Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

[SwansonsTache]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/...sters-killed-israel-gaza-were-members-n874906


"Hamas says most of protesters killed by Israel in Gaza were members"

"Salah Bardawil, a senior Hamas official, told Palestinian news outlet Baladna TV that 50 out of the 60 who died on Monday were members of his organization, while the rest were civilians. Hamas won elections in 2006 and has run Gaza since the end of a violent power struggle the following year."

 

[Nikhil]

Nope. They kill Jews, not because they're Israeli's, but because their Jews.

Yes, this is true. Why did jihadi terrorists in France attack a Jewish supermarket and a museum? The supermarket and museum weren't Israeli, they were Jewish. It was an attack on Judaism and Jewish people.

 

[2cents]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/...sters-killed-israel-gaza-were-members-n874906


"Hamas says most of protesters killed by Israel in Gaza were members"

"Salah Bardawil, a senior Hamas official, told Palestinian news outlet Baladna TV that 50 out of the 60 who died on Monday were members of his organization, while the rest were civilians. Hamas won elections in 2006 and has run Gaza since the end of a violent power struggle the following year."

Just to add, Palestinian Islamic Jihad confirmed three of its members, including a 16 year-old, were among the dead.

 

[barros]

Yep Israel is just like any other country defending itself from unprovoked attacks. How many other countries commit war crimes against an occupied population on a daily basis? How many other countries confine them to tiny enclaves with no freedom of movement even within their own territory? How many countries incarcerate an occupied population en masse when they resist? Israel cannot claim self-defence when it is pursuing aggressive expansionist policies even during periods of calm.

Turkey?

 

[berbatrick]

Nice metaphor.

 

[2cents]

Memri, which it should be noted is run by ex-Israeli intelligence guys with an obvious agenda, have done this compilation of speeches made at the protests over the last few weeks:



This is another interesting one, the video follows a crew headed for the fence:



(Edit): can't help but admire their bravery to be honest.

 

[RedTiger]

Turkey?

Which peoples are you referring to?

 

[Mozza]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/...sters-killed-israel-gaza-were-members-n874906


"Hamas says most of protesters killed by Israel in Gaza were members"

"Salah Bardawil, a senior Hamas official, told Palestinian news outlet Baladna TV that 50 out of the 60 who died on Monday were members of his organization, while the rest were civilians. Hamas won elections in 2006 and has run Gaza since the end of a violent power struggle the following year."

Being a member of Hamas does not make you eligible for execution

 

[Carolina Red]

Ignoring the origin and driver of the conflict. Again.

Which is?

 

[Chairman Woodie]

Yep Israel is just like any other country defending itself from unprovoked attacks. How many other countries commit war crimes against an occupied population on a daily basis? How many other countries confine them to tiny enclaves with no freedom of movement even within their own territory? How many countries incarcerate an occupied population en masse when they resist? Israel cannot claim self-defence when it is pursuing aggressive expansionist policies even during periods of calm.

Have you ever thought to ask why the Palestinians are in that position?

Might it be anything to do with the long history of violence Palestinian 'leaders' have employed since the 1920s, despite opportunities of autonomy, statehood and a two-state solution?

1. Yes, the status quo was far less comfortable for Israel before the policing of the Palestinian population centers was outsourced to their PA subcontractor.
2. I think the aid corresponds to about 20% of the Israeli defense budget, hardly minuscule. Anyway, aid is just one of many ways for the world’s most powerful country to apply pressure.
3. Whenever Hamas and Fatah have attempted to reconcile or form a unity government, Israel has gone ballistic. The US has often pressured Abbas to exclude Hamas. So there’s that. It’s hard to argue that Hamas’ stance vis a vis Israel has not evolved over the years. As far back as 2008, former Mossad head Ephraim Levy stated that “The Hamas leadership has recognized that its ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future. They are ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian State in the temporary borders of 1967....They know that the moment a Palestinian State is established with their cooperation,...they will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original ideological goals.”

I think Trump or a future Administration using the Embassy move as leverage for compromise would be more effect than using 'aid'.

Hamas, like the PLO, and even the PA today, are great at catering to their audience. The ideological Hamas organise events like 'The Great March of Return' (title speak volumes). The pragmatic Hamas says they are ready for compromise. So why not open indirect talks with Israel through Egypt rather than rioting or firing rockets?

