Danioover9000

History of the Nakba.

81 posts in this topic

   Great example of bias, and being too intelligent that you become blind to your own ideology and biases shaping your arguments, also another lesson why learning and being aware of developmental factors and modals like Spiral Dynamics stages of development (Don Beck), cognitive and moral development, personality types/traits, 9 stages of ego development(Jane Loevinger), Architypes(Carl Jung), Integral Theory's other lines of societal/personal development and domains, ideological beliefs indoctrinated from meta programs, metanarratives, information ecology we consume from big companies manufacturing consent, and how biases and preferences and the ego mind coopts debating and arguing. As much as I do like debating this is the one case where I'm confident Avi's biases and ideology and ego mind is poisoning the well and distorting and shaping that podcast episode:

https://x.com/AviBittMD/status/1769135804805263610?s=20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nivsch said:

Start with a source who is healthy in the way it does not do its all career from dehumanization of the other side using stones of truth wraped up with an Atmosphere of lies.

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/57540 

Here's a book by an Israeli historian. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

9 hours ago, Nivsch said:

I understand your motivation and your position, but to site the poison machine won't help anyone understand what happened 🧁🔥

Start with a source who is healthy in the way it does not do its all career from dehumanization of the other side using stones of truth wraped up with an Atmosphere of lies.

Well if you don't trust Aljazeera for some reason, try reading The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappé or The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine - A History of Settler-Colonial Conquest and Resistance by Rashid Khalidi. Both are pretty solid books on the matter.

(I didn't notice the previous post. Anyway, it's a pretty good book)

Edited by Porphyry Fedotov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Porphyry Fedotov From the wiki of the book I found an explanation I think is the most plausible:

" The historian Benny Morris offered several interpretations for the departure of the Palestinians during the war, in the book "The Birth of the Palestinian Problem 1947-1949" published in 1988. In the book, Morris refutes the traditional Israeli explanation as well as the traditional Palestinian explanation for the refugee problem.

The Israeli explanation was that the Arab leaders or the Palestinian leaders ordered or advised the Palestinians to abandon their homes, according to the Arab policy, the explanation was that the destruction resulted from the will of the Israeli government and the Zionist leadership.

Morris claims that both explanations are partially correct, but not as a primary explanation. The basic explanation is war, its fears and the shortages it brought are what motivated the refugees to leave their homes."


🇮🇱💛 Israel finished 5th at Eurovision and 2nd(!) in public vote with 'Hurricane' talks on oct7th. Israel's performance Here

🌻 Stage Yellow emerges when Green starts to have tolerance and respect to the variety of views within HIMSELF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You guys need to keep in mind that certain "historians" make best-selling books and lots of money by catering to certain audiences. The truth is a complicated thing and sometimes two things can be true at the same time and sometimes the stark harshness of Middle East survival makes for a zero-sum game where one or the other side gets killed off, speaking in general terms. 

The Jews in the land were a decimated, dirt-poor, fragile nation of a few hundred thousand. The whole continuity of their race and nation weighed on the shoulders of the Zionists. Therefore they were extremely energetic and motivated to get a part of their historical land back as a land where they could be sovereign and resilient. The Zionists, small, secular and level-headed as they were, were consistently extremely desperate for the slightest peace they could get. Instead, they were only met with war which the Arabs kept on losing time after time cornering and foot-shooting themselves even more. Though some progress for peace was also made like with Egypt and Jordan. 

Edited by Vrubel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Vrubel said:

The Jews in the land were a decimated, dirt-poor, fragile nation of a few hundred thousand. The whole continuity of their race and nation weighed on the shoulders of the Zionists. Therefore they were extremely energetic and motivated to get a part of their historical land back as a land where they could be sovereign and resilient. The Zionists, small, secular and level-headed as they were, were consistently extremely desperate for the slightest peace they could get. Instead, they were only met with war which the Arabs kept on losing time after time cornering and foot-shooting themselves even more. Though some progress for peace was also made like with Egypt and Jordan. 

+1 ❤

Edited by Nivsch

🇮🇱💛 Israel finished 5th at Eurovision and 2nd(!) in public vote with 'Hurricane' talks on oct7th. Israel's performance Here

🌻 Stage Yellow emerges when Green starts to have tolerance and respect to the variety of views within HIMSELF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

17 hours ago, Nivsch said:

Maybe it reflects great the feelings of their side, but does not relflect what actually happened, nor do justice nor give any clue about the real motives, fears, intentions and struggles of the second side. 

For example, it will never mention that the Jews were almost lost at the beginning of the war when their strategy was mostly deffensive, or it will never mention that the Jews accepted the UN plan and the Arabs didn't.

