[dalbasal]

Let me hazard a guess that I know the history of my own country better than you. That doesn't make me right, but don't be condescending.

"history of Israel is centered around" - bollocks.

First, the main faction, which later became the government, did not "rebel" against the British Empire. In fact, they offered to contribute troops and enforced a truce on the grounds that the UK was fighting nazis. It was a minority faction that fought the British, both before and after this event.

Second, nothing about the white papers had anything to do with voting rights. There were no voting rights during the British period. Arabs had voting rights in Israel once Israel existed, but that's neither her nor there. The "rebellion" was about immigration restrictions. More to the point, it was about emigration restrictions, cutting off the last escape route out of the third reich.

Third, the "Palestinian Civil War," as the British called it, had started 10 years prior, shortly after the first partition of Palestine. It started when it became clear the French & British were going to chop the region into nation states and skedaddle.

[whimsicalism]

> It was a minority faction that fought the British, both before and after this event.

The people actively involved in fighting are going to be a minority in any rebellion you would ever study.

> First, the main faction, which later became the government, did not "rebel" against the British Empire.

They were clearly opposed to the idea of a state with joint rule between different ethnic groups. What is the Jewish Resistance Movement if not a rebellion against the British mandate?

It is disingenuous to suggest that they did not "rebel", indeed, I have an older friend who has recounted blowing up British police stations as a member of the Palmach, which was not the minority faction.

> There were no voting rights during the British period. Arabs had voting rights in Israel once Israel existed, but that's neither her nor there

Most post-British former-colonies had majority rule voting rights. You're right (and I was wrong) that the white paper didn't explicitly address that, but it did address the creation of a multi-ethnic state.

[dalbasal]

You've got the history garbled. The Palmach enforced a truce during this period. I suppose you could call Etzel rebels. They aren't the ones who formed the State of Israel, or led the majority militia. There were also jerusalemite militias insurrecting. against British rule and bedouin rebels in Transjordan. A lot of people disliked the British presence. Palmach didn't like them either, but they declared a truce so long as they were fighting Nazism.

None of the fighting had anything to do with anything but migration, with the primary emphasis on getting Jews out of the Reich. Ships being returned to Italian ports were the main incendiary. You are caught up the the boilerplate, which preceded any document from that era. It was the British trying to square the circle of contradictory promises made to different factions. Jews & Arabs. Hashemites & Bedouins, etc.

It's also not the beginning of anything, neither conflict with the British or Arabs. It's certainly not what the country is "centred on." Most notably, it's the only time Jewish militias fought one another.

Who care about insurrection against Britain anyway? Why?

[whimsicalism]

Sure, if you only look at the first 5 years after the white paper. Post-1945, the Palmach were actively bombing police stations & bridges, I know this for a fact, my friend/acquaintance was literally there doing this, he disliked Etzel/Irgun, but they were both fighting the British at that point.