Nakba, do you even know where that quote comes from? It comes from Syrian historian Constantin Zureiq, and it is not used factually or the way he used it.
He writes:
"When the battle broke out, our public diplomacy began to speak of our imaginary victories, to put the Arab public to sleep and talk of the ability to overcome and win easily – until the Nakba happened…We must admit our mistakes…and recognize the extent of our responsibility for the disaster that is our lot."
This is not the only place that he used it, so the meaning of what he said is straightforward. Attacking the newly formed State of Israel was an Arab mistake, not Israel's fault for defending themselves.
Israel did indeed ask the Palestinian Arab population to stay. Israel did not want a war, and they were not prepared for one. The Jewish people living in that area had legally acquired land. They purchased it and improved it. However, when six Arab nations attacked them from all sides, Israel defended itself. Unfortunately, as a result of the conflict, part of the Palestinian population became refugees for various reasons. Who was told to leave and who was forced out is something historians debate. Indeed, some were forced out by the Israeli army, trying to avoid being attacked by Arabs who sided against the new State of Israel. Some were told to leave by Arab leaders, promising they could soon return after Israel was defeated. The fact is, Arab leaders did not want Arabs to join the new Israeli democracy because they did not want to legitimize Israel.
Israel won the war by some miracle. And the poor Palestinian refugees were not allowed to return to their homes.
All the surrounding Arab nations evicted Jewish people, seizing their property and causing a large number of Jewish refugees. But we don't hear about the Jewish refugees today. We only hear about the Palestinian refugees. Why?
Well, Israel took in the Jewish refugees. They did not live day by day, expecting to return to their homes. They started over. They rebuilt.
The Arab states, by and large, rejected the Palestinian refugees. They could have quickly relieved their plight, just as Israel had done for the Jewish refugees. But, to this day, they are still called refugees.
That is sad, but it is not new. Did Jewish people who survived World War II have homes to go back to? Did Japanese Americans return to their homes after their internment by the United States during World War II? Mostly, no. But do we hear about them being refugees today? No.
The fact is, this situation is not unique. People lost homes due to war many times throughout history. It is notable because of the length of time Palestinians have been considered refugees.
"Nakba, do you even know where that quote comes from?"
What's the point of saying that? How does that point tie in to complaining about my use of "Nakba"?
"It comes from Syrian historian Constantin Zureiq, ..."
Very good. (Pat on your head.) So? Let's get to your reason for insinuating this misdirection... (Hmmm, I think it *may* be the technique of ridicule...)
"... and it is not used factually or the way he used it."
(...Oops, guess he's not gonna do that.) Ok, I'll humor you, and go down your trail... So I'm back at my, 'Was it an event in which people were forcibly displaced, and worse?' Let's see...
"He writes: / 'When the battle broke out, our public diplomacy began to speak of our imaginary victories, to put the Arab public to sleep and talk of the ability to overcome and win easily – until the Nakba happened … We must admit our mistakes … and recognize the extent of our responsibility for the disaster that is our lot.' "
Which battle are we talking about here? What precipitated it? Seems that needs to be answered first, don't you think? So tell me about it.
In any case, you're apparently saying (via Zureiq), that because Palestinian authorities at the time (according to Zureiq) lied to its people and did not prepare themselves adequately, the Palestinians should feel shame, and should feel responsible for their failure? Sorry, I'm still not following your point. What does that have to do with the rightness or wrongness of occupying Palestinian land?
"This is not the only place that he used it, so the meaning of what he said is straightforward."
OK, so why don't you give me something more relevant?
"Attacking the newly formed State of Israel was an Arab mistake, not Israel's fault for defending themselves."
Again, how is any attack *subsequent* to a movement into a territory, or any more brazen land grab, whether a mistake (militarily?) or not, relevant to the displacement that triggered it?
---------------------
Ok let's move on.
"Israel did indeed ask the Palestinian Arab population to stay. Israel did not want a war, and they were not prepared for one. The Jewish people living in that area had legally acquired land. They purchased it and improved it. However, when six Arab nations attacked them from all sides, Israel defended itself. Unfortunately, as a result of the conflict, part of the Palestinian population became refugees for various reasons. Who was told to leave and who was forced out is something historians debate. Indeed, some were forced out by the Israeli army, trying to avoid being attacked by Arabs who sided against the new State of Israel. Some were told to leave by Arab leaders, promising they could soon return after Israel was defeated. The fact is, Arab leaders did not want Arabs to join the new Israeli democracy because they did not want to legitimize Israel."
That's certainly not the story I have heard. Many times, many different sources, for many years.
"Israel did indeed ask the Palestinian Arab population to stay."
Um... wouldn't it be the Palestinians asking the so-called newly-self-minted "Israelis" to stay? You know, on their land? Which was held by the colonist Brits?
"Israel did not want a war"
No, of course not. It wanted compliance.
"Unfortunately, as a result of the conflict, part of the Palestinian population became refugees for various reasons. Who was told to leave and who was forced out is something historians debate."
I see. "Various reasons", "something historians debate" ... yes, yes, any troubling parts can be handwaved away. Nothing buried in there might have caused any normal human to become intensely angry. No, this must be an inferior people, acting in an irrational and bloodthirsty way. After all, the future Israelis just plunked themselves into the middle of an empty desert, and were just minding their own business. Makes sense to me!
--------------------
And so your reply goes on, having deftly gotten past the naughty bits which would make a three-card-monte master blush, you begin to recount Israel's heroic fight for survival ever since. Gotcha.
I’ll try to respond more later when I can type on a PC. When you referenced the Nakba I just assumed you knew what war he was referring to. This was 1948. Israel clearly had not grabbed anyone’s land at that point. All of the Jewish people living in Palestine at that time had either lived there for a very long time or had acquired land by purchase within the last 50+ years.
If you ask Palestinians living in the West Bank, most of them will say that anyone Jewish person that lived in Palestine prior to 1948 would be allowed to stay inside of a Palestinian state if one were to ever replace Israel. This is because the Nakba happened after Israel was attacked by six neighboring Arab countries, after Jewish leaders formed the Stare of Israel. The reason the quote from the historian is important is that he is the one that the term originates from. And he very clearly realized that the Nakba was a result of attacking Israel when it had clearly done nothing wrong. All of the land that Jewish people owned was purchased or had been owned by those Jewish families for a very long time. I will try to comment more later.
Thanks. I appreciate the interaction. If you stop midway, then I will assume that you have other intentions.
"[T]he Nakba happened after Israel was attacked by six neighboring Arab countries, after Jewish leaders formed the State of Israel."
OK. So, we have "Israelis" "...form[ing] a State..." Again, how? From what? From whose land? From whose authority? Who decides these things? The people who live there? The British colonizers?? I understand it was advertised as "a land without a people", but that this was a false claim. So what makes it true?
Thus, it still appears to me irrelevant that "the Nakba", the blowing up of the situation into a larger tragedy, happened *after* some presumably spontaneous attack by the Palestinians/Arabs on Jews, minding their own business. All because Arabs have an Abrahamic(!) religion that, somehow, promotes unmanageable mass insanity. That, somehow, wasn't causing the west major problems as late as the early 20th century. That, somehow, completely undid decades of Western influence "modernizing" the Muslim world until that time.
It simply strains credulity that it's that simple. But that's exactly the kind of thing that's always advertised. It's the reason I've lost patience with Israel's apologists. And if a fool like me will risk asking these questions in public, you'd better believe anyone else with a 3-digit IQ, after a lifetime watching the Middle East, are asking it of themselves in private, and with others with the phones off (if they are not deep in denial). And so they are. But if we're stupid and ignorant, what's there to worry about? Just answer our (decades-accumulating) questions, and we'll go "Doh!" like Homer, and back to our hamster treadmills with smiley faces!
"[Israel] had clearly done nothing wrong"
Could you show where and why he asserts this? Was his opinion widely held, and if not, why not?
"All of the land that Jewish people owned was purchased or had been owned by those Jewish families for a very long time."
Under which authority, prior to colonialists? How were the prior relations between different under that authority, such that there was no terrorism between Muslims and Jews? How were Jews were there "a very long time", on presumably the same plots of land, unless they were living peaceably under that rule? If so, why was that rule not replaced?
Stuck in my mind is the fact that the relevant perpetrators of crimes against Jews were *in Europe*. Not Palestine. Thus, big hurdle there, to *not* take land from the perps, and instead take it from, well ... somewhere, anywhere else. What is the overly compelling reason? An ancient text that the *current*, living occupants did/do not believe in? Is that all they had??
