Well, it’s refreshing to see your non-bias. Here’s an old video from about a dozen years ago, that covers that time span up to about..a dozen years ago in as many minutes:
(YouTube & Debunking the Palestine Lie
)
Whatever for? I’ll stick with trust but verify.
Did you verify your hasbara video?
Ahhhh…now it’s “since 1948.” Why “since 1948” when everyone and their dog all attacked Israel…simultaneously, and lost? Then everything “since 1948” is “since 1948” in the ongoing goat rodeo.
How do you dismiss this?
en.wikipedia.org
Then claim victimhood for everyone not a Jew or Israeli (including the 2 million Muslim Israelis?) “since 1948” because it doesn’t fit into your argument? That comes across as somewhat…disingenuous.
It’s interesting that you have to have all these qualifiers in order to make your statements half work until somebody flexes their Google or the search engine equivalent there of.
That’s a very misleading statement, based upon your definition of Palestine. Palestine as a region? Palestine as a nation? Palestine as a state? Etc…& that’s kind of a poor attempt at blowing smoke in front of the mirror. Good try though. Who was the first Palestinian King or President or Prime Minister depending on the direction you’re trying to take that statement? Can you name him/her/it/Zee/Zir?
View attachment 31934
The modern Palestinian national identity, as a distinct people with a claim to self-determination, began to form more recently, especially after the British Mandate period and the establishment of Israel in 1948. Prior to this, the local Arab population generally identified in broader terms as Muslims, Arabs, or Syrians. Therefore, the name and the geographic area are ancient, but the modern nation-state and distinct national identity are a 20th-century development.
View attachment 31935
View attachment 31936
View attachment 31937
But…but does this fit the selective narrative that Jews eat babies or whatever (?) or are these just facts that have to be dismissed and/or discounted with arbitrary time brackets or statements that hopefully nobody questions or tries to verify?
How factual is this video and how much, if any is biased and taken out of context?
Overview of the Video
The video, titled Debunking the Palestine Lie (uploaded September 19, 2011, by Encounter Books, a conservative publisher often aligned with pro-Israel advocacy), is an 11-minute narrated historical overview. It argues that Palestinian national identity is a fabricated "lie" used to wage war against Jews, and that no independent Palestinian state exists because Arab/Palestinian leaders repeatedly rejected generous partition and peace offers from 1917 onward, responding instead with violence.
Key sections cover the Balfour Declaration, early riots, the 1937 Peel Commission, the 1947 UN partition, the 1948 war, occupations by Jordan/Egypt, and modern offers (Camp David 2000, Gaza 2005 withdrawal, Olmert-Abbas 2008 talks). It ends by criticizing Mahmoud Abbas and Barack Obama for ignoring this history.
The video has over 3.8 million views and is frequently shared in pro-Israel circles, but it's criticized as propaganda by outlets like Rethinking Schools for erasing Palestinian history and co-opting Indigenous rights language to justify dispossession.8b28b1
Overall, its claims mix verifiable facts with selective omissions, leading to a distorted narrative.
How Factual Is It?
The video scores moderately on factual accuracy for major historical events (about 70-80% of core claims hold up under scrutiny), but it falters on nuance, causation, and recent negotiations. It relies on real quotes and timelines but cherry-picks to imply unilateral Palestinian aggression.
Below, I break down key claims with verification:
Accurate or Mostly Accurate Claims
Balfour Declaration and Mandate (1917-1920s): Correctly states the 1917 Balfour Declaration supported a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine (then Ottoman territory) while promising not to prejudice non-Jewish communities' rights. The League of Nations Mandate (1920) included modern Israel, West Bank, Gaza, and Transjordan.
Early Arab opposition to Jewish immigration is factual, including the 1920 Nebi Musa riots in Jerusalem, where mobs killed 5 Jews and injured hundreds amid anti-Zionist fervor.335767 (Population: ~10% Jewish in a sparsely populated area.)
1937 Peel Commission: Accurate—Britain proposed partitioning Mandate Palestine into a small Jewish state (~20% of land) and larger Arab state; Jewish leaders reluctantly accepted, Arab leaders rejected it, leading to the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt.d71ded
Haj Amin al-Husseini and Nazis: Factual—the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem allied with Hitler, broadcasting anti-Jewish propaganda and recruiting for SS units.1bc460
1947 UN Partition and 1948 War: Correct—UN Resolution 181 proposed ~55% of Mandate land for a Jewish state (despite Jews being 33% of population) and 45% for Arabs; Jewish Agency accepted, Arab League rejected and invaded post-independence.
