[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  CCđłïžâđđȘđ» [@ccnameisfriday](/creator/twitter/ccnameisfriday) on x 3920 followers Created: 2025-07-15 03:26:14 UTC The Story of the Partition: How Palestine Was Broken Apart by Power and Propaganda In 1914, Jews made up less than X% of the population in Palestine, and most were recent immigrants fleeing antisemitic violence in Tsarist Russia, not native to the land (Palestine Remembered, n.d.-a). This foundational demographic reality makes what followed, Zionist partition demands, international manipulation, and eventual ethnic cleansing, even more grotesque. By 1937, Jewish settlers remained a minority. Yet, the British Peel Commission proposed dividing Palestine into two states, awarding the most fertile lands to a âJewish stateâ where Jews remained a minority. Despite this, the Zionist movement rejected the Peel Plan because it didnât grant them enough (Gilbert, 2008). A nearly unanimous vote at the 20th Zionist Congress in 1937 confirmed their dissatisfaction: the land promised was âtoo smallâ (Palestine Remembered, n.d.-b). Contrast this with Arab rejection of the 1947 UN Partition Plan. By then, Jews were still the minority population (Palestine Remembered, n.d.-c), and most were not even legal citizens of Palestine (Government of Palestine, 1946). Still, the partition plan allocated XX% of the land to this minority population, including entire swaths of the Negev Desert that were virtually uninhabited by Jews. The double standard is staggering: Zionist leaders were âjustifiedâ in rejecting the Peel Plan, but Palestinians are still condemned for rejecting the 1947 plan. Even David Ben-Gurion, Israelâs first Prime Minister, admitted in a 1937 letter to his son that Arab outrage was understandable, given the loss of fertile land, economic centers, and national dignity (Palestine Remembered, n.d.-d). Moshe Sharett, Israelâs first foreign minister, similarly confessed that partition would strip Palestinians of their most valuable lands: orange groves, commerce hubs, and access to the coast, essentially plunging their people into poverty while handing over their homeland to a settler movement (Khalidi, 1992, p. 85). While Palestinians were expected to accept this theft quietly, Zionist leaders were always clear that partition was a means to an end. Chaim Weizmann privately admitted that the state would eventually expand over all of Palestine (Khalidi, 1992, p. 66). Ben-Gurion echoed this sentiment in multiple letters and speeches, calling partition âa beginningâ toward full conquest (Morris, 2001, p. 138). Even after the 1947 UN vote, Menachem Begin, future Prime Minister of Israel, declared: âThe Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized. ⊠Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And foreverâ (Flapan, 1987, p. 32). This agenda was backed by powerful global players. The U.S. lobbied hard, through threats and bribery, to twist the arms of smaller nations into supporting partition (Blum, 1985, p. 157). Greece, France, Liberia, and numerous Latin American countries were pressured with aid cuts, embargoes, and false promises of infrastructure projects. Supreme Court Justices and Senators even pressured the Philippines to comply (Jerusalem Post, n.d.). Meanwhile, Zionist leaders bugged UN committee rooms to gain an upper hand in negotiations (Morris, 2001, p. 182). By March 1948, the U.S., France, and China began walking back support for partition in favor of a trusteeship. But Zionist leaders rejected it outright. âIt is we who will decide the fate of Palestine,â Ben-Gurion said bluntly (Gilbert, 2008). This wasnât about justice. It was about power. As Walid Khalidi put it: âThe native people of Palestine ⊠refused to divide the land with a settler communityâ (Khalidi, 1992, p. 85). They were right to refuse. Because, as history proved, partition wasnât the end. It was the beginning of erasure. Sources in the comments X XXX engagements  **Related Topics** [manipulation](/topic/manipulation) [russia](/topic/russia) [palestine](/topic/palestine) [Post Link](https://x.com/ccnameisfriday/status/1944961680557138273)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
CCđłïžâđđȘđ» @ccnameisfriday on x 3920 followers
Created: 2025-07-15 03:26:14 UTC
The Story of the Partition: How Palestine Was Broken Apart by Power and Propaganda
In 1914, Jews made up less than X% of the population in Palestine, and most were recent immigrants fleeing antisemitic violence in Tsarist Russia, not native to the land (Palestine Remembered, n.d.-a). This foundational demographic reality makes what followed, Zionist partition demands, international manipulation, and eventual ethnic cleansing, even more grotesque.
By 1937, Jewish settlers remained a minority. Yet, the British Peel Commission proposed dividing Palestine into two states, awarding the most fertile lands to a âJewish stateâ where Jews remained a minority. Despite this, the Zionist movement rejected the Peel Plan because it didnât grant them enough (Gilbert, 2008). A nearly unanimous vote at the 20th Zionist Congress in 1937 confirmed their dissatisfaction: the land promised was âtoo smallâ (Palestine Remembered, n.d.-b).
Contrast this with Arab rejection of the 1947 UN Partition Plan. By then, Jews were still the minority population (Palestine Remembered, n.d.-c), and most were not even legal citizens of Palestine (Government of Palestine, 1946). Still, the partition plan allocated XX% of the land to this minority population, including entire swaths of the Negev Desert that were virtually uninhabited by Jews.
The double standard is staggering: Zionist leaders were âjustifiedâ in rejecting the Peel Plan, but Palestinians are still condemned for rejecting the 1947 plan. Even David Ben-Gurion, Israelâs first Prime Minister, admitted in a 1937 letter to his son that Arab outrage was understandable, given the loss of fertile land, economic centers, and national dignity (Palestine Remembered, n.d.-d).
Moshe Sharett, Israelâs first foreign minister, similarly confessed that partition would strip Palestinians of their most valuable lands: orange groves, commerce hubs, and access to the coast, essentially plunging their people into poverty while handing over their homeland to a settler movement (Khalidi, 1992, p. 85).
While Palestinians were expected to accept this theft quietly, Zionist leaders were always clear that partition was a means to an end. Chaim Weizmann privately admitted that the state would eventually expand over all of Palestine (Khalidi, 1992, p. 66). Ben-Gurion echoed this sentiment in multiple letters and speeches, calling partition âa beginningâ toward full conquest (Morris, 2001, p. 138).
Even after the 1947 UN vote, Menachem Begin, future Prime Minister of Israel, declared: âThe Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized. ⊠Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And foreverâ (Flapan, 1987, p. 32).
This agenda was backed by powerful global players. The U.S. lobbied hard, through threats and bribery, to twist the arms of smaller nations into supporting partition (Blum, 1985, p. 157). Greece, France, Liberia, and numerous Latin American countries were pressured with aid cuts, embargoes, and false promises of infrastructure projects. Supreme Court Justices and Senators even pressured the Philippines to comply (Jerusalem Post, n.d.).
Meanwhile, Zionist leaders bugged UN committee rooms to gain an upper hand in negotiations (Morris, 2001, p. 182).
By March 1948, the U.S., France, and China began walking back support for partition in favor of a trusteeship. But Zionist leaders rejected it outright. âIt is we who will decide the fate of Palestine,â Ben-Gurion said bluntly (Gilbert, 2008).
This wasnât about justice. It was about power. As Walid Khalidi put it: âThe native people of Palestine ⊠refused to divide the land with a settler communityâ (Khalidi, 1992, p. 85).
They were right to refuse. Because, as history proved, partition wasnât the end. It was the beginning of erasure.
Sources in the comments X
XXX engagements
Related Topics manipulation russia palestine