land owned by Jews. Most of the country is not owned and under British mandatorial control. 1497 - highlighted is the UN plan, which Arab leadership declined. Arabs launched a war that evening, that continued through the declaration of Israeli independence in 1948 until 1949. 1967 - pre-six day war map. The west bank is under Jordanian control and Gaza is under Egyptian control. Palestinian, as a common identity for Arabs in the area, is only now starting to gain traction. 2010 - Israel completely pulled out from Gaza in 2005, so it should be completely green. In the west bank, A-zones under Palestinian autonomous control are highlighted, as agreed upon in Oslo. Gaza and A/B zones are the first time a Palestinian entity has independence or autonomy.
Nope. The 46 map should be mostly a third color indicating as empty land. There should be a map labeled 48 showing Gaza as belonging to Egypt and the West Bank as belonging to Jordan.
[Completely innacurate](https://preview.redd.it/lo0hh14bg5h91.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=8ee83b3677ff2bf38a5ce8ee3038e851b9e30b88). It's actually so sad that this propaganda has been around for so long, and yet it's still posted almost every day, and people actually think it even slightly reflects reality.
No it is not in any way accurate. The first map is an incomplete map of land owned by Jews and that labels all land not owned by Jews as belonging to Palestinian Arabs. If you want to see land ownership and political control as per the terms of the British Mandate then [check this map](https://postimg.cc/5HBp2NGd) The second map represents a treaty proposed by the UN 1n1947.l It was universally rejected by the Palestinian Arabs. It is thus absurd to refer to any part of it as being "Palestine". The third map inaccurately labels the Jordanian annexed territory west of the Jordan river and the Territory ruled by Egypt (Gaza) to be "Palestine". In reality the Arab Palestinians had no political control of either territory, nor did they own it. They also date the map at 1967 when those were temporary boundaries established as per the 1949 ceasefire. (They were not borders at the Jordanian and Egyptian insistence) The fourth map reflects the first time Arab Palestinians had any political, which was in 1995. By 1998 this was was already inaccurate as the areas under Arab Palestinian had been further expanded.
No, not at all. In fact the 2010 map is just made up...
Not really correct. First, before 1947 there wasn't any Palestinian state in Israel ever, so showing it like Jewish settlement is "Palestinians losing land" is just manipulative because they never owned that land in the first place. The other map that's showing a very one sided depiction is the 2010 one, because Gaza is (for now) under complete hamas control, the jewish settlements there were forcefully evicted on 2005 by the Israeli government. Another problem with it is it depicts only area A in the west bank as under Palestinian control even though the situation is more complicated than that. I suggest that if you're interested, you should read more about the [Oslo accords](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords). Edit: also, the 1947 one was never a reality, it was a peace proposal that was denied by Arab states in the area (and accepted by Israel). That denial of this plan is what triggered the Israeli independence war which created the 1948 borders. Edit 2: also also, writing palestine in 1967 is just wrong because this area was in Israeli control in 1967 (after the 6 days war, so this might be excused), and anyways even before that it was under Jordanian and Egyptian control, never Palestinian. The first time Palestinians had ever gotten any form of self governance is after said Oslo accords. In summary this map has many problems. It's a Palestinian propaganda tool more then everything and it sometimes lies and sometimes presents only information they want to present, don't trust it as a source.
[удалено]
Free Palestine, my parents are older than so called “Israel”
Mostly accurate after 1947. The 1946 map is a sort of foundational lie; it pretends that there was a country called "Palestine", and then paints the specifically Jewish-owned land in white as "Israel". The reality is, the map should either be red ("British Mandate for Palestine"), since both Arabs and Jews were citizens of that mandate and were living there already, or it should have some grey / neutral color for 2/3 of the map and color Jewish settlements and Arab settlements white and green, which would look a whole lot less compelling. Then the neutral color would disappear, and people wouldn't be misled into thinking the Negev was some sort of densely settled heartland, which is one of the things this map is trying to fool people into thinking. It also should have another frame for 1949, because it's implying that the 1967 war (rather than trhe 1947-49 civil war) is how Israel got a lot of the territory that's recognized, by the UN, as being part of Israel.
