The analogy you make, "Holocaust deniers deny that 6 million Jews were killed. Nobody denies that 700,000 Palestinians became refugees," is fallacious.
The Nakba concept is not that 700,000 Palestinas became refugees, but that they were made refugees, just as the Holocaust concept is not that 6M Jews died, but that 6M Jews were killed.
And contrary to your belief, many people dispute not only the 700K figure (including the state of Israel, which puts the number of Palestinian refugees at 500K), but also the fact that Israel had any responsibility in the exodus.
In short, Nakba denial is alive and well, as is Holocaust denial. This is not to claim that the expulsion of a people can be compared to a genocide. But on the other hand, the ongoing problem is the Nakba, not the Holocaust.
Also:
In November, The Knesset Education Committee voted against Education Minister Yuli Tamir's proposal to include discussion of the "Nakba" (catastrophe), the Palestinian version of the events of 1948, in the school curriculum.
The committee voted six to one against, with one abstention.
"The Education Committee rejects presenting two perspectives in textbooks of the events of the War of Independence and the creation of the state and the reasons for the creation of the refugee problem," the committee said in a statement. "The inclusion in the curriculum that the Arabs view the creation of the state as a disaster is serious and leads to a process of alienation of the Arab community from the state and damages coexistence."
That is, the Nakba is excluded from Israeli textbooks for the sake of coexistence. You can say that the Nakba is denied with the best of intentions, but you can't say there's no Nakba denial.
And contrary to your belief, many people dispute not only the 700K figure (including the state of Israel, which puts the number of Palestinian refugees at 500K)
700K to 500K doesn't change the basic scope of the event. There is actually some respectable disagreement about how many Jews died in the Holocaust and other numbers connected to almost any historical event you could name. Holocaust deniers often try to put the numbers in the mere thousands.
but also the fact that Israel had any responsibility in the exodus . . . The Nakba concept is not that 700,000 Palestinians became refugees, but that they were made refugees
"Made" means they were all passive victims? That's a falsehood. Falsehoods should be denied.
"Made" means they were all passive victims? That's a falsehood. Falsehoods should be denied.
In the first place, you're answering you own words, not mine. That's called a straw-man argument.
Next, I believe we're treading dangerous soil here. Do people need to be "passive" to be considered victims?
No, the word "victim" is quite flexible. We even speak of self-victimization. Your wording, however, "they were made refugees," suggests passivity.
Not so. It suggests that their becoming refugees was not a catastrophe of their own making.
In the expression "someone else's making" the someone else is the active party. The party acted upon can be described as "passive." So you are insisting on their passive status in that sense. In any event, the Palestinians played a leading role in their own misfortunes, not a bit part. That has been true ever since.
Sure.
The Palestinians went to Mr. Balfour and asked him if he would be so kind as to make a statement providing for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
Next, they began to issue visas so that hundreds of thousands of Jews could immigrate into the territory.
Then they actively collaborated with the UN in the gerrymandering of a State with surrealist borders so designed as to ensure a slim Jewish majority.
All along they refused the multiple referendums that were offered to them in case they wanted to express any opposition to the scheme as the original inhabitants of the land.
But the last straw was when they killed four Jewish heros in Deir Yassin.
No doubt, the Palestinians played a leading role in their own misfortunes.
They failed to make the best of the various British retreats from the Balfour Declaration.
They rejected the Peel Commission partition plan.
They participated in the incitement that led to the liquidation of the Jewish presence in Arab lands. Research the adventures in Iraq of the Mufti and his associates.
They responded to the UN Partition plan with a war they couldn't win, a war that embodied genocidal intentions.
They listened to the AHC during the 1948 war.
One might as well say that if a woman who's being raped fights back and is killed, she has played a major role in her misfortune. In fact, if she had agreed to just being raped, she would have stayed alive. After all, the rapist warned her: "don't resist and you won't get hurt."
In another approach, though, this is called blaming the victim, and the whole fault lies with the rapist, whatever the woman's reaction after he began to rape her.
