I appreciate you sharing these links and pushing back. It’s clear you’re coming from a place of deep conviction about the historical injustices here, and I respect that.
The Nakba is undeniably a catastrophe for Palestinians, involving mass expulsions, village destructions, and profound human suffering that shapes their identity to this day.
Plan Dalet, as outlined in the Wikipedia article you linked, was indeed a Haganah blueprint that shifted to offensive operations, leading to the depopulation of hundreds of villages and the flight or expulsion of around 750,000 Palestinians.
Historians like Ilan Pappé (in “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”) argue it was a systematic plan for ethnic cleansing, with tactics like sieges, bombings, and forced removals. That’s not something to downplay or excuse: it’s a dark chapter, and comparing elements to other atrocities (while avoiding direct equivalences) highlights the moral weight.
That said, I think the full picture is even more layered, and understanding both sides means grappling with the context without absolving anyone. The Arab states’ intervention in May 1948 wasn’t purely defensive; it was also driven by their own territorial ambitions and opposition to the UN Partition Plan (which, as you note, was flawed and rejected by Palestinians and Arabs for giving 55% of the land to a Jewish minority that owned ~7%). But Plan Dalet was finalized in March 1948 amid escalating civil war violence; after the UN vote in November 1947 sparked attacks from both sides, including Arab irregulars blockading Jewish areas and the Haganah responding in kind. Benny Morris (a “New Historian” who revised much of the traditional Israeli narrative) describes it as a response to anticipated Arab invasions, though he acknowledges the expulsions were often brutal and opportunistic. The plan’s text emphasizes securing Jewish areas and borders “in anticipation of” invasion, but in practice, it went beyond that, capturing territory outside the UN-allotted Jewish state.
You’re right that this wasn’t explicitly sanctioned by the UN, and the partition itself violated self-determination principles (as the Arab Higher Committee argued). But the “retconning” happened post-facto through armistice lines and international recognition of Israel. It’s tragic that Palestinians paid the price for European colonialism, the Holocaust’s aftermath, and Zionist aspirations; all while Arab leaders failed to unify or protect them effectively.
My original point wasn’t to defend Israel as “legitimate” in every action (far from it: they’ve committed wrongs that demand accountability). It was to urge empathy for how each side’s trauma fuels the cycle: Israelis seeing 1948 as survival against existential threats (five Arab armies invading a nascent state), Palestinians as the theft of their homeland. Both narratives have truths, and dismissing one entirely risks perpetuating the divide. If we’re serious about peace, we need to hold space for that complexity; maybe starting with works like Morris’s “1948” or Rashid Khalidi’s “The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine” for balanced views.
Thanks for engaging thoughtfully; these conversations are hard but necessary.
I still don't understand how you can view the Israeli foundation myth, and the "fear of an existential threat" as legitimate, when the Israeli state's founding was an unjust, immoral, wrong undertaking, the foundation of a colony on someone's homeland.
If a perpetrator breaks into a house and kicks out the homeowners, then declares the attempts to take back said house as an existential threat to their new house ownership, a reasonable person would not view that as a legitimate concern.
It's just not a logically consistent way to look at the situation. I agree that the current day situation is different, considering Israel has existed for two generations. It still does not change the fact that they are forcing an apartheid on the Palestinians, and are engaged in genocide, and have sabotaged any attempt to solve the situation by means other than ethnic cleansing.
I refuse to consider a balanced view when the crimes that have been committed are so unbalanced. Israel has established a society, and that society has clearly established itself as the bad guy, Palestine has not even had a chance to create a society for themselves, so they cannot even be judged to the same standard. But even if we do, it's hard to see them as anything but victims of Zionist oppression.
I try my best when trying to understand things, to think about how people have it today, and not to tie everything to what peoples ancestors did.
The only thing people can really do today is to acknowledge the past, and to do something about it, and if we’re taking the Israeli perspective now, then what we’re essentially telling them to do is not exist.
Many are fine with that being the case (why should they exist when its founded on evil) but there’s a few points there that make it harder to swallow I think.
1) I think if someone told me that I had no right to live in my home country because of its past I would get quite bent out of shape, especially if blood was shed.
(again, not arguing that this makes it entirely valid, just arguing a perspective).
2) It sort of justifies actual genocide. As mentioned in my other examples; any invading force in future will probably slaughter everyone. Because the international conversation surrounding genocides of the last 30 years is a lot more tame than how we talk about the suffering of palestinians.
