The State of Israel Was Established in 1948 by Terror: A Historical Perspective

The founding of the State of Israel in 1948 remains one of the most significant—and most contentious—events in modern Middle Eastern history. For Jewish people around the world, it marked the rebirth of a homeland after centuries of persecution and displacement, especially following the horrors of the Holocaust. For Palestinians and many others, it represented the beginning of a long, painful chapter of dispossession, statelessness, and conflict. At the heart of this narrative lies a critical and controversial truth: the establishment of Israel was accompanied by a campaign of violence, displacement, and in many cases, terror.

This article aims to explore the events surrounding the creation of Israel in 1948, with particular focus on how acts of terrorism and militant activity by Zionist groups played a key role in shaping the early years of the state. The goal is not to demonize, but to provide historical clarity and context for one of the most enduring and complex conflicts of our time.

---

The Context: British Mandate and the Rise of Zionism

Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, the League of Nations awarded Britain control over Palestine through the Mandate system. During this time, the Zionist movement, which had been growing since the late 19th century, gained momentum with the aim of establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Tensions grew between the Jewish immigrants—many of whom were fleeing persecution in Europe—and the Arab population, who had lived in the land for generations. As Jewish immigration increased under British protection, so did Arab resistance, leading to waves of violence between the two communities.

---

Zionist Militias and the Use of Violence

By the 1940s, several Jewish underground militias had formed, including the Haganah, Irgun (also known as Etzel), and Lehi (also known as the Stern Gang). These groups adopted various strategies to achieve the goal of establishing a Jewish state. While the Haganah was aligned more closely with mainstream Zionist leadership and pursued a relatively moderate policy, Irgun and Lehi engaged in overt acts of terrorism, including bombings, assassinations, and massacres.

1. The King David Hotel Bombing (1946)

One of the most infamous acts attributed to Zionist militias was the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on July 22, 1946. Orchestrated by the Irgun, the attack targeted the British administrative headquarters housed within the hotel. The bombing killed 91 people—British, Arabs, and Jews—and injured many more. It was one of the deadliest terrorist attacks of the time.

Although Irgun claimed it had sent warnings, British authorities and international observers viewed it as an act of indiscriminate terrorism. The attack signaled a shift: Zionist militias were no longer focused solely on defense—they were using terror as a strategic weapon to expel the British and assert dominance over Palestine.

2. The Deir Yassin Massacre (1948)

Arguably the most controversial and painful episode was the massacre at Deir Yassin, a Palestinian village near Jerusalem. On April 9, 1948, Irgun and Lehi fighters attacked the village, killing over 100 civilians, including women and children. While some accounts vary, many historians agree that the killings were brutal and intended to instill fear in the Arab population.

The massacre had a profound psychological effect. News of Deir Yassin spread quickly, contributing to a mass exodus of Palestinians who feared similar attacks. According to historians like Ilan Pappé and Benny Morris, both Israeli and Palestinian sources confirm that the event played a central role in what would later be known as the Nakba ("catastrophe")—the displacement of over 700,000 Palestinians in 1948.

---

The Nakba: Ethnic Cleansing or Exodus?

The term Nakba refers to the widespread displacement of Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. As Jewish forces advanced, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homes. Over 400 villages were depopulated or destroyed.

Historians debate whether this was a planned campaign of ethnic cleansing or a byproduct of war. However, recently declassified Israeli documents and testimonies from Israeli soldiers suggest that expulsions were often intentional. Zionist leaders, including David Ben-Gurion, spoke openly about the necessity of transferring Arabs to secure a Jewish-majority state.

While some Palestinians left voluntarily due to the chaos of war, many fled in terror after massacres like Deir Yassin and systematic military operations like Plan Dalet, which authorized the “clearing” of Arab populations in strategic areas.

---

International Reaction and the Birth of Israel

On May 14, 1948, the State of Israel was proclaimed. The following day, neighboring Arab states invaded, leading to the first Arab-Israeli War. Israel ultimately prevailed, expanding its territory beyond the UN Partition Plan’s original boundaries.

Although the world celebrated the creation of a Jewish homeland, international media and governments often overlooked or downplayed the methods by which it was achieved. Acts that would today be classified as war crimes or terrorism were rationalized as the necessary birth pangs of a new nation.