As King Abdullah told the Americans:
What would your answer be if some outside agency told you that you must accept in America many millions of utter strangers in your midst—enough to dominate your country—merely because they insisted on going to America, and because their forefathers had once lived there some 2,000 years ago?
Our answer is the same.
And what would be your action if, in spite of your refusal, this outside agency began forcing them on you?
Ours will be the same.
You are using an analogy that makes the actual events irrelevant. Israel to the Jewish people is not merely a place where "their forefathers had once lived there some 2,000 years ago." That's a very great distortion. Any history of the Jewish people is grossly incomplete that neglects 2,000 years of Jewish life in Israel. Look up the Masoretes, Nachmanides, R. Yosef Karo, the Arizal, and the Or HaChaim. How religious are you, by the way?
Feeling a strong attachment to a land doesn't give anyone a right to that territory. We Argentinians truly believe the Falklands/Malvinas are ours, yet what counts is the native population's wishes.
Of course, a small minority of Jews lived in Palestine at the time of the Balfour declaration. But they weren't consulted, either; it was the European Jews who decided the fate of the inhabitants of Palestine, both Arab and Jewish.
How religious are you, by the way?
Although I was raised in a religion and am married to a woman of the same religion, over the years I've developed my own way of believing in God. Traditional religions are very much concerned about what you eat or don't eat, or how many times you pray a day. That's clearly irrelevant.
In my view, you can become a good person (and, in the process, a good believer) by following just two principles: 1) don't force your will on others; 2) be charitable. Since this is not what religions prescribe, you could say I'm not religious at all.
Feeling a strong attachment to a land doesn't give anyone a right to that territory . . . Of course, a small minority of Jews lived in Palestine at the time of the Balfour declaration
Their numbers had increased considerably due to the first and second aliyot, which preceded the Balfour Declaration. It was a small, but intellectually important community, the latest manifestation of an ancient and continuous presence.
it was the European Jews who decided the fate of the inhabitants of Palestine, both Arab and Jewish.
No surprise there--bad old Europe did emancipate the Jews. The Muslim countries were behind in this respect although some steps had been taken in some places. Zionism in some form was pretty inevitable since Jews are adherents of the world's most Palestino-centric religion. (The parent religion of the the world's two largest religions altogether, which preserve the Palestino-centric aspect in some ways.) Their religion was so Palestino-centric, that after century upon century in Europe or in Arabic-speaking lands, they were still creating scholarly and literary works in the world's only uniquely Palestinian language--I mean Hebrew. Think of all that, plus the persecution you are no doubt already familiar with, as motivation for the Zionist movement. The current Israeli right to self-determination is the product of all they have built and fought for since the First Aliyah in 1881, the fact that most Israelis were born in Israel, the multi-generation histories there that vast numbers of Israeli families have, the Middle Eastern grandparents or great-grandparents that about three million of them have. Anti-hasbara proclivities are no excuse for not understanding.
One more thought: How odd to have to explain this to someone named Abraham.
Missing in your narrative is any reference to the Arabs living there. The Palestino-centric religion, the persecutions, etc., were all relevant to the Jews, not to the Muslims and Christians who lived in Palestine.
And yes, with more than 4 generations born and raised in Israel, the Jews do have the right to live there. A baby born in Ein Hod today is not guilty for his grandfather having expelled an Arab. But the grandchild of the expelled Arab has exactly the same right to live there. One state for two peoples, the only viable solution -- or, better still, one state for one people...
One more thought: How odd to have to explain this to someone named Abraham.
It may be odd, but it also shows you're more patient and open-minded than some of your informers, who are very much afraid of dissent and contrarian opinions.
By the way, congratulate that Abraham fellow on my behalf. Not everyone can rise against the established truth and begin to think with his own head.
Missing in your narrative is any reference to the Arabs living there.
It was a discussion of a few points, not a narrative, or not much of one.
The Palestino-centric religion, the persecutions, etc., were all relevant to the Jews, not to the Muslims and Christians who lived in Palestine.
The religion was relevant to them. They had a supercessionist or replacement-theology version of the Jewish connection to Israel in their own religion. Pipes calls it "Muslim Zionism." The persecutions were relevant also, as we already discussed.
Commenting by HaloScan