This disproportionate discussion probably feels unfair, since the average Israeli probably feels like they would want to live peacefully today, if only they were not constantly attacked by Iranian proxies every time attempts at normalisation looked like they were succeeding. Unfortunately this would then include terrorism from Palestine.
I have to really caveat again, that I don’t think Israel is peachy, just that today the Palestinian narrative is a bit more empathised with internationally- but I wouldn’t like myself being in either countries shoes honestly.
I have not said that Israel should not exist, that is your extrapolation.
Israel should be held accountable for what it has done, and if it does not further a two state solution, it should be sanctioned by the international community. Current and previous political leaders should be prosecuted for war crimes, and the country should be reformed into a secular democracy.
That's it, that's my stance.
Now, I don't see any of this happening, and I see a genocide being committed.
You're then characterising any military response as genocidal. This no longer feels like an honest response. First, it's Israel that has decided it wants to be an ethnostate, the only reason it would seem genocidal is because Zionists have conflated a religion with a nationality with citizenship. The bad actor of Israel should still be a valid target of military actions just like others are. Would you say that the allies committed a genocide when they attacked Nazi Germany in the second world war?
And where are you getting these ideas of "invading forces slaughtering everybody"? This is starting to sound like Zionist propaganda. I'm sorry but hypothetical threats do not matter when compared with actual apartheid and genocide.
The Palestinians have always been the less violent party. Israel is also a much more violent and offensively postured military actor than Iran, they developed nukes in secret for chrissakes, and they seem to have immunity from international sanctions.
Israel could choose to live in peace by changing it's military posture, by not constantly attacking its neigbours and destabilizing the region. They currently illegally occupy territory in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon. They could simply stop doing that to begin with.
Thanks for clarifying. Your point on Israel choosing peace by de-escalating, halting attacks on neighbors, and ending illegal occupations in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon hits hard. It is a straightforward path to de-escalation that demands action.
But as of today, November 18, 2025, the US-brokered ceasefire in Gaza holds broadly, with Israeli forces withdrawn to the “yellow line” and a UN Security Council vote underway for a new Gaza security force that could lead to full Israeli pullout. Trump calls it historic, though Hamas rejects it as insufficient.
This moment tests your idea: if Israel follows through on withdrawal and curbs West Bank settler violence (which has surged, with over 200 attacks reported this month alone), it could prove goodwill. Yet ongoing tunnel operations and regional strikes (like recent hits in Lebanon) show the military posture persists, fuelling distrust.
Pushing Israelis to empathise means seeing Palestinians not as perpetual threats but as equals deserving sovereignty. Many modern Israelis; weary from two years of war, economic hits, and global isolation… privately crave normalcy. They fear that unilateral retreats invite repeats of October 7 or Hezbollah barrages, especially with Iran arming proxies. Ending occupations could shatter that fear cycle, but it requires mutual security guarantees, not just Israeli concessions.
Your WWII analogy still fits: Defeat the aggressors’ system, not the people. Target occupation and apartheid policies surgically. Dismiss their fears, though, and hardliners win. Shared trauma acknowledgment, without equivalence, could spark real dialogue. What gap do you see?
I appreciate the response, but I see the same pattern repeating. You admit to Israel's actual wrongdoing, but equate the hypothetical wrongdoing of Israel's opponents. There is no equivalence here.
Also, Israel has nuclear weapons and the backing of the US, the EU, and Russia. That is enough to deter attacks. Further security guarantees are redundant, but sure, add them.
I agree that the system should be defeated, but I don't think purely diplomatic solutions will work. At least not ones that assumes Israel acts in good faith. Israel has shown that it will not respect international law, and Israeli opinion on Arabs is not just extreme in a small group of hardliners, it's widespread. In order to make a real change.
I believe Israel has to be brought to heel through boycotts, divestment, and sanctions. That is what tipped the scale with apartheid South Africa, that is most likely the best course of action here as well. Israel does what it wants, it is a self-interested bad faith actor. We need a powerful coalition of international actors to associate a cost with Israel's crimes. That's BDS.
The issue is that Israel has lobbied for anti-BDS laws in the US, making this more difficult. It's an uphill battle, which is also why a balanced discussion about Israeli concerns will not improve the situation. Israel is fighting a propaganda war. If we start debating things other than how to reform Israel, Israel wins. It can delay, confuse, and run interference against any actual discussion about the real problem: the ethnonationalist founding principles of Israel, the apartheid, the genocide, the imperial ambitions of Israel, the blatant disregard for international law and treaties.
