Featured Israel-Palestinian Conflict Resurgence 2021: Al-Aqsa attacks, riots, rockets, military clashes and Jerusalem conflict

[Basel]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1393206946329681924

 

[Clutch]

Palestine and the UAE's disinformation campaign

Ghufrane Daymi
May 14, 2021 at 1:39 pm

i

Over the past week, Jerusalem and occupied Palestine have once again seen popular collective action, an almost spontaneous reaction to the repeated injustices and oppression amid the evictions in Sheikh Jarrah. Yet, within the midst of all the violence and chaos, a rather subtle, yet devious, narrative arises from Israel and its ally, the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

It is no hidden fact that the vast Israeli PR network spins the reality on the ground in Palestine to one depicting a Jihadi-inspired riot posing an existential threat to the state. However, what seemingly appears unfitting is the support and response emitting from the Emirati regime and its civilian patrons. Despite a rather "invisible hand" and quietist approach within the Palestinian question, the UAE's proactive disinformation network and its blind support of Israel's selective storytelling tells a lot about its extended strategy in Palestine.

"Terrorists", "Rioters", "ungrateful" and "stupid". This is the language used by UAE influencers tweeting and speaking with a license from the UAE government to assess and describe the events in Jerusalem, posing curiously close to that employed for decades by Israel's right-wing peace rejectionists and official PR machines. The narratives utilised within Israeli media circles centre on four intersecting pillars: the inability to explain the conflict because of its complexity, the argument of self-defence against "fanatic Jihadi Hamas fighters", the labelling of opposition and critique as "anti-Semitic" and the radicalisation of Palestinian protests. These narratives, despite their curation for Western consumption, have been echoed by UAE disinformation operations, particularly on platforms like Twitter, with the aim of curating an image of a reckless, violent and dangerous Palestinian. These work towards normalising and opening a platform for public opinion to accept the recent ties with the "rational" Israeli who takes peace more seriously.

READ: Biden says Israel has not over-reacted to Gaza rocket strikes
Many within the upper echelons of Abu-Dhabi's political and religious streams have forged clear alliances between Israeli narratives dedicated to anti-Palestinian bigotry and anti-Hamas sentiments, reframing factors to serve Israel's cause at the expense of Palestinians. Dr Waseem Yousef, for example, a preacher known for his close ties with the de facto ruler of the Emirates, Mohammed Bin Zayed, accuses Hamas of "making Gaza a cemetery for innocents and children." He alludes to the irony of Hamas "firing rockets" yet "crying and shouting for Arabs" when Israeli retaliation comes back.

This deductive reasoning and the reframing of events establish the terror in Gaza as a direct result of "supporting Hamas" and the "disease of the Muslim brotherhood", taking Israeli violence right out of the picture. On the same ground is another Emirati influencer, Hassan Sajwani, cynically tweeting: "Why can't Palestinian protestors just vacate #AlAqsaMosque and simply go home." Emirati influencer Hamad Alhosani similarly chose to reiterate the narratives set by @IsraelArabic's video, claiming protestors were, in fact, proxies for Hamas, stating: "May God Protect the Temple Mount from the tempering of terrorism."

These instances cannot be reduced to a collection of random Emiratis expressing their own respective political opinions; the outpouring of political messages in a country where political activism is criminalised and can only be sanctioned by the state. It is part of the disinformation campaign driven by the UAE targeting Middle East and North African countries to create the impression of popular discontentment with any forms of resistance, democracy and power to the people. Within this comes tactics of hashtag laundering to further specific geopolitical agenda. The recent Israeli-instigated violence in Jerusalem thus provided a platform through which Abu Dhabi could once again ideologically use language to help present Palestinians as initiators of violence, mirroring the patterns within Western media outlets to obscure the Israeli origins of violence while implying a false parity of power within the Palestinian resistance. With Israeli vehemence framed as a "response", one immediately receives an impression that if Palestinians had refrained from resisting, they would not have been attacked. One can thus clearly see the colonial undertones in this carefully crafted narrative.