---

Legacies of 1948: Conflict, Memory, and Resistance

The legacy of 1948 continues to shape the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For Israelis, the year marks independence, survival, and triumph. For Palestinians, it signifies dispossession, exile, and the beginning of an ongoing struggle for justice and return.

Today, Palestinians still commemorate Nakba Day every May 15, remembering the loss of homes and land. Meanwhile, discussions around terrorism and resistance remain politically and emotionally charged. Acts committed by Zionist militias are rarely framed as terrorism within mainstream Western discourse, yet similar tactics by Palestinians are frequently condemned.

This imbalance in narrative has contributed to a distorted understanding of the conflict—one that often ignores the historical roots of violence and frames Israeli actions as defense and Palestinian resistance as aggression.

---

Conclusion: Reconciling with Historical Truth

The establishment of Israel in 1948 was not a bloodless diplomatic victory. It was accompanied by a campaign that included organized violence, psychological warfare, and in many cases, acts of terror. Acknowledging this history does not delegitimize the existence of Israel, nor does it deny Jewish suffering. Rather, it provides a fuller, more honest account of the past—one that is essential for any genuine peace process.

If justice, reconciliation, and coexistence are ever to be realized in the region, both sides must confront uncomfortable truths. Only by recognizing the pain and narratives of the other can a foundation for mutual respect and healing be built.

---

References:

• Pappé, Ilan. The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Oneworld Publications, 2006.

• Morris, Benny. The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949. Cambridge University Press, 1987.

• Khalidi, Walid. All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948. Institute for Palestine Studies, 1992.

• United Nations Archives and the Partition Plan of 1947

Was the Main Objective of World War II to Establish the State of Israel?

World War II (1939–1945) was the most destructive conflict in human history, involving more than 100 million people across dozens of countries. The war caused the deaths of over 70 million people and led to monumental shifts in global politics, economics, and international relations. Among the many world-changing outcomes of the war was the eventual establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.

Some researchers, theorists, and political commentators have suggested that the establishment of Israel was not just a result of World War II, but one of its main objectives—a claim that challenges mainstream historical interpretations. According to this theory, the war—especially the horrors of the Holocaust—was used to justify and accelerate the global movement for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. But does this theory hold up under scrutiny?

Let’s explore both the claim and the historical facts to separate speculation from context-driven understanding.

---

Historical Context: The Zionist Movement Before WWII

The idea of a Jewish homeland did not begin with World War II. It dates back to the late 19th century, with the rise of political Zionism. Theodor Herzl, often considered the father of modern Zionism, convened the First Zionist Congress in 1897 in Basel, Switzerland, declaring that Jews had a right to return to their ancestral homeland.

By the time of World War I, Zionist efforts had already achieved a significant diplomatic milestone: the Balfour Declaration of 1917. This was a letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour expressing British support for the establishment of “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, then part of the Ottoman Empire. After the British took control of Palestine under a League of Nations mandate, Jewish immigration to the region increased steadily through the 1920s and 1930s.

This historical background shows that the establishment of Israel was a long-term project that predated World War II by decades.

---

World War II and the Holocaust

One cannot discuss this theory without addressing the Holocaust—the genocide of six million Jews by Nazi Germany. The Holocaust fundamentally changed global perceptions of the Jewish plight, particularly in the West. After the war, widespread sympathy for Jewish survivors led to increased support for the Zionist cause.

The Holocaust acted as a catalyst, not necessarily an engineered justification. Many historians argue that the world’s failure to prevent or intervene early in the genocide weighed heavily on post-war political decisions. For instance, U.S. President Harry Truman was deeply moved by the suffering of displaced Jewish refugees and pushed for the U.N. Partition Plan that led to Israel's creation.

---

The Theory: Was the War Engineered to Create Israel?

Those who argue that Israel was the main objective of World War II often base their reasoning on several controversial points:

1. Financial Influence and the Rothschild Connection

Some theorists suggest that powerful banking families, notably the Rothschilds—who were known supporters of Zionism—played behind-the-scenes roles in financing both sides of the war. They argue that elite interests used the war as a tool to bring about a global restructuring, with Israel as a central geopolitical project.

2. The Holocaust as a Pretext

According to this view, the Holocaust—whether entirely as reported or manipulated in scale—is seen as the emotional and political leverage needed to gain global support for a Jewish state. With Europe devastated and Jews traumatized, world opinion shifted in favor of giving them a homeland—Palestine.

3. British and U.S. Strategy in the Middle East

This interpretation also includes the idea that Britain and the United States had long-term interests in the Middle East, particularly concerning oil and regional dominance. Establishing a Western-aligned state in the heart of the Arab world could serve as a strategic base of influence.

---

Mainstream Historical View

Most historians reject the idea that World War II was primarily about establishing Israel. Rather, they see the creation of Israel as a consequence of the war, not a driving motivation behind it.

Key Points:

• Nazi ideology was focused on racial supremacy and territorial conquest—not Zionism. Hitler’s goal was Lebensraum ("living space") for Germans, not Jewish statehood.

• The Allies' war aims were focused on defeating fascism and militarism, particularly German and Japanese expansionism.

• The Holocaust, while a tragic and central part of the war, was not public knowledge in full detail until after the conflict ended.

• Israel’s founding came three years after the war, and it was fiercely contested by Britain, the Arabs, and even within Jewish communities themselves.

---

United Nations Partition Plan and the Birth of Israel

In 1947, the United Nations proposed the partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. This came after years of tension and conflict in the region, exacerbated by Jewish immigration and British withdrawal from its costly mandate.

On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the independence of the State of Israel. War immediately followed, as neighboring Arab countries opposed the move. Yet, Israel survived, and over time, it became a central player in Middle Eastern and global politics.

While World War II created conditions that made Israel's founding more likely—displacement of Jews, collapse of European colonial power, and shifting geopolitical priorities—there is no definitive evidence that the war was orchestrated solely or primarily for this outcome.

---

Conclusion: A Complex Chain of Events, Not a Singular Objective

The claim that the main objective of World War II was to establish the State of Israel is an oversimplification of an immensely complex global conflict. While it’s undeniable that the war significantly influenced the timeline and political will that led to Israel's creation, the idea that it was the war’s primary aim lacks concrete historical backing.

Instead, what we see is a convergence of factors:

• A long-standing Zionist movement;

• The tragic impact of the Holocaust;

• Strategic interests in the Middle East;

• The decline of European colonialism;

• And the emergence of new global powers reshaping the post-war order.

The establishment of Israel was not the cause of World War II—it was one of its many far-reaching consequences. The historical record supports the view that while the war played a role in galvanizing support for a Jewish homeland, it was not engineered for that purpose.

That said, the conversation around this topic remains controversial and thought-provoking. It raises deeper questions about power, suffering, politics, and the way history is written—or rewritten—through different lenses.

The Coming Conflict Between Political Zionism and the Islamic World in World War 3: A Geopolitical Perspective

Throughout history, global conflicts have often been shaped by powerful ideologies, competing national interests, and religious-political tensions. One theory that continues to generate discussion among political thinkers, analysts, and religious scholars is the possibility of a major global conflict—often referred to as World War 3—emerging from the rising tensions between Political Zionism and the Islamic world.

While interpretations of such a conflict range from speculative to prophetic, the geopolitical dynamics in the Middle East and the broader global order make it a topic worth exploring—both to understand the risks and to seek peaceful solutions. In this article, we’ll explore the historical foundations, ideological drivers, and modern geopolitical landscape that shape this potential clash, without promoting conspiracy or bias.

---

1. Defining Political Zionism and Its Global Role

Zionism, in its simplest form, is the nationalist movement that led to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. However, Political Zionism goes beyond the creation of a homeland for Jews; it involves the strategic protection and expansion of that homeland through political, military, and economic means.

In the modern world, Israel—backed significantly by Western powers, particularly the United States—has become a regional military powerhouse. Its presence in the heart of the Middle East, alongside long-standing disputes over the occupation of Palestinian land, makes it a central figure in regional tensions. Critics of Political Zionism argue that it often prioritizes territorial expansion and control over peaceful coexistence, while supporters see it as a necessary defense mechanism for a historically persecuted people.

---

2. The Islamic World: A Fractured but Faith-Driven Community

The Ummah, or global Muslim community, spans over 1.8 billion people and dozens of countries. While politically fragmented, there is a shared religious and emotional connection to key issues—especially the status of Jerusalem (Al-Quds), the Palestinian struggle, and the perceived oppression of Muslims across various conflict zones.

From the perspective of many in the Islamic world, the existence and expansion of the Israeli state—particularly into occupied Palestinian territories—is not just a political issue but a religious and moral one. Jerusalem is Islam’s third holiest city, and its occupation is seen as a wound to the collective dignity of Muslims globally.

---

3. Historic Roots of the Conflict

The seeds of the Zionist-Muslim conflict were sown in the early 20th century with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent colonization of the Middle East. The Balfour Declaration of 1917, in which Britain promised support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, marked the beginning of increased tensions between Arabs and Jewish settlers.

By the mid-20th century, the establishment of Israel led to successive wars (1948, 1967, 1973) and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. These events not only intensified regional hostilities but also began to polarize global Muslim opinion against Zionism and its backers in the West.

---

4. Prophecies, Predictions, and Theories About World War 3

Certain fringe theories and interpretations of religious prophecy, both Islamic and Western, predict a World War 3 centered around the Middle East. Some interpretations of Islamic eschatology (end-time prophecies) suggest a massive final conflict between the forces of truth and falsehood—often interpreted as between the Muslim world and global oppressors.

Similarly, certain Christian eschatological interpretations, especially among Evangelical Zionists, see Israel as central to the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and a coming Armageddon.

While such interpretations are not universally accepted by scholars or theologians, they influence political decisions and shape narratives in powerful ways, sometimes escalating tensions rather than easing them.

---

5. Jerusalem: The Powder Keg

At the heart of this potential conflict lies Jerusalem—a city sacred to Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike. Israel’s claim to the entirety of Jerusalem as its capital has sparked intense backlash from Muslims worldwide, especially after the U.S. moved its embassy there in 2018.

The Al-Aqsa Mosque compound remains one of the most sensitive religious flashpoints in the world. Any act seen as a violation of its sanctity has the potential to ignite not just local but global unrest.

---

6. Geopolitical Alignments and Fault Lines

The modern geopolitical landscape is complex and fluid, but some alignments are particularly relevant:

• The U.S.-Israel Alliance: The United States provides Israel with billions in military aid and diplomatic support, shaping perceptions of Western complicity in the oppression of Palestinians.

• Iran and Resistance Axis: Iran sees itself as a leader in resisting Zionism, supporting groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Any Israeli attack on Iran or vice versa could easily drag global powers into a larger war.

• Sunni States and Normalization: Countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain have begun to normalize relations with Israel, fracturing Muslim unity on the Palestinian issue and creating intra-Islamic tensions.

• Russia and China: Both powers have increased their influence in the Middle East, forming potential counterbalances to Western-Zionist alliances and raising the risk of proxy wars evolving into direct confrontations.

---

7. The Role of Proxy Wars and Ideological Manipulation

Rather than a full-scale confrontation between Zionist and Muslim armies, the current pattern is one of proxy conflicts—in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. These smaller wars are often backed by larger powers, with innocent civilians bearing the brunt of the violence.

Media manipulation, ideological propaganda, and misinformation play key roles in deepening divisions. The portrayal of Muslims as radicals and Zionists as victims (or vice versa) serves to justify actions that escalate conflict rather than promote peace.

---

8. Potential Triggers for a Global Conflict

While speculation is never definitive, several scenarios could escalate into a broader war:

• A large-scale Israeli attack on Iran or vice versa.

• A full-blown uprising or military operation in Jerusalem.

• Mass casualties in Gaza leading to regional military responses.

• Assassinations of key leaders or religious figures.

• Cyber or nuclear attacks attributed (rightly or wrongly) to either side.

Any of these could quickly spiral out of control in an interconnected world where alliances and treaties can draw distant nations into a regional fight.

---

9. Islam’s Stance on War and Peace

Islam is not a religion that promotes war—but it does permit self-defense and the protection of the oppressed. The Quran says:

“Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.”
(Quran 2:190)

The emphasis is always on justice, defense, and peace—not aggression. This ethical framework could guide future Muslim leadership away from reactionary violence and toward strategic, principled resistance.

---

10. A Call for Unity, Not Apocalypse

While the possibility of a major conflict remains real, so too does the opportunity for dialogue, diplomacy, and de-escalation. The Muslim world must seek unity—not just in opposition to Zionism—but in upholding justice, peace, and dignity for all. Likewise, political Zionism must reassess its approach if lasting peace is to be achieved.

In the end, war benefits few but destroys many. As political ideologies clash, it is the people—Palestinians, Israelis, Arabs, Jews, and the wider world—who suffer most. Recognizing the humanity on all sides is the first step to preventing World War 3 from becoming a tragic reality.