[seo-speedwagon]

Genuine response: the “wider positions on the nature of the I/P conflict” are essential to informing the situation, and cannot be divorced from the discussion.

Israel has no ethical response because there is no ethical means by which one can maintain apartheid. History did not start on Oct 7, 2023. It’s like pondering where the line is between legitimate and illegitimate responses to the Warsaw ghetto uprising, or to Haitian revolution.

[BunsanSpace]

"History did not start on Oct 7, 2023"

Where should we start?

When the arabs colonized the levant? or the many massacres of native jews? The wars of aggression by arabs? This conflict is awfully messy and each side has a laundry list of legitimate grievances.

[stanfordkid]

Not really. It’s absurd to draw the line into ancient history of Arab’s colonizing the Levant. Early 1900s to 1948 are more reasonable given that people actually exist that lived in this time or at least meaningful records of history.

The fact is the British/UN gave a bunch of land to people that wasn’t really theirs to give. Nakba happened (which is illegal to even talk about in Israel) which was already a mass genocide/forced displacement). People alive today saw this happen. Watch the documentary Tantura to see some of the horrors by early Israelis (rapes, torture, killing people and feeding them their own genitals).

The point is: throughout most of modern history “Israel” has been invading Palestine. The fact that the UN recognized Israel in 1949 doesn’t matter… because that recognition required mass displacement and horrors to actually materialize.

Arab wars etc are a consequence of this. Sure maybe Israel won some of those. But one has to accept that the very conceptualization of Israel is rooted in genocide and displacement from the start. Many (or maybe most) states throughout history were formed this way I guess … Israel had the bad luck of doing it during a time that the human rights and morality of modernity was beginning to fully form.

[weatherlite]

How was the Nakba a genocide?

[stanfordkid]

It was ethnic cleansing, violent forced displacement paired with massacres of 750,000 people. My mistake — not genocide.

[weatherlite]

You're correct it was not genocide. The other side carried out quite a few massacres of its own and tried to displace the Jews (or worse) - so it was pretty much just a war.

[racional]

Per the modern definition of the term:

Genocide is the intentional destruction of a people in whole or in part.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

[weatherlite]

So indeed the Nakba was not a genocide

[racional]

The Nakba is ongoing, and fulfills the definitions (a)-(d) in Article 2 of the 1948 Genocide Convention to the letter.

You can call it a "small" genocide if you want. But you won't get anywhere denying either the facts of what has been happening to the Palestinians, or their relation to genocidal acts as defined above.

[corimaith]

The word "genocide" (and many other terms) means very little nowadays. Well you can tell at least the parent isn't trying to be neutral in providing history there.

[dlubarov]

> Nakba happened (which is illegal to even talk about in Israel)

This is very inaccurate, the actual law is described here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba_Law#Provisions

[runarberg]

> 4. Referring to the Israeli Independence Day or the founding day of the country as a day of mourning.

So you are not allowed to call it the Nakba, or describe it as anything but something to celebrate as long as you receive funding from the government.

I don’t know how the media, libraries, schools or other institutions work in Israel, but in Iceland this would pretty much amount to a ban, as almost all media, and institutions receive at least some funding from the government, and the most important ones actually depend on it.

I also find it curious how this flies in Israel’s participation in Eurovision. Russia was banned for using state media to spread misinformation. Meanwhile Israel has laws which bans their state media from recognizing previous state atrocities, and is not banned.

[dlubarov]

Your interpretation doesn't seem right. It is certainly permitted to use the word Nakba, and there's no requirement to celebrate anything.

[Redoubts]

> in Iceland this would pretty much amount to a ban, as almost all media, and institutions receive at least some funding from the government

skill issue.