| HN Mirror

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 745 days ago

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.

runarberg 742 days ago

When I hear people describing the Nakba as ongoing, I generally take that as to mean that the practices and policies of the Nakba have never been reversed, that the expulsion orders are still in effect, the refugees are still as such, partitions, occupation, and land grabs are still ongoing and expanding, the right of return has never been granted.

I think this is valid because the same government entity keeps these practices and policies onto the same victims. There is also a distinction to be made on the original event which we call The Nakba and the ongoing policies which followed. It is kind of like saying that the Korean War never ended. We have this original event, and then we have the aftermath which is still unresolved (not making a comparison though granting the right of return to displaced Palestinian is a million times less complicated than the Korean reunification).

I also hear people talking about the Gaza Genocide as a second Nakba. I also think this is valid (although The Gaza Genocide is a descriptive enough name IMO) since it mirrors the original event in scope and horrors, in policies. This would be akin to calling a second world war following The Great War World War II.

The Palestinian exodus from Kuwait, or the Syrian reign of terror against Palestinians are, however, not a direct followup or a continuation by the same entity of the same practices and policies of the original Nakba.

At most I can understand the use of the word Counter-Nakba as the Jewish hostile policies of e.g. Iraq were a direct response to the original Nakba. However the scale and horrors of that policy were nowhere near that of the original Nakba (even though the scale of the results [somewhat] did). And the practices and policies of Muslim majority countries did not mirror those of Israel during the Nakba, quite the contrary.

tptacek 740 days ago

That's fine, we just disagree about this semantic point.

(themself, sorry)

idlewords 744 days ago

The cherry on top of a museum-worthy thread.

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.

... 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.

Hate to point this out -- but this really is just whataboutism, here.

The MENA expulsions (which we have already acknowledged) didn't have anything to do either with Nakba '48 or the expulsions of Palestinians in other countries in subsequent years. Let alone with the topic of subthread we've all jumped in at here. (Which started with the Nakba after all; I didn't introduce it to make some broader moral point).

I thought about what you said. I don't think this is whataboutism. The people most responsible for the policies you most disapprove of in Israel are precisely the people who were victims of reprisal pogroms and ethnic cleansings in other countries.

I don't think my thesis is "Israel is right". My awareness of Israel started with them killing that activist with a bulldozer, and didn't go better places from there. I'm guessing we 80% agree about Israel.

I think my thesis is "no simple argument about Israel or Palestine will ever be true". Which is, to me, kind of fascinating, if you can get past the horror, which I understand people (on both sides) not being able to do. Also: I sound like a Bond villain right now.

racional 744 days ago

The people most responsible for the policies you most disapprove of in Israel are precisely the people who were victims of reprisal pogroms and ethnic cleansings in other countries.

So ... if Palestinians are still going through what they're going today, at home or abroad, it's ultimately (or to large extent) a delayed result of the MENA expulsions, and the slight electoral tilt among the descendants of those affected (we're talking 2 full generations later, heading up on a 3rd by now) within Israeli electoral politics?

That is to say, ultimately an outgrowth of -- external antisemitism?

That's your thesis here?

weatherlite 745 days ago

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

“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

weatherlite 745 days ago

So the Nakba is on going according to you, you're not even talking about 1948. Whatever.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40372975

So the Nakba is on going

You're catching on! The Nakba is as fresh as ever. Just ask these folks -- who are definitely in a position to know:

As the Minister for Foreign Affairs instructs us: "Remember 48".

And he sure ain't kidding. It is all very much an ongoing process.

weatherlite 745 days ago

Right. I can find a collection of quotes by current and previous Palestinian leaders that make them appear to be a bunch of genocidal, religious fanatics and holocaust deniers. But I'm not gonna do that because the day is short and I'm not sure what its going to achieve.

racional 744 days ago

The quotes were directly relevant to the topic that you raised.

The genocidal intent of the Nakba was as clear in 1948 as it is with the Nakba in its current form today.