The only reason they call it the Nakba is because they lost. Had they won, it wouldn’t be remembered as a tragedy it would’ve been the ethnic cleansing of the Jews and the destruction of the Jewish state.
That was their goal in 1948. The “Nakba” is not about justice it’s about regret over a failed attempt to wipe Israel off the map.

I understand that the word Nakba means “catastrophe” or “disaster,” and it refers specifically to the mass displacement and expulsion of Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War—when over 750,000 Palestinians, more than half the Arab population of Mandatory Palestine, were forced to flee or were expelled from their homes. Over 400 Palestinian towns and villages were destroyed or depopulated, and most of the refugees have never been allowed to return.

Imagine if, tomorrow, a foreign army invaded Israel and expelled half the Jewish population to Africa. Would you call it anything other than a catastrophe? Or if Israel’s nuclear capability was wiped out and its army crushed—what would Israeli society call that moment? We discussed just the other day what Israel might do if the tables were turned.

Your argument is that the Nakba is only called a catastrophe because the Palestinians lost. You suggest that had they won, they would have carried out ethnic cleansing of Jews and destroyed Israel. But here’s the historical reality: the people of Mandatory Palestine had no state, no army, and no capacity for organized ethnic cleansing. They had never invaded another country, nor did they carry out any campaign of expulsion or extermination. By contrast, the actual historical record shows that ethnic cleansing was carried out by the forces that became the state of Israel—through operations like Plan Dalet, the destruction of hundreds of villages, and the permanent denial of return.

You’re speculating about what might have happened if Israel had lost. That’s not history. That’s a hypothetical. The actual history—the part we can document—is that Palestinians suffered mass expulsion, and the new state of Israel built its foundations atop that displacement.

You also noted that Palestinian and Israeli societies are fundamentally different. I agree, but that difference cannot be used to retroactively justify what was done. Nor can we assume that Palestinians, had they won, would have mirrored the very actions they were subjected to. That’s projecting the actions of the victors onto the victims.

The Nakba is not about “regret over a failed attempt to destroy Israel.” It’s about a people losing their homes, families being torn apart, and an entire nation being displaced—without ever being allowed back. That is not a “what if.” That is what happened.

Reference to the type of people you're arguing with

My point is more that the "state" of Gaza de facto declared total war when they attacked civilians using their military forces. I would argue that Gaza (was) a de facto nation, regardless of recognized international status, and that it was a military attack and not a terrorist attack since it was sanctioned by the government. They have not, to this day, recognized any wrongdoing, therefore they are still actively declaring total war on Israel, openly saying they will kill any Israelis they can get their hands on. If they have not committed all able-bodied people to their war cause, this is discordant with their previous total war actions. Israel will still treat them as if they are declaring total war (which they are).

St Augustine did detail, I believe, parameters for which insurrection against their masters is justified. I do not believe that Gaza even comes close to these parameters - especially noting that their population has done nothing but increase while being wards of Israel, and they are given food, water, electricity, utilities for free.

Regardless, it is supremely ironic that Israel is enthusiastically doing the exact same thing, with the exact same justifications, as the Germans previously did to the Jews & other "problematic" groups. This palpable intellectual discordance does not go unnoticed, and if they continue to decry the so-called Holocaust while denying the Nakba & current events, future generations will not look fondly on them.

The Nakba was a tragedy no one’s denying that. But it wasn’t just some random act of cruelty; it was the direct result of a war that the Arab world, including many Palestinians, chose to start. The Jewish side accepted the UN’s two-state plan; the Arab side rejected it and launched a war to wipe out the Jewish community. You say the Palestinians had no army or capacity for organized violence, but that’s simply not true they had armed militias, foreign fighters, and made it clear they had no intention of letting a Jewish state exist. Plan Dalet wasn’t some secret ethnic cleansing plan; it was a military strategy to protect Jewish towns, secure vital roads, and prepare for invasion by five Arab countries. Yes, some Palestinians collaborators were expelled during the war, and yes, many others fled some because of fear, some because they were told to by Arab leaders promising victory. It was war. That’s what happens in war. At the same time, over 800,000 Jews were kicked out of Arab countries, but Israel took them in. You compare it to Jews being sent to Africa but that’s not what happened. Israel didn’t start the war. You also dismiss what I said as hypothetical, but then assume that if the Palestinians had won, they would’ve acted differently. That’s just as hypothetical and frankly, wishful thinking. The Nakba wasn’t just about losing homes; it was also about the refusal to accept a Jewish state, and sadly, that rejection still hasn’t changed. On the other hand the Jews accepted the Arabs that stayed they are now Israeli Arabs citizens with equal rights.

it must be very difficult for people to read stuff like this, on the one hand agreeing with a lot of this and on the other being uncomfortable. you make a good argument here.

Nuance on this topic is hard to find, I support their takeover of Gaza but what they're doing now is very very sloppy.

Why hasn't Israel been able to corral and control the population? Why are they still shooting people trying to get aid? Why do they have no operational control over aid channels & disarming the population? The longer this goes on, the case that Israel is intentionally inflicting anguish and suffering, causing children to die & be unable to sustain life, the case for genocide gets stronger and stronger.

While Israel are dominant on the battlefield, they clearly have no knowledge on how to actually manage a defeated population (neither does America). France, the Ottomans, and the British have all been able to successfully control this population in the past. I fear that this knowledge is now largely lost with the post-WW2 LWO, they burned all the how-to manuals.

This post was edited by El1te on Jun 28 2025 03:22pm

they have absolutely no clue as to what to do with Gaza. The WestBank, sure, Gaza, no.

I'd love to hear any argument that supports that they have a coherent plan whatsoever

Their "coherent" plan is mowing the lawn, which to my mind is utterly senseless.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 28 2025 03:49pm