[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.

[tptacek]

Indeed! For instance, Kuwait Nabka'd about 400,000 Palestinians in the wake of the Gulf War. And Syria just Nakba'd another 300,000, with barrel bombs dropped from helicopters.

[runarberg]

I’ve seen you use the word Nakba alot when describing events other then the Nakba. For example a counter-Nakba to describe the Jewish exodus from Middle Eastern and North African countries which followed Israel’s unilateral deceleration of independence.

I don’t think this is fair, nor helpful. It is kind of like saying that the ongoing Gaza Genocide is another Holocaust. The Nakba is a unique historic event, by calling other historic events the same name it kind of reduces the effectiveness of giving names to events, and what made them unique enough to be named in the first place.

The Palestinian exodus from Kuwait for example was nothing like the actual Nakba. To begin with the victims were already refugees, so they had a place that they could flee to. Second the exile orders were a limited time (I think a week), as opposed to permanent in the case of the actual Nakba. The exile orders were not enforced with terrorism and military occupation.

While the exodus from Kuwait was a terrible human rights violation, it is actually much more like ongoing refugee evacuations from Europe and North America than the actual Nakba. Calling it a Nakba is either denying the horrors of the the Nakba, or exaggerating the Palestinian exodus from Kuwait.

[racional]

True, and utterly deplorable of course.

But we have to keep in mind that none of those people would be forced to live in such inhospitable places were it not for the bold, decisive actions of that man who got an airport named after him.

[weatherlite]

Nope not a genocide...by any reasonable definition it was not.

[racional]

“We are imposing a complete siege on Gaza. There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything will be closed. We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly”

-- Defense Minister Yoav Gallant

[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.