Please or to access all these features

Conflict in the Middle East

The Nakba of 1948

256 replies

Watermelonpower · 07/01/2024 18:45

Hello everyone
I’m creating this thread because I feel there is not enough awareness about the Nakba of 1948 and the impact this had on the Palestinian people, community and the diaspora that was created as a result. Anyone seeking to understand current events in the Middle East needs to understand The Nakba, what it meant to Palestinians and how the consequences and generational trauma impacts Palestinians to this day. For those who are unaware, 70% of Gaza’s population are Nakba refugees/their descendants.

At the outset I would like to say this thread is about understanding and awareness. Above all, it is about the Palestinian experience and perspective. I would therefore appreciate it if people would keep this in mind and be respectful in their posting, ensuring MN Talk Guidelines are adhered to. I will be also be sharing some personal stories and
suggesting some additional resources and media for those who wish to learn more.

https://www.un.org/unispal/about-the-nakba/

About the Nakba

The Nakba, which means "catastrophe" in Arabic, refers to the mass displacement and dispossession of Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Before the Nakba, Palestine was a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society. However, the conflict between...

https://www.un.org/unispal/about-the-nakba/

OP posts:
Thread gallery
33
statsfun · 12/01/2024 12:39

I don't think that's what proportionality is, @stomachameleon

If the workers had only killed 6 of their innocent Jewish colleagues to match the number of bomb victims - rather than 39 - it would still have been a mob massacre.

We can understand the context of retaliation killings like that (fear and anger following the terrorist bomb attack). But it is a retaliation, not for a reason. And so should still be condemned.

A reason would be if there was risk of further harm, eg if the Jewish colleagues had guns and were threatening to shoot. Or even if they were standing next to the terrorist about to detonate another bomb, and destroying them both prevented that from happening.

The proportionality is between the harm caused by your action versus the harm prevented by your action.

stomachameleon · 12/01/2024 09:30

The surviving Arab workers then went on to kill 39 Jewish workers suspecting them of being responsible.

@MercanDede I am on about the word proportionality. As in was this a proportional response? Not really.

statsfun · 12/01/2024 06:49

@MercanDede - the point is that there was violence and retaliatory violence going on in both directions already. Lots of it. And to say that it was primarily Jewish on Arab Palestinian is nonsense.

Can you not see your bias, saying that a mob of Arab Palestinians killing 39 of their co-workers - just for being Jewish - following an attack by a terrorist group doesn't count as Arab on Jewish violence?!

MercanDede · 11/01/2024 23:09

stomachameleon · 11/01/2024 18:17

@MercanDede from that example looks like proportionality is not a recent issue?

Hiya, can you elaborate? Which example are you referring to? What do you mean by proportionality? (The concept applies to collateral civilian casualties that are at risk of happening when a state military targets a military objective which none of the examples were about)

stomachameleon · 11/01/2024 18:17

@MercanDede from that example looks like proportionality is not a recent issue?

MercanDede · 11/01/2024 18:15

statsfun · 10/01/2024 23:37

Each death is a tragedy. The massacres on both sides are horrific. All current civilians would benefit from a lasting peace, in which they could live and bring up their families in safety.

But some people on this thread are trying to build up a narrative of Jews being the main aggressors in 1947-48, eg @MercanDede saying "It wasn’t one-sided, but it was very unbalanced with the majority of massacres being done by Jewish militant groups on Arab civilians."

And that simply doesn't stand up to any kind of basic fact checking.

People sometimes seem to read these threads and be drawn to the emotional appeal without really looking into it. So I'm trying to bring some balance and fact-checking.

I don't think it benefits the Palestinians to push a false narrative of one-sided victimhood.

It’s a list of the massacres linked to the UN partition vote by date and who was responsible. This is the historical record, it isn’t a narrative. Anyone can look them up and see they all happened as I have posted. I didn’t skip or exclude any.

You can see that there were 7 massacres over several months, all instigated by Jewish insurgents against Arab civilians following the UN Partition vote before the first Arab retaliatory massacre.

The claim that “Arabs started a civil war because of the UN partition vote” is what doesn’t stand up to basic fact checking. Your attempt to use an example of what has been documented as “inter communal violence” that had nothing to do the UN partition vote as some sort of start of a civil war over the UN partition vote is disingenuous.

MercanDede · 11/01/2024 18:06

The Haifa Oil Refinery Massacre is 2-way, but can't really be counted as a massacre by Jews given that there were 6 Arab deaths to 39 Jewish deaths.

You don’t assess who was responsible by the number of dead afterwards, you assess by who attacked and killed civilians first.

