Yikes... There's an idiot in the Knesset... Surprised? Nah!

[Phoenall]

I'm not looking for subjective perspective, I'm looking to establish FACT; something you apparently can't deal with when it concerns Jews.

You are asking for a "fact" where facts might not exist. You are asking for an objective answer to a subjective issue.

Did the Jews pose a threat to the Arabs? The Arabs thought so, and that is what really matters. There is evidence that Haganah may have sought to take much more territory and expel arab citizens of that territory. If so - than there was indeed provocation or a need for the Arabs to act preventively out of fear of a Palestinian genocide while likewise, the Jews were fearing a second holocaust.

What is the objective answer? Given what was going on at the time in the region and Haganah's objectives, I don't agree that the 1948 attack was entirely unprovoked.

I don't see things as simply as you do when it comes to complex events like this.

So, in your OPINION, it came down to a FEELING.
Ok.
I feel, based on modern and contemporary history, that most Muslims need to be confined to their own borders, and that includes Jordanians all being in Jordan.

You ask a question "did Israel pose a threat" - there is no factual or objective answer here - because "threat" is subjective.

I also looked up the 1948 war to what evidence there was to support an answer and I provided that. Looking at that - how would you answer the question "did Israel pose a threat"? (bonus points if you can view it through a 1948 lens)

And the answer based on the evidence available is a resounding NO, and this is shown in their declaration of independence

 

[Indeependent]

I'm not looking for subjective perspective, I'm looking to establish FACT; something you apparently can't deal with when it concerns Jews.

You are asking for a "fact" where facts might not exist. You are asking for an objective answer to a subjective issue.

Did the Jews pose a threat to the Arabs? The Arabs thought so, and that is what really matters. There is evidence that Haganah may have sought to take much more territory and expel arab citizens of that territory. If so - than there was indeed provocation or a need for the Arabs to act preventively out of fear of a Palestinian genocide while likewise, the Jews were fearing a second holocaust.

What is the objective answer? Given what was going on at the time in the region and Haganah's objectives, I don't agree that the 1948 attack was entirely unprovoked.

I don't see things as simply as you do when it comes to complex events like this.

So, in your OPINION, it came down to a FEELING.
Ok.
I feel, based on modern and contemporary history, that most Muslims need to be confined to their own borders, and that includes Jordanians all being in Jordan.

You ask a question "did Israel pose a threat" - there is no factual or objective answer here - because "threat" is subjective.

I also looked up the 1948 war to what evidence there was to support an answer and I provided that. Looking at that - how would you answer the question "did Israel pose a threat"? (bonus points if you can view it through a 1948 lens)

Your article talks about FEELINGS.
Arabs ALWAYS seem to have FEELINGS; even about the multitude of other Arabs they slaughter on a daily basis.

 

[Coyote]

I'm not looking for subjective perspective, I'm looking to establish FACT; something you apparently can't deal with when it concerns Jews.

You are asking for a "fact" where facts might not exist. You are asking for an objective answer to a subjective issue.

Did the Jews pose a threat to the Arabs? The Arabs thought so, and that is what really matters. There is evidence that Haganah may have sought to take much more territory and expel arab citizens of that territory. If so - than there was indeed provocation or a need for the Arabs to act preventively out of fear of a Palestinian genocide while likewise, the Jews were fearing a second holocaust.

What is the objective answer? Given what was going on at the time in the region and Haganah's objectives, I don't agree that the 1948 attack was entirely unprovoked.

I don't see things as simply as you do when it comes to complex events like this.

So, in your OPINION, it came down to a FEELING.
Ok.
I feel, based on modern and contemporary history, that most Muslims need to be confined to their own borders, and that includes Jordanians all being in Jordan.

You ask a question "did Israel pose a threat" - there is no factual or objective answer here - because "threat" is subjective.

I also looked up the 1948 war to what evidence there was to support an answer and I provided that. Looking at that - how would you answer the question "did Israel pose a threat"? (bonus points if you can view it through a 1948 lens)

Your article talks about FEELINGS.
Arabs ALWAYS seem to have FEELINGS; even about the multitude of other Arabs they slaughter on a daily basis.

It talks about events.

 

[Indeependent]

I'm not looking for subjective perspective, I'm looking to establish FACT; something you apparently can't deal with when it concerns Jews.

You are asking for a "fact" where facts might not exist. You are asking for an objective answer to a subjective issue.

