The "Nakba" Myth

[Mycroft]

well then, why not just give the Arabs 10%?

numbers don't matter..right?

I notice you're dodging the question of what's so intolerable about being a person of one religion/ethnicity living in a land that's predominantly a different religion/ethnicity.

 

[Thunder]

I notice you're dodging the question of what's so intolerable about being a person of one religion/ethnicity living in a land that's predominantly a different religion/ethnicity.

err...um..

i never said such a situation is intolerable. try again.

 

[Thunder]

For one, post-Holocaust they were anticipating a lot more Jewish immigration. Millions more.

FACT: in the first 12 years since Israel was founded, only 300,000 Jews came to Israel from Europe.

It appears estimates of "millions" of Holocaust refugees making aliyah, was wrong.

One could argue from this point alone, that in hindsight it was therefore unnecessary to alot the Jews SOO much more land than the Arabs.

 

[Mycroft]

horrible analogy. try the British moving into North America and pushing out the Native Americans. thats a much better analogy.

No, the Native Americans didn't have the same concepts of property ownership as the Europeans did, the Ottomans did. Also, the Native Americans were essentially a stone-age culture that learned the uses of iron, gunpowder and horses from the Europeans, the Ottomans had comparable technology, if not necessarily a comparable economy to utilize it.

err...um..

i never said such a situation is intolerable. try again.

Fine. The let us backtrack to why you think the Arabs had to go to war? If living as a minority amongst a majority of a different ethnicity/religion isn't intolerable, then why are the proportions of land so important?

 

[Skeptic]

i never said it was justified. I did not even say the land belonged to them.

Fair enough, but if you were merely using it to explain the psychological motivation, perhaps you should have said it explicitly.

I suppose your point is that the Arab war was unjustified doesn't mean Arabs are lunatics who merely attacked Jews for no reason, or that insensate hatred wasn't their only reason.

I certainly concede that point, but it doesn't get us too far...

 

[Mycroft]

FACT: in the first 12 years since Israel was founded, only 300,000 Jews came to Israel from Europe.

It appears estimates of "millions" of Holocaust refugees making aliyah, was wrong.

So? That wasn't known then, was it? Or do you think Jews should be able to forecast the future?

One could argue from this point alone, that in hindsight it was therefore unnecessary to alot the Jews SOO much more land than the Arabs.

Let me remind you again that we're talking about sovereignty not individual land ownership. Individual land owners be they Arab or Jewish would still have retained ownership of their lands.

Also, it's important to remember that your 54% figure is 54% of the 30% that wasn't made into the wholly Arab nation of Jordan. Which makes it more like 16%.

 

[Thunder]

No, the Native Americans didn't have the same concepts of property ownership as the Europeans did, the Ottomans did. Also, the Native Americans were essentially a stone-age culture that learned the uses of iron, gunpowder and horses from the Europeans,

wow, looks like you're making light of the genocide against the Native Americans. how disgusting.

Fine. The let us backtrack to why you think the Arabs had to go to war? If living as a minority amongst a majority of a different ethnicity/religion isn't intolerable, then why are the proportions of land so important?

if proportions of land given out were no big woop, than the Zionists should have accepted 33% of Palestine right?

hell, they should have accepted 15%. Right Mycroft?

this is following YOUR argument.

 

[Thunder]

Also, it's important to remember that your 54% figure is 54% of the 30% that wasn't made into the wholly Arab nation of Jordan. Which makes it more like 16%.

Jordan was part of Palestine for a grand total of...........

.... one year.

please, try again.

actually, it was less than one year, but lets say one year for argument's sake.

 

[Matt Giwer]

People have emotional responses to fiction, why wouldn't a normal person react emotionally to an emotional event?

People do not have an emotional response to things that happened before they were born to people they never met. Again, doing so is what professional mourners do.

Seriously, I suggest you talk to a competent doctor. Normal human beings are empathic people, capable of relating to other people in all kinds of circumstances no matter how far removed. While I'm certainly not qualified to give a medical diagnosis, that you seem to find this to be an alien concept brings terms such as "sociopath" or "autism" to mind.

Do you know any French who have an emotional reaction to the Caesar's conquest? The execution of Vercingetorix? How about to Napoleon's victories and defeats? How about WWI? Anyone under age 65 reacting emotionally to WWII? I know what you will answer to that last. Rather I am reminding you of what you know regardless of how you respond.

Sorry but it is not natural.

 

[Mycroft]

wow, looks like you're making light of the genocide against the Native Americans. how disgusting.

Nope. Didn't do that. Nice try though.

if proportions of land given out were no big woop, than the Zionists should have accepted 33% of Palestine right?

hell, they should have accepted 15%. Right Mycroft?

this is following YOUR argument.

That's pretty much what they did do. The Jewish leaders accepted tiny slivers of land, unconnected and indefensible, with the majority of the best arable land going to the Arabs in the Jordan Valley. Further, that 54% figure of yours is largely due to the Jews getting the largely empty and not-so-useful Negev Desert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

 

[Mycroft]

People do not have an emotional response to things that happened before they were born to people they never met. Again, doing so is what professional mourners do.

Sociopaths don't.

I personally will choke up on hearing the story of Francis Scott Key in the war of 1812, the fate of Admiral Nelson at Trafalgar, the Allies landing at Normandy, Shakespeare's "St Crispin day" speech from Henry V, most tales from the civil war, stories about the days of slavery in the United States, the "Trail of Tears" form US history, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

I could sit here all day listing awful historical events that happened to people I never met at times before I was born that I react emotionally to. I think the real question is why you're so different that you not only don't react this way, but can't even understand people who do.

Do you know any French who have an emotional reaction to the Caesar's conquest? The execution of Vercingetorix? How about to Napoleon's victories and defeats? How about WWI? Anyone under age 65 reacting emotionally to WWII? I know what you will answer to that last. Rather I am reminding you of what you know regardless of how you respond.

Interesting that you compare events from living memory to events in antiquity. I agree that stories of the brutality of Roman soldiers from thousands of years ago carries less of an emotional punch than 20th century recollections of genocide, but it's still bizarre to claim people are faking their emotions.

Sorry but it is not natural.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Mycroft]

Jordan was part of Palestine for a grand total of...........

.... one year.

please, try again.

actually, it was less than one year, but lets say one year for argument's sake.

And...?

The British Mandate for Palestine was divided into two. The Arab half was on the East bank of the Jordan. The West Bank (heard that term before?) was where the Jews were building their communities.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Sociopaths don't.

I personally will choke up on hearing the story of Francis Scott Key in the war of 1812, the fate of Admiral Nelson at Trafalgar, the Allies landing at Normandy, Shakespeare's "St Crispin day" speech from Henry V, most tales from the civil war, stories about the days of slavery in the United States, the "Trail of Tears" form US history, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

I could sit here all day listing awful historical events that happened to people I never met at times before I was born that I react emotionally to. I think the real question is why you're so different that you not only don't react this way, but can't even understand people who do.

A reaction to a story is not a reaction to the event the story is about. A reaction to a story about a real event is no different from the reaction to a story about a fictional event. It is a reaction to the story not the event. You have given examples of responding to stories about events. If you like movies you have experienced it. Some fantasy worlds are so rich people actually crawl into them such as Trekkies.

Interesting that you compare events from living memory to events in antiquity. I agree that stories of the brutality of Roman soldiers from thousands of years ago carries less of an emotional punch than 20th century recollections of genocide, but it's still bizarre to claim people are faking their emotions.

I said under age 65 for WWII so I was not referring to living memory. But if you want to talk about who might still be alive to remember and if we take for a fact that those too young to work were killed and say that meant 12 and under then we would have to talk of under age 77. So yes the emotions are fake. It is the mark of a good actor to work up an emotional state to affect a good portrayal.

Which is really neither here nor there. You might be moved by the stories but not by the event itself.

Speak for yourself.

Forming an emotional connection with things not experienced remains abnormal.

 

[Thunder]

And...?

The British Mandate for Palestine was divided into two. The Arab half was on the East bank of the Jordan. The West Bank (heard that term before?) was where the Jews were building their communities.

#1. since when has the term "West Bank" been used to describe all the land West of the Jordan river? where do you get this stuff from?

#2. "With the League of Nations' consent on 16 September 1922, the UK divided the Mandate territory into two administrative areas, Palestine, under direct British rule, and autonomous Transjordan, under the rule of the Hashemite family from Hijaz Saudi Arabia, in accordance with the McMahon Pledge of 1915.[1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British Mandate_for_Palestine

for all intents and purposes, Palestine was shrunk by 2/3rds barely after it was even created.

 

[DC]

Fair enough, but if you were merely using it to explain the psychological motivation, perhaps you should have said it explicitly.

I suppose your point is that the Arab war was unjustified doesn't mean Arabs are lunatics who merely attacked Jews for no reason, or that insensate hatred wasn't their only reason.

I certainly concede that point, but it doesn't get us too far...

it seems to be a point many don't concede at all. And often it seem to be people that would never ever split up their country, most of them would not support Aboriginal Australians or Americans splitting Australia or the USA.

 

[Virus]

wow, looks like you're making light of the genocide against the Native Americans. how disgusting.

There wasn't a genocide. 90% of Native Americans died from disease.

http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html

 

[DC]

There wasn't a genocide. 90% of Native Americans died from disease.

http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html

that isn't mutual exclusive

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html

 

[a_unique_person]

There wasn't a genocide. 90% of Native Americans died from disease.

http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html

It's not that simple. People deprived of their ability to provide for themselves are not as able to survive disease, and the people left were still not allowed to have what they were entitled to. Oklahoma was supposed to be the remnant of the American land that was to be set aside as the Indian Territory, but that was taken off them too.

 

[mortimer]

It's not that simple. People deprived of their ability to provide for themselves are not as able to survive disease, and the people left were still not allowed to have what they were entitled to. Oklahoma was supposed to be the remnant of the American land that was to be set aside as the Indian Territory, but that was taken off them too.

There wasn't much in Oklahoma that would have sustained a people.

 

[a_unique_person]

There wasn't much in Oklahoma that would have sustained a people.

They gave it away for free to white settlers.