• 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

OT, the question for the topic is, Was the Nakba a myth. It was not myth. Comparing the Holocaust and the Nakba really serves no purpose, as they were two different types of events. Both were important and traumatic to the people who experienced them, but saying how much more traumatic one was compared to the other is pointless.
 
Both were important and traumatic to the people who experienced them, but saying how much more traumatic one was compared to the other is pointless.

I thought you were equating the two. And I think it is possible to determine the relative trauma of both. Pointless? Not sure.
 
Are you going to address the point that expecting Israel to give their nation to the Palestineans is precisely the same as Australia and the US giving their nation to the indigenous inhabitants?

was it also the same when the Palestinians where "asked" to give their land to the indigenous inhabitants?
 
But isn't the Nabka the result of a war which the Arabs started? Why is the fact that the Arabs started it always omitted from anti-Israel narrative? Does the omission mean that people think the Arab states made a sage decision when they rejected the Two-State solution and started a war?
 
But isn't the Nabka the result of a war which the Arabs started? Why is the fact that the Arabs started it always omitted from anti-Israel narrative? Does the omission mean that people think the Arab states made a sage decision when they rejected the Two-State solution and started a war?

how would other nations react to the creation of a independent state on land they believe to be theirs? say how would Australia react once indigenous people that emigrated back to Australia in huge numbers creat an independent state inside Australia? i guess Australia would welcome them and be happy to share their land?

Or how do the Turks react to Kurdistan?
 
But isn't the Nabka the result of a war which the Arabs started? Why is the fact that the Arabs started it always omitted from anti-Israel narrative? Does the omission mean that people think the Arab states made a sage decision when they rejected the Two-State solution and started a war?

I will refer you to the "Iron Wall" again. The Zionists back then knew it would happen, and why it would happen.

Here is one site with a copy of it.

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/ironwall.htm

Any native people – its all the same whether they are civilized or savage – views their country as their national home, of which they will always be the complete masters. They will not voluntarily allow, not only a new master, but even a new partner. And so it is for the Arabs. Compromisers in our midst attempt to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked by a softened formulation of our goals, or a tribe of money grubbers who will abandon their birth right to Palestine for cultural and economic gains. I flatly reject this assessment of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are 500 years behind us, spiritually they do not have our endurance or our strength of will, but this exhausts all of the internal differences. We can talk as much as we want about our good intentions; but they understand as well as we what is not good for them. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie.
 
how would other nations react to the creation of a independent state on land they believe to be theirs? say how would Australia react once indigenous people that emigrated back to Australia in huge numbers creat an independent state inside Australia? i guess Australia would welcome them and be happy to share their land?

Or how do the Turks react to Kurdistan?

Australia wasn't part of a defeated empire and under British and French mandate. Yes, the European colonial powers divided up the former Ottoman Empire, but the creation of Israel was no more an injustice than the creation of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon or Syria. All of which granted dominion to a tribe or sect at the expense of competing tribes and sects who felt cheated. The French gave Lebanon to the Maronite Christians who had been facing persecution since the Muslim conquests. Don't see any complaints about that. The Muslims were used to Jews being dhimmis and rejected out-of-hand the idea that they could have their own state.
 
Last edited:
Australia wasn't part of a defeated empire and under British and French mandate. Yes, the European colonial powers divided up the former Ottoman Empire, but the creation of Israel was no more an injustice than the creation of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon or Syria. All of which granted dominion to a tribe or sect at the expense of competing tribes and sects who felt cheated. The French gave Lebanon to the Maronite Christians who had been facing persecution since the Muslim conquests. Don't see any complaints about that.

So if the UN would say, ok its time to split up Australia, it would be OK for you?
 
So if the UN would say, ok its time to split up Australia, it would be OK for you?


That's not going to happen because Australia wasn't an empire on the losing side of World War 1. Context is important.
 
But isn't the Nabka the result of a war which the Arabs started? Why is the fact that the Arabs started it always omitted from anti-Israel narrative? Does the omission mean that people think the Arab states made a sage decision when they rejected the Two-State solution and started a war?

it doesn't matter why refugees flee. they are always allowed to return...according to the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has signed.
 
Here is one site with a copy of it.

Uh, about that:

native people
their country
their birth right to Palestine

LoL.:rolleyes:

I got a question! Should Germany get all this back? Perhaps we, the German people, who are so native to our country and have our birth right *chuckle* to Germany should collectively start referring to 1918 as our nakba, and 1945 as our 2nd nakba! My, we could even start blaming the Jews, just like back then!
Or we accept the outcome of our 2nd war. Oh, wait, that's what we're doing, because we're not retarded in every sense of the word! It's really not rocket science.:rolleyes:
 
That's not going to happen because Australia wasn't an empire on the losing side of World War 1. Context is important.

:rolleyes: yeah im sure you would love to give a part of Australia to the indigenous inhabitants if Australia were an empire on the losing side............

Soehow its always the same in this debates, no one can imagen ir supports Indigenous Australians geting back their country or American Indians, but for Jews, that seem to be the most normal thing to happen....... why that special role for them? why dont you give back your country to the people you stole it from?
 

OK I read it and it's basically one bigot's personal viewpoint and not official policy of the Israeli state.

As this site explains;

The "Iron Wall" has been recently been recast as a governing doctrine of mainstream activist Zionism by Professor Avi Shlaim in his book, The Iron Wall. However, the doctrine of Zionist "activism" is a bit different from the defensive posture of the Iron Wall, and was conceived in the context of creation of the State of Israel, not during the mandate. Jabotinsky himself had left the Zionist movement just before the Iron Wall article was published. His essays, the original Iron Wall, and a second one on the Ethics of the Iron wall were published in Russian and were not official documents of the Zionist organization. Labor Zionist leaders such as Ben Gurion and Itzhak Rabin, whom Avi Shlaim claims were disciples of the Iron Wall doctrine, had nothing but contempt for Jabotinsky and revisionism, and it is highly unlikely that Rabin even read anything by Jabotinsky.

http://www.mideastweb.org/ironwall.htm
 
:rolleyes: yeah im sure you would love to give a part of Australia to the indigenous inhabitants if Australia were an empire on the losing side............

I know that English is not your first language, but this makes absolutely no sense. And the second part of your post less so, which is why I haven't quoted it.
 
I know that English is not your first language, but this makes absolutely no sense. And the second part of your post less so, which is why I haven't quoted it.

yeah everything you dont want to answer is "that makes no sence"......

read it in context and if you still dont get it, im sorry, there is nothing that will help you.

when are you planning to answer my question that was actually directed at you?

let me guess, "i know English is not your first Language, but this makes so no sense"...... :rolleyes:

why did the Palestinains have to give their land to the Israelis, why do you oppose the same for Australia and the USA while supporting it in Israel/Palestina?
 
Last edited:
:rolleyes: yeah im sure you would love to give a part of Australia to the indigenous inhabitants if Australia were an empire on the losing side.

What's with the "would love to"? The Arabs didn't love to, that's why they waged a war against the Jews. Jews won, Arabs didn't, tough luck. Deal with it.

why dont you give back your country to the people you stole it from?

And why should they? To be nice in your view?
 

Back
Top Bottom