The Israeli assault on Al-Aqsa Mosque during the holy month of Ramadan has been capitulated in a narrative led by UAE-sanctioned personas to defeat the will of the people, which they conflate as the will of a larger exogenous power. This discourse, as defined by French philosopher Michel Foucault, is more than a way of thinking and producing meaning. It is a way for the Gulf state and Israel to maintain authority while silencing and disempowering Palestinian voices to empower their own. When looking at power, we must understand that we cannot adequately understand the influence of the UAE on Palestinian affairs and that of the greater region if we see it only in the form of structural hard power. Within the mechanics of Emirati power and the regulation of the Arab subject comes the utilisation of language to formulate discourses fitting for its political strategy. The way the Palestinian conflict is framed reflects this very tactic. Coalescing average Palestinian resistance against settler-colonialism to the larger actions of Hamas perpetuates a narrative and image that casts any forms of resistance against Israeli injustices as detrimental to peace and international politics.

As such, one of the UAE's most effective counter-revolutionary strategies comes to light – the radicalisation of all opposition and the targeting of political Islam. In this specific moment, Palestinian protestors have been villainised, turning their resistance from a fight to reclaim land, to one between Jihadi terrorists and a mitigating Israeli state. Since the Arab Spring, the Emirates and Saudi Arabia established themselves as violent rejectors of democratic uprisings in the Middle East.

READ: Israel tells US to stay out of Jerusalem crisis

The UAE has often been viewed as the leader of this counter-revolutionary front, advocating for a "stable" Middle East through upholding autocratic dictatorships that would maintain a status quo in their favour. As part of this world view, any forms of electoral Islamism and political liberalism are two sides of the same coin; they both represent radical positive change that endangers the very legitimacy of these regimes. The tactics utilised in the discourse against Palestinian resistance is thus part of this counter-revolutionary battle launched by the UAE – one they cannot afford to lose. The cognisable anti-revolutionary discourse is manifested in tactics of playing up the threat of peaceful protests to create an atmosphere where the mere existence of Palestinian resistance becomes unthinkable from a Gulf and Western policy standpoint.

In this offensive to win Western hearts and minds against the blurriness of whatever Islamism constitutes, a façade arises. The narratives of posing Palestinian resistance as part of the Islamist package hides domestic goals of legitimising repression, justifying military interventions and making journalists and activists disappear. The dichotomy of authoritarian stability versus Islamist anarchy, which in this case is painted as the stability of an internationally-recognised Israeli state and the unpredictable "Palestinian violence", only furthers Western biases of the region and its conflicts. The violent efforts in erasing the Palestinian cause from the minds of the Arab public and the enormous effort into turning Palestinians into the enemy show that they want to abandon the conflict with Israel and cancel Palestinians altogether, hoping that internal dissent is crushed simultaneously.
Like Abu Dhabi, Israel established agenda around the securitisation of political Islam and has had sceptical stances towards the prospects of the Arab Spring in bringing about democracy and stability in the region. These ideological synergies between the two regimes create an increasingly false narrative aiming to justify the suppression of Arab civil society. However, while on the government level, most Arab and Gulf regimes have been behaving with Israel according to their separate raison d'état, the popular level of public opinion generates grievances and bitterness against Arab policy towards Palestine. In the absence of democracy and open platforms in the Gulf, Palestinian solidarity is confined to being a latent emotional force that still has a great capacity to disrupt the Arab system of states. With the current mobilisation of Palestinian resistance having a real opportunity to transform widespread anger into a practical liberal movement, the status quo upheld by powers like the UAE is at stake.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Published in: Article, Israel, Middle East, Opinion, Palestine, UAE

________________

I guess these are the Munafiqs the Quran speaks of...

 

[Basel]

I think they attacked very hard about 30 minutes ago the bastards

Navy gun boats used were attacking some time ago with artillery as per twitter account of a Palestinian person.

 

[Ahmet Pasha]

......
AL NAKBA



In 1799, during the French invasion of the Arab world, Napoleon issued a proclamation offering Palestine as a homeland to Jews under France’s protection. This was also a way to establish a French presence in the region. Napoleon’s vision of a Jewish state in the Middle East did not materialise at the time – but nor did it die. In the late 19th century, the plan was revived by the British.



Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I and the establishment of the Palestine Mandate, the British colonial power began implementing its plan of creating a Jewish state on Palestinian land. At the same time, the Zionist movement was lobbying Western powers to support the mass migration of Jews to Palestine and recognise a Jewish claim to the land.



In 1917, the Balfour Declaration declared British support for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. The declaration was made in a letter written by Britain's then-Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour, to Baron Rothschild, a leader of the British Zionist movement. The letter was endorsed by Britain's then-Prime Minister David Lloyd George, who became a Zionist in 1915.



The letter stated the British would “use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object”. For Zionists, this was a clear victory.


The influx of Zionists to Palestine, supported by the British, was met by fierce Palestinian resistance. The purchases of land by Jews for Zionist settlement displaced tens of thousands of Palestinians from their homes. The entire process was facilitated by the British.

While the Palestinian leadership in Jerusalem insisted on continuing negotiations with the British to resolve the simmering tensions, Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam, a Syrian leader living in Haifa since 1922, began calling for an armed revolt against the British and the Zionists.


In 1935, Al-Qassam was surrounded by British forces and killed along with some of his men. His resistance inspired many Palestinians. By 1936, an Arab rebellion erupted against British imperialism and Zionist settler-colonialism.


By 1939, the British had smashed the rebellion. The Palestinians found themselves fighting two enemies: British colonial forces and Zionist militia groups.



Although the British had backed mass Jewish immigration to Palestine, the colonial power began to limit the number of Jews arriving to the country in an attempt to quell Arab unrest.



The new limit on immigration upset the Zionists. They launched a series of terrorist attacks on British authorities to drive them out.


The Zionists continued to further advance their dream of creating a Jewish state on Palestinian land. Meanwhile, it became obvious that Palestinian resistance forces were outnumbered and outgunned.





The Zionist strategy of expelling Palestinians from their land was a slow and deliberate process. According to Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, Zionist leaders and military commanders met regularly from March 1947 to March 1948, when they finalised plans to ethnically cleanse Palestine.


As Zionist attacks on the British and Arabs escalated, the British decided to hand over their responsibility for Palestine to the newly founded United Nations.



In November 1947, the UN General Assembly proposed a plan to partition Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab one. Jews in Palestine only constituted one-third of the population – most of whom had arrived from Europe a few years earlier – and only retained control of less than 5.5 percent of historic Palestine. Yet under the UN proposal, they were allocated 55 percent of the land. The Palestinians and their Arab allies rejected the proposal.



The Zionist movement accepted it however, on the grounds that it legitimised the idea of a Jewish state on Arab land. But they did not agree to the proposed borders, and campaigned to conquer even more of historic Palestine. By early 1948, Zionist forces had captured dozens of villages and cities, displacing thousands of Palestinians, even while the British Mandate was still in effect. In many cases, they carried out organised massacres. The Zionist movement’s message was simple: Palestinians must leave their land or be killed.
As the date (May 14, 1948) selected by the British for their Palestine Mandate to expire approached, Zionist forces hastened their efforts to seize Palestinian land. In April 1948, the Zionists captured Haifa, one of the biggest Palestinian cities, and subsequently set their eyes on Jaffa. On the same day British forces formally withdrew, David Ben-Gurion, then-head of the Zionist Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the state of Israel.

Overnight, the Palestinians became stateless. The world’s two great powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, immediately recognised Israel.



As the Zionists continued their ethnic cleansing campaign against the Palestinians, war broke out between neighbouring Arab countries and the new Zionist state. The UN appointed Swedish diplomat, Folke Bernadotte, as its mediator to Palestine. He recognised the plight of the Palestinians and attempted to address their suffering. His efforts to bring about a peaceful solution and halt to the ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign ended when he was assassinated by the Zionists in September 1948


By 1949, over 700,000 Palestinians had been made refugees and more than 13,000 had been killed by the Israeli military. The UN continued to push for an armistice deal between Israel and those Arab countries with whom it was at war.


View attachment 743733


Bernadotte was replaced by his American deputy, Ralph Bunche. Negotiations led by Bunche between Israel and the Arab states resulted in the latter conceding even more Palestinian land to the newly founded Zionist state. In May 1949, Israel was admitted to the UN and its grip over 78 percent of historic Palestine was consolidated. The remaining 22 percent became known as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.


Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees remained in refugee camps, waiting to return home.



While the Zionist movement sought first and foremost to remove Palestinians from their land, it also tried to erase Palestinian heritage and culture. The overall objective was nothing short of an attempt to wipe Palestine off the world map.


