3 ms·

Jewish land acquisition in Palestine before 1948 was often through legal purchases from Arab landowners. However, not all left; those who remained within the b

by Beefin 2y ago

Jewish land acquisition in Palestine before 1948 was often through legal purchases from Arab landowners. However, not all left; those who remained within the borders of what became Israel after 1948 were granted citizenship. If you're referring to the Nakba, Palestinian Arabs were instructed by their own leadership or neighboring Arab states to leave their homes temporarily to facilitate military operations against the newly declared state of Israel. The displacement of Palestinians was a consequence of war, not solely a deliberate act by Jewish forces

oa335 2y ago
> If you're referring to the Nakba, Palestinian Arabs were instructed by their own leadership or neighboring Arab states to leave their homes temporarily to facilitate military operations against the newly declared state of Israel. This is a myth. Vast majority of left at gunpoint. Please read about operation Dalet and histories of that era by the “new historians” eg Benny Morris, Ilan pappe, etc.
- dunekid 2y ago
  Not even a Myth. But a lie told and retold several times, the Zionists deemed it to be the truth and the only truth. But the Nakba has always been seen here, through the victims' tears and the colonialists' documents.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
> Jewish land acquisition in Palestine before 1948 was often through legal purchases from Arab landowners. Sometimes the mob wants to buy up real estate. And if people are willing to sell, it's just a transaction with varying shades of exploitation (knowing that it will be worth more when they resell). But if those people don't want to sell, the mob doesn't just offer larger sums. There are then elements of intimidation. Strange cars drive past your home at night. You see big ugly men staring at you in a menacing fashion when you're out in public, then they wave and walk away. Bricks through windows. Anonymous threats of grave harm or murder. The escalation is constant. Anyone who sells at that point knows better than to start blabbing that they did so only because their lives were in danger... the people who extorted them don't much like being in the news even after the fact. But that's the mob. I'm sure it was different in the first half of the 20th century in the place now known as Israel.
- nuxai 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Except the situations aren't really analogous, now are they. The State of Israel (unlike the United States) currently seeks to expand itself into (and maintain its unlawful occupation in) multiple places which aren't, according to the international community, "Israel". And on top of that -- it (more precisely its current ultranationalist government) even tries to use its own names (Judea and Samaria) in reference to a certain very large chunk of this illegally occupied territory, even in internationally-directed communications. As if it thinks that will fool anybody. So as long as its successive governments insist on playing naming games with the international community (and in their internal propaganda) -- given this, along with its perfectly abhorrent conduct in these occupied territories, it shouldn't be in the least surprised to find its own name for itself is brought into question as well. In fact, this is exactly the response it should expect. Additionally, understand this violent expulsion was quite literally in response to the population [or rather its non-elected governing polity] declaring war on their newly [declared] state. What would you expect? The answer is obvious -- that the civilian population be allowed to return to their homes, and retain full title to their property, as in the aftermath of any post-1945 armed conflict. According to the principles of international law, to which the State of Israel is itself a signatory.
    - Beefin 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        Slow down, please. I'm (very obviously) not referring to the WB as J+S; simply citing the fact that these are the names the Israeli government uses administratively for this region, and in its external propaganda. But these are not the names the international community uses, and as such, they are not the names I use. Perhaps we can dissect RoR and other issues later, but let's get the above issue very firmly settled first.

by Beefin 2y ago

oa335 2y ago

> If you're referring to the Nakba, Palestinian Arabs were instructed by their own leadership or neighboring Arab states to leave their homes temporarily to facilitate military operations against the newly declared state of Israel. This is a myth. Vast majority of left at gunpoint. Please read about operation Dalet and histories of that era by the “new historians” eg Benny Morris, Ilan pappe, etc.

dunekid 2y ago
Not even a Myth. But a lie told and retold several times, the Zionists deemed it to be the truth and the only truth. But the Nakba has always been seen here, through the victims' tears and the colonialists' documents.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

> Jewish land acquisition in Palestine before 1948 was often through legal purchases from Arab landowners. Sometimes the mob wants to buy up real estate. And if people are willing to sell, it's just a transaction with varying shades of exploitation (knowing that it will be worth more when they resell). But if those people don't want to sell, the mob doesn't just offer larger sums. There are then elements of intimidation. Strange cars drive past your home at night. You see big ugly men staring at you in a menacing fashion when you're out in public, then they wave and walk away. Bricks through windows. Anonymous threats of grave harm or murder. The escalation is constant. Anyone who sells at that point knows better than to start blabbing that they did so only because their lives were in danger... the people who extorted them don't much like being in the news even after the fact. But that's the mob. I'm sure it was different in the first half of the 20th century in the place now known as Israel.

nuxai 2y ago
[flagged]
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Except the situations aren't really analogous, now are they. The State of Israel (unlike the United States) currently seeks to expand itself into (and maintain its unlawful occupation in) multiple places which aren't, according to the international community, "Israel". And on top of that -- it (more precisely its current ultranationalist government) even tries to use its own names (Judea and Samaria) in reference to a certain very large chunk of this illegally occupied territory, even in internationally-directed communications. As if it thinks that will fool anybody. So as long as its successive governments insist on playing naming games with the international community (and in their internal propaganda) -- given this, along with its perfectly abhorrent conduct in these occupied territories, it shouldn't be in the least surprised to find its own name for itself is brought into question as well. In fact, this is exactly the response it should expect. Additionally, understand this violent expulsion was quite literally in response to the population [or rather its non-elected governing polity] declaring war on their newly [declared] state. What would you expect? The answer is obvious -- that the civilian population be allowed to return to their homes, and retain full title to their property, as in the aftermath of any post-1945 armed conflict. According to the principles of international law, to which the State of Israel is itself a signatory.
  - Beefin 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      Slow down, please. I'm (very obviously) not referring to the WB as J+S; simply citing the fact that these are the names the Israeli government uses administratively for this region, and in its external propaganda. But these are not the names the international community uses, and as such, they are not the names I use. Perhaps we can dissect RoR and other issues later, but let's get the above issue very firmly settled first.