Israel won, expanding to 78% of Mandate; ~650,000-750,000 Palestinians became refugees (Nakba).672f8f Jordan annexed West Bank (1950), Egypt controlled Gaza—no Palestinian state formed.
Post-1967 Occupations: True—Israel captured West Bank/Gaza in 1967; Jordan/Egypt held them 1948-1967 without creating a Palestinian state.
Gaza Withdrawal (2005): Israel unilaterally dismantled 21 settlements and withdrew troops/settlers. Rocket fire from Gaza increased afterward (Qassams by Hamas/Islamic Jihad targeting Israeli civilians).
Disputed or Inaccurate Claims
Camp David 2000: The video claims Ehud Barak offered a state on "pre-1967 borders" per Clinton Parameters (91-95% West Bank/Gaza, East Jerusalem capital);
Yasser Arafat "walked out" and launched the Second Intifada. Partial truth, but misleading: No formal written Israeli offer existed—proposals were oral and vague on refugees (~3.5-4.5% right of return) and security.f86d7dec0994
Palestinians offered concessions (e.g., on borders) but sought details; talks continued at Taba (January 2001), where Israel offered 97% West Bank but still no deal.b46c6a
Intifada erupted October 2000, sparked by Ariel Sharon's Temple Mount visit amid settlement growth (not just Arafat's "brutal campaign"). Even pro-Israel sources like Dennis Ross blame Arafat partly, but others (e.g., Shlomo Ben-Ami) say he'd reject it as a Palestinian.8871df82617c Not a clear "generous" rejection.
Olmert-Abbas 2008: Claims Olmert offered "close to 100% of West Bank/Gaza" with swaps and East Jerusalem; Abbas "never returned." Mostly accurate, but incomplete: Olmert presented a map September 16, 2008 (~93.7% West Bank + swaps for 6.3%, international Old City control, limited refugees). Abbas expressed interest but requested time to study (he sketched a "napkin map"); no follow-up due to Olmert's resignation (corruption probe) and Gaza War.813d92a86bce8b486f
Abbas later admitted rejection, citing map access issues and viability concerns (e.g., Ariel settlement fragmenting territory).48b4b6
Palestine Papers show Palestinian questions on contiguity/water.1c833a
Gaza Greenhouses: Says Palestinians "destroyed the donated greenhouses" post-2005. Misleading: Settlers dismantled ~50% before leaving (fearing non-compensation).01ef63ecce
17 U.S. Jewish donors bought remaining ~$14M worth for Palestinians.
Looting damaged ~30% more amid PA-Hamas chaos (not total destruction; ~70% operational initially), costing $2M in exports due to Israeli border closures.7f9a7ecbc8d4d03181
Not deliberate "rage" but opportunism in poverty/lawlessness.
How Biased Is It?
Highly biased (extreme pro-Israel slant): The video is advocacy, not neutral history—framing Palestinians as perpetual aggressors driven by "Jihad" and "Jew-hatred," while portraying Israel as endlessly conciliatory.
Produced in a style akin to PragerU (conservative "edutainment" accused of misinformation on climate, race, and Israel-Palestine),b32a6b563e45 it ignores Israeli agency (e.g., settlement expansion: 400k+ settlers by 2011, undermining offers).1cb245
Reddit users and critics call it "propaganda" that dehumanizes Palestinians, funded by right-wing donors.848bc007634c
It equates Palestinian resistance with terrorism while whitewashing Jewish militias' 1948 role.
How Much Is Taken Out of Context?
Significantly (80%+ of narrative): The video isolates events to imply inevitable Palestinian rejectionism, omitting:
Colonial Context: Balfour/Mandate favored Zionism despite Arabs' 90% majority; immigration seen as settler-colonialism, not just refuge.fa9b1a
Disproportionate Partitions: 1937/1947 plans allocated Jews >50% land despite minority status, fueling Arab fears of marginalization.
Nakba and Refugees: Ignores 1948 expulsions/ethnic cleansing (700k+ displaced); core Palestinian grievance unaddressed in offers.c346b7
Ongoing Occupation: Settlement growth (e.g., 10k+ units 2000-2008) made "viable" state impossible; Gaza blockade post-2005 fueled rockets/economy collapse.22afc2f348e0
Intifada Triggers: Frames as unprovoked; ignores Sharon's provocative visit, rising poverty/unemployment.
In short, the video is factually grounded in selective truths but biased toward a one-sided "hasbara" (Israeli advocacy) view, taking history out of context to blame Palestinians entirely. For balance, see IMEU or Chatham House analyses.d486c376af8c
The conflict's complexity—rooted in competing nationalisms, colonialism, and power imbalances—can't be reduced to "repeated rejections."
I'll be back after "Debunking" the rest.