Did the Jews pose a threat to the Arabs? The Arabs thought so, and that is what really matters. There is evidence that Haganah may have sought to take much more territory and expel arab citizens of that territory. If so - than there was indeed provocation or a need for the Arabs to act preventively out of fear of a Palestinian genocide while likewise, the Jews were fearing a second holocaust.

What is the objective answer? Given what was going on at the time in the region and Haganah's objectives, I don't agree that the 1948 attack was entirely unprovoked.

I don't see things as simply as you do when it comes to complex events like this.

So, in your OPINION, it came down to a FEELING.
Ok.
I feel, based on modern and contemporary history, that most Muslims need to be confined to their own borders, and that includes Jordanians all being in Jordan.

You ask a question "did Israel pose a threat" - there is no factual or objective answer here - because "threat" is subjective.

I also looked up the 1948 war to what evidence there was to support an answer and I provided that. Looking at that - how would you answer the question "did Israel pose a threat"? (bonus points if you can view it through a 1948 lens)

Your article talks about FEELINGS.
Arabs ALWAYS seem to have FEELINGS; even about the multitude of other Arabs they slaughter on a daily basis.

It talks about events.

It talks about events and the Arabs responding to those events based on FEELINGS.
Stop being a stupid bleeding heart.

 

[Coyote]

I'm not looking for subjective perspective, I'm looking to establish FACT; something you apparently can't deal with when it concerns Jews.

You are asking for a "fact" where facts might not exist. You are asking for an objective answer to a subjective issue.

Did the Jews pose a threat to the Arabs? The Arabs thought so, and that is what really matters. There is evidence that Haganah may have sought to take much more territory and expel arab citizens of that territory. If so - than there was indeed provocation or a need for the Arabs to act preventively out of fear of a Palestinian genocide while likewise, the Jews were fearing a second holocaust.

What is the objective answer? Given what was going on at the time in the region and Haganah's objectives, I don't agree that the 1948 attack was entirely unprovoked.

I don't see things as simply as you do when it comes to complex events like this.

So, in your OPINION, it came down to a FEELING.
Ok.
I feel, based on modern and contemporary history, that most Muslims need to be confined to their own borders, and that includes Jordanians all being in Jordan.

You ask a question "did Israel pose a threat" - there is no factual or objective answer here - because "threat" is subjective.

I also looked up the 1948 war to what evidence there was to support an answer and I provided that. Looking at that - how would you answer the question "did Israel pose a threat"? (bonus points if you can view it through a 1948 lens)

And the answer based on the evidence available is a resounding NO, and this is shown in their declaration of independence

Why? Given Haganah's plans?

 

[Coyote]

You are asking for a "fact" where facts might not exist. You are asking for an objective answer to a subjective issue.

Did the Jews pose a threat to the Arabs? The Arabs thought so, and that is what really matters. There is evidence that Haganah may have sought to take much more territory and expel arab citizens of that territory. If so - than there was indeed provocation or a need for the Arabs to act preventively out of fear of a Palestinian genocide while likewise, the Jews were fearing a second holocaust.

What is the objective answer? Given what was going on at the time in the region and Haganah's objectives, I don't agree that the 1948 attack was entirely unprovoked.

I don't see things as simply as you do when it comes to complex events like this.

So, in your OPINION, it came down to a FEELING.
Ok.
I feel, based on modern and contemporary history, that most Muslims need to be confined to their own borders, and that includes Jordanians all being in Jordan.

You ask a question "did Israel pose a threat" - there is no factual or objective answer here - because "threat" is subjective.

I also looked up the 1948 war to what evidence there was to support an answer and I provided that. Looking at that - how would you answer the question "did Israel pose a threat"? (bonus points if you can view it through a 1948 lens)

Your article talks about FEELINGS.
Arabs ALWAYS seem to have FEELINGS; even about the multitude of other Arabs they slaughter on a daily basis.

It talks about events.

It talks about events and the Arabs responding to those events based on FEELINGS.
Stop being a stupid bleeding heart.

Ok...then I assume we should not consider Iran a "threat" because, after all they haven't attacked us and it's all just "feelings"? North Korea too?

 

[Indeependent]

I'm not looking for subjective perspective, I'm looking to establish FACT; something you apparently can't deal with when it concerns Jews.

You are asking for a "fact" where facts might not exist. You are asking for an objective answer to a subjective issue.

