[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.

[tptacek]

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]

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]

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

[tptacek]

(themself, sorry)

[idlewords]

The cherry on top of a museum-worthy thread.