General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: IDF kills Hezbollah's top commander [View all]AloeVera
(2,131 posts)That's interesting. I've rarely seen the rejection of the plan used to imply Israel could then take lands designated for Palestinians under the Plan.
Which is what Israel did, in 1948. Israel was gifted 56% of mandate Palestine under the Plan, though comprising half the population of the majority Arabs who owned over 90% of the lands.
Seems like a good deal for Israel, not so good for Palestinians. Can't imagine why they rejected it.
But sarcasm aside, here's the icing on the cake. After declaring independence unilaterally and immediately after British withdrawal, and after having already expelled over 200,000 Palestinians from their homes, Israel was just getting started. By the end of the "War of Independence", over 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled, Israel captured and kept an additional 22% of Palestinian -designated territory, bringing its share of mandate Palestine to 78%.
The captured-and-kept (aka occupied) Palestinian lands included a large swath of what is now Northern Israel.
From your map, note also how big the West Bank and Gaza were under the Plan, compared to today.
The reality is that from the 44% of their OWN EFFING lands the Palestinians were "allowed" to keep under the Partition Plan, they are now reduced to less than 10% with towns cut-off and terrorized by the violent settlers and now even the IDF.
But getting back to my point - from the Palestinian POV, the Israeli people inhabiting the conquered north of Israel, the conquered environs of Gaza, and large swathes of the West Bank - are indeed "settlers". Because they are on lands designated by the UN for Palestinians.
I am sure you didn't mean to imply that rejection of Partition meant the loss of Palestinian rights and claim to any of their territory, a totally indefensible argument.