Did the Jews pose a threat to the Arabs? The Arabs thought so, and that is what really matters. There is evidence that Haganah may have sought to take much more territory and expel arab citizens of that territory. If so - than there was indeed provocation or a need for the Arabs to act preventively out of fear of a Palestinian genocide while likewise, the Jews were fearing a second holocaust.

What is the objective answer? Given what was going on at the time in the region and Haganah's objectives, I don't agree that the 1948 attack was entirely unprovoked.

I don't see things as simply as you do when it comes to complex events like this.

So, in your OPINION, it came down to a FEELING.
Ok.
I feel, based on modern and contemporary history, that most Muslims need to be confined to their own borders, and that includes Jordanians all being in Jordan.

You ask a question "did Israel pose a threat" - there is no factual or objective answer here - because "threat" is subjective.

I also looked up the 1948 war to what evidence there was to support an answer and I provided that. Looking at that - how would you answer the question "did Israel pose a threat"? (bonus points if you can view it through a 1948 lens)

And the answer based on the evidence available is a resounding NO, and this is shown in their declaration of independence

Why? Given Haganah's plans?

I'm sure the Arabs were invited to the meetings.
Seriously, you can't be that stupid.

 

[Coyote]

You are asking for a "fact" where facts might not exist. You are asking for an objective answer to a subjective issue.

Did the Jews pose a threat to the Arabs? The Arabs thought so, and that is what really matters. There is evidence that Haganah may have sought to take much more territory and expel arab citizens of that territory. If so - than there was indeed provocation or a need for the Arabs to act preventively out of fear of a Palestinian genocide while likewise, the Jews were fearing a second holocaust.

What is the objective answer? Given what was going on at the time in the region and Haganah's objectives, I don't agree that the 1948 attack was entirely unprovoked.

I don't see things as simply as you do when it comes to complex events like this.

So, in your OPINION, it came down to a FEELING.
Ok.
I feel, based on modern and contemporary history, that most Muslims need to be confined to their own borders, and that includes Jordanians all being in Jordan.

You ask a question "did Israel pose a threat" - there is no factual or objective answer here - because "threat" is subjective.

I also looked up the 1948 war to what evidence there was to support an answer and I provided that. Looking at that - how would you answer the question "did Israel pose a threat"? (bonus points if you can view it through a 1948 lens)

And the answer based on the evidence available is a resounding NO, and this is shown in their declaration of independence

Why? Given Haganah's plans?

I'm sure the Arabs were invited to the meetings.
Seriously, you can't be that stupid.

When you talk about "posing a threat" - it's all about belief unless you think it isn't a threat until an actual attack.

 

[Indeependent]

So, in your OPINION, it came down to a FEELING.
Ok.
I feel, based on modern and contemporary history, that most Muslims need to be confined to their own borders, and that includes Jordanians all being in Jordan.

You ask a question "did Israel pose a threat" - there is no factual or objective answer here - because "threat" is subjective.

I also looked up the 1948 war to what evidence there was to support an answer and I provided that. Looking at that - how would you answer the question "did Israel pose a threat"? (bonus points if you can view it through a 1948 lens)

Your article talks about FEELINGS.
Arabs ALWAYS seem to have FEELINGS; even about the multitude of other Arabs they slaughter on a daily basis.

It talks about events.

It talks about events and the Arabs responding to those events based on FEELINGS.
Stop being a stupid bleeding heart.

Ok...then I assume we should not consider Iran a "threat" because, after all they haven't attacked us and it's all just "feelings"? North Korea too?

So the Jews in 1948 were on the Internet and Cable TV threatening to wipe out the Arabs.
Did you drop out of high school?

 

[Coyote]

You ask a question "did Israel pose a threat" - there is no factual or objective answer here - because "threat" is subjective.

I also looked up the 1948 war to what evidence there was to support an answer and I provided that. Looking at that - how would you answer the question "did Israel pose a threat"? (bonus points if you can view it through a 1948 lens)

Your article talks about FEELINGS.
Arabs ALWAYS seem to have FEELINGS; even about the multitude of other Arabs they slaughter on a daily basis.

It talks about events.

It talks about events and the Arabs responding to those events based on FEELINGS.
Stop being a stupid bleeding heart.

Ok...then I assume we should not consider Iran a "threat" because, after all they haven't attacked us and it's all just "feelings"? North Korea too?