The Palestinian Nakba did not end in 1948. The ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine is still happening, and so too is Palestinian resistance.

All this because of one power hungry fool. Very sad man. He caused so much suffering made a deal with the devil. On the other hand there were azeem ul shaan people like this lion heart:

 

[Falcon29]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1393319674377539587

 

[Titanium100]

I think they attacked very hard about 30 minutes ago the bastards

It is because Ceasefire comes in either Saturday or Sunday.. I would guess Sunday. It could also be Money max

Palestine and the UAE's disinformation campaign

Ghufrane Daymi
May 14, 2021 at 1:39 pm

i

Over the past week, Jerusalem and occupied Palestine have once again seen popular collective action, an almost spontaneous reaction to the repeated injustices and oppression amid the evictions in Sheikh Jarrah. Yet, within the midst of all the violence and chaos, a rather subtle, yet devious, narrative arises from Israel and its ally, the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

It is no hidden fact that the vast Israeli PR network spins the reality on the ground in Palestine to one depicting a Jihadi-inspired riot posing an existential threat to the state. However, what seemingly appears unfitting is the support and response emitting from the Emirati regime and its civilian patrons. Despite a rather "invisible hand" and quietist approach within the Palestinian question, the UAE's proactive disinformation network and its blind support of Israel's selective storytelling tells a lot about its extended strategy in Palestine.

"Terrorists", "Rioters", "ungrateful" and "stupid". This is the language used by UAE influencers tweeting and speaking with a license from the UAE government to assess and describe the events in Jerusalem, posing curiously close to that employed for decades by Israel's right-wing peace rejectionists and official PR machines. The narratives utilised within Israeli media circles centre on four intersecting pillars: the inability to explain the conflict because of its complexity, the argument of self-defence against "fanatic Jihadi Hamas fighters", the labelling of opposition and critique as "anti-Semitic" and the radicalisation of Palestinian protests. These narratives, despite their curation for Western consumption, have been echoed by UAE disinformation operations, particularly on platforms like Twitter, with the aim of curating an image of a reckless, violent and dangerous Palestinian. These work towards normalising and opening a platform for public opinion to accept the recent ties with the "rational" Israeli who takes peace more seriously.

READ: Biden says Israel has not over-reacted to Gaza rocket strikes
Many within the upper echelons of Abu-Dhabi's political and religious streams have forged clear alliances between Israeli narratives dedicated to anti-Palestinian bigotry and anti-Hamas sentiments, reframing factors to serve Israel's cause at the expense of Palestinians. Dr Waseem Yousef, for example, a preacher known for his close ties with the de facto ruler of the Emirates, Mohammed Bin Zayed, accuses Hamas of "making Gaza a cemetery for innocents and children." He alludes to the irony of Hamas "firing rockets" yet "crying and shouting for Arabs" when Israeli retaliation comes back.

This deductive reasoning and the reframing of events establish the terror in Gaza as a direct result of "supporting Hamas" and the "disease of the Muslim brotherhood", taking Israeli violence right out of the picture. On the same ground is another Emirati influencer, Hassan Sajwani, cynically tweeting: "Why can't Palestinian protestors just vacate #AlAqsaMosque and simply go home." Emirati influencer Hamad Alhosani similarly chose to reiterate the narratives set by @IsraelArabic's video, claiming protestors were, in fact, proxies for Hamas, stating: "May God Protect the Temple Mount from the tempering of terrorism."

These instances cannot be reduced to a collection of random Emiratis expressing their own respective political opinions; the outpouring of political messages in a country where political activism is criminalised and can only be sanctioned by the state. It is part of the disinformation campaign driven by the UAE targeting Middle East and North African countries to create the impression of popular discontentment with any forms of resistance, democracy and power to the people. Within this comes tactics of hashtag laundering to further specific geopolitical agenda. The recent Israeli-instigated violence in Jerusalem thus provided a platform through which Abu Dhabi could once again ideologically use language to help present Palestinians as initiators of violence, mirroring the patterns within Western media outlets to obscure the Israeli origins of violence while implying a false parity of power within the Palestinian resistance. With Israeli vehemence framed as a "response", one immediately receives an impression that if Palestinians had refrained from resisting, they would not have been attacked. One can thus clearly see the colonial undertones in this carefully crafted narrative.

