• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The "Nakba" Myth

Virus said:
What iron wall? The Palestinians could have had self-determination the 6000 times it was offered to them.
Click to expand...

I posted a short summary of the real history of zionism in Palestine. My purposed was a vain attempt to focus the discussion on real history as it is in the history books including history books published in Israel by authors who are both jewish and Israeli.

That you cannot deal with the history does not permit you to substitute your personal fantasies about that history.
 
DC said:
Do you disagree with him on it?
Click to expand...
Not the issue.

There's no justification for equivalence between the two though, I can tell you that. If you wish to know my position, then perhaps a read on my previous posts will give you more insight.
 
Matt Giwer said:
I posted a short summary of the real history of zionism in Palestine. My purposed was a vain attempt to focus the discussion on real history as it is in the history books including history books published in Israel by authors who are both jewish and Israeli.

That you cannot deal with the history does not permit you to substitute your personal fantasies about that history.
Click to expand...
You've failed in all attempts in 'providing' your interpretation of the history in this region. Plenty of threads that go into detail on this subject matter, but somehow you have this idea in your head that you're providing an actual summary based on reality on this subject matter.

As with previous replies, you gloss over the ones that you can't answer.
 
a_unique_person said:
The iron wall was well in place before Israel declared itself a state. As Bibi's tape shows, it's still in place. Everyone who is denied self determination fights for it.
Click to expand...
Again, what is this iron wall?

You make a reference to this tape, yet you can't specify, yet again, what you are referring to.
 
a_unique_person said:
They weren't offered self determination.
Click to expand...
This is just a slight expansion on your responses that just state 'No.'

There have indeed been a number of chances, which were adamantly rejected by the Palestinian leadership and the Arab league from the get-go in preference for pan-Arabism and then Islamism, both which reject the existence of a kaffir state within land thought to be exclusively Muslim.

So yes, the Palestinians had the chance for self-determination, independence and their own state. So all of the above.
 
Mycroft said:
Well that's exactly the misrepresentation. Nobody got kicked out until there was war. If there hadn't been war, nobody would have been kicked out.
Click to expand...



The crucial context that is always omitted from the leftist, Islamist and antisemite accounts.
 
Last edited:
bigjelmapro said:
You've failed in all attempts in 'providing' your interpretation of the history in this region. Plenty of threads that go into detail on this subject matter, but somehow you have this idea in your head that you're providing an actual summary based on reality on this subject matter.

As with previous replies, you gloss over the ones that you can't answer.
Click to expand...

May I direct your attention to the following?

Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
Tom Segev
Benny Morris, 1948
Prof Avi Shlaim, THE IRON WALL, Israel and the Arab World
Avi Shlaim
Shimha Flapan
 
bigjelmapro said:
This is just a slight expansion on your responses that just state 'No.'

There have indeed been a number of chances, which were adamantly rejected by the Palestinian leadership and the Arab league from the get-go in preference for pan-Arabism and then Islamism, both which reject the existence of a kaffir state within land thought to be exclusively Muslim.

So yes, the Palestinians had the chance for self-determination, independence and their own state. So all of the above.
Click to expand...

They were under the rule of the Ottomans for hundreds of years and asked the British, (who broke their agreement about granting independence to the Arabs, only doing so selectively), for self determination. This was denied. The UN took over from the British, and also refused to allow them self determination, and made a determination for them, that was not what they wanted. All subsequent offers have been a subset of what the British offered. Oslo was accepted, but at a great loss of what they were originally entitled to by natural justice. As for 'exclusively Muslim', there were significant Xian populations in the area, and there was a significant secular political presence.
 
bigjelmapro said:
Not the issue.

There's no justification for equivalence between the two though, I can tell you that. If you wish to know my position, then perhaps a read on my previous posts will give you more insight.
Click to expand...

So you do actually compare them?
 
