32 replies to this topic

[B Jenkins]

Youtube: Part one

Youtube: Part two

This over 3.5 hour long documentary smashes alot of the myths surrounding the history between Arab and Jews under the Ottoman Empire, the British Mandate, up til the Arab-Israeli War in 1948.

Note: Al Nakba is not permitted to be taught at schools in Israel.

Edited by Saru, 03 October 2012 - 09:18 AM.
Replaced embedding with video links for legal reasons

[and then]

One man's catastrophe is another's ecstasy.

[B Jenkins]

and then, on 02 October 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

One man's catastrophe is another's ecstasy.

Spoken like a real Christian.

[odas]

Ambush Bug, on 02 October 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

Spoken like a real Christian.

Real Christian? I doubt that in his case.

[and then]

Ambush Bug, on 02 October 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

Spoken like a real Christian.

Phrased poorly I guess.  I just meant that  the "catastrophe" of 1948 was the fulfillment of a dream for world Jewry that was a couple millennia old.  Those who lose wars that they start typically are not very happy.  But these guys repeated the same mistake over and over - with the same result.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Ambush Bug, on 02 October 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

Spoken like a real Christian.

I feel vaguely insulted.

[and then]

Wearer of Hats, on 03 October 2012 - 05:30 AM, said:

I feel vaguely insulted.

Unless you are trying to insult me as well   I wouldn't let it bother.  Bug has a very special place in his heart for me.  It's all about hate I think...not sure though.  Anyway, he seems to equate being Christian with being perfect somehow.

[Karlis]

This "Al Nakba, a documentary" topic could easily become a battle of conflicting opinions, which happens far too often in the MIDDLE EAST Board.

Interestingly, the "Al Nakba" topic is now in the process of being posted on Wikipedia, and there is on-going discussion and debate between some of the Wiki moderators who are involved in the production of this article there.

I am linking to all of that Wiki article, to illustrate how controversial subjects can be discussed between people who hold opposing views. I suggest that everyone read this discussion between the Wiki moderators, and take note how points can be made; how arguments and counter-arguments can be presented, without personal insults or vilification of opposing viewpoints.
-=-=-



Template talk:Nakba
Wikipedia Source

[and then]

I did not know that Palestinians described the entire process of Israel's coming into existence from the 40's on as "the catastrophe"  but I'm not really surprised.  I thought that term was reserved for the birth of the State.

[RavenHawk]

I'm just now watching this film.  I've only got 20mins into it and I find it very interesting.  I already see how this is an anti Jewish/Israeli propaganda piece – that’s ok.  Filled with facts and key ones twisted.  The Rothschilds are behind it so it must be evil Zionism.  But in the 8th min it says that in 1910, lands were purchased in Marj Bin Amer and the Palestinians were removed.  This is prior to WWI and it already tells you that it is not Palestinian lands.  They are nothing more than squatters.  They have no legal status.  In the final analysis, there is no injustice of the Zionist Program.  Most land owners lived elsewhere and that is why you see on maps after 1920 Palestine is labeled as unorganized territory.  This means that the land was wide open.  Time to get back to the film.

[The New Richard Nixon]

But it was under British Rule so you could say both Israel and Palestine have no claims, if you get what i mean

[Stellar]

I dont think the "legality" of the actions are too much of a concern for either party. If it was, this wouldn't be such a volatile issue. Its when people disagree that something should be legal/illegal that problems start to occur.

[RavenHawk]

The New Richard Nixon, on 03 October 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

But it was under British Rule so you could say both Israel and Palestine have no claims, if you get what i mean

That is correct.  The Brits would be well within their legal rights to remove everyone and bar it from any other occupancy.  But they were finding themselves as owners of undesirable land.  The Brits have a “proper” way of doing things.  They just couldn’t walk away and leave the land to squatters.  Jews had the ancient claim but didn’t possess enough of the land.  The Balfour Declaration was a plan that they could work with.  What it was turning into was a contest for the land.  The one thing that is undeniable is that the Jew has been more productive with the land than the Palestinian has.  That is something that the British can appreciate.  To them, it was really case closed and eventually determined to let nature take its course.

I’ve gotten through the first hour now and I find it interesting that about the 51st min it mentions a certain action by Israel.  I guess it is ok to do that.  From that point to where I stopped (so far) all it talks about are Israeli “atrocities”.  Isn’t that disingenuous?  Shouldn’t it talk about the Palestinian ones as well (or is that later in the film – somehow I doubt it)?  I know the film is trying to show some grand conspiracy, but maybe it should show the motive behind Israeli actions?  If this grand conspiracy was so perfectly planned and executed, then there would be no need for Jews to react in a violent means, unless violence was done to them first.  But I’m going to lunch and I will try to finish part I later today.

[Yamato]

A religion that's thousands of years old or an ethnic group spread out across the planet shouldn't be shrunken down into a nation just because it geographically coincides to something in the Bible.   Jewish =/= Israel.   Defending oppression behind a flag with the Star of David on it is shameless religious propaganda.   And everything government does is legal to government at least in the rhetorical, but that doesn't make what governments do right.  

Sweeping the dispirited masses from the land based on laws courtesy of the Johnny-come-latelys is an effective analog to sweep anyone out of anywhere.   Everyone's a squatter where government says they are. Forcing people out of their homes without their consent because the law has a better use for that property is a common theme in the world.   Many Palestinians who were forced out of their homes had deeds to their property so if we call them "squatters" we aren't able to distinguish where property was owned from where it wasn't and that's enough to disrespect property rights already.    If our neighborhoods turned into a war zone, leaving the war zone is just common sense.  The multiple factors that explain the nature of the Palestinian exodus aren't as definitive to The Tragedy as Israel not allowing Palestinians to return.   In hindsight, what made the leaving so tragic for Palestinians is that it turned out to be permanent for them.  My heart bleeds for the lost, the forgotten, the refugees who have died.   Endless group-think drivel about governments, ethnic groups and religions doesn't make the color of right but it effectively serves to dissuade coexistence between those groups.

[Stellar]

Quote

The Brits would be well within their legal rights to remove everyone and bar it from any other occupancy.

Do you really expect, after some government says "Hey, I own this territory, so I'm going to kick you off," people are going to be "ok" with it as long as its done "legally"?