The Jewish group Irgun threw two bombs from a passing vehicle killing 6 Arab workers and wounding 42. The surviving Arab workers then went on to kill 39 Jewish workers suspecting them of being responsible.

The Jewish group that threw two bombs into a group of workers waiting for the gates of the oil refinery to open and start their shift, was responsible for this massacre.

MercanDede · 11/01/2024 17:59

statsfun · 10/01/2024 22:35

@MercanDede : At the time of the UN partition vote on 29 November 1947 all the way through to 22 February 1948, there was zero “Arab” instigated attacks either by indigenous Palestinians or the neighbouring “Arab” countries towards the Jewish population.

That's not actually true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948_civil_war_in_Mandatory_Palestine

"The first casualties after the adoption of Resolution 181(II) were passengers on a Jewish bus near Kfar Sirkin on 30 November, after an eight-man gang from Jaffa ambushed the bus killing five and wounding others. Half an hour later they ambushed a second bus, southbound from Hadera, killing two more, and shots were fired at Jewish buses in Jerusalem and Haifa."

This was stated to be a retaliation for the Shubaki family assassinations ten days earlier. Those strictly fall into "intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine" since the British Mandate was still in place. The 5 Palestinian Arabs were assassinated by Lehi, Zionist paramilitary and terrorist organisation on suspicions that the family had acted as informants for the British police. There had already been a bunch of killings on both sides at that point.

The Haifa Oil Refinery Massacre is 2-way, but can't really be counted as a massacre by Jews given that there were 6 Arab deaths to 39 Jewish deaths.

In total, from a 1947 population of 630 thousand Jews and 1.18 million Arabs, in the 1948 war 6,373 Jews were killed (about 4,000 fighters and 2,400 civilians) and between 3,000–13,000 Palestinian Arabs were killed (both fighters and civilians). Even at the top end of the estimate for Palestinian deaths, that's a pretty balanced 1% of each population. (there were additional deaths amongst the armies of other states)

At the time of the UN partition vote on 29 November 1947 all the way through to 22 February 1948, there was zero “Arab” instigated attacks either by indigenous Palestinians or the neighbouring “Arab” countries towards the Jewish population.

It is true. ER2 stated:
”It started after the Arabs started a civil war following the UN vote for a partition plan.”

Your example of it not being true is to list an example of a Jewish instigated attack in reverse order, an event that also had nothing to do with the UN partition itself and was "intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine" - as in not part of the insurgency following the UN partition.

“5 Palestinian Arabs were assassinated by Lehi, Zionist paramilitary and terrorist organisation on suspicions that the family had acted as informants for the British police” - (20 November 1947)
THEN
“an eight-man gang from Jaffa ambushed the bus killing five and wounding others. Half an hour later they ambushed a second bus, southbound from Hadera, killing two more, and shots were fired at Jewish buses in Jerusalem and Haifa. This was stated to be a retaliation for the Shubaki family assassinations ten days earlier.”- (30 November 1947)

A retaliation for assassination that occurred before the UN vote of 29 November 1947 and had nothing to do with the UN vote cannot be considered Arabs starting a civil war over a UN vote.

Scirocco · 11/01/2024 15:45

Zakat is one of the pillars of Islam. It's an annual charitable donation of a portion of finances. In most of the world it's now done as an individually calculated and donated action, but there are countries where it is collected by the state through a more structured/formal process. There are pros and cons to both approaches. If someone isn't Muslim, the obligation doesn't apply to them. There are also additional criteria such as age, mental capacity, pre-zakat income, etc.

Jizya refers to a tax which was payable by non-Muslims (again, with exemptions which have included consideration of age, capacity, health) living long-term in a state following Islamic law (it's no longer used though). The amounts payable would again be expected to be dependent upon an individual's income. There have been different perspectives on it through time, with some people taking a very negative view, some people being neutral and seeing both positive and negative aspects to it, and other people considering it more positively. In general terms, paying Jizya meant someone should have the rights of a citizen, including the rights to practise their own faith and culture and to be protected from harm as any citizen should be, while also having exemption from military service and, as non-Muslims, they would be exempt from zakat and other obligations upon Muslim citizens.

queenofarles · 11/01/2024 14:11

I could be mistaken so maybe someone with more knowledge can comment on the matter , but Muslims pay Zakaht and non Muslims pay Jizyah, as non Muslims don’t pay Zakaht? But muslims can pay their Zakaht to improvised non Muslims?

Estersouwester · 11/01/2024 12:07

@Auvergne63 So it seems we have some different historical viewpoints.

As has been said said elsewhere "recollections may vary".