 

[Mozza]

Have you ever thought to ask why the Palestinians are in that position?

Might it be anything to do with the long history of violence Palestinian 'leaders' have employed since the 1920s, despite opportunities of autonomy, statehood and a two-state solution?

The Palestinians are in the position they are now because there can be no Jewish state without the suppression of the Palestinians

I think Trump or a future Administration using the Embassy move as leverage for compromise would be more effect than using 'aid'.

Hamas, like the PLO, and even the PA today, are great at catering to their audience. The ideological Hamas organise events like 'The Great March of Return' (title speak volumes). The pragmatic Hamas says they are ready for compromise. So why not open indirect talks with Israel through Egypt rather than rioting or firing rockets?

There wasn't a riot and there were no rockets. Talking to Israel is pointless as it is not interested in equality for the Palestinians

 

[Super Hans]

Have you ever thought to ask why the Palestinians are in that position?

Might it be anything to do with the long history of violence Palestinian 'leaders' have employed since the 1920s, despite opportunities of autonomy, statehood and a two-state solution?

It sounds like you’re blaming the victim here. That Palestinians somehow deserve the human rights abuses they suffer because they dared to resist colonisation and dispossession. Would the outcome be different had they simply rolled over? Would any other people simply roll over?

Hamas, like the PLO, and even the PA today, are great at catering to their audience. The ideological Hamas organise events like 'The Great March of Return' (title speak volumes). The pragmatic Hamas says they are ready for compromise. So why not open indirect talks with Israel through Egypt rather than rioting or firing rockets?

To negotiate with Israel there needs to be a united front between Fatah and Hamas in order to represent Palestinians. For a while the US opposed this and pressured Abbas to form a government excluding Hamas. In 2014 however the US gave tepid support when they formed a unity government. Netanyahu went ballistic. I hope I don’t have to explain why.

My position remains that Israel and the Palestinians need to be compelled to negotiate by making the status quo less appealing.

 

[antihenry]

That's quite outrageous, to be fair.

 

[MJJ]

That's quite outrageous, to be fair.

but hamas/ 1962.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

That's quite outrageous, to be fair.

These shots are from earlier on in the March of the Return - a Canadian doctor was also reportedly among Monday's wounded. It remains unclear if these instances are what the IDF are alluding to when they refer to "surgical precision."

 

[The Firestarter]

These shots are from earlier on in the March of the Return - a Canadian doctor was also reportedly among Monday's wounded. It remains unclear if these instances are what the IDF are alluding to when they refer to "surgical precision."

You don't get it, the doctors are obviously Hamas members.

 

[2cents]

You don't get it, the doctors are obviously Hamas members.

It's funny you should mention that - the account given by the Canadian doctor Tarek Loubani omitted the fact that the 'medic' who rescued him, Musa Abuhassanin, is actually a Hamas member. He was one of the ten martrys listed by Hamas on Tuesday, and is described as a نقيب - 'captain' (or 'leader') - he is second from the right on the top in this, named Captain Musa Jabr Abu Hassanin (you can check the pics to see it's the same guy):

Spoiler

Tarek Loubani also didn't mention the fact that he is an anti-Israel activist who has worked with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) and was previously deported from Israel in 2003.

None of which means he's lying, of course, but his account would have a bit more credibility if he'd included these details.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

https://www.theonion.com/idf-soldier-recounts-harrowing-heroic-war-story-of-kil-1826048745

 

[Super Hans]

It's funny you should mention that - the account given by the Canadian doctor Tarek Loubani omitted the fact that the 'medic' who rescued him, Musa Abuhassanin, is actually a Hamas member. He was one of the ten martrys listed by Hamas on Tuesday, and is described as a نقيب - 'captain' (or 'leader') - he is second from the right on the top in this, named Captain Musa Jabr Abu Hassanin (you can check the pics to see it's the same guy):

Spoiler

Tarek Loubani also didn't mention the fact that he is an anti-Israel activist who has worked with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) and was previously deported from Israel in 2003.

None of which means he's lying, of course, but his account would have a bit more credibility if he'd included these details.

Do you think it is plausible that Tarek Loubani was deservedly shot in both legs by IDF snipers?

 

[Drifter]

UN to launch war crimes investigation into Israeli forces

The United Nations' top human rights body has voted to send a team of international war crimes investigators to probe the deadly shootings of Gaza protesters by Israeli forces.

A resolution calling on the UN Human Rights Council to "urgently dispatch an independent, international commission of inquiry" was backed on Friday by 29 members.

The members - United States and Australia - voted against and 14 abstained.

Investigators must "investigate all alleged violations and abuses ... in the context of the military assaults on large scale civilian protests that began on 30 March 2018", the approved resolution said.

The commission of inquiry will be asked to produce a final report next March.

 

[2cents]

Do you think it is plausible that Tarek Loubani was deservedly shot in both legs by IDF snipers?

No.

 

[The Firestarter]

Do you think it is plausible that Tarek Loubani was deservedly shot in both legs by IDF snipers?

Hey, at least they shot him in the legs, no?

 

[Super Hans]

Hey, at least they shot him in the legs, no?

Life-changing injuries in many cases

https://www.msf.org.uk/article/palestine-msf-teams-seeing-unusually-severe-gunshot-wounds-gaza
Palestine: MSF teams seeing unusually severe gunshot wounds in Gaza

"MSF medical teams note the injuries include an extreme level of destruction to bones and soft tissue, and large exit wounds that can be the size of a fist."

"These patients will need to have very complex surgical operations and most of them will have disabilities for life."

 

[The Firestarter]

Life-changing injuries in many cases

https://www.msf.org.uk/article/palestine-msf-teams-seeing-unusually-severe-gunshot-wounds-gaza
Palestine: MSF teams seeing unusually severe gunshot wounds in Gaza

"MSF medical teams note the injuries include an extreme level of destruction to bones and soft tissue, and large exit wounds that can be the size of a fist."

"These patients will need to have very complex surgical operations and most of them will have disabilities for life."

Yes, I am not excusing anybody. It's obvious that if you can continue your life unchanged after a gunshot wound, you must count yourself extremely lucky.

 

[Chairman Woodie]

It sounds like you’re blaming the victim here. That Palestinians somehow deserve the human rights abuses they suffer because they dared to resist colonisation and dispossession. Would the outcome be different had they simply rolled over? Would any other people simply roll over?

To negotiate with Israel there needs to be a united front between Fatah and Hamas in order to represent Palestinians. For a while the US opposed this and pressured Abbas to form a government excluding Hamas. In 2014 however the US gave tepid support when they formed a unity government. Netanyahu went ballistic. I hope I don’t have to explain why.

My position remains that Israel and the Palestinians need to be compelled to negotiate by making the status quo less appealing.

I blame Palestinian leaders. It would have been better to accept the recommended Partition Plan and build a state.

I am glad to see we agree on one point (underlined).

 

[Mozza]

It's funny you should mention that - the account given by the Canadian doctor Tarek Loubani omitted the fact that the 'medic' who rescued him, Musa Abuhassanin, is actually a Hamas member. He was one of the ten martrys listed by Hamas on Tuesday, and is described as a نقيب - 'captain' (or 'leader') - he is second from the right on the top in this, named Captain Musa Jabr Abu Hassanin (you can check the pics to see it's the same guy):

Spoiler

Tarek Loubani also didn't mention the fact that he is an anti-Israel activist who has worked with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) and was previously deported from Israel in 2003.

None of which means he's lying, of course, but his account would have a bit more credibility if he'd included these details.

Being a Hamas member does not make it legitimate to execute them. Or are you saying it's also ok to murder Hamas kindergarten teachers?

 

[Mozza]

I blame Palestinian leaders. It would have been better to accept the recommended Partition Plan and build a state.

I am glad to see we agree on one point (underlined).

You naively belive that Israel would have settled for the partitioned state, there would have been a war in the region no matter what

 

[MJJ]

“The amount of casualties has done us a tremendous disservice, unfortunately, and it has been very difficult to tell our story,” the Israeli army’s spokesman, Lt Col Jonathan Conricus, was taped telling a Jewish-American group, according to Israeli news outlets Ha’aretz and Ynet News. “The ‘winning picture’ overwhelmingly, by a knockout, unfortunately, has been the graphics from the Palestinian side.”

Shows the attitude Israel has over the whole thing.

 

[Halftrack]

That's quite outrageous, to be fair.

Aside from all the other horrible shit in that clip: Who the feck fires warning shots into the air?! How fecking thick can you be?

 

[Spoony]

That's quite outrageous, to be fair.

That's shocking.

 

[Super Hans]

I blame Palestinian leaders. It would have been better to accept the recommended Partition Plan and build a state.

I am glad to see we agree on one point (underlined).

When you look at what they have now, and what they maximally can hope for in a peace agreement, then it's easy to say they should have accepted the partition plan. But if you put yourself in the their shoes at the time without the benefit of hindsight, the Arabs would have been insane to accept such an agreement (given the demographics, land ownership etc).

Much of the Zionist leadership were opposed to partition and even Ben Gurion, who was in favor, is on record as saying that partition was only a jumping off point towards the conquest of the entire country. It seems reasonable to conclude that Israel would have found a pretext to occupy this area anyway, irrespective of partition.

Putting all of that to one side, even if they had rejected a reasonable partition - what’s done is done. The suffering that the Zionist project has inflicted on these people has been horrific and endless. The deep animosity of Palestinians towards Zionism is hardly surprising. Instead of invoking it as an excuse not to make peace, in my opinion it would make a world of difference if an Israeli leader was to apologize. Say, “We’re sorry. We were desperate and didn’t know what else to do.” Israel is a secure, extremely well-defended state today. Relations with Arab states continue to improve. They should be bending over backwards to make things right with the Palestinians.

 

[Chairman Woodie]

When you look at what they have now, and what they maximally can hope for in a peace agreement, then it's easy to say they should have accepted the partition plan. But if you put yourself in the their shoes at the time without the benefit of hindsight, the Arabs would have been insane to accept such an agreement (given the demographics, land ownership etc).

Much of the Zionist leadership were opposed to partition and even Ben Gurion, who was in favor, is on record as saying that partition was only a jumping off point towards the conquest of the entire country. It seems reasonable to conclude that Israel would have found a pretext to occupy this area anyway, irrespective of partition.

Putting all of that to one side, even if they had rejected a reasonable partition - what’s done is done. The suffering that the Zionist project has inflicted on these people has been horrific and endless. The deep animosity of Palestinians towards Zionism is hardly surprising. Instead of invoking it as an excuse not to make peace, in my opinion it would make a world of difference if an Israeli leader was to apologize. Say, “We’re sorry. We were desperate and didn’t know what else to do.” Israel is a secure, extremely well-defended state today. Relations with Arab states continue to improve. They should be bending over backwards to make things right with the Palestinians.

On one hand you are trying your best to justify the Arabs rejecting Partition. On the other hand, without referencing the opportunities for statehood since rejecting Partition, you think Israel should be bending over backwards for the Palestinians. Israel is not responsible for the failure of Palestinian leaders. You can't excuse the failure of Palestinian leaders with the attitude of "what's done is done" while placing the onus on Israel to bend over backwards.

On the underlined point, the Arabs did not reject Partition because of the proposals made by UNSCOP. Rather the Arabs rejected Partition in any form, declining to compromise on a matter of principle. They boycotted the Committee.

 

[oates]

I would have thought it wouldn't be difficult to understand why 66% of the people being told to accept 43% of the land wasn't accepted as a viable plan. The Partition Plan never came into effect because the day after it was voted upon the 1947 - 48 war broke out. During which Israeli forces ethnically cleansed huge areas of historic Palestine, sacking hundreds of villages and expelling 750,000 Palestinians. In what way does Israel and Gaza and the West Bank represent the partition agreed upon?

Still Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and exert control over Gaza, continues to illegally colonise the West Bank and Jerusalem was meant to be a shared city which Israel fully occupies.

 

[Sultan]

Israel has never wanted or will want definitive borders. This would end their plans to expand and risk having another viable and thriving Arab community who could potentially become powerful. The present policy of caging and controlling everything including food, water and electricity keeps Palestinians under lock and chain.

The narrative of a 2 state solution and any peace treaties peddled by Isreal or its allies is just a PR ploy to delude the international community. The simple fact is Israel/US/British are so powerful they could have dictated and forced the Palestinians to accept an independent state since this whole mess started. History tells us much of the Middle East and Asia have been colonised and they have had to accept borders drawn up by their past colonial masters. Palestine would have been no different had the will of a 2 state solution was in the interest of Israel or its allies.

