Zionists are equally, embellishers
Not at all. I just pointed out that Arafat's Zionism is mostly fantasy and apparently you can't disagree.
The Zionist story is that the Jews, needing a state as a refuge from persecutions, began returning to their ancient homeland, to which they had always been deeply attached and had always maintained a presence, and finding it misruled and sparsely populated, began buying land, creating settlements, building farms and cities out of sand dunes and swamps. They did this in hopes of building a state with the agreement of the Turks, then the British and the Hashemites their allies. Then the Arabs began to attack them, led by the local rulers who were losing influence. They responded at first with restraint, but as the attacks worsened the built an army to defend themselves, especially as the main concern of the British was Arab appeasement. Partition plans were proposed in 1937 and 1947; the Jews accepted and the Arabs refused each time. In 1948 the Mandate ended and six Arab armies tried to destroy the infant Jewish state. They thought they would succeed easily. They failed.
Now this story, while it underrepresents the feelings of local Arabs about the Jewish settlement and the sufferings of the refugees created by the war, is based in fact. No part of it is an ahistorical fantasy. Therefore it is not an "equal embellishment" to Arafat's account, whose main points are a complete fabrication. |