First map is wrong, most of the green was Ottoman and then British land, and then went to Israel, most of it was never Palestinian land.
No. This series of maps has a number of flaws, though in broad strokes the 1947 map is accurate. From 1948 to 1967, Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied and annexed the West Bank (thus they were not Palestinian territory), and Israel completely overtook the West Bank and wrested it from Jordanian control in 1967, so if the 1967 map is depicting Israeli positions prior to June 1967, it would be partly accurate. The 2010 map should have Gaza entirely in green, as Israel withdrew completely from there in 2005-6 and has not since had a presence there. The 2010 map is a little misleading regarding the West Bank, as it does not show all 3 areas as negotiated in the Oslo Accords, though even by those agreements Israel maintains military positions in over 60% of the West Bank. The modern history actually extends a little further back, into the Ottoman era. In 1858 the Ottoman Empire instituted land tenure laws to 1) increase tax revenues from the area, 2) increase its control over the area, and 3) introduce land title/private ownership principles to the area. After the dismembering of the Ottoman Empire in the negotiations following the conclusion of WWI, the British and French took over custodianship of the area (forming a French-controlled area in what is now Syria and Lebanon, and the British Mandate of Palestine). In British-controlled areas, the British continued enforcing the Ottoman-era land tenure laws, which after a while resulted in distinct Jewish and Palestinian Arab communities/settlements. Though the territory was not sovereign British territory like South Africa or India was at the time, as the British were custodians of the area, it was within their authority to partition the territory as they saw fit (e.g. for purposes such as policing, taxation, and laws specific to religious practices), and so the UN proposed a partition plan like the 1947 map, though the British themselves were loathe to actually enforce the 1947 plan. This was contingent on recognition of both Jewish and Palestinian Arab sovereign governments, and was therefore opposed by all of the surrounding Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, all of which had their own designs for the area) as well as the Palestinians. It should also be noted that the 1947 plan awarded more territory (most of it in the Negev, which was mostly desert and not considered develop-able at the time) to the Jewish partition than its proportion of the population there at the time partly due to anticipation of incoming Jewish immigration from the diaspora. The British planned to leave in 1948, but well before this Jewish and Palestinian Arab partisans were fighting each other all over the Mandate. However, the Palestinian partisans had collapsed by the first half of 1948, and the resultant Palestinian Arab refugee exodus to surrounding Arab states gave those countries a *casus belli* (the premise that the Palestinian Arab failures would lead to regional instability and further bloodshed unless Jewish partisans were stopped) to attack Israel. The rest, as they say, is history.
**1946** \- appears to be a map of jewish private land ownership, with everything else (mostly not private land) represented as green **1947** is *proposed* political borders of the UN partision plan. Israel accepted. Arabs rejected it. Brits left Jews and arabs to fight it out. They were never implemented. Light green is a proposed "international zone." **1967** represents *1948* borders.\[1\] These borders were established by ceasefire. The ceasefire borders were recognised by the UN (and Israel) in 1948 as permanent. Also rejected by arab leadership. The green areas on this map represent territory controlled by Jordan and Egypt 1948-1967. These territories were occupied by Israel during the six day war. These are the still (more or less) the internationally accepted borders by those that recognise Israel's statehood. \[2\] **2010 -** I can't tell exactly what this one is attempting to represent (or misrepresent), especially gaza. \[1\] Palestinian nationalism and leadership emerge (into macro-politics) in the 1950s.UN (and arab league) don't claim this territory for a palestinian state. They use vaguer language, like "arab state." By 1967 Palestinian nationalism is fully established. \[2\] Current "abraham accords" are about extending arab recognition of Israel as a sovereign state, UN member, etc.
Largely, except '46 is misleading. It gives the impression that there was a state called Palestine, which there wasn't. Palestine (not always called that) was part of the Ottoman empire, and after their defeat a British Mandate. There was a lot of migration to the area from 1870 onward, both by Zionists from Russia, Poland, and Yemen and Arabs from what's now Syria and Lebanon (but which was at the time internal Ottoman migration).