Pardalis said:
You don't seem to be able to discuss the Nakba without referring to the Holocaust, which indicates to me that you are unable to discuss it intelligently, that your arguments for the Nakba can't stand on their own, so you rely on the Holocaust simply as a cheap rhetorical device to attack your opponent.
Click to expand...

quite happy to compare Nakba deniers with any variety of deniers....the arguments are the same...thats not my fault.

you and many others here are quite happy to compare people who disagree with them about the Investigations of the flotilla shootings.....pronouncing they are " truthers" Just like the 911 truthers....so those people are equating the flotilla shootings with 911?

as I said, the more Mycroft...and you....shine a light on your arguments the deeper you dig yourself in.

maybe you could explain how one argument equates the events but the other doesn't eh?
 
equating Gaza flotilla incident with 9-11? okee dokee

equating charges of war crimes against the IDF with Blood Libels? okee dokee

comparing the Nakba to the Shoah? not okee dokee

comparing bigotry against Muslims to anti-Semitism? not okee dokee.

comparing Hamas and Fatah to the Nazis? okee dokee.

comparing the IDF to Nazis? not okee dokee.

comparing Arab nationalism to fascism? okee dokee.

comparing Jewish nationalism to fascism? not okee dokee.



...looks like a double-standard to me.
 
Last edited:
so, what is the evidence that Israel did NOT force out any Arabs from Israel?

what is the evidence that Israel has allowed the refugees to return, or offered to pay them compensation for their lost property?
 
a_unique_person said:
They were under the rule of the Ottomans for hundreds of years and asked the British, (who broke their agreement about granting independence to the Arabs, only doing so selectively), for self determination. This was denied. The UN took over from the British, and also refused to allow them self determination, and made a determination for them, that was not what they wanted. All subsequent offers have been a subset of what the British offered. Oslo was accepted, but at a great loss of what they were originally entitled to by natural justice. As for 'exclusively Muslim', there were significant Xian populations in the area, and there was a significant secular political presence.
Click to expand...

What? What do you mean? How is this justice system work?

Actually, the Palestinians were offered self determination on a number of occasions, starting from the Peel commission, continuiong with the UN partition plan, and ending with Israel-PA negotiations. All these plans had
one common characteristic, they allocated some part of the country for Jews. They were all rejected by the Palestinian leadership of the time.

Thus, it is accurate to say that the Palestinians rejected self determination as long as it also allowed Jewish self determination. Moreover, any realistic solution would include Jewish self determination.
 
Doctor Evil said:
Actually, the Palestinians were offered self determination on a number of occasions, starting from the Peel commission, continuiong with the UN partition plan, and ending with Israel-PA negotiations. All these plans had
one common characteristic, they allocated some part of the country for Jews. They were all rejected by the Palestinian leadership of the time.
Click to expand...

Israel's last formal offer to the Palestinians, made at Camp David, allowed Israel to "lease" 27% of the West Bank for up to 25 years.

Had Arafat accepted this, he would have been lynched in Ramala.
 
Doctor Evil said:
What? What do you mean? How is this justice system work?

Actually, the Palestinians were offered self determination on a number of occasions, starting from the Peel commission, continuiong with the UN partition plan, and ending with Israel-PA negotiations. All these plans had
one common characteristic, they allocated some part of the country for Jews. They were all rejected by the Palestinian leadership of the time.

Thus, it is accurate to say that the Palestinians rejected self determination as long as it also allowed Jewish self determination. Moreover, any realistic solution would include Jewish self determination.
Click to expand...

Rejecting giving sovereignty to terrorists is what would be expected of any rational people. Who in the hell would want terrorists as neighbors?

If Zionists had declared their Israel in New York City all of them would have been floating face down in the Hudson within 24 hours.

If the UN had given Zionist terrorists part of the US the same thing would have happened although the river might have been different.

Why should Palestinians behave any different?
 
Thunder said:
Israel's last formal offer to the Palestinians, made at Camp David, allowed Israel to "lease" 27% of the West Bank for up to 25 years.

Had Arafat accepted this, he would have been lynched in Ramala.
Click to expand...

If one assumes the meaning of formal offer means in writing as it does in every other matter of any significance then there was never a formal offer.
 
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom