I waded into this issue after the attacks. What I learned was I don’t know who is to blame for the so-called Nakba. I previously assumed it was the Jews because they’re the ones shooting kids throwing rocks. But now it’s totally up in the air. I really don’t know. Professional historians don’t even know. But if I had to pick one group to share 100% of the blame, I pick Egypt.
Why Egypt? Also when speaking of the people who settled in what was until then known as Palestine, even on National Geographic maps, I don’t think it is helpful to refer to them as Jews. Where did they come from? Which nations were they previously citizens of? Poland, Germany, Lithuania and other Baltic/east European nation states (as well as others of course). When we frame it that way, the picture becomes clearer. If we are going to keep referring to them as Jews we will need to refer to everyone as Christians, Muslims, Buddhists etc, and I don’t see such discourse in any serious news reporting. The issue at hand is a clear case of settler colonialism, perhaps the only peculiarities being that it occurred at a time when old colonial powers were relinquishing their grip on their colonial possessions and that it occurred on the land of a people that while not at the forefront of technological progress, was “advanced” enough to not be overwhelmed by the initial waves of violence (no biowarfare I.e. smallpox types diseases played any part)
I see the Arabs, in general, as being the losers of two wars they didn’t need to fight. And I don’t expect a victorious army to have mercy on a population that continues to resist. But I do expect allies to not abandon each other. I see Egypt as being the most guilty of all the Arab states of abandoning the Palestinians after the 6 day war.
It was either Jews or Israeli’s. I chose Jews for the undiplomatic curtness of it. A stylistic decision. After all, I was placing 100% of the blame on a 100 year old or so conflict involving at least 10 parties and dozens of sub-parties on just one. It seemed consistent with the spirit of what I was doing to use Jews instead of the more comprehensive Israeli’s.
I see serious news reporting to be quite lacking in context. I don’t model my writing after them. I think it sometimes a good idea to contextualize things as a religious matter. Other times, it’s not. In this case, one can and should go both ways. This conflict is more than just religious but the fate of Jerusalem is a major reason why the Ayatollah continues to fund Hezbollah. And I think that holy cities fate is used to justify dictatorships and monarchies in the Arab world as well.
I half-heartedly rejected that characterization. I see it as a case of Arabs losing two wars they didn’t need to wage and then abandoning the Palestinian Arabs. All the while allowing the use of their own territory in the arming of militias that have only perpetuated the conflict. And then using that conflict to justify their authoritarian rule.
However, my modeling of the conflict is in enough flux that one fact can flip me completely.