"In 1947, while Palestine was under British mandate rule"... well, right off the bat, there's a large source of the problem: Western imperial powers carving up the Middle East to serve their own interests.
As I've said before, it's not shocking that the Arab League (or anyone for that matter) rejected such a proposal as that offered by the UN. I bet you would too if you were the Arab League in that situation.
Let's imagine for a moment, a hypothetical situation where an imperial power (we'll use China) with absolutely no ties to a region (except by invading it through force or otherwise controlling it due to wars) ruled over wherever you happened to live (the land of J Byt).
Under a Chinese mandate, the UN agreed to a plan to partition the land of J Byt. J Byt and his family have lived on and farmed this land for several generations. Now, the UN is proposing a plan to take 44% of it and give to Muslims who were persecuted and ethnically cleansed in the Balkans during the war there.
Would J Byt be absolutely thrilled and leap for joy at this amazing offer, happily embracing its generosity? I mean after all... J Byt still gets to keep over half of the land that was originally theirs, the other half being ceded to Muslim settlers/immigrants/refugees. What a great deal for J Byt! J Byt only has to part with 44% of his land for Muslims to settle on!
After all, this establishes a safe haven for Muslims fleeing persecution and seeking a national home and caliphate. Furthermore, the Muslims from the Balkans have evidence in their holy book (which is the word of their god after all) that in fact, descendants of theirs occupied the land which is now the land of J Byt.
Tragically, they were run off the land in a big war by J Byt's relatives in like 150BC or something. But this is fantastic because now they get to return to the land of J Byt which their legend and folklore claims they have 'deep spiritual ties' to, and J Byt gets to demonstrate what a generous human they are by agreeing to part with 44% of their land for this resettlement project.
Of course, it does cross J Byt's mind why they should have to part with ANY of their land. After all, J Byt had absolutely nothing to do with the ethnic cleansing or harassment of the Muslims in the Balkans. But for whatever reason, the UN and the Chinese have decided that the land of J Byt will be where these Balkan Muslims are resettled, due to it being 'spiritually significant' to them and whatnot according to their holy book.
Would J Byt accept or reject?
Without knowing much about J Byt, my guess is J Byt would be vehemently opposed to this, especially given how J Byt refers to Muslims as 'ravaged dogs'.
Why is it that the Zionists get to reach back thousands of years into their scriptures to justify returning to a land which effectively, many immigrants to Israel after 1948 had also never set foot in. Many (like J Byt) mention the fanaticism of Islamic religious indoctrination but are the Zionists also not equally indoctrinated and fanatical about claims to land based on religious text going back thousands of years, and based on the teaching of their prophets and their god?
Of course the politics were against Israel! The Zionists convinced Western imperialist powers to back a 'project' where a new state was 'carved' out of the middle of an existing home for people, many being forcefully displaced in the process. Even if those previously occupying the land had little interest in the Jews as far as accepting or hating them, being forcefully expelled and forced to wander as refugees (ironically, like the Israelites had in the desert in biblical times) I'm sure endeared no warm feelings in them towards the Jews, or the Zionist project.
Perhaps the 'holy war' against the Jew in Israel had something to do with the state of Israel forcefully displacing an existing population from their homes in the creation of that state, with support from western imperial powers.
If another country was forcefully plopped down in the middle of the land of J Byt with the assistance of the Chinese, would J Byt resent or attack it? Or would J Byt be like: Oh Hi Chinese-backed Muslim refugees! Welcome! Glad you're here! Why don't you just seize 44% more of my land while you're here!
Here's the kicker: The Chinese-backed Muslims 'let' you remain on your land, but only in certain parts, and you have to request a permit from them and pass through elaborate and time-consuming checkpoints just to get anywhere. After all, you might pose a security threat to them, being bitter about the whole being-kicked-off- your-land-by-them thing. But it's OK, their god said they could after all. God-given land. It's a beautiful thing - just not for J Byt who now is logged as a potential terrorist in the new state's system.
I might be a ravaged dog too if someone forced me from my home at gunpoint, took my land, and then built a new home and state where I had once lived and worked the land — then turned me into a refugee or unwanted person... all because they claimed that they have a 'deep spiritual connection' to the land... and also that I deserved it because after all, my ancestors did the same thing to them in the year 10AD. Forgive me for not having much say over my ancestors in 10AD.
Year after year, Zionism turns out ‘robotic followers’ (J Byt’s turn of phrase) of their doctrine, continuing the violence perpetrated against the Palestinians in the name of their interpretation of a religion - one which claims that they are the true chosen people, and the sole rightful occupiers of the land which they desire.
Incidentally, this is all very convenient for the Western powers that back this, as they get a base of influence to project their imperial power from and use it to keep their thumb on military, economic and political interests in the region.
You're right, there are two sides to a story and I think this is a sampling of the other side.
