Idea: Nakba day turns Sulhah day (poll)

[rylah]

RE: Idea: Nakba day turns Sulhah day (poll)
⁜→ rylah, et al,

BLUF: Not very many people see such discussions on questions lasting for a decade.

RoccoR what do You think would be the worth mentioning advantages and disadvantages, if we discussed this more as long term policy, a trend to engage in public/political discourse, for the next 10 years.

(COMMENT)

While in reality, regional and world-wide conditions will be everlasting issues in the future, other policies will be dynamic. Dynamic policies (like a Dynamic IP address) will change to something new each time it surfaces. Before I went to Vietnam (RVN), I held certain ideas as to what was right and wrong in the conflict. When I returned from RVN I had different ideas based on exposure. When I graduated college I had understood the politics better. And by the time my post-grad work was done, I had even more refined ideas. What I might have said in the beginning of the discussion on the policies concerning the RVN Conflict and what I might have said a decade later are something entirely different. The very same thing happened to me in the interval between between my experience in Iraq (2004) and at the conclusion of my Middle East experience (2011) after my time, which included time in Afghanistan and Yemen.

While I never actually spoke to any of the Commanders, Multi-National Force – Iraq (MNF-I)(GENs Casey, Petraeus, Odienro), I did get to see and listen to the O-6 level staff officers over that period. And if you compared those staff officers, one against the other, what they said and what they considered as important, did not very much. But what they implemented was much different (not that any of it worked). One night we discussed the meaning of the "truth" and I asked them if they were telling the "truth?" There were four Academy graduates there, and each remembered the "honor code." What the meaning of quibbling, when they were cadets and the meaning now when the were staff offices to a four-star, was different.

As in to align more with the natural demographic development, while these new shifting attitudes settle a bit, rather than in the framework of a typical international 'peace accord' signed on a paper?

(COMMENT)

Yes, it is very important that we are able to appreciate change; but, also important to understand that you cannot retroactively evaluate decisions of the past with the standards, morals, ethics, and attitudes of today. In a comment in reference to the 1922 White Paper (25 years earlier), the UK Staff said:

"When it is asked what it meant by the development of the Jewish national Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other part parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride." (Source: A/AC.14/8 UK History of Administration 2 October 1947)​

​

Compare this statement (supra) to what various participants of the discussion understand today.

(∑ SUMMATION)

It is tremendously important to keep a record of the pulse relative to the impact of contemporary thinking.


Most Respectfully,
R

I think this demonstrates well one of the points Rudy was making,
and recently beapars as a theme in these intellectual circles about natural "difficulties in translation" with the western powers, and other 3rd part player who don't live the consequence.

That's why I tend to VERY much agree that locally, between the river and the sea,
no 3-rd party brokered agreement will ever tackle the essential issues.
And neither formal circles capable of that.

We have to shift the discourse into a more dynamic healthy direction,
this 'thought experiment', is just a trigger rather than a practical goal.

You gotta come from a middle eastern mentality,
on an eye to eye informal level to shift things at the root.

In international Israeli-Arab relations there's certainly a place for formal formats,
and wide international participation, but here we're dealing with a local issue.

In one of the recent talks following Israeli-UAE normalization,
an Emirati citizen summed up the situation very respectfully, in likely terms, recognizing that he cannot reject or deny either side, nor to experience consequences and make the decision.

But these are all abstracts, tell me, have such traditional ceremonies, ever been analyzed in relation to dealing with conflict in the region, observed through all these years?

 

[Mindful]

The zionist juden here want to structure all the parameters of the debate according to their biased perception, and disregard the other sides view of the events under discussion.
Which is the same way they approach the peace process. ...

What would you like them to do?

 

[Mindful]

Nakba is just a stupid, made up term invented by propagandists long after the fact to try to create the impression that Arab aggression was actually some sort of victimization.

In 1948, there was no "Palestinian" people and no "Nakba" -- just Arabs and the war they initiated. . By1968, however, voila! -- a brand new people called "Palestinian" replete with their phony tale of woe called "Nakba".

One can argue this Nakba thing down to the wire.

And bring in all the other human displacements as a result of war. Should there be a Memorial Day for the 6 million DP’s scattered around Europe, following WW2?

 

[rylah]

Nakba is just a stupid, made up term invented by propagandists long after the fact to try to create the impression that Arab aggression was actually some sort of victimization.

In 1948, there was no "Palestinian" people and no "Nakba" -- just Arabs and the war they initiated. . By1968, however, voila! -- a brand new people called "Palestinian" replete with their phony tale of woe called "Nakba".

One can argue this Nakba thing down to the wire.

And bring in all the other human displacements as a result of war. Should there be a Memorial Day for the 6 million DP’s scattered around Europe, following WW2?

Good point.

You mean the Germans who were expelled from countries like Czechoslovakia?

 

[Mindful]

Nakba is just a stupid, made up term invented by propagandists long after the fact to try to create the impression that Arab aggression was actually some sort of victimization.

In 1948, there was no "Palestinian" people and no "Nakba" -- just Arabs and the war they initiated. . By1968, however, voila! -- a brand new people called "Palestinian" replete with their phony tale of woe called "Nakba".

One can argue this Nakba thing down to the wire.

And bring in all the other human displacements as a result of war. Should there be a Memorial Day for the 6 million DP’s scattered around Europe, following WW2?

Good point.

You mean the Germans who were expelled from countries like Czechoslovakia?

There’s no Remembrance Day for them.

And they want Upper Silesia back. I’ve seen them there in gatherings, revisiting their former homes.

 

[rylah]

Nakba is just a stupid, made up term invented by propagandists long after the fact to try to create the impression that Arab aggression was actually some sort of victimization.

In 1948, there was no "Palestinian" people and no "Nakba" -- just Arabs and the war they initiated. . By1968, however, voila! -- a brand new people called "Palestinian" replete with their phony tale of woe called "Nakba".

One can argue this Nakba thing down to the wire.

And bring in all the other human displacements as a result of war. Should there be a Memorial Day for the 6 million DP’s scattered around Europe, following WW2?

Good point.

You mean the Germans who were expelled from countries like Czechoslovakia?

There’s no Remembrance Day for them.

And they want Upper Silesia back. I’ve seen them there in gatherings, revisiting their former homes.

So You think they don't 'deserve' it?

I don't think they do,
yet I think WE both deserve it,
as inevitably those living in the land.

 

[Mindful]

Nakba is just a stupid, made up term invented by propagandists long after the fact to try to create the impression that Arab aggression was actually some sort of victimization.

In 1948, there was no "Palestinian" people and no "Nakba" -- just Arabs and the war they initiated. . By1968, however, voila! -- a brand new people called "Palestinian" replete with their phony tale of woe called "Nakba".

One can argue this Nakba thing down to the wire.

And bring in all the other human displacements as a result of war. Should there be a Memorial Day for the 6 million DP’s scattered around Europe, following WW2?

Good point.

You mean the Germans who were expelled from countries like Czechoslovakia?

There’s no Remembrance Day for them.

And they want Upper Silesia back. I’ve seen them there in gatherings, revisiting their former homes.

So You think they don't 'deserve' it?

I don't think they do,
yet I think WE both deserve it,
as inevitably those living in the land.

Deserve the displacement?

Yes. They started it. And they kicked out Polish people from their own homes, with nowhere to go. In order to house thousands of their own.

 

[rylah]

Nakba is just a stupid, made up term invented by propagandists long after the fact to try to create the impression that Arab aggression was actually some sort of victimization.

In 1948, there was no "Palestinian" people and no "Nakba" -- just Arabs and the war they initiated. . By1968, however, voila! -- a brand new people called "Palestinian" replete with their phony tale of woe called "Nakba".

One can argue this Nakba thing down to the wire.

And bring in all the other human displacements as a result of war. Should there be a Memorial Day for the 6 million DP’s scattered around Europe, following WW2?

Good point.

You mean the Germans who were expelled from countries like Czechoslovakia?

There’s no Remembrance Day for them.

And they want Upper Silesia back. I’ve seen them there in gatherings, revisiting their former homes.

So You think they don't 'deserve' it?

I don't think they do,
yet I think WE both deserve it,
as inevitably those living in the land.

Deserve the displacement?

Yes. They started it. And they kicked out Polish people from their own homes, with nowhere to go. In order to house thousands of their own.

I meant on an eye to eye level, the local Arabs, and us Israel.
Arabs may not deserve us to commemorate their losses, but us, Arabs and Jews together...

kinda do.

Don't You think?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

One can argue this Nakba thing down to the wire.

And bring in all the other human displacements as a result of war. Should there be a Memorial Day for the 6 million DP’s scattered around Europe, following WW2?

My principle objection to memorializing both events together is that it provides a false sense of equivalence between an event where 6 million people were murdered systematically and one where the people who started a war left an area when they were repelled for doing do, and/or left voluntarily. If it were a truly tragic event, it would not have been created after the fact by propagandists looking to hoodwink unintelligent bleeding heart types.

 

[rylah]

One can argue this Nakba thing down to the wire.

And bring in all the other human displacements as a result of war. Should there be a Memorial Day for the 6 million DP’s scattered around Europe, following WW2?

My principle objection to memorializing both events together is that it provides a false sense of equivalence between an event where 6 million people were murdered systematically and one where the people who started a war left an area when they were repelled for doing do, and/or left voluntarily. If it were a truly tragic event, it would not have been created after the fact by propagandists looking to hoodwink unintelligent bleeding heart types.

It creates equivalence between Jewish and Arab casualties of Arab-Israeli wars.
The Holocaust mourning is a different, separate day, and has no equivalence.

 

[Mindful]

One can argue this Nakba thing down to the wire.

And bring in all the other human displacements as a result of war. Should there be a Memorial Day for the 6 million DP’s scattered around Europe, following WW2?

My principle objection to memorializing both events together is that it provides a false sense of equivalence between an event where 6 million people were murdered systematically and one where the people who started a war left an area when they were repelled for doing do, and/or left voluntarily. If it were a truly tragic event, it would not have been created after the fact by propagandists looking to hoodwink unintelligent bleeding heart types.

I agree.

Good reasoning.

 

[rylah]

Normalization is Possible with Inon Dan Kehati Who Is Helping Israelis & Palestinians Clean the Hate

Inon Dan Kehati is the founder of 'The Home'.

Discussing a shift towards a more locally traditional,
and informal politics as an alternative, Emirates and more.

 

[rylah]

Guys I'm not saying anyone who disagrees with the idea is specifically wrong by definition.
It matters where this rejection is coming from.

But what if a critical mass was to be reached,
are You saying You would oppose it?

To my big surprise even my most extreme friend liked the Sulhah idea,
and I was preparing for a LOUD thrashing...a guy who didn't accept anything but transfer.

He loves Rudy, it's quiet strange how unexpected opinions can shift.

Here's a new one:

 

[rylah]

irosie91 can I ask what Your husband says about this?

 

[rylah]

 

[Mindful]

Guys I'm not saying anyone who disagrees with the idea is specifically wrong by definition.
It matters where this rejection is coming from.

But what if a critical mass was to be reached,
are You saying You would oppose it?

To my big surprise even my most extreme friend liked the Sulhah idea,
and I was preparing for a LOUD thrashing...a guy who didn't accept anything but transfer.

He loves Rudy, it's quiet strange how unexpected opinions can shift.

Here's a new one:

Sorry; the more I think about it, I can’t accept Sulhah Day.

From JVL:

On May 15, 1948, the day the British Mandate over Palestine ended, the armies of five neighboring Arab states invaded the new State of Israel, which had declared its independence the previous day. The invasion, heralded by an Egyptian air attack on Tel Aviv, was vigorously resisted. From the north, east and south came the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Egypt.

The invading forces were fully equipped with the standard weapons of a regular army of the time - artillery, tanks, armored cars and personnel carriers, in addition to machine guns, mortars and the usual small arms in great quantities, and full supplies of ammunition, oil, and gasoline. Further, Egypt, Iraq, and Syria had air forces. As sovereign states, they had no difficulty (as had the pre-state Jewish defense force) in securing whatever armaments they needed through normal channels from Britain and other friendly powers.

 

[rylah]

Guys I'm not saying anyone who disagrees with the idea is specifically wrong by definition.
It matters where this rejection is coming from.

But what if a critical mass was to be reached,
are You saying You would oppose it?

To my big surprise even my most extreme friend liked the Sulhah idea,
and I was preparing for a LOUD thrashing...a guy who didn't accept anything but transfer.

He loves Rudy, it's quiet strange how unexpected opinions can shift.

Here's a new one:

Sorry; the more I think about it, I can’t accept Sulhah Day.

From JVL:

On May 15, 1948, the day the British Mandate over Palestine ended, the armies of five neighboring Arab states invaded the new State of Israel, which had declared its independence the previous day. The invasion, heralded by an Egyptian air attack on Tel Aviv, was vigorously resisted. From the north, east and south came the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Egypt.

The invading forces were fully equipped with the standard weapons of a regular army of the time - artillery, tanks, armored cars and personnel carriers, in addition to machine guns, mortars and the usual small arms in great quantities, and full supplies of ammunition, oil, and gasoline. Further, Egypt, Iraq, and Syria had air forces. As sovereign states, they had no difficulty (as had the pre-state Jewish defense force) in securing whatever armaments they needed through normal channels from Britain and other friendly powers.

Thanks for the input.

Ok, I sure can understand that.

Here's the question: if Israelis still went along, and actually managed to pull this thing,
do You think that would cause a rift, or serious misunderstanding among us Jews?

 

[Mindful]

Guys I'm not saying anyone who disagrees with the idea is specifically wrong by definition.
It matters where this rejection is coming from.

But what if a critical mass was to be reached,
are You saying You would oppose it?

To my big surprise even my most extreme friend liked the Sulhah idea,
and I was preparing for a LOUD thrashing...a guy who didn't accept anything but transfer.

He loves Rudy, it's quiet strange how unexpected opinions can shift.

Here's a new one:

Sorry; the more I think about it, I can’t accept Sulhah Day.

From JVL:

On May 15, 1948, the day the British Mandate over Palestine ended, the armies of five neighboring Arab states invaded the new State of Israel, which had declared its independence the previous day. The invasion, heralded by an Egyptian air attack on Tel Aviv, was vigorously resisted. From the north, east and south came the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Egypt.

The invading forces were fully equipped with the standard weapons of a regular army of the time - artillery, tanks, armored cars and personnel carriers, in addition to machine guns, mortars and the usual small arms in great quantities, and full supplies of ammunition, oil, and gasoline. Further, Egypt, Iraq, and Syria had air forces. As sovereign states, they had no difficulty (as had the pre-state Jewish defense force) in securing whatever armaments they needed through normal channels from Britain and other friendly powers.

Thanks for the input.

Ok, I sure can understand that.

Here's the question: if Israelis still went along, and actually managed to pull this thing,
do You think that would cause a rift, or serious misunderstanding among us Jews?

The Israelis have done too many things to achieve peace. And what has it brought?

Remember the Jewish mothers, who had lost sons in the IDF? Willing to trade land for peace? And we all saw how that turned out.

 

[rylah]

Guys I'm not saying anyone who disagrees with the idea is specifically wrong by definition.
It matters where this rejection is coming from.

But what if a critical mass was to be reached,
are You saying You would oppose it?

To my big surprise even my most extreme friend liked the Sulhah idea,
and I was preparing for a LOUD thrashing...a guy who didn't accept anything but transfer.

He loves Rudy, it's quiet strange how unexpected opinions can shift.

Here's a new one:

Sorry; the more I think about it, I can’t accept Sulhah Day.

From JVL:

On May 15, 1948, the day the British Mandate over Palestine ended, the armies of five neighboring Arab states invaded the new State of Israel, which had declared its independence the previous day. The invasion, heralded by an Egyptian air attack on Tel Aviv, was vigorously resisted. From the north, east and south came the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Egypt.

The invading forces were fully equipped with the standard weapons of a regular army of the time - artillery, tanks, armored cars and personnel carriers, in addition to machine guns, mortars and the usual small arms in great quantities, and full supplies of ammunition, oil, and gasoline. Further, Egypt, Iraq, and Syria had air forces. As sovereign states, they had no difficulty (as had the pre-state Jewish defense force) in securing whatever armaments they needed through normal channels from Britain and other friendly powers.

Thanks for the input.

Ok, I sure can understand that.

Here's the question: if Israelis still went along, and actually managed to pull this thing,
do You think that would cause a rift, or serious misunderstanding among us Jews?

The Israelis have done too many things to achieve peace. And what has it brought?

Remember the Jewish mothers, who had lost sons in the IDF? Willing to trade land for peace? And we all saw how that turned out.

Yes, of course...vividly.

No one says land for peace.
I'm saying acting as sovereign owners, extending hospitality.

Hospitality under Jewish sovereignty.
Because that's the most they can expect.

Aaaand I'm talking about the last time, if this one refused,
they'll have no one to communicate in the next generation on our side, it's total submission.

 

[Mindful]

Guys I'm not saying anyone who disagrees with the idea is specifically wrong by definition.
It matters where this rejection is coming from.

But what if a critical mass was to be reached,
are You saying You would oppose it?

To my big surprise even my most extreme friend liked the Sulhah idea,
and I was preparing for a LOUD thrashing...a guy who didn't accept anything but transfer.

He loves Rudy, it's quiet strange how unexpected opinions can shift.

Here's a new one:

Sorry; the more I think about it, I can’t accept Sulhah Day.

From JVL:

On May 15, 1948, the day the British Mandate over Palestine ended, the armies of five neighboring Arab states invaded the new State of Israel, which had declared its independence the previous day. The invasion, heralded by an Egyptian air attack on Tel Aviv, was vigorously resisted. From the north, east and south came the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Egypt.

The invading forces were fully equipped with the standard weapons of a regular army of the time - artillery, tanks, armored cars and personnel carriers, in addition to machine guns, mortars and the usual small arms in great quantities, and full supplies of ammunition, oil, and gasoline. Further, Egypt, Iraq, and Syria had air forces. As sovereign states, they had no difficulty (as had the pre-state Jewish defense force) in securing whatever armaments they needed through normal channels from Britain and other friendly powers.

Thanks for the input.

Ok, I sure can understand that.

Here's the question: if Israelis still went along, and actually managed to pull this thing,
do You think that would cause a rift, or serious misunderstanding among us Jews?

The Israelis have done too many things to achieve peace. And what has it brought?

Remember the Jewish mothers, who had lost sons in the IDF? Willing to trade land for peace? And we all saw how that turned out.

Yes, of course...vividly.

No one says land for peace.
I'm saying acting as sovereign owners, extending hospitality.

Hospitality under Jewish sovereignty.
Because that's the most they can expect.

Aaaand I'm talking about the last time, if this one refused,
they'll have no one to communicate in the next generation on our side, it's total submission.

The point being, they were willing to give up anything and everything to cease the carnage of their children. And in the end, what did it bring?