What about the Jewish Nakba?

[Mosby]

"If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea." This statement was made by Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, about a month and a half after the declaration of the independence, and with the Egyptian Army already having invaded the territory allotted to the Jewish state.

The Mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, explained in his memoirs: "Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world."

And the Arab League at the time also adopted two decisions, which materialized into a bill designed to seize the bank accounts of Jews and strip them of their possessions – a bill that was subsequently put into practice among well-established and wealthy Jewish communities in places such as Egypt, Libya, Syria and Iraq. Entire communities were destroyed.

For decades, the Palestinians have nurtured the ethos of the Nakba. It has become the defining experience of Palestinian identity. Israel, on the other hand, chose to downplay the persecutions, expulsion and dispossession of the Jews of the Arab states.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4597344,00.html

[Scootaloo]

1. Were Jews pushed into the sea? No, they certainly weren't

Egypt never invaded Israel. It conducted maneuvers in the portion of the naqab on the "arab" side of the partition that israel had occupied - but occupied territory does not belong to the occupier, and it certainly was never part of the territory "allotted to the Jewish state." But then we're talking to a mentality that thinks sneak-attacking Egypt is Egyptian aggression, and that egyptian and Syrian efforts to recapture occupied territory is an "invasion."

"The Mufti" stopped being the mufti in 1936 when he fled jail and became a homeless exile. By the time he turned up in Berlin he wasn't really even in control of himself, and certainly had no control over the Allied territory of Palestine. But by all means let's ignore the Palestinians who fought the Nazis under the British flag in North Africa and opposed German agents in Mesopotamia.

And did all this happen in a vacuum? The standard Stupid Israeli response is "Yes, we're hapless victims! Poor us!" - nevermind that egypt's military maneuvers were in response to the ongoing ethnic cleansing and invasion of Palestine being conducted by armed infaders fro mEurope, or that al-Husseini was appointed to his position - even though he came in fifth in an election of five men - by a Zionist jew (Herbert samuel) specifically because of his rampant antisemitism.

and then Ben Dror-Yemeni, useless racist scrotum that he is, talks about the tens of Jews killed over thirty years in Morocco, as if they were greater than the killing and expulsion of seven hundred thousand Arabs from Palestine, followed by seventy years of oppression and fifty years of brutal occupation... by the same people Yemeni is trying to elevate above this crime.

This whole article is a no different from a white American belittling the crimes perpetrated against blacks in this country because his irish immigrant ancestors faced some discrimination. I would said Ben Dror-Yemeni ought to be ashamed, but, that would asume that the man even has a sense of shame.

[Shaktimaan]

2. Too funny

Egypt never invaded Israel. It conducted maneuvers in the portion of the naqab on the "arab" side of the partition that israel had occupied

Dude, it amazes me how confidently you can post stuff that you know nothing about. If you'd bothered to do a rudimentary Google search you'd know that this is simply not true at all.

Or do Egyptian aircraft attacks on tel aviv (mere hours after independence was declared), not count for some reason?

What I want to know is where you learned bunk like this?

[Scootaloo]

6. No, air raids do not count as an invasion

Unless you think Israel invaded Iraq in 1981?

[Shaktimaan]

13. Uh huh

And their troops in the negev? Why was that not an invasion?

Or did they teleport to Beersheba?

Not that it makes a difference. Your premise is absurd: Egypt didn't invade Israel... They merely attacked it. As their forces were turned back by israeli resistance while attempting to invade Israel proper, they never actually successfully "invaded" and thus can not be considered the aggressors, or something.

Seriously what's your point? I mean, you're wrong regardless, but what are you even trying to say by drawing such a ridiculous distinction?

[Scootaloo]

14. Interestingly, it was Israel that invaded Be'er Sheva on October 21, 1948

[Shaktimaan]

16. Right.

That is if you consider occupying a city within one's own country to be "invading."

[shaayecanaan]

11. Jordan never invaded Israel either

they only ever stepped foot in either the portion of Palestine reserved for Arabs, or the corpus separatem that included Jerusalem, and even then only after the Zionists were already on the move there.

Someone should really write a book on false historiography and the Arab-Israeli conflict. The amount of crap that gets accepted as fact is remarkable.

[Israeli]

20. A few have shaayecanaan......

Ref : Someone should really write a book on false historiography and the Arab-Israeli conflict. The amount of crap that gets accepted as fact is remarkable.

The are called the ' New Historians ' .....amongst them are :

Hillel Cohen. Simha Flapan .Baruch Kimmerling .Benny Morris. Ilan Pappé .Tom Segev .Avi Shlaim .

Tom Segev is my favorite but all are worth reading .

Ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Segev

Tom Segev (born March 1, 1945) is an Israeli historian, author and journalist. He is associated with Israel's so-called New Historians, a group challenging many of the country's traditional narratives.

[Shaktimaan]

21. Why is that relevant?

The partition agreement was never instated. Why would it matter that Arab forces didn't cross into what would have been partition Israel?

They did not refrain from attacking Israel within those borders, nor did they respect the borders of the Arab partition state, as the siege of Jerusalem and the subsequent occupation of EJ shows. Most importantly, their advance failed to reach outside of partition borders because Israel halted it, not because the Arab states suddenly decided that they DID support the partition agreement.

[shaayecanaan]

22. hardly

The Arab legion was staffed by British officers, most notably pasha glubb. His force of about 4000 was the only professional fighting force in the middle east.

Glubb didn't want to take Jerusalem, but did so reluctantly. Neither glubb nor the British government would have tolerated any request by abdullah to attack the Jewish side of the partition.

[King_David]

3. LOL, you make that up ? nt

[Scootaloo]

9. Lolroflcopter rotfl omgwtfbbq

C'mon Dave, Shaktimaan at least gives something to work with. He's wrong, but a discourse can be had.

But, then you're still using your thumbs to type, aren't you? lol.

[King_David]

12. I never had anything to add

Shaktimaan proved the point nicely.

Just wanted you to see that people here will keep things accurate.

Shaktimaan did a great job.

[Scootaloo]

15. Sadly all of shaktimaan's "points" are wrong

But, eh, I guess I can't have high expectations of you guys.

[Shaktimaan]

17. Aw

Except none of them are untrue. You just refuse to accept reality.

[Shaktimaan]

4. Wow. Lots of this stuff is just wrong.

The Mufti" stopped being the mufti in 1936 when he fled jail and became a homeless exile

Simply untrue. As late as 1948 he was appointed by the Arab league as leader of the all-Palestine government. It wasn't until December of 48 that he was removed from his post as grand mufti and replaced.

By the time he turned up in Berlin he wasn't really even in control of himself, and certainly had no control over the Allied territory of Palestine.

Right. He busied himself with related political activities like blocking the transfer of hundreds of Jewish children from a concentration camp to turkey, and securing support for the 1948 Arab invasion of Palestine amongst Arab leaders.

[Scootaloo]

7. No, i'm afraid it's absolutely true

He ceased being the Mufti of Jerusalem when he fled an arrest warrant in 1936 and was relegated to an exile status. Are you even aware of the political role of a Mufti of Jerusalem, by the way/ it's not particularly important. And yes, he became the nominal head of the "All-Palestone Government" which, let us remember, was a puppet of the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt, operated only in gaza, and was enelected and non-representative.

Right. He busied himself with related political activities like blocking the transfer of hundreds of Jewish children from a concentration camp to turkey,

Interesting, you hold that this is something related to Palestine?

Amin al-Husseini was a piece of shit. However, Palestinians do not hold the blame for him.

and securing support for the 1948 Arab invasion of Palestine amongst Arab leaders.

I'm sure the presence of a civil war-torn territory where an invasive force of Europeans was condicting ethnic cleansing against the Arab population had nothing whatsoever to do with the Arab intervention.

[Shaktimaan]

19. Really?

That's so weird, because this official transcript says something different.

§35. Mr. Hammersley asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why no appointment has yet been made to fill the posts of Mufti of Jerusalem and President of the Moslem Supreme Council?

§Colonel Stanley An important distinction must be drawn between the two offices referred to by my hon. Friend. The post of Mufti of Jerusalem is a purely religious office with no powers or administrative functions, and was held by Haj Amin before he was given the secular appointment of President of the Supreme Moslem Council. In 1937 Haj Amin was deprived of his secular appointment and administrative functions, but no action was taken regarding the religious office of Mufti, as no legal machinery in fact exists for the formal deposition of the holder, nor is there any known precedent for such deposition. Haj Amin is thus technically still Mufti of Jerusalem, but the fact that there is no intention of allowing Haj Amin, who has openly joined the enemy, to return to Palestine in any circumstances clearly reduces the importance of the technical point. As regards the presidency of the Supreme Moslem Council, the Government do not propose, in the absence of any request from the Council, to intervene in a matter which is giving rise to no trouble, and which is not impeding the adequate transaction of business in those affairs for which the Council is responsible.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1943/dec/01/mufti-and-president-of-supreme-moslem

That said, you still seem to be missing the point, which is not whether his title remained intact, but whether he still wielded considerable political influence following his exile. You contend that he did not. However any brief review of his activities during that time shows otherwise.