The Israeli assault on Al-Aqsa Mosque during the holy month of Ramadan has been capitulated in a narrative led by UAE-sanctioned personas to defeat the will of the people, which they conflate as the will of a larger exogenous power. This discourse, as defined by French philosopher Michel Foucault, is more than a way of thinking and producing meaning. It is a way for the Gulf state and Israel to maintain authority while silencing and disempowering Palestinian voices to empower their own. When looking at power, we must understand that we cannot adequately understand the influence of the UAE on Palestinian affairs and that of the greater region if we see it only in the form of structural hard power. Within the mechanics of Emirati power and the regulation of the Arab subject comes the utilisation of language to formulate discourses fitting for its political strategy. The way the Palestinian conflict is framed reflects this very tactic. Coalescing average Palestinian resistance against settler-colonialism to the larger actions of Hamas perpetuates a narrative and image that casts any forms of resistance against Israeli injustices as detrimental to peace and international politics.

As such, one of the UAE's most effective counter-revolutionary strategies comes to light – the radicalisation of all opposition and the targeting of political Islam. In this specific moment, Palestinian protestors have been villainised, turning their resistance from a fight to reclaim land, to one between Jihadi terrorists and a mitigating Israeli state. Since the Arab Spring, the Emirates and Saudi Arabia established themselves as violent rejectors of democratic uprisings in the Middle East.

READ: Israel tells US to stay out of Jerusalem crisis

The UAE has often been viewed as the leader of this counter-revolutionary front, advocating for a "stable" Middle East through upholding autocratic dictatorships that would maintain a status quo in their favour. As part of this world view, any forms of electoral Islamism and political liberalism are two sides of the same coin; they both represent radical positive change that endangers the very legitimacy of these regimes. The tactics utilised in the discourse against Palestinian resistance is thus part of this counter-revolutionary battle launched by the UAE – one they cannot afford to lose. The cognisable anti-revolutionary discourse is manifested in tactics of playing up the threat of peaceful protests to create an atmosphere where the mere existence of Palestinian resistance becomes unthinkable from a Gulf and Western policy standpoint.

In this offensive to win Western hearts and minds against the blurriness of whatever Islamism constitutes, a façade arises. The narratives of posing Palestinian resistance as part of the Islamist package hides domestic goals of legitimising repression, justifying military interventions and making journalists and activists disappear. The dichotomy of authoritarian stability versus Islamist anarchy, which in this case is painted as the stability of an internationally-recognised Israeli state and the unpredictable "Palestinian violence", only furthers Western biases of the region and its conflicts. The violent efforts in erasing the Palestinian cause from the minds of the Arab public and the enormous effort into turning Palestinians into the enemy show that they want to abandon the conflict with Israel and cancel Palestinians altogether, hoping that internal dissent is crushed simultaneously.
Like Abu Dhabi, Israel established agenda around the securitisation of political Islam and has had sceptical stances towards the prospects of the Arab Spring in bringing about democracy and stability in the region. These ideological synergies between the two regimes create an increasingly false narrative aiming to justify the suppression of Arab civil society. However, while on the government level, most Arab and Gulf regimes have been behaving with Israel according to their separate raison d'état, the popular level of public opinion generates grievances and bitterness against Arab policy towards Palestine. In the absence of democracy and open platforms in the Gulf, Palestinian solidarity is confined to being a latent emotional force that still has a great capacity to disrupt the Arab system of states. With the current mobilisation of Palestinian resistance having a real opportunity to transform widespread anger into a practical liberal movement, the status quo upheld by powers like the UAE is at stake.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Published in: Article, Israel, Middle East, Opinion, Palestine, UAE

________________

I guess these are the Munafiqs the Quran speaks of...