It mentions a lot more than Israelis mention. Because Israelis have to do a lot of whitewashing and ignoring of their own actions in order to regard themselves as innocent victims in all this.

Edited by Leo Gura

You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can read books or you can ask the people who were there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It mentions a lot more than Israelis mention. Because Israelis have to do a lot of whitewashing and ignoring of their own actions in order to regard themselves as innocent victims in all this.

I find it weird that people that follow your work on this forum are so in denial about Israeli atrocities and other injustices. I have seen countless videos online of Jews denouncing what Israel is doing and has historically done. I would expect people that follow your work to do the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It mentions a lot more than Israelis mention. Because Israelis have to do a lot of whitewashing and ignoring of their own actions in order to regard themselves as innocent victims in all this.

So what's your point? If Israelis lost even one war including the year-long war of independence where the Nakba occurred Israelis would have been genocided, Israel would have never existed and large Jewish communities in the world (mostly The Middle East as Europe did advance after the Holocaust) would have been continued to be vulnerable, to be pushed around, persecuted and genocided by the people they live around. But hey, at least we would have your sympathy as innocent victims. 

Zionists reinvented the Jews from innocent victims to strong resilient folk that can take charge and secure their future. Zionists would have settled for the smallest piece of their homeland if it meant they could finally live in genuine peace. I mean peace was long overdue after thousands of years of chaos in exile. The same is true today, most Israelis would have accepted a two-state solution given bona fide security guarantees and trust. And it's no mystery that the consistent trend is that after right-wing governments, centrist/left ones get elected who are incredibly open to peace and almost always make a very reasonable proposal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

20 minutes ago, Vrubel said:

Zionists would have settled for the smallest piece of their homeland if it meant they could finally live in genuine peace.

No they wouldn't. And that's the whole rub. They take and take and take, with no shame or self-awareness. They don't want peace, they want land.

Edited by Leo Gura

You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

32 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No they wouldn't. And that's the whole rub.

I have no problem with Palestinians having the West Bank and Gaza given security guarantees and trust (Most Israelis think exactly the same it is just that the trust is incredibly hard to come by, you cannot blame the Israelis for this. The current exceptional long rightwing rule is a product of the terrorism of the second intifada.) In an end resolution, extremist settlers can be expelled but the vast majority can remain there and live there South Africa style meaning they will retain their relative wealth and comfort but lose much of their freedom due to security risks. And if they are going to pay their taxes to a Palestinian state they also deserve representation in government Just like the Arabs in Israel.

 

 

 

Edited by Vrubel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Vrubel said:

I have no problem with Palestinians having the West Bank and Gaza

You ain't in charge.


You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

You ain't in charge.

Read again. I explained the conundrum excellently well. Don't be obnoxious just for the sake of it. 

Most Israelis would give them their state but how are they supposed the be assured that they won't organize themselves and come breaching the border raping and murdering and this time with a fully-fledged army over an enormous territory and close to Israel's populated heartland?

And yes extremists feed off each other. So extremist Israeli settlers will capitalize on the emotional outrage after terror attacks and time this with an action to occupy some land. All under that smoke screen of the emotional outrage of the entire society. 

Edited by Vrubel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nivsch  and @Vrubel  have a bad habit of editing your posts.😁 Stop engaging in straw mans and boogeyman points of what if the Zionists lost in the Nakba, or in the Oslo Accords, or in the Yon Kippur war? At best the Zionists would be ethnically cleansed and expelled from their territories, similarly to what the Zionists and early GB did to the Palestinians. BTW have you red what the Stern Gang, the Irgun did during the Nakba? That some of that gang is now in power? Israel is looking more like a cartel and less like a state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

No they wouldn't. And that's the whole rub. They take and take and take, with no shame or self-awareness. They don't want peace, they want land.

But you described now only the deep right wing which is a minority.

Even the average of the "Likud" (Bibi's party) don't have such a rigid ideology about a land from what I was impressed, apart from a minority of them + two small far right wing parties which indeed have.

Edited by Nivsch

🇮🇱💛 Israel finished 5th at Eurovision and 2nd(!) in public vote with 'Hurricane' talks on oct7th. Israel's performance Here

🌻 Stage Yellow emerges when Green starts to have tolerance and respect to the variety of views within HIMSELF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

But you described now only the deep right wing which is a minority.

Even the average of the "Likud" (Bibi's party) don't have such a rigid ideology about a land from what I was impressed, apart from a minority of them + two small far right wing parties which indeed have.

Then how come all map between Israel and Palestine of 1968 is different to the one of today.

Who took all that land? Is it just that minor Likud party or many goverments through decades are responsible for it.

Logically the borders should not have changed after 1968, but they have.

Why so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now