• 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

DC said:
what is an empire for you is a country for someone else :)
Click to expand...
So we're going to continue to pretend that there was a country there. And pretend all the countries that were carved out around Israel within 50 years of eachother.

Noted.
 
Thunder said:
#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? :p
Click to expand...

Didn't claim that. Nice try, though.


Thunder said:
#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.
Click to expand...

None of which contradicts anything I said.
 
bigjelmapro said:
So we're going to continue to pretend that there was a country there. And pretend all the countries that were carved out around Israel within 50 years of eachother.

Noted.
Click to expand...

Well, pretending that there was no-one there is a great way of justifying a dispossession, that's for sure! :D
 
bit_pattern said:
Well, pretending that there was no-one there is a great way of justifying a dispossession, that's for sure! :D
Click to expand...
Again, nobody is pretending that the land was devoid of people. The issue here is the existence of a country rather than blocks of land of a dissolved empire.

The ownership of land is another question. Once there's a rebuttal to the Ottoman tanzimat and 1920's British land reforms, then there can be a debate about ownership and the issue of dispossession.
 
bigjelmapro said:
Again, nobody is pretending that the land was devoid of people. The issue here is the existence of a country rather than blocks of land of a dissolved empire.
Click to expand...

Why is that an issue? Since when has statehood been a precondition for nationality?
 
Last edited:
bit_pattern said:
Why is that an issue? Since when has statehood been a precondition for nationality?
Click to expand...
Who is talking about that?

There was no country, simply a dissolved empire. No retrospective application of a name translated through 2-3 different languages totally losing its meaning in the process, attributed to a group of different people not associated with Palestinian Arabs to begin with, is not going to make this unique country of Palestine magically appear prior to the establishment of Israel....
 
bigjelmapro said:
Who is talking about that?

There was no country, simply a dissolved empire. No retrospective application of a name translated through 2-3 different languages totally losing its meaning in the process, attributed to a group of different people not associated with Palestinian Arabs to begin with, is not going to make this unique country of Palestine magically appear prior to the establishment of Israel....
Click to expand...

What about the Palestinian nationality? I wait with amusement at your attempts to deny its existence!
 
bigjelmapro said:
So we're going to continue to pretend that there was a country there. And pretend all the countries that were carved out around Israel within 50 years of eachother.

Noted.
Click to expand...

so? there was also no Israel then. that doesn't change much of what those people there believed to be theirs.
 
bigjelmapro said:
Who is talking about that?

There was no country, simply a dissolved empire. No retrospective application of a name translated through 2-3 different languages totally losing its meaning in the process, attributed to a group of different people not associated with Palestinian Arabs to begin with, is not going to make this unique country of Palestine magically appear prior to the establishment of Israel....
Click to expand...

There were people there. With homes and a right to self determination. They did not choose to be the subject of a tryanny.
 
bit_pattern said:
Australian national identity existed before the "country" of Australia. Does that make Australia any less legitimate?
Click to expand...
What a loose definition. Not talking legitimacy either. Legitimacy also doesn't dictate border demarcations either.

Point to a group of indigenous people that apparently existed in the land in question for tens of thousands of years before and I'll see how this superficial correlation is applicable.

What I've mentioned is the retroactive adoption of a name, Palestinian, and apply it to a group of people who it wasn't previously referring to. And since we're on legitimacy, this retroactive application is used to delegitimize Israel as a state.
 
a_unique_person said:
There were people there. With homes and a right to self determination. They did not choose to be the subject of a tryanny.
Click to expand...
The end result was still a product of wars.

You keep presenting the Palestinians as a whole as innocent bystanders and victims. Homes were lost on both sides, where over half of Palestinian Arabs were internally displaced, yet even the Palestinian Arabs as a whole who were displaced is less than the total number of Jews displaced as a product of these wars. This was the result of the Arab league and the Palestinian leadership making poor decisions in pursuit of Arab rejectionism of the partition plan.

There's no reset button, hence the need for negotiations.

At any point you can reply to this...
 
In Australia, we had literally hundreds of tribes and groups all with independent identities before white people arrived. Does that in anyway delegitimise the common Aboriginal Australian identity today?

And since we're on legitimacy, this retroactive application is used to delegitimize Israel as a state.
Click to expand...

By me?
No?
Relevance?
 
a_unique_person said:
Did they choose to be under the tyranny of a foreign power? One that demonstrated it was prepared to resort to genocide if it's domination was threatened?
Click to expand...

Could you be more hysterical? There was no genocide and Israel has always been a democracy that treats Arab citizens better than any Arab state does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom