Al Nakba Denial vs Holocaust Denial, what's the Difference

[P F Tinmore]

Here's my rub. Where is anyone denying the 'nakba' occurred? Unlike the holocaust where there are many denying that it ever happened, everyone admits that 700,000 Arabs left Israel after its creation.

I think the dispute lies in whether they left voluntarily or involuntarily.

The right of return applies to everyone without regard to why they left. Why they left is irrelevant.

 

[Indeependent]

Here's my rub. Where is anyone denying the 'nakba' occurred? Unlike the holocaust where there are many denying that it ever happened, everyone admits that 700,000 Arabs left Israel after its creation.

I think the dispute lies in whether they left voluntarily or involuntarily.

The right of return applies to everyone without regard to why they left. Why they left is irrelevant.

Just like the right to live applies everywhere in the Muslim world.

 

[teddyearp]

There was no mix. No one leaves their home and land unless they are threatened by harm.

If you look at all the articles and accounts, there must have been a mix. You are only looking at one.

 

[louie888]

There was no mix. No one leaves their home and land unless they are threatened by harm.

If you look at all the articles and accounts, there must have been a mix. You are only looking at one.

So... after you spent several pages derailing this thread while whining about how "nobody denies the Nakba," and after being shown the evidence from Israeli law and posters right here on this thread, you yourself continue to deny the Nakba.

Well done, teddyderp.

 

[teddyearp]

I am not denying it happened. English is not your strong suit.

 

[montelatici]

There was no mix. No one leaves their home and land unless they are threatened by harm.

If you look at all the articles and accounts, there must have been a mix. You are only looking at one.

If you read the propaganda, you are led to believe the preposterous notion (propaganda) that the Muslims and Christians left their homes and lands willingly. How can any reasonable person believe such nonsense. That propaganda was debunked long ago.

I look at facts from source documents. You read revisionist propaganda compiled after the fact to justify the ethnic cleansing and genocide perpetrated by the Zionists.

 

[Shusha]

If you read the propaganda, you are led to believe the preposterous notion (propaganda) that the Muslims and Christians left their homes and lands willingly.

Of course they didn't. They left under conditions of fleeing a war, or being removed due to a war. It happened on both sides, and is a normal (if terrible) consequence of war.

This is not at ALL the same as the deliberate, systematic extermination of an entire peoples. They are not equivalent and should not be compared as such.

 

[teddyearp]

Teddyearp: "is not"
Monti: "is so"
Repeated forever and ever until teddyearp let's monti have the last post.

Teddy ain't playing no more.

 

[P F Tinmore]

If you read the propaganda, you are led to believe the preposterous notion (propaganda) that the Muslims and Christians left their homes and lands willingly.

Of course they didn't. They left under conditions of fleeing a war, or being removed due to a war. It happened on both sides, and is a normal (if terrible) consequence of war.

This is not at ALL the same as the deliberate, systematic extermination of an entire peoples. They are not equivalent and should not be compared as such.

I realize that deep thinking is not the Zionist's long suit. Ethnic cleansing was not a consequence of war. It was the reason for the war.

The Zionists wanted a majority Jewish state where the Jews were only 1/3 of the population. That meant that a lot of Palestinians had to go. There was no other option.

 

[Coyote]

If you read the propaganda, you are led to believe the preposterous notion (propaganda) that the Muslims and Christians left their homes and lands willingly.

Of course they didn't. They left under conditions of fleeing a war, or being removed due to a war. It happened on both sides, and is a normal (if terrible) consequence of war.

This is not at ALL the same as the deliberate, systematic extermination of an entire peoples. They are not equivalent and should not be compared as such.

I realize that deep thinking is not the Zionist's long suit. Ethnic cleansing was not a consequence of war. It was the reason for the war.

The Zionists wanted a majority Jewish state where the Jews were only 1/3 of the population. That meant that a lot of Palestinians had to go. There was no other option.

But the Palestinians also did NOT want a Jewish state...it kind of worked both ways, without enough people willing to work together for the rights of all. It was Zionism vs Arab Nationalism and no meeting in the middle.

 

[P F Tinmore]

If you read the propaganda, you are led to believe the preposterous notion (propaganda) that the Muslims and Christians left their homes and lands willingly.

Of course they didn't. They left under conditions of fleeing a war, or being removed due to a war. It happened on both sides, and is a normal (if terrible) consequence of war.

This is not at ALL the same as the deliberate, systematic extermination of an entire peoples. They are not equivalent and should not be compared as such.

I realize that deep thinking is not the Zionist's long suit. Ethnic cleansing was not a consequence of war. It was the reason for the war.

The Zionists wanted a majority Jewish state where the Jews were only 1/3 of the population. That meant that a lot of Palestinians had to go. There was no other option.

But the Palestinians also did NOT want a Jewish state...it kind of worked both ways, without enough people willing to work together for the rights of all. It was Zionism vs Arab Nationalism and no meeting in the middle.

Of course they did not want a settler colonial project inside their state. Name another people in the world who would accept such a thing. Particularly since the word was that the Zionists wanted to take over the whole place.

 

[Shusha]

Ethnic cleansing was not a consequence of war. It was the reason for the war.

The Zionists wanted a majority Jewish state where the Jews were only 1/3 of the population. That meant that a lot of Palestinians had to go. There was no other option.

As Coyote also said -- it worked both ways. Both Jewish nationalists and Arab nationalists wanted (needed, need) a homogeneous enough population to bring about a national self-determination. And both groups created "facts on the ground" by using military strength to rid the territory they controlled of the "enemy" population. That is what the war was.

After WWI and WWII, when the time of large Empires came to an end, smaller, tribal-based nationalities became the norm. An exchange of population as a consequence of distinct, smaller nationalisms was quite normal for the times and even fifty years later -- see examples such as Yugoslavia. In fact, there are numbers in the millions of peoples who were transferred. It was common. (And, in nearly every case, it actually solved the problem).

But it is an error to claim that it was (is) only one side which wanted (needed, wants, needs) a relatively homogeneous population. Let alone that only one side managed to accomplish such a thing! If we compare the two sides we see that the Arabs were FAR more successful in their removal of Jews throughout the Arab world than the Jews were in removal of Arabs on the tiny slice that is now Israel or on the slightly larger slice which should have been the Jewish National Homeland. Whether that is a result of incompetence on the part of the Jewish people (unlikely) or a lack of will is of no consequence except on silly forums like this one.

The point being that there is no moral equivalence between an EQUAL requirement for a homogeneous population and the military will and power to create such a reality in war and the deliberate, systematic extermination of a peoples.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ethnic cleansing was not a consequence of war. It was the reason for the war.

The Zionists wanted a majority Jewish state where the Jews were only 1/3 of the population. That meant that a lot of Palestinians had to go. There was no other option.

As Coyote also said -- it worked both ways. Both Jewish nationalists and Arab nationalists wanted (needed, need) a homogeneous enough population to bring about a national self-determination. And both groups created "facts on the ground" by using military strength to rid the territory they controlled of the "enemy" population. That is what the war was.

After WWI and WWII, when the time of large Empires came to an end, smaller, tribal-based nationalities became the norm. An exchange of population as a consequence of distinct, smaller nationalisms was quite normal for the times and even fifty years later -- see examples such as Yugoslavia. In fact, there are numbers in the millions of peoples who were transferred. It was common. (And, in nearly every case, it actually solved the problem).

But it is an error to claim that it was (is) only one side which wanted (needed, wants, needs) a relatively homogeneous population. Let alone that only one side managed to accomplish such a thing! If we compare the two sides we see that the Arabs were FAR more successful in their removal of Jews throughout the Arab world than the Jews were in removal of Arabs on the tiny slice that is now Israel or on the slightly larger slice which should have been the Jewish National Homeland. Whether that is a result of incompetence on the part of the Jewish people (unlikely) or a lack of will is of no consequence except on silly forums like this one.

The point being that there is no moral equivalence between an EQUAL requirement for a homogeneous population and the military will and power to create such a reality in war and the deliberate, systematic extermination of a peoples.

So the settler colonial project had to be equal or more that the native population?

I don't see your point.

 

[yiostheoy]

Al Nakba Denial vs Holocaust Denial, what's the Difference?

I found this poll and blog to be an excellent question with some great videos. People go to jail in Germany if they deny the Holocaust, but and in typical Racist fashion the Zionists would like to punish Palestinians for remembering and telling the world it happened.

spam.

 

[montelatici]

Ethnic cleansing was not a consequence of war. It was the reason for the war.

The Zionists wanted a majority Jewish state where the Jews were only 1/3 of the population. That meant that a lot of Palestinians had to go. There was no other option.

As Coyote also said -- it worked both ways. Both Jewish nationalists and Arab nationalists wanted (needed, need) a homogeneous enough population to bring about a national self-determination. And both groups created "facts on the ground" by using military strength to rid the territory they controlled of the "enemy" population. That is what the war was.

After WWI and WWII, when the time of large Empires came to an end, smaller, tribal-based nationalities became the norm. An exchange of population as a consequence of distinct, smaller nationalisms was quite normal for the times and even fifty years later -- see examples such as Yugoslavia. In fact, there are numbers in the millions of peoples who were transferred. It was common. (And, in nearly every case, it actually solved the problem).

But it is an error to claim that it was (is) only one side which wanted (needed, wants, needs) a relatively homogeneous population. Let alone that only one side managed to accomplish such a thing! If we compare the two sides we see that the Arabs were FAR more successful in their removal of Jews throughout the Arab world than the Jews were in removal of Arabs on the tiny slice that is now Israel or on the slightly larger slice which should have been the Jewish National Homeland. Whether that is a result of incompetence on the part of the Jewish people (unlikely) or a lack of will is of no consequence except on silly forums like this one.

The point being that there is no moral equivalence between an EQUAL requirement for a homogeneous population and the military will and power to create such a reality in war and the deliberate, systematic extermination of a peoples.

How can you compare the rights of the people inhabiting a territory with the rights of the people living on another continent planning to colonize the territory? Don't you realize it's an altogether crazy concept?

 

[Hollie]

Ethnic cleansing was not a consequence of war. It was the reason for the war.

The Zionists wanted a majority Jewish state where the Jews were only 1/3 of the population. That meant that a lot of Palestinians had to go. There was no other option.

As Coyote also said -- it worked both ways. Both Jewish nationalists and Arab nationalists wanted (needed, need) a homogeneous enough population to bring about a national self-determination. And both groups created "facts on the ground" by using military strength to rid the territory they controlled of the "enemy" population. That is what the war was.

After WWI and WWII, when the time of large Empires came to an end, smaller, tribal-based nationalities became the norm. An exchange of population as a consequence of distinct, smaller nationalisms was quite normal for the times and even fifty years later -- see examples such as Yugoslavia. In fact, there are numbers in the millions of peoples who were transferred. It was common. (And, in nearly every case, it actually solved the problem).

But it is an error to claim that it was (is) only one side which wanted (needed, wants, needs) a relatively homogeneous population. Let alone that only one side managed to accomplish such a thing! If we compare the two sides we see that the Arabs were FAR more successful in their removal of Jews throughout the Arab world than the Jews were in removal of Arabs on the tiny slice that is now Israel or on the slightly larger slice which should have been the Jewish National Homeland. Whether that is a result of incompetence on the part of the Jewish people (unlikely) or a lack of will is of no consequence except on silly forums like this one.

The point being that there is no moral equivalence between an EQUAL requirement for a homogeneous population and the military will and power to create such a reality in war and the deliberate, systematic extermination of a peoples.

How can you compare the rights of the people inhabiting a territory with the rights of the people living on another continent planning to colonize the territory? Don't you realize it's an altogether crazy concept?

Inhabiting an area (squatting the land), doesn't entitle ownership.

You should eventually realize that the geographic area you falsely believe to be your invented "Magical Kingdom of Disney Pally'land" was controlled by the Ottoman's who released all rights and title to the Mandatory.

 

[Shusha]

How can you compare the rights of the people inhabiting a territory with the rights of the people living on another continent planning to colonize the territory? Don't you realize it's an altogether crazy concept?

It might have been a crazy concept had it not happened over and over and over again throughout human history. As it is -- it is no where near a crazy concept. Rather banal, actually. Yawn inducing. Soporific. Chamomile tea. Are you suggesting that colonizers have NO rights? Ever? In all of space and time on our tiny little planet? Are you suggesting that we -- all people -- be restored to where we were originally living? As though you could measure such a thing? As though it was possible to measure such a thing, no matter how good we get at dissecting DNA.

If you are really so beholden to this idea that colonizers have no rights -- defend the idea. Defend not only the idea in principle -- but the idea that this lack of rights, in practice, requires not only prevention, but remedy. Defend it vis a vis the Americas. Africa. Australia. I rather think you can't, or won't. Because you really don't have a problem with colonization in the objective, universal sense. You reject it only with respect to Israel (read: the Jewish people), and I'm afraid, then, your anti-semitism slip is showing. You are, as always, free to prove me wrong. There are plenty of examples. The example of the Americas is, perhaps, most compelling, but you might discuss East Timor, Western Sahara, Cyprus or any other number of current examples.


No, the idea of colonizers, or of colonizers having rights, is not in the slightest an interesting idea. Far, far more intriguing is the entirely unique idea that migration of peoples back to their ancestral homeland is morally abhorrent and should be prevented and, failing that, undone. Now THAT is an entirely new concept. And, what is truly interesting about it is that it has no moral counter. One can not say that people have no right to return home and be taken seriously. That is unthinkable. That is morally ridiculous.

 

[ding]

"I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize man than any other nation." Letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson

 

[Indeependent]

Ethnic cleansing was not a consequence of war. It was the reason for the war.

The Zionists wanted a majority Jewish state where the Jews were only 1/3 of the population. That meant that a lot of Palestinians had to go. There was no other option.

As Coyote also said -- it worked both ways. Both Jewish nationalists and Arab nationalists wanted (needed, need) a homogeneous enough population to bring about a national self-determination. And both groups created "facts on the ground" by using military strength to rid the territory they controlled of the "enemy" population. That is what the war was.

After WWI and WWII, when the time of large Empires came to an end, smaller, tribal-based nationalities became the norm. An exchange of population as a consequence of distinct, smaller nationalisms was quite normal for the times and even fifty years later -- see examples such as Yugoslavia. In fact, there are numbers in the millions of peoples who were transferred. It was common. (And, in nearly every case, it actually solved the problem).

But it is an error to claim that it was (is) only one side which wanted (needed, wants, needs) a relatively homogeneous population. Let alone that only one side managed to accomplish such a thing! If we compare the two sides we see that the Arabs were FAR more successful in their removal of Jews throughout the Arab world than the Jews were in removal of Arabs on the tiny slice that is now Israel or on the slightly larger slice which should have been the Jewish National Homeland. Whether that is a result of incompetence on the part of the Jewish people (unlikely) or a lack of will is of no consequence except on silly forums like this one.

The point being that there is no moral equivalence between an EQUAL requirement for a homogeneous population and the military will and power to create such a reality in war and the deliberate, systematic extermination of a peoples.

How can you compare the rights of the people inhabiting a territory with the rights of the people living on another continent planning to colonize the territory? Don't you realize it's an altogether crazy concept?

"planning"...

 

[montelatici]

How can you compare the rights of the people inhabiting a territory with the rights of the people living on another continent planning to colonize the territory? Don't you realize it's an altogether crazy concept?

It might have been a crazy concept had it not happened over and over and over again throughout human history. As it is -- it is no where near a crazy concept. Rather banal, actually. Yawn inducing. Soporific. Chamomile tea. Are you suggesting that colonizers have NO rights? Ever? In all of space and time on our tiny little planet? Are you suggesting that we -- all people -- be restored to where we were originally living? As though you could measure such a thing? As though it was possible to measure such a thing, no matter how good we get at dissecting DNA.

If you are really so beholden to this idea that colonizers have no rights -- defend the idea. Defend not only the idea in principle -- but the idea that this lack of rights, in practice, requires not only prevention, but remedy. Defend it vis a vis the Americas. Africa. Australia. I rather think you can't, or won't. Because you really don't have a problem with colonization in the objective, universal sense. You reject it only with respect to Israel (read: the Jewish people), and I'm afraid, then, your anti-semitism slip is showing. You are, as always, free to prove me wrong. There are plenty of examples. The example of the Americas is, perhaps, most compelling, but you might discuss East Timor, Western Sahara, Cyprus or any other number of current examples.


No, the idea of colonizers, or of colonizers having rights, is not in the slightest an interesting idea. Far, far more intriguing is the entirely unique idea that migration of peoples back to their ancestral homeland is morally abhorrent and should be prevented and, failing that, undone. Now THAT is an entirely new concept. And, what is truly interesting about it is that it has no moral counter. One can not say that people have no right to return home and be taken seriously. That is unthinkable. That is morally ridiculous.

Colonizers have no rights at all when they intend to replace the native population with themselves. It is a criminal enterprise, whether it is successful or not in the long term. The European Jews were not returning home, they were Europeans.