7 ms·

yeah you're right, it's a nakba. something far worse. once the sanctions come down the american public will get learned on their history.

UrineSqueegee 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
raxxorraxor 2y ago
The Nakba was a Nakba because the countries surrounding Israel lost the war after they attacked Israel. Indeed they probably had genocidal ambitions.
- racional 2y ago
  The Nakba was (and still is) a Nakba because ... The colonizers sought to impose an objectively unfair partition plan (granting them far more valuable territory and resources in proportion to their population at the time), with the muscular support of their European friends. The Palestinians rejected this "proposal" outright of course, exactly as any self-respecting people would. Exactly as the Algerians rejected France's proposed "partition" of their historic homeland, and the Vietnamese (by and large) rejected America's proposed carve-out of theirs, etc (just to pick a few notable exactly from approximately the same time frame). And yes, they made some poor choices of friends (as they readily acknowledge), and woefully miscalculated their own strengths and capabilities and so on. And then there are other factors you're carefully not mentioning, such as the expulsions and massacres already underway in Jaffa, Deir-Yassin and elsewhere before this supposedly entirely unprovoked and one-sided "attack". But there's no reason to keep punishing the current population for these decisions, and exploiting this history (and the continuing indifference of both their so-called friends in the Arab world and the international community at large) for the sake of current and future land gains. Which is basically what the continuing (having of course never really ended) Nakba (that certain very notable public figures are proudly and openly hoping to officially upgrade to Nakba 2.0, in their own words -- do we need to name any names here?) is really about. And whatever is happening in the ground today (and however much blame can justly attributed to both sides) -- there's nothing to be gained from nullifying history, or reducing it to such trite oversimplifications as in the parent comment.
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    Even before the existence of Israel there was an active arabic nationalism and Jews were discriminated against. Israel is not a colonial power. The British split the land between Muslims and Jews. The only problem is that some pushing for Arab nationalism couldn't stomach the existence of Israel or Jews in general. The land Israel was founded wasn't prosperous at all, on the contrary. Many years of cultivation made it the place it is today. I don't know what partition you reference as unfair here. And that is true to today. If you look at the education of kids, you know who really has genocidal ambitions in this region and it isn't Israel. > this supposedly entirely unprovoked and one-sided "attack" Israel has the right to fight until the hostages are released. The real "catastrophe" is the leadership of Palestinians, its teacher keeping the hatred against Jews alive. These are the perpetrators of the current conflict. Israels part is that itself has a problem with rising extremism. In this case it is a reaction to decades of conflict and hatred. That is no excuse but the same is doubly true for those that want to expel the Jews again and take their people hostage.
    - racional 2y ago
      Looks like we disagree axiomatically about certain things. But life is short, so I'll just respond to one particular item for now: The only problem is that some pushing for Arab nationalism couldn't stomach the existence of Israel or Jews in general. No, the "only problem" was a bunch of armed foreigners attempting to carve an ethnostate out of their ancestral territory. They could have been Greek, Italian, Russian, Turkish, Persian -- it wouldn't have mattered a bit. It was the usurpation of their land, their resources and their rights that took issue with, and rightly so. So no, it wasn't "because antisemitism".
      - raxxorraxor 2y ago
        We do indeed disagree on premises. Arab nationalism was first founded in the 19th century and directed against Turks. Later it had other ambitions of course. And yes, the idea was the foundation of an ethnostate. Pretty much was you accuse Israel of being, while it simply is not true.

UrineSqueegee 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

raxxorraxor 2y ago

The Nakba was a Nakba because the countries surrounding Israel lost the war after they attacked Israel. Indeed they probably had genocidal ambitions.

racional 2y ago
The Nakba was (and still is) a Nakba because ... The colonizers sought to impose an objectively unfair partition plan (granting them far more valuable territory and resources in proportion to their population at the time), with the muscular support of their European friends. The Palestinians rejected this "proposal" outright of course, exactly as any self-respecting people would. Exactly as the Algerians rejected France's proposed "partition" of their historic homeland, and the Vietnamese (by and large) rejected America's proposed carve-out of theirs, etc (just to pick a few notable exactly from approximately the same time frame). And yes, they made some poor choices of friends (as they readily acknowledge), and woefully miscalculated their own strengths and capabilities and so on. And then there are other factors you're carefully not mentioning, such as the expulsions and massacres already underway in Jaffa, Deir-Yassin and elsewhere before this supposedly entirely unprovoked and one-sided "attack". But there's no reason to keep punishing the current population for these decisions, and exploiting this history (and the continuing indifference of both their so-called friends in the Arab world and the international community at large) for the sake of current and future land gains. Which is basically what the continuing (having of course never really ended) Nakba (that certain very notable public figures are proudly and openly hoping to officially upgrade to Nakba 2.0, in their own words -- do we need to name any names here?) is really about. And whatever is happening in the ground today (and however much blame can justly attributed to both sides) -- there's nothing to be gained from nullifying history, or reducing it to such trite oversimplifications as in the parent comment.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  Even before the existence of Israel there was an active arabic nationalism and Jews were discriminated against. Israel is not a colonial power. The British split the land between Muslims and Jews. The only problem is that some pushing for Arab nationalism couldn't stomach the existence of Israel or Jews in general. The land Israel was founded wasn't prosperous at all, on the contrary. Many years of cultivation made it the place it is today. I don't know what partition you reference as unfair here. And that is true to today. If you look at the education of kids, you know who really has genocidal ambitions in this region and it isn't Israel. > this supposedly entirely unprovoked and one-sided "attack" Israel has the right to fight until the hostages are released. The real "catastrophe" is the leadership of Palestinians, its teacher keeping the hatred against Jews alive. These are the perpetrators of the current conflict. Israels part is that itself has a problem with rising extremism. In this case it is a reaction to decades of conflict and hatred. That is no excuse but the same is doubly true for those that want to expel the Jews again and take their people hostage.
  - racional 2y ago
    Looks like we disagree axiomatically about certain things. But life is short, so I'll just respond to one particular item for now: The only problem is that some pushing for Arab nationalism couldn't stomach the existence of Israel or Jews in general. No, the "only problem" was a bunch of armed foreigners attempting to carve an ethnostate out of their ancestral territory. They could have been Greek, Italian, Russian, Turkish, Persian -- it wouldn't have mattered a bit. It was the usurpation of their land, their resources and their rights that took issue with, and rightly so. So no, it wasn't "because antisemitism".
    - raxxorraxor 2y ago
      We do indeed disagree on premises. Arab nationalism was first founded in the 19th century and directed against Turks. Later it had other ambitions of course. And yes, the idea was the foundation of an ethnostate. Pretty much was you accuse Israel of being, while it simply is not true.