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.
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.
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.
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.
I respectfully disagree with you about this, and don't see the distinction you're trying to make. I am, in particular, responding to a comment --- from a commenter you agree with generally --- who himself referred to the Nakba as ongoing.
Since this is just a rhetorical point, I don't think it's much worth arguing. I could come back at you with the Holocaust comparison, but what do we get out of that?
So, I'm going to continue using the wording I'm using, but with respect to your objection: heard.
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.
... or, as we've talked about before, the bold, decisive actions of people throughout every MENA country who expelled their own Jewish populations in the wake of the 1948 war --- those specific people are the core of the right wing in Israel.
“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”
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.