It's irrelevant to this discussion that the Palestinians aren't "responsible" for his actions. This is about the beliefs and intentions of the Arab leadership wrt the Jewish population both inside and outside of Palestine. Al-husseini played an active role in that regard long after his exile from Palestine. His appointment as the leader of the all Palestine govt reflects his influence and status in the Arab world.

[Shaktimaan]

5. Yet more.

as if they were greater than the killing and expulsion of seven hundred thousand Arabs from Palestine

Ummm... Seven hundred thousand Arabs weren't killed or expelled from Palestine though.

Regardless, a million Jews fled or were expelled from Arab states following 1948. One million IS greater than 700,000, is it not?

[Scootaloo]

8. Yeah, they were Shaktimaan. That's what the Nakba was.

And a million Jews... includes a hell of a lot of voluntary immigrants. Iraq and Morocco, for instance, both passed laws to prevent Jews from leaving (which is gross in its own way, but is really the opposite of expulsion.) As the conflict wore on, this of course changed.

But the effort we see here, i to use the later crimes against Jews, to justify and then belittle the crimes perpetrated against Palestinian arabs - with special ignorance granted to the fact that had Israel's Jews not decided to conquer and purge the land like the fucking book of Joshua, none of those scant purges would have fucking happened. Not to say that it's Israel's fault, but the reaction to Arab Jewish populations was based on Israel's own ethnic cleansing of its non-Jewish Arabs.

[Shaktimaan]

18. So if a difference exists...

A key one would be that Jews expelled or fleeing from Arab states had zero culpability in their circumstances, while the war which the Palestinians were fleeing was a war they themselves initiated.

Incidentally, fleeing Palestine is not the same thing as being expelled. and fleeing from one location in Palestine to another part of Palestine does not make one a refugee, in common parlance.

That said, I'm not sure why you consider the ethic cleansing of Arabs to be such a far greater crime than that of Jews, aside from your stated rationale: But it's the Jews' fault that all this happened!

[azurnoir]

10. 700,000 in 1947-1948 is less than 1,000,000 1948-1962

however most of the Jews fleeing Arab countries found recently vacated homes waiting for them in Israel

[shira]

23. We get it. Jews can never be victims of anything...

Only oppressors now. That's the meme.

Sorry the OP offends you so much.

[shira]

24. It’s time to remember the Jewish refugees

Yet the false Middle East narrative – prejudicial to authentic reconciliation and peace between peoples as well as between states – continues to hold that there was only one victim population, Palestinian refugees; that Israel was responsible for the Palestinian nakba (catastrophe) of 1947-8; and that, as Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has put it, as long as the crime of dispossession and refugeehood that was committed against the Palestinian people in 1947-48 is not redressed…there can be no peace....

...Regrettably, as a result of this false narrative, the pain and plight of 850,000 Jews uprooted and displaced from Arab countries – the forced yet “forgotten exodus” as it has been called – has been expunged and eclipsed from both the Middle East peace and justice agenda for 67 years. It is a truth that must now be affirmed, acknowledged, and acted upon in the interests of peace, justice and history.

The United Nations also bears express and continuing responsibility for this distorted Middle East narrative. In a word, since 1948, there have been more than 180 UN General Assembly resolutions that have specifically dealt with the Palestinian refugee plight. Yet not one of these resolutions makes any reference to the plight of Jewish refugees.

There are ten major UN agencies expending billions of dollars on behalf of Palestinian refugees. But, there is not one UN agency – nor any money expended – on behalf of Jewish refugees. The entire year 2014 has been established as an International Year of Solidarity with the Palestinian People – but not one day for the Jewish People. So much for equal justice.

Thus the question: How do we rectify this historical – and ongoing – injustice?

more...
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/its-time-to-remember-the-jewish-refugees/#ixzz3Kh1oSCOf