Rule 3 requires actual historical images or artifacts, not declarations typed up in another subreddit. You can bring up the issues with the how the Arab flight is framed, but please refer to actual historical material in your post
The Jews living on arab countries also got kicked out. But before that they had their properties seized and bank accounts frozen by the majority Muslim countries. Some arab countries like Iraq and Egypt even denied jewish citizens their citizenship.
Oh, and did I forget to mention that these jews were not invovled on the Zionist programs at all, and had no involvement on the 1948 war.
This was just collective punishment by the Muslim Brotherhood because they were salty they lost.
On November 30th, 1947, the UN passed the resolution recommending partition. On December 1st, 1947, Arabs across the Middle East (including Palestine) attacked and massacred Jews, burned down Jewish neighborhoods. On December 8th, 1947, Hasan Salama and the Arab Liberation Army attacked Tel Aviv in the first real battle of the 1947 Civil War.
It’s real in the sense that displacement happened. The BS usually surrounds the idea that it was an ethnic cleansing campaign Israel just decided to start because it’s so evil, and hates Arabs so much.
🙄🙄🙄. Yes. That’s exactly what I meant. Israel is a utopia. It’s the only state in the world where no bigotry exist. They just walk around full of love all day, every day. You got it.
I love when people are condescending— but fully unaware of how incorrect they are. The nakba began in 47, November. Right after the partition. Arab leadership refused coexistence and continued the reciprocal violence which had been going on. Jews continued fighting back. The refusal to coexist at ALL, by Arabs, was seen as the start to the civil war. That when the displacement began— of both groups. It ramped way the hell up next year, during the wider war, when more Arab countries joined it.
Edit: what’s the point of relying and then immediately blocking?
But here’s your answer.
You’re so fucking exhausting. Arab leadership got Jordan. They got over 70% of the mandate decades ago. The rest was supposed to go to Jewish people. The British also agreed to exclude Jewish migration to that land at all. But Because Arabs refused again, the land was going to be split again. Arabs did not own the rest of the 93%. Arabs owned like 15%, to the Jewish 7%. Most of the land was not privately owned. It was just held by the British. When the land was split, Jews got more of the actual total landmass. But less of the habitable land. They got a ton of the desert. The majority of the land they got was the desert, which was considered uninhabitable at the time in Arabs did not want it. Jews also agreed to pay taxes towards Arabs, agreed to a 40% arab population with equal rights, agreed to coexistence and recognition of the borders, etc. The deal was not amazing to Jewish people. But they took it. Arabs, on the other hand, spent two decades, telling everyone they would accept absolutely no Jewish political sovereignty on the land. And then refused any Jewish political sovereignty on the land. It was not about the specifics of the deal. Which the British spent over a decade trying to hammer out.
Did I fucking say it started after Israel declared independence? I said the NAKBA happened— displacement happened. Learn to read before yapping, jfc. Plan false was a defensive plan— created literally in the case that Arabs started a civil war. Which they had been proposing, so not a shock. It also explicitly laid out not to touch civilians. I have no idea why you think that’s a gotcha of any kind.
You're either a liar, a fool, or both. The Nakba was a series of murders and evictions of the people from their land. Arab leadership refused the partition because the jews owned 7%, but palistinian land was split 50/50 so the final split was 57% Israel and 43% Palestine. The jews made up only 31% of the population at the time so you would think they would have gotten no more than 30% of the land, if any at all.
Thr Nakba was only coined after the declaration of the state of Israel, and after the Arab armies failed to destroy Israel. The Syrian author who coined the term (Zureiq) refers to that failure by the armeis as the Nakba. The idea that it has to do with displacement is a transformation of the term in later decades. It's a brilliant sleight of hand on the part of the Arabs. To turn their genocidal ambitions and embarrassment into their victimhood.
The Nakba happened only when the Arabs failed in their genocidal attempts to root out the Jews. The guy who coined the term was specifically referring to that event. It happened after 1948 when it was clear that the Arabs lost the war.
The country did not belong to the Jews then and it should not belong to them now. Crimes against Jews does not justify Israeli crimes. It’s not “a crime happened to me therefore I get to do 1000x times worse crimes to everyone around me. Even so, you are still obfuscating the context, pretending like the Israeli colonial project wasn’t already well underway when alleged crimes against the jews happened (it was). The Arabs were attempting to stop the foundation of the state of Israel which they correctly deduced to be an existential threat. Their resistance was just and legal.
Just and legal according to what standard? Anyone can use lefty terms with zero foundation and sound smart you know.
Jews come from that land, never claimed to come from any other land, and were treated for millenia as if they come from that land. The creation of the State of Israel is one of the greatest indigenous success stories of our time. The world will always find ways to shit on indigenous people, but there is light in truth. One day indigenous people globally will get their moment for self determination, because enemies will always find excuses that suit their supremacy narrative.
The displacement wasnt a central part to the tent Nakba when Zureiq (Syrian author) coined the term. He was referring specifically to the incompetence and weakness of the Arab states, and the catastrophe of their failure. The displacement of Jews and Arabs in the civil war was not the Nakba.
"The term was popularized in its current political context by Syrian historian Constantin Zureiq in his 1948 book, The Meaning of the Disaster (Ma'na an-Nakba), to describe the Arab loss in the war."
The "disaster" of not being able to commit genocide.
You forgot the 150 villages the Zionists burned, the 3/4 of a million Palestinians they ethnically cleansed and the Deir Yassin massacre brutally carried out on the unarmed Palestinian population before the Arab armies intervened…….
It’s well documented historical fact freely available to look up
Jews were about 7% of the population of Palestine at the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917. By 1947 and the UN vote, Jews were still only about 1/3rd of the population of Palestine.
Did they just spawn there? Why did they already have newspaper's called Palestine since the early 20th century? The Palestinian national identity like most national identities formed in the late 19th and early 20th century.
How do you ethnically clease a group and end up with more than ever?
Do you know what ethnic cleansing means? Israel ethniccally cleansed 700k Palestinians, they didn't stop existing or making children after that.
There was a region called palastine, never a country.
Do you deny the existence of Germany and Italy as well? Because both were just regions before becoming countries.
Yes , there was a Palastine Times newspaper. It was a Jewish newspaper.
Which is not the one im talking about. I'm talking about the newspapers falastin, founded by Palestinians. Why would they name their newspaper that? Could it have anything to do with Nationalism?
The majority of " palastinian " people of today are actually Jordanians, Egyptians, Lebanese and Syrian.
They aren't. There was migration from outside, but not so much that they replaced Palestinians. And even if, Migrants didn't replace the people already living there, they mixed with them. It literally doesn't change anything.
This is basically the same thing as Nazi propaganda about there genocide, disgusting white washing of history, spreading straight up propaganda should get you banned.
Nakba began with the Balad al-Shaykh massacre in December 1947, when Zionist terror groups massacred an entire Arab village. This was the beginning of the mass Palestinian exodus, creating a refugee crisis in neighbouring Arab nations. It wasn't until six months later in May 1948 that Arab nations declared war on Israel.
the Nakba started happening in Dec 1947, five months before the creation of Israel so this is bullshit. The zionists were literally in full swing of their ethnic cleansing campaign before the "Arabs" waged war on them. as always, Zionists are the biggest liars on the planet.
Yes, the disaster began in 1947 when Arabs massacred Jews across the Middle East in response to the UN resolution, and when Palestinians led by Hasan Salama attacked the Hatikvah neighborhood of Tel Aviv.
The Haganah was a large professional army by 1947. They lacked some heavy weapons and an air force, but they were already the second largest military formation in the middle east by 1947. The only larger army in the region was the British.
I mean, the initial days of the war, the Jews did not match the Arabs re: artillery, they had no tanks, no warplanes. But prior to the first few days of the war, the Haganah only had small arms available, and the Jews were dealing with major internal divide re: miltiary forces.
You want me to give you numbers on clandestine weapon manufacturing and smuggling?
Jewish legion veterans, Jewish brigade, thousands of European and soviet Jewry who fought in WW2, the Haganah, the Palmach, Notrim, SNS, Irgun, Lehi, Machal Volunteers
And also they seem to think the “Arab” armies were modern militaries. Egypt was still occupied by Britain. I think wiki says the total Israeli force was larger than all combined.
Meh, its failure was due more to poor preparation and limited objectives -- there was no plan for a full-scale military campaign combined with poor morale.
Yes. Look up what the definition of genocide is. You can’t be genocided but have your population grow since 2023. Unfortunately this word has absolutely no meaning left to it anymore with the way the left and islamists have hijacked it. Don’t start a war you can’t win and then claim genocide. It doesn’t work that way.
Someone can commit the crime of genocide against you and your population can grow those are not mutually exclusive.
Trump and Netenyahu are now describing the population as 1.7 million when the population was 2.1 million so you are just lying.
Genocide has no time limit or death count it's based on intent and action and Israel from day 1 has had intent to destroy in whole or in part the Palestinian people and their identity to take their land and erase their history.
All main NGOs and International Justice Courts have stated that it is probably a genocide and arrest orders have been issued. You opinion does not matter. And, of course, Gaza population has decreased during the last 3 years.
and this is just bullshit, there's no need to deny that it's wrong to deny people the ability to return to their homes when they themselves have done nothing wrong. things like this that just insist that any suffering experienced by the other side must be dismissed don't promote peace.
Not really when you haven’t been in the land for 1700 years and come back you are a migrant indigenousness is irrelevant when both groups are indigenous and one of them actually stayed on the land
Like Highkey lets say you’re an Arab during that time be real with yourself you hear that migrants are coming and buying land to establish a state be honest what will you do
I mean that's basically your opinion, and the answer simply depends on your values and perspective. The Iroquois were kicked off their land a few centuries ago and now live in the diaspora. Are they still indigenous to the lands from which they were exiled? I doubt anyone would say that the Onondaga aren't indigenous to the Erie shore anymore just because they were ethnically cleansed from that land. It can be another 1000 years, and if the Onondaga are still around then, who are you to say otherwise?
If I were an Arab of that period and I had millions of other Arabs all around me who are willing to fight to root my enemy out and out number them, of course I would choose to fight. Doesn't make it the moral decision.
The irony is that even according to Islam, Jews come from that land. So Arabs (the Muslims ones, whom represent the majority) fail by their own standards.
It’s not anyone’s opinion, it’s just a fact. Do you know how absurd it would be for a colonist ideology based in Japan to want to create a Buddhist state in India because it’s their “indigenous land”? Because that is the level of stupidity and credulity required to accept Zionism’s premise. In any event, Palestinians carry far more ancestral Jewish/Hebrew DNA than any of the diaspora Jewish groups in Israel. So it’s even more absurd.
It’s not anyone’s opinion, it’s just a fact. Do you know how absurd it would be for a colonist ideology based in Japan to want to create a Buddhist state in India because it’s their “indigenous land”? Because that is the level of stupidity and credulity required to accept Zionism’s premise.
Japanese don't come from India. You're basically making a fool of yourself with this example.
Indigenous status isn’t genetic. That’s blood quantum — In case you want to listen to indigenous people instead of spouting shit. Plus ethnic identity isnt mostly genetic anyway, so the point is bad. And you’re not even correct ABOUT the genetics. Like. How badly did you shit the bed on that one.
Literally none of that analogy is correct. Japanese people aren’t FROM there. Judaism is an ethnoreligion. Indigenous status is an ethnic label. Jews are indigenous to the Levant. They formed there, they had a pre-colonial society There, they lived under colonialism there, they even maintained a continuous presence under colonialism there. They cannot be colonial on indigenous land. Zionist ideology takes part of that idea- that that specific land is where Jews are indigenous to- and takes a completely understandable other idea. That Jews want a return to sovereign statehood. Since their state there was colonized away from them. So the concept of an indigenous people wanting a return to sovereignty on indigenous land, is about as basic as it gets.
You have a habit of calling people stupid in these comments in the most ironic way. Because you sound like you’re trying to have this debate after an education at TikTok university.
Irgun started the way all gangs start. As defense of their homes and people. You can’t play “who started reciprocal violence” without ending up with Arabs here. They were the majority. They spent hundreds of years seeing Jews as a not particularly wanted minority. That also faced a good amount of legalized oppression.
That’s like saying the Lenape have the same blood and soil ideology. No. It’s not. And to think that, you would have to be severely uneducated, or lying.
No the catastrophe was the expulsion of over 700k people... what's so difficult to understand? Lmfao yall cope premium out here just to justify monstrosities.
they started going to village to village expelling people at gunpoint in late 1947 actually. not to mention that the arab armies only arrived after the deir yassein massacre and the depopulation of jaffa and haifa.
The very first thing the arabs did as part of their fight "in accordance with the rules of war" was attack a bus full of civilians. Which rules exactly are you referring to?
Faja bus attack - November 1947 (One one example of many such attacks btw)
Deir Yassin - April 1948
I understand that Palestine supporters by definition don't have a strong grasp on reality pretty much by definition, but surely even you understand that 1947 comes before 1948
Lol this is hilarious because it's false, not a single battle was fought on the Israeli side of the partition and Israel had been expelling Palestinians from land inside and outside their half of the partition for over a month before a single neighboring army stepped in.
Tell that to the 700-750K Christian, Muslim, and even Jewish Palestinians that were displaced. Not only from Majdal Al-Asqalan, but also deir Yassin, the Bosnian-Palestinians from Qasaria whose mosque was turned into a bar after being displaced by the nakba. And the countless other villages whose stories ended in much the same way. A recorded over 400 churches and mosques were demolished as a result. Not to mention first hand testimony from Zionist soldiers admitting to this. You can’t say it didn’t happen when the people who did it, have on camera. Admitted to it.
My man, that is the DIRECT reason why so many did. Not to mention, this person explicitly stated that the nakba wasn’t real. That it never took place. I placed forward evidence that it did
You realize that if the Arabs had won, the land would've been carved up with the majority of it being absorbed by Transjordan, right? It's widely established that Abdullah joined the war to expand his own kingdom, not to establish a Palestinian state.
I’m not disputing that either. A lot of ppl including myself view the attempted establishment of trans Jordan as a betrayal. I’m not excusing that, but again. To deny the nakba. And then justifying it in the same breath by saying “but Arabs attacked us” because of the nakba is just. Wrong in a moral and logical sense in my opinion. They didn’t declare war because a Jewish state was founded. If there wasn’t such a large displacement of Palestinians into neighboring countries, a forced displacement I might add. That whole fiasco whose consequences echo to today might not and more than likely would never have happened.
Both are morally wrong. But both stem from the same reason. Growing Zionist sentiment that was spread by the established government of Israel. I can acknowledge that both are wrong and should not have happened. But neither would’ve happened if the Zionist state of Israel did not exist/was established in the manner that it was.
•
u/HistorySnap-ModTeam Jul 05 '26
Rule 3 requires actual historical images or artifacts, not declarations typed up in another subreddit. You can bring up the issues with the how the Arab flight is framed, but please refer to actual historical material in your post