Radical Graffiti"Ethnic cleansing is not self-defence"
Pasteups in Paris
Pasteups in Paris
notwithstanding
biplane@notwithstanding @RadicalGraffiti Now compare the chart of Palestinian population outside the West Bank and Gaza before and since the Nakba to the second chart, maybe?
@biplane @RadicalGraffiti that partitioning was mandated by the UN resolution 181 - the two state solution, to which Arab states responded with invasion and war.
@notwithstanding @RadicalGraffiti I'm familiar with it. However, I'm not certain where the fact that the United Nations endorsed ethnic cleansing changes the fact that forced population transfers are ethnic cleansing?
Would the expulsion of Jews from the Arab states have been fine if it was endorsed by the United Nations? Would it be reasonable to reply with the climbing population of Israel to insist that it's not?
@biplane @RadicalGraffiti the fact that the UN implemented it should tell you that it was not ethnic cleansing. It was allowing an indigenous population to return to where it came from right after it was victim of an actual genocide.
@notwithstanding In what world is forcing the people of a certain ethnicity inhabiting a region their people have lived in for over a thousand years to leave not ethnic cleansing?
What definition of ethnic cleansing does not apply to the Nakba but does to the expulsion of Jews from the Arab states, exactly?
@biplane in the world where the people going to live at that region were born there in prehistoric times. In the Iron Age.
At the risk of oversimplifying it let me put it like this: the cavemen in prehistoric times at the region are the Jews.
They were kicked out time and again, and persecuted etc etc over millennia. Now they have the means to defend themselves against Hamas’ vow to exterminate/expel them yet again.
@notwithstanding I'll have to think about this one. I certainly do believe that Jews have a right to live in the region - as opposed to those who would see them expelled especially or define them as a colonial group, but I don't know if that right necessarily should come at the cost of people who've been there for a thousand years being pushed out. Like, I don't know if I'd back Ireland taking back Northern Ireland and expelling the Protestants there, or whatever.
@biplane thank you. That’s all I am asking, think a bit about it.
It is of course not easy to solve. For example: the Northern Ireland analogy doesn’t really hold for the land problem, because the Irish living there are already living there together with the Protestants.
The Levant is much harder, because you had millions of Jews to *move into* the region.
And then you have the religious questions, Arabs taking part in actual Nazi battalions in WWII, and what not.
@biplane maybe I will try another oversimplification:
If the Maori had weapons to take New Zealand back, you couldn’t acuse them o “ethnic cleansing” white people.
See?
@biplane @RadicalGraffiti you can also note that the climb in population depicted in the graph starts in 1968, thus not linked to what you call Nakba, as opposed what you are tried to imply.