@Abu Dhabi

No wonder the article was so imaginery in sequence of events and everything being an invention is because that girl wrote it from her kitchen while doing gossip with her friends on the phone

 

[Basel]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1393314538980843524

 

[Meengla]

This looong thread is not supporting the Palestinians unjustly. What was 'right' had to be said. And what was wrong, had to be condemned. The American politicians, as I have been saying again and again, are too terrified, too insecure to cross Israel. Never ever in human history a remote tiny country subjugated a mightiest military power through its proxies as being seen in America. Even Andrew Wang-- a decent guy of Asian descent running for the mayorship of NYC has lowered his standards and came supporting Israel on gaza--just to get some $$$ and votes.
BUT.... there still are a few politicians left in America. Men of integrity and of a conscience. One of them is a Jewish guy himself: Bernie Sanders. He's old, he's the lone prominent voice, his presidential nomination was hijacked by the ruling fake-liberals in America, but he is leaving his name and his mark in history. And here is his voice, currently gracing the front page of the NY Times.

Opinion | Bernie Sanders: The U.S. Must Stop Being an Apologist for the Netanyahu Government (Published 2021)

America has a role to play in bringing peace to both Israelis and Palestinians.

www.nytimes.com

"

Let’s be clear. No one is arguing that Israel, or any government, does not have the right to self-defense or to protect its people. So why are these words repeated year after year, war after war? And why is the question almost never asked: “What are the rights of the Palestinian people?”

And why do we seem to take notice of the violence in Israel and Palestine only when rockets are falling on Israel?

In this moment of crisis, the United States should be urging an immediate cease-fire. We should also understand that, while Hamas firing rockets into Israeli communities is absolutely unacceptable, today’s conflict did not begin with those rockets.

Palestinian families in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah have been living under the threat of eviction for many years, navigating a legal system designed to facilitate their forced displacement. And over the past weeks, extremist settlers have intensified their efforts to evict them.
...

we can no longer be apologists for the right-wing Netanyahu government and its undemocratic and racist behavior. We must change course and adopt an evenhanded approach

...

But if the United States is going to be a credible voice on human rights on the global stage, we must uphold international standards of human rights consistently, even when it’s politically difficult. We must recognize that Palestinian rights matter. Palestinian lives matter.

 

[Aspen]

Well it seems a Hezbollah member was killed today. So usually that would be it to start something but it may be apparent they are just talk, no action. What happened today would usually be a trigger for both sides.

You know I'm really curious about situation in Lebanon right now.

Because I hear all these people saying that Lebanese economy and political situation is very bad so HZ should stay out. But isn't this also the ideal time for HZ to do something like this considering situation is already at the lowest point and its not like war would destroy Lebanese economy since its already in ruins and port blast destroyed half of Beirut.

One things for sure, there will be no doubt when HZ enters because every single city in northern and central Israel will be lit up.

 

[Basel]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1393317779546255363

 

[Stryker1982]

......
AL NAKBA



In 1799, during the French invasion of the Arab world, Napoleon issued a proclamation offering Palestine as a homeland to Jews under France’s protection. This was also a way to establish a French presence in the region. Napoleon’s vision of a Jewish state in the Middle East did not materialise at the time – but nor did it die. In the late 19th century, the plan was revived by the British.



Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I and the establishment of the Palestine Mandate, the British colonial power began implementing its plan of creating a Jewish state on Palestinian land. At the same time, the Zionist movement was lobbying Western powers to support the mass migration of Jews to Palestine and recognise a Jewish claim to the land.



In 1917, the Balfour Declaration declared British support for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. The declaration was made in a letter written by Britain's then-Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour, to Baron Rothschild, a leader of the British Zionist movement. The letter was endorsed by Britain's then-Prime Minister David Lloyd George, who became a Zionist in 1915.



The letter stated the British would “use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object”. For Zionists, this was a clear victory.


The influx of Zionists to Palestine, supported by the British, was met by fierce Palestinian resistance. The purchases of land by Jews for Zionist settlement displaced tens of thousands of Palestinians from their homes. The entire process was facilitated by the British.

While the Palestinian leadership in Jerusalem insisted on continuing negotiations with the British to resolve the simmering tensions, Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam, a Syrian leader living in Haifa since 1922, began calling for an armed revolt against the British and the Zionists.


In 1935, Al-Qassam was surrounded by British forces and killed along with some of his men. His resistance inspired many Palestinians. By 1936, an Arab rebellion erupted against British imperialism and Zionist settler-colonialism.


By 1939, the British had smashed the rebellion. The Palestinians found themselves fighting two enemies: British colonial forces and Zionist militia groups.



Although the British had backed mass Jewish immigration to Palestine, the colonial power began to limit the number of Jews arriving to the country in an attempt to quell Arab unrest.