Nakba, do you even know where that quote comes from? It comes from Syrian historian Constantin Zureiq, and it is not used factually or the way he used it.
He writes:
"When the battle broke out, our public diplomacy began to speak of our imaginary victories, to put the Arab public to sleep and talk of the ability to overcome and win easily – until the Nakba happened…We must admit our mistakes…and recognize the extent of our responsibility for the disaster that is our lot."
This is not the only place that he used it, so the meaning of what he said is straightforward. Attacking the newly formed State of Israel was an Arab mistake, not Israel's fault for defending themselves.
Israel did indeed ask the Palestinian Arab population to stay. Israel did not want a war, and they were not prepared for one. The Jewish people living in that area had legally acquired land. They purchased it and improved it. However, when six Arab nations attacked them from all sides, Israel defended itself. Unfortunately, as a result of the conflict, part of the Palestinian population became refugees for various reasons. Who was told to leave and who was forced out is something historians debate. Indeed, some were forced out by the Israeli army, trying to avoid being attacked by Arabs who sided against the new State of Israel. Some were told to leave by Arab leaders, promising they could soon return after Israel was defeated. The fact is, Arab leaders did not want Arabs to join the new Israeli democracy because they did not want to legitimize Israel.
Israel won the war by some miracle. And the poor Palestinian refugees were not allowed to return to their homes.
All the surrounding Arab nations evicted Jewish people, seizing their property and causing a large number of Jewish refugees. But we don't hear about the Jewish refugees today. We only hear about the Palestinian refugees. Why?
Well, Israel took in the Jewish refugees. They did not live day by day, expecting to return to their homes. They started over. They rebuilt.
The Arab states, by and large, rejected the Palestinian refugees. They could have quickly relieved their plight, just as Israel had done for the Jewish refugees. But, to this day, they are still called refugees.
That is sad, but it is not new. Did Jewish people who survived World War II have homes to go back to? Did Japanese Americans return to their homes after their internment by the United States during World War II? Mostly, no. But do we hear about them being refugees today? No.
The fact is, this situation is not unique. People lost homes due to war many times throughout history. It is notable because of the length of time Palestinians have been considered refugees.
"Nakba, do you even know where that quote comes from?"
What's the point of saying that? How does that point tie in to complaining about my use of "Nakba"?
"It comes from Syrian historian Constantin Zureiq, ..."
Very good. (Pat on your head.) So? Let's get to your reason for insinuating this misdirection... (Hmmm, I think it *may* be the technique of ridicule...)
"... and it is not used factually or the way he used it."
(...Oops, guess he's not gonna do that.) Ok, I'll humor you, and go down your trail... So I'm back at my, 'Was it an event in which people were forcibly displaced, and worse?' Let's see...
"He writes: / 'When the battle broke out, our public diplomacy began to speak of our imaginary victories, to put the Arab public to sleep and talk of the ability to overcome and win easily – until the Nakba happened … We must admit our mistakes … and recognize the extent of our responsibility for the disaster that is our lot.' "
Which battle are we talking about here? What precipitated it? Seems that needs to be answered first, don't you think? So tell me about it.
In any case, you're apparently saying (via Zureiq), that because Palestinian authorities at the time (according to Zureiq) lied to its people and did not prepare themselves adequately, the Palestinians should feel shame, and should feel responsible for their failure? Sorry, I'm still not following your point. What does that have to do with the rightness or wrongness of occupying Palestinian land?
"This is not the only place that he used it, so the meaning of what he said is straightforward."
OK, so why don't you give me something more relevant?
"Attacking the newly formed State of Israel was an Arab mistake, not Israel's fault for defending themselves."
Again, how is any attack *subsequent* to a movement into a territory, or any more brazen land grab, whether a mistake (militarily?) or not, relevant to the displacement that triggered it?
---------------------
Ok let's move on.
"Israel did indeed ask the Palestinian Arab population to stay. Israel did not want a war, and they were not prepared for one. The Jewish people living in that area had legally acquired land. They purchased it and improved it. However, when six Arab nations attacked them from all sides, Israel defended itself. Unfortunately, as a result of the conflict, part of the Palestinian population became refugees for various reasons. Who was told to leave and who was forced out is something historians debate. Indeed, some were forced out by the Israeli army, trying to avoid being attacked by Arabs who sided against the new State of Israel. Some were told to leave by Arab leaders, promising they could soon return after Israel was defeated. The fact is, Arab leaders did not want Arabs to join the new Israeli democracy because they did not want to legitimize Israel."