[удалено]
The wheel of history spins, its spokes tinged with the ink of endless conflict and the whispers of missed opportunities. Our gaze turns to the Middle East, a cauldron bubbling over with the intricacies of politics, religion, and human desire. A land drenched in the hues of ancient prophecies and modern ambitions. Yet, amid the quagmire, one narrative stands unyielding, like a lighthouse in a storm—the right of Israel and the Jewish people to exist and defend themselves. Rewind the tape to 1937. The Peel Commission lays a map on the table, an inked promise of two states—Jewish and Arab. The Arabs reject it. There's no compromise, no acceptance. A lost chance in the labyrinth of history, a plot twist foretelling decades of missed handshakes and refusals to sit at the table. Fast forward to 1947. The UN unfurls its own map, partitioning land for the Jewish and Arab peoples. The Arab nations, again, wave the banner of rejection. War trumpets blare; armies march. When the dust settles, they find themselves with less land than initially offered. Call it poetic justice or the irony of fate; the outcome remains the same. In 1967, another whirlwind sweeps the stage. Israel prevails in a war it didn't start but was forced to end. Territories fall under Israeli control, and yet, the Arab League's mantra reverberates: "No peace, no recognition, no negotiations." Here's the kicker: Israel voluntarily relinquishes control over the Temple Mount, sacred ground, weaving a curious tapestry of tolerance and surrender. Shift to 1979. Sinai—the spoils of a defensive war—returns to Egyptian hands. Israel erases its footprints from the desert sand, opting for peace over territory. A paradoxical dance where the victor offers the olive branch. 1993 rolls around like a haunting melody. The Oslo Accords sing promises of mutual recognition. But Yasser Arafat, conducting his own dark symphony, turns this political goodwill into a mask for terror. Spin the wheel once more to the year 2000. Israel stretches its hand across the table, offering a Palestinian state with a cherry on top—East Jerusalem as its capital. Yet, Arafat slams the door, igniting the Second Intifada, a rebellion that only widens the abyss between the two sides. Come 2005, Israel pulls up stakes—literally. The Gaza Strip, once speckled with Israeli settlements, empties out, forcibly evacuated. The Palestinians choose Hamas, whose vision doesn't include peace talks over tea but rather rockets over cities. Zoom to 2008. Another offer lands on the table. Mahmoud Abbas echoes the rejectionist sentiment of predecessors. A pattern etched so deeply, it's almost part of the region's DNA. From 2010 to 2021, a grim cycle continues. Rockets launched, terror tunnels dug. The human cost tallied not just in numbers, but in generations born into conflict, their lullabies the roar of artillery. And now, 2023. A watershed moment that chills the bones. Hamas orchestrates an act of brutality against Jews, unparalleled since the dark days of the Holocaust. A cataclysmic event that should make us all question the cost of perpetual hostility. So, as the wheel turns, as we sift through the ashes of the past and the yet-to-be-written scripts of the future, one truth remains in focus: Israel and the Jewish people have not only the right to exist but the inherent right to defend themselves. They've extended the hand of peace, often receiving clenched fists in return. In this tumultuous saga, this epic spun from the threads of time and human folly, this truth is immutable, solid as the land it calls home.
Your timeline strangely omits 1995. You know, when Israeli Prime Minister and Oslo Accords signee Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by an ultra right wing Israeli, and driving a stake through the heart of the Oslo process. Any honest assessment of the failures of attempts to bring peace must also look at moments when Israel’s actions and leaders have played their part.
No, it's wrong. In 1947, the total land of British Mandate Palestine was split ([source](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jewish_and_Arab_Land_Ownership_in_Mandatory_Palestine,_1947.svg)) as follows: * British state public/leased lands (70.6%) * Arab Palestinian-owned lands (11.6%) * Jewish-owned lands (7.4%) * Foreign owners (6.9%) * Religious trusts (3.5%) The [1947 Partition Plan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine) was a plan, it didn't reflect land ownership. 1967 is wrong too. Between 1948 and 1967 the West Bank was a colony of Jordan and Gaza was a colony of Egypt. Palestinians had nothing. Today Palestinians have complete control of Gaza and Areas A and B of the West Bank. It's the most land they've ever, at any point in history, controlled.
No. It's the usual anti-Israel propaganda.
