Zion-ists will typically tell you a story that goes something like this.

 chris hedges

  · 

Aslam Dar ·Srsonoetdpu1097t122i4h544h4t9ta1825m8h26il932ull6097310h2583 ·

Zion-ists will typically tell you a story that goes something like this.

In late 1947, the UN adopted a resolution that proposed a partition so that both Jews and Palestinians could have their own separate states and live happily ever after. The Jews ever so grateful accepted the deal and abided by the UN's proposal while the Palestinians and surrounding Arab countries refused and launched a full scale war to annihilate the nascent Jewish state. As a result, little Israel had no choice but to ethnically cleanse 700,000 plus Palestinians and place the remaining population under military rule for decades to come.

That sounds fine and dandy until we actually examine the historical record more closely and ask some inconvenient questions, like why did the UN have the right to give away more than half of Palestine to a group that in 1947 made up less than a third of the population, owned less than 7% of the land, and aspired to create a Jewish ethno-state in a predominantly Arab region? Why were Palestinians expected to accept this and to cede valuable lands like the fertile coastal and interior plains to a racist settler colonial project? Why were they expected to give up 40% of their industry and key sources of the country's electrical supply simply because the UN decided that those assets would fall within the borders of the proposed Jewish state? The only way to frame Palestinians as irrational or wrong for their refusal to partition their homeland is if you view the situation through a colonial lens where the agency of indigenous Palestinians is deprioritized to accommodate the will of the colonizers. In fact, Zion-ist forces had already ethnically cleansed about 300,000 Palestinians before the entrance of a single Arab state's army into Palestine.

#nakba1948 #UN #Israel #palestine #occupation #genocide #EthnicCleansing