So the Jews in 1948 were on the Internet and Cable TV threatening to wipe out the Arabs.
Did you drop out of high school?

Do you believe communication began with the internet?

Besides...those are just words. They can't constitute a threat unless you "believe" them and then you get into "feelings"... right?

 

[Indeependent]

Your article talks about FEELINGS.
Arabs ALWAYS seem to have FEELINGS; even about the multitude of other Arabs they slaughter on a daily basis.

It talks about events.

It talks about events and the Arabs responding to those events based on FEELINGS.
Stop being a stupid bleeding heart.

Ok...then I assume we should not consider Iran a "threat" because, after all they haven't attacked us and it's all just "feelings"? North Korea too?

So the Jews in 1948 were on the Internet and Cable TV threatening to wipe out the Arabs.
Did you drop out of high school?

Do you believe communication began with the internet?

Besides...those are just words. They can't constitute a threat unless you "believe" them and then you get into "feelings"... right?

And that's why no one has attacked Iran.
Get it? No one has attacked Iran.
FEELING stupid yet?

 

[Coyote]

It talks about events.

It talks about events and the Arabs responding to those events based on FEELINGS.
Stop being a stupid bleeding heart.

Ok...then I assume we should not consider Iran a "threat" because, after all they haven't attacked us and it's all just "feelings"? North Korea too?

So the Jews in 1948 were on the Internet and Cable TV threatening to wipe out the Arabs.
Did you drop out of high school?

Do you believe communication began with the internet?

Besides...those are just words. They can't constitute a threat unless you "believe" them and then you get into "feelings"... right?

And that's why no one has attacked Iran.
Get it? No one has attacked Iran.
FEELING stupid yet?

Back up a moment. We're talking about what constitutes a threat and you're all about how it isn't about "feeeeelings"...based on that Iran is no threat to us. Then, you seem to think that words = a threat as in one group threatening to wipe out another. But words are no threat unless you believe them. But...that's "feelings". So...Iran is no threat....unless you "feel" they are. And, clearly we believe they are as it influences our foreign policy and Israel's constantly telling us what a threat Iran is based on their "feelings" about Iran's words of "wiping Israel off the map".

 

[Indeependent]

It talks about events and the Arabs responding to those events based on FEELINGS.
Stop being a stupid bleeding heart.

Ok...then I assume we should not consider Iran a "threat" because, after all they haven't attacked us and it's all just "feelings"? North Korea too?

So the Jews in 1948 were on the Internet and Cable TV threatening to wipe out the Arabs.
Did you drop out of high school?

Do you believe communication began with the internet?

Besides...those are just words. They can't constitute a threat unless you "believe" them and then you get into "feelings"... right?

And that's why no one has attacked Iran.
Get it? No one has attacked Iran.
FEELING stupid yet?

Back up a moment. We're talking about what constitutes a threat and you're all about how it isn't about "feeeeelings"...based on that Iran is no threat to us. Then, you seem to think that words = a threat as in one group threatening to wipe out another. But words are no threat unless you believe them. But...that's "feelings". So...Iran is no threat....unless you "feel" they are. And, clearly we believe they are as it influences our foreign policy and Israel's constantly telling us what a threat Iran is based on their "feelings" about Iran's words of "wiping Israel off the map".

Focus...
5 Arab nations attacked Israel in 1948.
As of Feb 17, 2016, NO ONE has attacked Iran.

 

[Boston1]

I'm not looking for subjective perspective, I'm looking to establish FACT; something you apparently can't deal with when it concerns Jews.

You are asking for a "fact" where facts might not exist. You are asking for an objective answer to a subjective issue.

Did the Jews pose a threat to the Arabs? The Arabs thought so, and that is what really matters. There is evidence that Haganah may have sought to take much more territory and expel arab citizens of that territory. If so - than there was indeed provocation or a need for the Arabs to act preventively out of fear of a Palestinian genocide while likewise, the Jews were fearing a second holocaust.

What is the objective answer? Given what was going on at the time in the region and Haganah's objectives, I don't agree that the 1948 attack was entirely unprovoked or that Israel did not pose a threat.

I don't see things as simply as you do when it comes to complex events like this.

This is a really interesting statement Coyote.

Quote

Did the Jews pose a threat to the Arabs? The Arabs thought so, and that is what really matters.

End QUote

We could just as easily say

" Did the Jews pose a threat to the Germans ? The Germans thought so, and that is what really matters."

The imagined threat as an excuse to unite a populous behind corrupt leadership is a common tool in the political shed.

Your use of it again doesn't go unnoticed

 

[Coyote]

Ok...then I assume we should not consider Iran a "threat" because, after all they haven't attacked us and it's all just "feelings"? North Korea too?

So the Jews in 1948 were on the Internet and Cable TV threatening to wipe out the Arabs.
Did you drop out of high school?

Do you believe communication began with the internet?

Besides...those are just words. They can't constitute a threat unless you "believe" them and then you get into "feelings"... right?

And that's why no one has attacked Iran.
Get it? No one has attacked Iran.
FEELING stupid yet?

Back up a moment. We're talking about what constitutes a threat and you're all about how it isn't about "feeeeelings"...based on that Iran is no threat to us. Then, you seem to think that words = a threat as in one group threatening to wipe out another. But words are no threat unless you believe them. But...that's "feelings". So...Iran is no threat....unless you "feel" they are. And, clearly we believe they are as it influences our foreign policy and Israel's constantly telling us what a threat Iran is based on their "feelings" about Iran's words of "wiping Israel off the map".

Focus...
5 Arab nations attacked Israel in 1948.
As of Feb 17, 2016, NO ONE has attacked Iran.

Focus: Arab nations felt the Israeli's were a threat.

Whether or not one attacks doesn't alter the perception of threat.

Why'd we attack Iraq? A "feeling".

 

[Coyote]

I'm not looking for subjective perspective, I'm looking to establish FACT; something you apparently can't deal with when it concerns Jews.

You are asking for a "fact" where facts might not exist. You are asking for an objective answer to a subjective issue.

Did the Jews pose a threat to the Arabs? The Arabs thought so, and that is what really matters. There is evidence that Haganah may have sought to take much more territory and expel arab citizens of that territory. If so - than there was indeed provocation or a need for the Arabs to act preventively out of fear of a Palestinian genocide while likewise, the Jews were fearing a second holocaust.

What is the objective answer? Given what was going on at the time in the region and Haganah's objectives, I don't agree that the 1948 attack was entirely unprovoked or that Israel did not pose a threat.

I don't see things as simply as you do when it comes to complex events like this.

This is a really interesting statement Coyote.

Quote

Did the Jews pose a threat to the Arabs? The Arabs thought so, and that is what really matters.

End QUote

We could just as easily say

" Did the Jews pose a threat to the Germans ? The Germans thought so, and that is what really matters."

The imagined threat as an excuse to unite a populous behind corrupt leadership is a common tool in the political shed.

Your use of it again doesn't go unnoticed

Unlike the situation with the Jews, there are differences that could logically lead to that belief. There was an ongoing/unresolved territorial conflict and a refusal to accept proposed divisions on the Arab side. There was also, on the Israeli side a similar refusal to accept proposed restrictions (Haganah) and the fear of a bloodbath. Was the threat so imagined? Was it used to unite opposition? I do think so - and I agree it's a common tool. In fact, Israel uses it as well. But does that make the threat less valid?

The only "threat" the Jews supposedly posed was a boycott and a lot of anti-semitic conspiracy theory that has no basis in fact. Any "evidence" supporting it is extremely weak.

At what point does a "threat" become a valid reason for action?

What do you mean your "use of it again"? Use of what?

 

[Indeependent]

I'm not looking for subjective perspective, I'm looking to establish FACT; something you apparently can't deal with when it concerns Jews.

You are asking for a "fact" where facts might not exist. You are asking for an objective answer to a subjective issue.

Did the Jews pose a threat to the Arabs? The Arabs thought so, and that is what really matters. There is evidence that Haganah may have sought to take much more territory and expel arab citizens of that territory. If so - than there was indeed provocation or a need for the Arabs to act preventively out of fear of a Palestinian genocide while likewise, the Jews were fearing a second holocaust.

What is the objective answer? Given what was going on at the time in the region and Haganah's objectives, I don't agree that the 1948 attack was entirely unprovoked or that Israel did not pose a threat.

I don't see things as simply as you do when it comes to complex events like this.

This is a really interesting statement Coyote.

Quote

Did the Jews pose a threat to the Arabs? The Arabs thought so, and that is what really matters.