The new limit on immigration upset the Zionists. They launched a series of terrorist attacks on British authorities to drive them out.


The Zionists continued to further advance their dream of creating a Jewish state on Palestinian land. Meanwhile, it became obvious that Palestinian resistance forces were outnumbered and outgunned.





The Zionist strategy of expelling Palestinians from their land was a slow and deliberate process. According to Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, Zionist leaders and military commanders met regularly from March 1947 to March 1948, when they finalised plans to ethnically cleanse Palestine.


As Zionist attacks on the British and Arabs escalated, the British decided to hand over their responsibility for Palestine to the newly founded United Nations.



In November 1947, the UN General Assembly proposed a plan to partition Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab one. Jews in Palestine only constituted one-third of the population – most of whom had arrived from Europe a few years earlier – and only retained control of less than 5.5 percent of historic Palestine. Yet under the UN proposal, they were allocated 55 percent of the land. The Palestinians and their Arab allies rejected the proposal.



The Zionist movement accepted it however, on the grounds that it legitimised the idea of a Jewish state on Arab land. But they did not agree to the proposed borders, and campaigned to conquer even more of historic Palestine. By early 1948, Zionist forces had captured dozens of villages and cities, displacing thousands of Palestinians, even while the British Mandate was still in effect. In many cases, they carried out organised massacres. The Zionist movement’s message was simple: Palestinians must leave their land or be killed.
As the date (May 14, 1948) selected by the British for their Palestine Mandate to expire approached, Zionist forces hastened their efforts to seize Palestinian land. In April 1948, the Zionists captured Haifa, one of the biggest Palestinian cities, and subsequently set their eyes on Jaffa. On the same day British forces formally withdrew, David Ben-Gurion, then-head of the Zionist Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the state of Israel.

Overnight, the Palestinians became stateless. The world’s two great powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, immediately recognised Israel.



As the Zionists continued their ethnic cleansing campaign against the Palestinians, war broke out between neighbouring Arab countries and the new Zionist state. The UN appointed Swedish diplomat, Folke Bernadotte, as its mediator to Palestine. He recognised the plight of the Palestinians and attempted to address their suffering. His efforts to bring about a peaceful solution and halt to the ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign ended when he was assassinated by the Zionists in September 1948


By 1949, over 700,000 Palestinians had been made refugees and more than 13,000 had been killed by the Israeli military. The UN continued to push for an armistice deal between Israel and those Arab countries with whom it was at war.


View attachment 743733


Bernadotte was replaced by his American deputy, Ralph Bunche. Negotiations led by Bunche between Israel and the Arab states resulted in the latter conceding even more Palestinian land to the newly founded Zionist state. In May 1949, Israel was admitted to the UN and its grip over 78 percent of historic Palestine was consolidated. The remaining 22 percent became known as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.


Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees remained in refugee camps, waiting to return home.



While the Zionist movement sought first and foremost to remove Palestinians from their land, it also tried to erase Palestinian heritage and culture. The overall objective was nothing short of an attempt to wipe Palestine off the world map.


The Palestinian Nakba did not end in 1948. The ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine is still happening, and so too is Palestinian resistance.

I distinctly remember wealthy Jews financed the UK against Napoleon as he established the national bank of Paris which was a threat to their banks.

 

[Basel]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1393312209208496135

 

[Stryker1982]

You know I'm really curious about situation in Lebanon right now.

Because I hear all these people saying that Lebanese economy and political situation is very bad so HZ should stay out. But isn't this also the ideal time for HZ to do something like this considering situation is already at the lowest point and its not like war would destroy Lebanese economy since its already in ruins and port blast destroyed half of Beirut.

One things for sure, there will be no doubt when HZ enters because every single city in northern and central Israel will be lit up.

Honestly if Hamas continues for the next few days, Hezbollah will be able to deliver a killing blow to a degraded Iron dome network. I can only be hopeful but that martyrdom of Hezbollah would’ve started a war just 1 year ago had it happened then

 

[Basel]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1393218877602009093

 

[jamal18]

This might be a dumb question, but besides IDF direct airstrike on Lebanon, what is guranteed to make HZ enter this conflict?

Didn't Israel just blow up the port in Beirut?