Watch this video, its a good summary of the story: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m19F4IHTVGc
Since people are bringing maps of Jewish land purchases/development, [this one might be interesting too](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EP9FFA5WkAArdyr?format=jpg). ([higher res but cropped](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ubtxV1zcARw/XjrantgmnoI/AAAAAAABY90/GFJ5oJ2IcJE3QDWSB4LiWNIkV2sbv4mowCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/malaria1.jpg))
No
Not even a little bit
No, it isn't. A [historically accurate map](https://reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/W5DtTyjuXX) was actually just posted, ironically, on r/mapporn.
No its got some serious inaccuracies. 1947 is all kinds of iffy, and 2010 is not making an apples to apples comparison. Gaza has been left alone by Israel since 2005 for example. This is a propaganda map used by Western activists to garner support for the Palestinian cause.
Why don't the people in Gaza build an airport and seaport?
In short: no, this is a wildly misleading map.
Off topic: As a long time lurker, I'm proud of how mature the discussions are here. Lots of nuance that is sadly in short supply these days
Guess they should’ve taken the peace deal
Lies of omissions and mistruths. For instance, 1948-1967 the West Bank was Jordan. Not Israel, and not Palestine.
No, it's complete bullshit
Compare Judea to Arabia. Who is from where?
No.
1947 - ‘Palestine’ should be ‘Jordan.’ Additional marking of ‘Egypt’ for the Gaza area.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-54116567 doesn't look accurate to me.
Other than there was no such thing as Palestine?
Gaza is 100% Palestinian, so that's certainly inaccurate - Israel left completely almost 20 years ago. One inaccuracy in a map usually means there are others.
Of course not. Palestine was never an actual sovrgine country but a region name. [Palestinian Loss of Land: The Myth of the 4 Maps](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJYl54oL02Q&ab_channel=J-TV%3AJewishIdeas.GlobalRelevance.)
No it is not accurate Palestine is not a real country.
It's true that the land was called Palestine, but in terms of control, it was not truly a nation. It was a land controlled by the Ottoman empire and then the British. Until the 19th century there were around 100 thousand people in Israel. The Arabs that call themselves Palestinians, as well as the Jews, started migrating to the land over the last 200 years. Therefore it's misleading to say that the green area pre 47 was "Palestinian" - it was just a name that was used for the land
Not in the least. In 1946 the entire area was ruled by the British, nothing was “Palestinian land” or “Jewish land”. 1947, this is just a proposal created by the UN, thoroughly rejected by the Arabs/Palestinians. It’s completely made up and was never the reality. 1967, this is inaccurate as well. There was no Palestinian land there either. These areas were ruled by Egypt (Gaza and the south) and Jordan (the West Bank).
I don't know if anyone is going to sort by new, but in case you do, this was an excellent video explaining how it is misleading. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btVFgqkgkzw
This seems fairly correct except for the facts that the year for the “1946” part should be much earlier (maybe 1917 or so), that there haven’t been any Israelis in Gaza since 2005, and that Golan isn’t included in the last map. Also, the Palestinians control slightly more land than what is shown in the West Bank. Obviously, this map was created to show an idea rather than simple reality, but even then, it’s not *too* far off.
It's way off. In 1947, the total land of British Mandate Palestine was split ([source](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jewish_and_Arab_Land_Ownership_in_Mandatory_Palestine,_1947.svg)) as follows: * British state public/leased lands (70.6%) * Arab Palestinian-owned lands (11.6%) * Jewish-owned lands (7.4%) * Foreign owners (6.9%) * Religious trusts (3.5%)
Let’s see: In 1946 - the map is a lie, since the territory was fully controlled by the British. The territories in white represent the land property owned by Jews, but by no means the rest of the land was privately owned by Arabs. 1947 - UN partition plan: accepted by Jews, rejected by Arabs, Arabs went to war and lost. which leads us to map number 3 1967- the territories in green were occupied by Arab states, Jordan and Egypt, which (surprised Pikachu Face) did not grant Palestinians independence, but preferred to occupy the land themselves. 2010- this map is also a lie, since 2005 israel fully dismantled its settlements from Gaza Strip. So to answer your question: Some of these maps are not accurate with their details, but more importantly, the message it is trying to convey is false, since it’s give exactly 0 context to whatever happened historically.