 

[Chairman Woodie]

I would have thought it wouldn't be difficult to understand why 66% of the people being told to accept 43% of the land wasn't accepted as a viable plan. The Partition Plan never came into effect because the day after it was voted upon the 1947 - 48 war broke out. During which Israeli forces ethnically cleansed huge areas of historic Palestine, sacking hundreds of villages and expelling 750,000 Palestinians.

Arab rejection of the Partition Plan wasn't based on the recommendations made by UNSCOP. As Benny Morris (1948 The First Arab-Israeli War, p. 42) notes:

"The AHC announced its intention to boycott UNSCOP and failed completely to prepare for its visit. Palestine's Arabs greeted UNSCOP with a one-day general strike. The AHC charged that UNSCOP was "pro-Zionist" and accompanied the committee's deliberations with uncompromising radio broadcasts ("all of Palestine must be Arab"). Opposition figures were warned that they would pay with their lives if they spoke to UNSCOP."
​

The Arab delegation had even opposed UNSCOP's appointment and sought, instead, a UNGA debate and decision on immediate independence for a "united democratic ... Palestinian state." (Morris, p. 40)

Norman Rose ('A Senseless Squalid War', pp. 170-71) likewise notes that:

"... the Palestinian boycott of the Committee, together with its absolute rejection of partition in any form, declining to compromise on what it considered to be a matter of principle - a stand which was perhaps laudable in its consistency, but given the circumstances of the moment, was certainly bad politics - had rendered an agreed settlement inconceivable."
​

In what way does Israel and Gaza and the West Bank represent the partition agreed upon?

Still Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and exert control over Gaza, continues to illegally colonise the West Bank and Jerusalem was meant to be a shared city which Israel fully occupies.

You can't lament how the status quo today doesn't reflect the Partition Plan of 1947, having attempted to justify Arab rejection of it in the preceding paragraph.

 

[oates]

Arab rejection of the Partition Plan wasn't based on the recommendations made by UNSCOP. As Benny Morris (1948 The First Arab-Israeli War, p. 42) notes:

"The AHC announced its intention to boycott UNSCOP and failed completely to prepare for its visit. Palestine's Arabs greeted UNSCOP with a one-day general strike. The AHC charged that UNSCOP was "pro-Zionist" and accompanied the committee's deliberations with uncompromising radio broadcasts ("all of Palestine must be Arab"). Opposition figures were warned that they would pay with their lives if they spoke to UNSCOP."
The Arab delegation had even opposed UNSCOP's appointment and sought, instead, a UNGA debate and decision on immediate independence for a "united democratic ... Palestinian state." (Morris, p. 40)

Norman Rose ('A Senseless Squalid War', pp. 170-71) likewise notes that:

"... the Palestinian boycott of the Committee, together with its absolute rejection of partition in any form, declining to compromise on what it considered to be a matter of principle - a stand which was perhaps laudable in its consistency, but given the circumstances of the moment, was certainly bad politics - had rendered an agreed settlement inconceivable."

Why would they accept partition when it was their own country and before they had any chance to war broke out and they were cleansed from the land. As I said a resolution that gave them 66% of the population 43% of the land was unacceptable. Besides which they were removed or tricked into leaving from.

You can't lament how the status quo today doesn't reflect the Partition Plan of 1947, having attempted to justify Arab rejection of it in the preceding paragraph.

The point you seem to conveniently miss is that Israel is illegally occupying parts of the West Bank and controlling Gaza, the airways and the maritime over and off Gaza. Israel aren't sticking to the Partition Plan so how can you complain that the Palestinians aren't? Total hypocrisy.

 

[Synco]

I see this thread has descended to the lows these ones usually end up at.

Edit: post I was referring to deleted as I posted.

 

[2cents]

before they had any chance to

Before they had a chance to what?

It's not really a great line of argument to raise the perceived injustices of the details of the proposed partition, or to moan that Israel subsequently expanded beyond it, when the Arabs made clear that they rejected it out of hand and wanted nothing to do with it. For example the Arabs had previously rejected the Peel Commission partition plan, which was much more generous to them:

Spoiler

It's enough to note that the Arabs rejected the UN plan, the Peel plan, and all other proposals because they understandably rejected the prospect of what they viewed as an alien people exercising any kind of sovereignty over their land at all, and (crucially for their calculations in 1947) believed they would triumph over the Jews in any military confrontation.