Estersouwester · 11/01/2024 12:04

ConnieCounter · 11/01/2024 08:38

So long as people continue to deny that it happened it needs to be publicised and talked about.

Excuse me, I never denied that the Nakba happened so please don't infer that I did.

Auvergne63 · 11/01/2024 12:01

Estersouwester · 11/01/2024 11:44

I have done some reading on the matter.

Can I refer you to this article that says quite clearly "In exchange for the protection of the Islamic state, dhimmis were expected to pay a special tax, called the jizya. A document known as the Pact of ‘Umar spelled out the details of the agreement between the Islamic state and the dhimmis in considerable detail. "

The author's credentials are listed at the end.

https://katz.sas.upenn.edu/resources/blog/what-do-you-know-dhimmi-jewish-legal-status-under-muslim-rule

Article in The Jewish Chronicle by Diana Clark

November 2022 marks the centenary of the Ottoman Empire’s demise and much attention, as usual, will be focussed on the final bloody decades. Western Europe’s prevailing view of their gigantic eastern rival has tended to be overwhelmingly negative, with deeply embedded stereotypes like “the terrible Turk” and “the Ottoman yoke” drowning out any narrative that dares to highlight a few positives.
But an empire that lasted over 600 years, spanned three continents and ruled over 30 million subjects comprising more than 70 ethnicities speaking 12 different languages must have got something right.
The secret of Ottoman success lay in its egalitarian approach, as in Bursa, the model Ottoman city and first capital, which was designed from the bottom-up, around the needs of the community. When UNESCO added Bursa to its list of World Heritage Sites in 2014, it cited the city as an example of “exceptional urban planning… with its social, religious and commercial functions reflecting the values of the society and the values it accepted from its neighbours, during long years of migration from Central Asia to the West… in the integration of Byzantine, Seljuk, Arab, Persian and other influences.”
Theirs was the most cosmopolitan state on earth, with community services free to all, irrespective of religion or ethnicity. From the outset, in 1299, Osman, as leader of the Turkmen tribe that gave the empire its name, accepted that if their state was to prosper in a world surrounded by enemies, they needed people with the skills that they themselves, as nomads, lacked. Spiritual guides in the form of Sufi dervishes, honest traders and merchants, craftsmen, artisans, poets, scribes and civil servants with organisational abilities were all welcomed, no matter what their religion or ethnicity. As a result, the empire flourished and was, on the whole, run by people of genuine ability. The same mindset informed their approach to refugees, whom they consistently welcomed and supported.
When Ferdinand and Isabella expelled Jews from Spain in 1492, the Ottoman sultan received them warmly, understanding that grateful refugees, after being helped and supported by the state to get back on their feet, would become productive, tax-paying citizens. “You call Ferdinand a wise king,” mocked the sultan, “he who makes his land poor and ours rich!”