I appreciate the discussion so far, but I think I've said everything I want to say. If you have any final thoughts, I'd be glad to hear them.
I get your frustration with patterns in these debates, and you’re right that Israel’s documented crimes: apartheid policies, genocidal violence in Gaza, and blatant violations of international law… stand alone in scale and impunity.
No hypotheticals from opponents come close, and that’s not up for debate. The power asymmetry is massive: nukes, US and EU support (Russia’s more pro-Palestinian, actually, with recent UN pushes for Palestinian statehood), and anti-BDS lobbying make good-faith diplomacy a tough sell without real pressure.
But let’s cut to the core: wrongdoing isn’t one-sided. You have to acknowledge that on the Palestinian side too: rocket attacks on civilians, suicide bombings, and October 7’s civilian massacres are wrongs that can’t be waved away as pure resistance. Both sides have blood on their hands, and denying that keeps the cycle spinning. In the end, it’s all just people: ordinary Palestinians crushed under occupation, and ordinary Israelis living in fear, both wanting safety for their families.
Put yourself in those Israeli shoes; surrounded by states and groups that have historically vowed your destruction, with no other viable homeland to flee to after centuries of global expulsions. You’d feel threatened too, right? That doesn’t excuse Israel’s aggressions, but it explains why zero empathy guarantees endless war.
BDS is a sharp tool; it broke South Africa’s back through isolation, and it could here: boycotts draining the economy, divestment from occupation profiteers, sanctions on war criminals. Ramp it up, build the coalition, associate real costs with the ethnonationalism and imperialism. But to make it stick, humanise the people enough to split internal hardliners from the weary majority open to secular change. Otherwise, you’re just fueling the propaganda you call out. Good talk.. it’s pushed me to think harder.
The Nakba is undeniably a catastrophe for Palestinians, involving mass expulsions, village destructions, and profound human suffering that shapes their identity to this day.
Plan Dalet, as outlined in the Wikipedia article you linked, was indeed a Haganah blueprint that shifted to offensive operations, leading to the depopulation of hundreds of villages and the flight or expulsion of around 750,000 Palestinians.
Historians like Ilan Pappé (in “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”) argue it was a systematic plan for ethnic cleansing, with tactics like sieges, bombings, and forced removals. That’s not something to downplay or excuse: it’s a dark chapter, and comparing elements to other atrocities (while avoiding direct equivalences) highlights the moral weight.
That said, I think the full picture is even more layered, and understanding both sides means grappling with the context without absolving anyone. The Arab states’ intervention in May 1948 wasn’t purely defensive; it was also driven by their own territorial ambitions and opposition to the UN Partition Plan (which, as you note, was flawed and rejected by Palestinians and Arabs for giving 55% of the land to a Jewish minority that owned ~7%). But Plan Dalet was finalized in March 1948 amid escalating civil war violence; after the UN vote in November 1947 sparked attacks from both sides, including Arab irregulars blockading Jewish areas and the Haganah responding in kind. Benny Morris (a “New Historian” who revised much of the traditional Israeli narrative) describes it as a response to anticipated Arab invasions, though he acknowledges the expulsions were often brutal and opportunistic. The plan’s text emphasizes securing Jewish areas and borders “in anticipation of” invasion, but in practice, it went beyond that, capturing territory outside the UN-allotted Jewish state.
You’re right that this wasn’t explicitly sanctioned by the UN, and the partition itself violated self-determination principles (as the Arab Higher Committee argued). But the “retconning” happened post-facto through armistice lines and international recognition of Israel. It’s tragic that Palestinians paid the price for European colonialism, the Holocaust’s aftermath, and Zionist aspirations; all while Arab leaders failed to unify or protect them effectively. My original point wasn’t to defend Israel as “legitimate” in every action (far from it: they’ve committed wrongs that demand accountability). It was to urge empathy for how each side’s trauma fuels the cycle: Israelis seeing 1948 as survival against existential threats (five Arab armies invading a nascent state), Palestinians as the theft of their homeland. Both narratives have truths, and dismissing one entirely risks perpetuating the divide. If we’re serious about peace, we need to hold space for that complexity; maybe starting with works like Morris’s “1948” or Rashid Khalidi’s “The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine” for balanced views.
Thanks for engaging thoughtfully; these conversations are hard but necessary.