Why were these Arab states not persecuted for their ethnic cleansing of Jews?

Whatabouttism doesn't change the underlying topic

Because they didn’t do it on an industrial scale?

What is industrial? How many Jews are left in Syria, or Lebanon, or Egypt, or Tunis, or Iraq, or Yemen, or Persia?

> What is industrial?

Curious you ask: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/israel-gaza-blockade-s...

Because they aren't buying off Western politicians in bulk, but that's exactly what Israel is clearly doing

It is called a rhetorical device. It is considering the ends of your argument. If you are British, French, German, American, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. and you support the argument that displacement or control of a people is bad, I agree, but consider what you would want to do and apply the rule fairly. Criticising one country for “taking” land when it was given that land by the same UN you use to claim that it is a genocidal country today… well that really is rich

Yes of course it's a rhetorical device, and it's meant to subtly change the subject to prevent engaging with it.

This conversation went like this:

>>>> ppl keep railing about being pro or anti Israel and it's overly simplistic and also not really accurately describing things. It's more pro/anti Likud or Kahanists

To which I replied that Israel is constitutionally born out of a pre-planned colonisation and ethnic cleansing and it's wrong to think that its supremacist ideology only belongs to a part of its political spectrum- it could change but it's unfortunately unrealistic.

>>> Israel was literally born out of political scheming to get assigned a portion of someone else's territory for an exclusive ethno-nationalistic state; then out of ethnically cleansing that territory. It was necessary to the project and planned in advance.

To which the GP replied with something that tries to change the subject on Arab states, at the same time introducing a historical falsehood:

>> The Arab states haven't made amends for ethnically cleansing huge numbers of Jews

Now,

1) the Arab states are not born out of a planned ethnic cleansing of anyone (at least not in the recent past)

2) Many, perhaps most of the Jews that immigrated to Israel did so voluntarily (made Aliyah)

3) By the way, Israel itself even engaged in false flag terrorism to push Jews to emigrate from Arab countries to Israel.

And most importantly, the argument has no bearing with the original subject, which is whether its a specific political side that is determining Israel's course now or the country is constitutionally like that. Arab countries have nothing to do with the subject, they belong to a different conversation.

Hope it helps.

Was it really the "same" UN? In 1947, most of the world was still colonized, and had no UN representation. France, Britain and the US might not have had much of a problem with telling some people in the Third World to give up their homeland, but sentiment in colonized countries would have been very different.

Also recall that it was only a UN recommendation, not a binding resolution.