That's certainly not the story I have heard. Many times, many different sources, for many years.
"Israel did indeed ask the Palestinian Arab population to stay."
Um... wouldn't it be the Palestinians asking the so-called newly-self-minted "Israelis" to stay? You know, on their land? Which was held by the colonist Brits?
"Israel did not want a war"
No, of course not. It wanted compliance.
"Unfortunately, as a result of the conflict, part of the Palestinian population became refugees for various reasons. Who was told to leave and who was forced out is something historians debate."
I see. "Various reasons", "something historians debate" ... yes, yes, any troubling parts can be handwaved away. Nothing buried in there might have caused any normal human to become intensely angry. No, this must be an inferior people, acting in an irrational and bloodthirsty way. After all, the future Israelis just plunked themselves into the middle of an empty desert, and were just minding their own business. Makes sense to me!
--------------------
And so your reply goes on, having deftly gotten past the naughty bits which would make a three-card-monte master blush, you begin to recount Israel's heroic fight for survival ever since. Gotcha.
I’ll try to respond more later when I can type on a PC. When you referenced the Nakba I just assumed you knew what war he was referring to. This was 1948. Israel clearly had not grabbed anyone’s land at that point. All of the Jewish people living in Palestine at that time had either lived there for a very long time or had acquired land by purchase within the last 50+ years.
If you ask Palestinians living in the West Bank, most of them will say that anyone Jewish person that lived in Palestine prior to 1948 would be allowed to stay inside of a Palestinian state if one were to ever replace Israel. This is because the Nakba happened after Israel was attacked by six neighboring Arab countries, after Jewish leaders formed the Stare of Israel. The reason the quote from the historian is important is that he is the one that the term originates from. And he very clearly realized that the Nakba was a result of attacking Israel when it had clearly done nothing wrong. All of the land that Jewish people owned was purchased or had been owned by those Jewish families for a very long time. I will try to comment more later.
Thanks. I appreciate the interaction. If you stop midway, then I will assume that you have other intentions.
"[T]he Nakba happened after Israel was attacked by six neighboring Arab countries, after Jewish leaders formed the State of Israel."
OK. So, we have "Israelis" "...form[ing] a State..." Again, how? From what? From whose land? From whose authority? Who decides these things? The people who live there? The British colonizers?? I understand it was advertised as "a land without a people", but that this was a false claim. So what makes it true?
Thus, it still appears to me irrelevant that "the Nakba", the blowing up of the situation into a larger tragedy, happened *after* some presumably spontaneous attack by the Palestinians/Arabs on Jews, minding their own business. All because Arabs have an Abrahamic(!) religion that, somehow, promotes unmanageable mass insanity. That, somehow, wasn't causing the west major problems as late as the early 20th century. That, somehow, completely undid decades of Western influence "modernizing" the Muslim world until that time.
It simply strains credulity that it's that simple. But that's exactly the kind of thing that's always advertised. It's the reason I've lost patience with Israel's apologists. And if a fool like me will risk asking these questions in public, you'd better believe anyone else with a 3-digit IQ, after a lifetime watching the Middle East, are asking it of themselves in private, and with others with the phones off (if they are not deep in denial). And so they are. But if we're stupid and ignorant, what's there to worry about? Just answer our (decades-accumulating) questions, and we'll go "Doh!" like Homer, and back to our hamster treadmills with smiley faces!
"[Israel] had clearly done nothing wrong"
Could you show where and why he asserts this? Was his opinion widely held, and if not, why not?
"All of the land that Jewish people owned was purchased or had been owned by those Jewish families for a very long time."
Under which authority, prior to colonialists? How were the prior relations between different under that authority, such that there was no terrorism between Muslims and Jews? How were Jews were there "a very long time", on presumably the same plots of land, unless they were living peaceably under that rule? If so, why was that rule not replaced?
Stuck in my mind is the fact that the relevant perpetrators of crimes against Jews were *in Europe*. Not Palestine. Thus, big hurdle there, to *not* take land from the perps, and instead take it from, well ... somewhere, anywhere else. What is the overly compelling reason? An ancient text that the *current*, living occupants did/do not believe in? Is that all they had??