Appreciating that my view on the existential no go of that checkerboard is not shared by all, I still have to ask: is it perhaps reasonable to think of that solution as throughly unfair to both the groups, Israeli and Palestinian identifying Arabs alike?
I am cynical enough to believe that the powers all knew that. Neither Israel or a Palestine were expected to be there within a short period of time.
Apologies for bumping, but I wonder if there is a factual basis for what various outside powers, the Brits, the UN, etc., expected was going to happen upon British withdrawal?
Was there any expectation by anyone that the partition plan would stand with the two groups working together as an economic union?
Al Jazeera has a good summary of how leadership in various Arab countries expected a quick romp of the Zionists and how they were perhaps more focused on how to divide the spoils.
The Brits and the UN surely knew that the Arab countries would attack as soon as the Brits exited. Did they expect the Zionists to be wiped out or did they expect the victory by them that surprised the Arab countries and left Israel with a more workable contiguous state? (I find this that says some British leadership expected the Arab attack and loss. I am skeptical of that being the main view however.)
Anyone with better original sources?
Our Israeli tour guide said that Israel won that war mostly because the Arab armies squabbled with each other, as each nation was trying to grab territory for itself rather than fighting together.
From the perspective of the Al Jazeera article what was not motivating the Arab nations involved was the best interests of those identifying as Palestinian.
I think that’s pretty clear. The Palestinians were screwed. Arguably by the partition plan, and inarguably by what came after, especially including the Arab armies who claimed to be acting on their behalf.
To the point of this thread, I don’t think there was any partition plan that would not have left them screwed, that would have resulted in an outcome “fair” to them, defining fair as their having a viable state with a Palestinian identity. And that includes a plan that ceded all the region to them with a Jewish minority. They were pawns (and arguably remain so to this day, but that is beyond this thread’s scope.)
Yeah, is don’t know enough to know if there was a plan that would have worked for them. But i know the aftermath of that plan was really horrible for them.
I’ve always heard Zionists blaming the Arabs for rejecting the UN plan. But in retrospect, the plan was crap and never had a chance of being implemented. The attitude at the UN seems to have been “This is too hard to solve. The best we can do is pretend that we’ve solved it, then whatever happens next we can wash our hands of it.” If the plan had gone ahead, the Zionists would have been sure to quickly break it too. Instead, they enjoyed the figleaf that Arab countries broke it first, and have been coasting on that convenient excuse ever since.
From the perspective of the British, they just wanted out.
I 95% agree?
IF the Arabs in the Partition area had in good faith tried to work with the Zionists economically with easy movement across borders in an EU style model, and the surrounding nations supported such, then the Zionists would have little motivation to have gone against it, and full knowledge that they’d lose all support. I think in that case it would have worked out.
And there was zero chance of that happening. There wasn’t any chance that Arab nations wouldn’t attack even. It was a given. Everyone saw this as their chance to get theirs.
In my alt history of no Arab attack and no economic cooperation with Arab states trying to support the development of the Palestinian state, Stern Gang style elements would have forced conflicts that led to war. Likely however Israel would have been without much international sympathy let alone support in that history.
But what would had have to be happening to allow that to have occurred?
Yes the Brits just wanted out and the UN to be able to say hey we tried, not our fault.
This might not have been a great debate, but I really appreciate all your answers. I learned a lot and now have new topics I want to research.
Let us remember, the seeds of this conflict goes back thousands of years ago. What we call Palestine was composed of Philistines, Moabites, Amorites, et al minding their own business and all of a sudden a bunch of Desert Hebrews arrive saying our God said this is our land now you submit or we’re kill you. Then in 1947 Europeans decided to take away half your land because of what Nazis did, not the Arabs
Erm, no. Just about every part of that is wrong.
The Philistines of old are most likely identified with the Peleshet, one of the Sea Peoples whose migration helped to bring about the Bronze Age Collapse. Modern scholarship generally has them coming from the Aegean.
Note that modern Palestinians don’t descend from the Philistines in any particular way. The Philistines were eventually wiped out as a political force, the contribution to the Levantine gene pool were distributed around, and they faded from history.
The rest of your post uncritically repeats the biblical narrative, which is best understood as a nation-building origin story rather than a historically accurate account.
“Jewish” is a concept that postdated this period. At this time there were two “proto-Jewish” kingdoms, Israel (also known as Samaria) and Judah, which were essentially Canaanite kingdoms, worshiping a Canaanite (or Phonecian) pantheon. At each of these kingdoms, one deity grew in importance - El in Israel/Samaria, and [the name that modern Jews use for God] in Judah. But both societies were very much polytheistic.
Israel and Judah were no less “Canaanite” or otherwise native to the region than the Phonecians, Moab, Edom, etc.
Both the idea of a united kingdom ruling over Israel and Judah, as well as the idea that the people of both kingdoms were monotheistic worshippers of the modern Jewish God, developed into their modern forms later, under Assyrian occupation and Babylonian exile.
And obviously there’s no historical evidence at all for an Egyptian exile being the origin of both groups. Instead, the story mirrors the circumstances of the fledgling Jewish people at the time that the myth was forming.
I’ll grant your clarification re: Philistines, but you’re missing my point (which had no mention of religion)–just like there were natives living in America for hundreds of years until Europeans invaded and killed them and took their land. so there were “natives” living in the “land of Canaan” for hundreds of years until the Hebrews invaded and also killed them and took their land
Right, and that’s what you are missing- that’s incorrect, despite that being the biblical narrative. In fact there were a bunch of Canaanite kingdoms, two of which started getting funny ideas about elevating one Canaanite pantheon deity above the others (although they disagreed about which deity); and then under occupation by a foreign larger empire the people of those two kingdoms started to strongly identify with one another, to the point where they created a historical narrative where they shared a common origin. So it is incorrect to say that a horde of Hebrews conquered the Canaanites.
It is true that the area we would call Canaan was occupied by various cultures like the Natufians and various other half-understood groups with names like “Neolithic Pre-Pottery A”, since this is pre-history we are talking about.
It’s also true that the Canaanites eventually replaced these Neolithic groups (long before they diverged into Israelites and Judeans and all those other Canaanite groups).
What is not clear is exactly what this replacement looked like, or how violent it was. Per Wikipedia, genetic studies confirm that both Jewish people and Levantine Arabic speakers descend in large part from a mixture of local Neolithic cultures and gebes that match the Neolithic cultures of the Caucuses:
Now, regardless of whether this was a conquest or a more peaceful mixing, it wasn’t done by the Canaanites or the Hebrews, neither of whom would exist until after they were formed by this mixing of populations.
And we could go back further, too. Those Natufians aren’t innocent; the Levant was home to Neanderthals, for example.
I’ve made the exact same point elsewhere, that the term “Native” is pretty meaningless. But it isn’t relevant to you being incorrect here, because the Hebrews weren’t an outside force that conquered the Canaanites, they were a type of Canaanite. And the Canaanites didn’t conquer the land; they evolved in the land, out of what was possibly a conquest but possibly not.
Neither did my post, not really; the only relevance of religion to my post is the fact that proto-monotheism became what differentiated the Canaanites of Israel and Judah from the rest of the Canaanites, and what caused them to diverge from the other Canaanites in the iron age, becoming the Jewish people (ethnic group, not religion) while the other Canaanites became Phonecians and later Punics.
Probably not a direct conquest - this seems the more likely explanation because the Northern copper-smelting newcomers seemed to have settled on marginal land, not immediately taken over the resource-rich areas where the Pottery Neolithic indigenes were settled.
History is littered with conquering and conquered peoples, usually with religion at the heart of one or both ideologies. And it continues. Nothing to see here…just keep moving along.
Just as fighting ignorance takes longer than anticipated…peace is knowledge’s best friend, and will likely take even longer.
The ancient Canaanite language and ancient Hebrew were one and the same language. The only way archaeologists can tell if a Canaanite site was Hebrew or non-Hebrew is the absence of pig bones; otherwise they look alike. DNA studies have shown that modern Palestinians and Jews share the same ancient Canaanite DNA. They’re totally cousins.
Reducing my ignorance here now that we’ve already gone off the OP …
Is it believed there was competition between, or union of the different types?
It seems to have varied and included both. There’s no archeological evidence of large scale invasions and genocide, like we’re given in the beginning of the Bible. However, we do have archeological evidence of battles between the Hebrews and the Edomites, I believe evidence of a marriage with the princess of the Philistines, and various Biblical references to support the idea that there was a variety of interaction between the tribes to come together, fight as enemies, or respect one another as allies.
Anything from the reign of Saul forward is plausibly pseudo-historical. It’s not necessarily honest, but it seems to be connected to the real history.