Just to note as well the logic of these partition plans' apparent unfair distribution of land - they were drafted not just with the Jewish population of the mandate in mind, but also with the growing Jewish refugee population of Europe in mind. Hence why, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, the Negev desert in the south was added to the boundaries of the proposed Jewish state, as Europe at that time was still teeming with displaced Jews who were expected to head for Palestine.

 

[Chairman Woodie]

Why would they accept partition when it was their own country and before they had any chance to war broke out and they were cleansed from the land. As I said a resolution that gave them 66% of the population 43% of the land was unacceptable. Besides which they were removed or tricked into leaving from.


The point you seem to conveniently miss is that Israel is illegally occupying parts of the West Bank and controlling Gaza, the airways and the maritime over and off Gaza. Israel aren't sticking to the Partition Plan so how can you complain that the Palestinians aren't? Total hypocrisy.

You ask as if the Arabs were serious about Palestine. Palestinian nationalism reflects the fickleness of Arab nationalist loyalties. It originated out of political calculus that goes back to French rule of Syria, King Faisal and the British. And not least opposition to Zionism.

Why should Israel abid by the Partition Plan when the Arabs rejected it?

 

[oates]

Before they had a chance to what?

It's not really a great line of argument to raise the perceived injustices of the details of the proposed partition, or to moan that Israel subsequently expanded beyond it, when the Arabs made clear that they rejected it out of hand and wanted nothing to do with it. For example the Arabs had previously rejected the Peel Commission partition plan, which was much more generous to them:

It doesn't really matter that the Peel Plan was more 'generous'. How could it be more generous then the country they already lived in. Before what? Before they had agreed to anything. Were they ever going to agree to anything? Who knows? But in any case they were fully aware of the Israeli's real plans :-

Plan Dalet and the Transfer of Palestinians
The Zionist plans for transferring Palestinians out of their homeland was made clear in the Plan Dalet, the master defense plan of the army, the Haganah, dated March 10, 1948. The manifesto outlined how the Jewish conquest of Palestine should be carried out. A major portion of the plan outlined how Jewish fighters were to secure and take control of villages and areas outside the boundaries the United Nations had set for the state of Israel.

“Zionism’s responsibility for the Palestinian exodus and diaspora is an integral part of the genesis of the State of Israel,” Khalidi wrote in a 1961 article titled, “Plan Dalet: Master Plan for the Conquest of Palestine.”

According to Khalidi’s article, the idea of transferring Arabs out of Palestine predated the Nakba by decades. Herzl, for instance, in the late 1800s, promoted the idea of the “lesser evil.” That is, “any hardship inflicted on the indigenous population of the land chosen by them was outweighed by the solution that the Zionist possession of the land offered to the Jewish problem,” Khalidi wrote. “The yardstick of the lesser evil became the moral alibi of the Zionist movement, dwarfing and finally submerging the anguish of its victims. Thus Herzl could say with little qualms of conscience of the indigenous population of the land to be possessed: ‘We intend to work the poor population across the frontier surreptitiously by providing work for them in transit countries but denying them any employment in our own land.’”

https://www.ampalestine.org/palestine-101/history/al-nakba/nakba-what-really-happened

Surreptitiously was how the Israeli's planned and put that plan into action. The Irgun and Stern gang destroyed 531 villages and forced the Palestinians into exile, not a partition plan as such, an ethnic cleansing.

Just to note as well the logic of these partition plans' apparent unfair distribution of land - they were drafted not just with the Jewish population of the mandate in mind, but also with the growing Jewish refugee population of Europe in mind. Hence why, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, the Negev desert in the south was added to the boundaries of the proposed Jewish state, as Europe at that time was still teeming with displaced Jews who were expected to head for Palestine.

Yes, and the Israeli's plan on taking it all. One Refugee populace forcing another populace out and into becoming refugees. Who added Jerusalem to the partition plan? Obviously only one people are expected to abide by an unfair plan. You don't explain the colonisation of the West Bank either.

Edit. include source