End QUote

We could just as easily say

" Did the Jews pose a threat to the Germans ? The Germans thought so, and that is what really matters."

The imagined threat as an excuse to unite a populous behind corrupt leadership is a common tool in the political shed.

Your use of it again doesn't go unnoticed

Unlike the situation with the Jews, there are differences that could logically lead to that belief. There was an ongoing/unresolved territorial conflict and a refusal to accept proposed divisions on the Arab side. There was also, on the Israeli side a similar refusal to accept proposed restrictions (Haganah) and the fear of a bloodbath. Was the threat so imagined? Was it used to unite opposition? I do think so - and I agree it's a common tool. In fact, Israel uses it as well. But does that make the threat less valid?

The only "threat" the Jews supposedly posed was a boycott and a lot of anti-semitic conspiracy theory that has no basis in fact. Any "evidence" supporting it is extremely weak.

At what point does a "threat" become a valid reason for action?

What do you mean your "use of it again"? Use of what?

Your use of the ink blot called a Rorshach because using discreet, chronological logic does not result in a conclusion in accord with your sympathies.

 

[Daniyel]

Anat Berko, a conservative member of the Israeli Knesset, said there could be no Palestine because there’s no letter “P” in Arabic.

Applying the same logic then there are no Jews as there is no "J" in Hebrew!

What a racist little bitch!

Yeah thing is that it's written as Yehudi and Ivrit in Hebrew, neither Jewish or Hebrew although there is a J in Jewish, However ,in Arabic there is no such thing as P...but there is a P in stupid.

It's kinda hard to explain. For some reason, the Y sound in Hebrew is translated to a J sound in English, so Yehudi becomes Jew (short for Judean).

Jew (word) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Shusha]

Back up a moment. We're talking about what constitutes a threat and you're all about how it isn't about "feeeeelings"...based on that Iran is no threat to us. Then, you seem to think that words = a threat as in one group threatening to wipe out another. But words are no threat unless you believe them. But...that's "feelings". So...Iran is no threat....unless you "feel" they are. And, clearly we believe they are as it influences our foreign policy and Israel's constantly telling us what a threat Iran is based on their "feelings" about Iran's words of "wiping Israel off the map".

Words, as a statement of intent, most certainly create the condition of threat. In order for a threat to be valid and actionable - it has to be disseminated as a statement of intent and it has to be credible -- as in the threat has to be immediately capable of being carried out.

The gist of what is being asked is whether or not the nascent Jewish State posed a threat to Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon. It most certainly did not. Thus, those nations had no cause to attack Israel.

The secondary question, and I gather the source of confusion, is whether or not the nascent Jewish State posed a credible threat to the non-Jewish people. I would argue that it did not.

It also depends, somewhat, on whether or not one views the conflict through the lens of the time or through the lens of modern humanitarian law. Population exchanges and expulsions in order to create homogeneous nations were the norm at the time.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Back up a moment. We're talking about what constitutes a threat and you're all about how it isn't about "feeeeelings"...based on that Iran is no threat to us. Then, you seem to think that words = a threat as in one group threatening to wipe out another. But words are no threat unless you believe them. But...that's "feelings". So...Iran is no threat....unless you "feel" they are. And, clearly we believe they are as it influences our foreign policy and Israel's constantly telling us what a threat Iran is based on their "feelings" about Iran's words of "wiping Israel off the map".

Words, as a statement of intent, most certainly create the condition of threat. In order for a threat to be valid and actionable - it has to be disseminated as a statement of intent and it has to be credible -- as in the threat has to be immediately capable of being carried out.

The gist of what is being asked is whether or not the nascent Jewish State posed a threat to Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon. It most certainly did not. Thus, those nations had no cause to attack Israel.

The secondary question, and I gather the source of confusion, is whether or not the nascent Jewish State posed a credible threat to the non-Jewish people. I would argue that it did not.

It also depends, somewhat, on whether or not one views the conflict through the lens of the time or through the lens of modern humanitarian law. Population exchanges and expulsions in order to create homogeneous nations were the norm at the time.

Yes, Israel was created at about the same time as India and Pakistan, with their successful population exchanges. World War 2 ended only a couple of years before that, and there again, there were many successful population exchanges. And yet here we are, almost 70 years later, and there are still Palestinians living in refugee camps! That's crazy! My parents were Polish-Jewish refugees from WW2, once upon a time. But they made successful lives for themselves.