Expulsion of religious minorities was a common feature of the European landscape from the late Middle Ages onwards. Those who did not follow Christianity were cast out, especially after the powerful medieval pope Innocent III forbade Christians from living, working or trading with Jews. England expelled its Jews in 1291, France in 1343 and many German states in the early 1400s. Renaissance Europe expelled thousands of Jews, not only from Spain and Portugal but also from Italy, the Netherlands and elsewhere.
The Spanish Sephardim, reviled by the Inquisition, were stripped of their wealth and banished. As a result, from the 16th century onwards, the Ottoman Empire hosted the largest Jewish communities in the world, with Istanbul and Thessalonica their biggest centres. Along with other non-Muslims, the Sephardim simply had to pay the poll tax (a sum that was lower than their previous tax obligations in Catholic Spain) and to pledge obedience.
In the mid-15th century, a rabbi from Istanbul spread the word to Jews in Spain: “Here in the land of the Turks we have nothing to complain of. We possess great fortunes; much gold and silver are in our hands. We are not oppressed with heavy taxes, and our commerce is free and unhindered. Everything is cheap and every one of us lives in peace and freedom.
“Here the Jew is not compelled to wear a yellow star as a badge of shame, as is the case in most of Germany, where even wealth and great fortune are a curse for a Jew because he therewith arouses jealousy among the Christians and they devise all kind of slander against him to rob him of his gold.
“Arise my brethren, gird up your loins, collect all your forces and come to us.”
Antisemitism baffled the Ottomans. When occasional anti-Jewish riots broke out in Constantinople, they were invariably stirred up not by Muslims but by Christians accusing Jews of the ritual kidnapping, murder and eating Christian children.
Jews enjoyed the protection of the Ottomans against persecution till the end of the 19th century and Jews remain the largest minority in Istanbul to this day.
Russia compounded the refugee problem by repeatedly initiating wars against Ottoman territories as part of its imperial agenda. The native populations of Circassia and Abkhazia were dispossessed and ejected, forcing the Ottomans to take in more than 800,000 Caucasian refugees. In response, the Ottoman state mounted the first ever organised set of actions to a mass influx of forced migrants, issuing a Refugee Code in 1857.
Local towns and cities were asked to open up their mosques and churches to shelter and feed the exiles, while various local authorities levied municipal taxes per head to help fund the necessary food and clothing. Each immigrant family was provided with an initial amount of capital and a plot of state land so that they could start life anew as agricultural workers.
The refugees were given exemptions from conscription and taxation for six years in Rumelia (the Ottoman province that would later be known as the Balkans), or 12 years in Anatolia or Greater Syria. In many ways, Ottoman statecraft represented the complete opposite of modern nationalism, in that their system of government tolerated, even encouraged, multiculturalism, thereby facilitating their longevity.
When it came to state responsibilities like public health, the Ottomans extended the same facilities to all, without discrimination. They provided free, clean running water at public fountains, public baths and 1,400 public toilets in the capital Istanbul at a time when most Europeans believed it was cleaner not to bathe at all.
Throughout their rule, persistent plagues, including the Black Death, afflicted the empire, which they managed to control through mask-wearing and quarantine stations along the Dardanelles where ships would self-isolate before being allowed into the capital. They developed a smallpox vaccination in 1717, well ahead of Europeans, and by 1840 vaccinations were free to all and obligatory for civil servants, students and the military, as well as for refugees displaced by Russian invasions of Ottoman territory.
The Ottomans treated mental illness with kindness, believing it could be cured through the calming influences of music, flowing water, nature, gardens and plant life, aided by a simple vegetarian diet and herbal teas, at a time when sufferers in Europe were either abused or locked up.
Animals were likewise cared for, with the first animal hospital, the Helpless Stork Foundation, set up in the 19th century for treating broken wings. Caring for street animals like cats and dogs was regarded as a religious duty.
To this day, the sentiment lives on in a Turkish law guaranteeing the protection of strays from cruelty, resulting in a special bond between the people of Istanbul and street dogs, touchingly documented in the 2021 film Stray.
The Ottomans, as nomads accustomed to living alongside nature, were instinctive environmentalists in ways we could learn from today. The court architect Sinan (who died in 1588) was so environmentally aware that in designing the Süleymaniye Mosque in Istanbul, he made sure that the soot from thousands of candles and oil lamps was funnelled by air circulation into a filter room before the clean air was then released into the city. The soot itself was channelled into a water fountain where it was mixed to create high-quality ink for calligraphy. This ink had natural insect repellent properties, thereby protecting precious manuscripts and prolonging their life — it was recycling perfection, with 16th century flair.
Travelling across multiple borders in today’s powder keg mix of unviable, mutually antagonistic states in the Balkans and the Levant, I sometimes find myself wondering if people really were happier once they were “freed from the Ottoman yoke”.

Estersouwester · 11/01/2024 11:44

Auvergne63 · 11/01/2024 09:37

The Jews were kept in dhimmitude (second class citizens) in the Ottoman Empire.
May I, respectfully, suggest that you read a bit more of the history of the region. I highly recommend the books of historian and scholar, Prof Iftikhar Malik on the subject or Diana Darke's The Ottomans: A Cultural Legacy .

I have done some reading on the matter.

Can I refer you to this article that says quite clearly "In exchange for the protection of the Islamic state, dhimmis were expected to pay a special tax, called the jizya. A document known as the Pact of ‘Umar spelled out the details of the agreement between the Islamic state and the dhimmis in considerable detail. "

The author's credentials are listed at the end.

https://katz.sas.upenn.edu/resources/blog/what-do-you-know-dhimmi-jewish-legal-status-under-muslim-rule

What Do You Know? Dhimmi, Jewish Legal Status under Muslim Rule

https://katz.sas.upenn.edu/resources/blog/what-do-you-know-dhimmi-jewish-legal-status-under-muslim-rule

Auvergne63 · 11/01/2024 09:37

Estersouwester · 10/01/2024 14:32

"Despite that, we’ve had other views being discussed on here, some of which are repugnant to me personally. These include that Palestine didn’t exist and was an empty land,"

You may find this view 'repugnant' which is your choice.

May I, respectfully, suggest that you read a bit more of the history of the region.

From 1239 the Ottoman Empire covered all the land we now know as Israel/ Palestine/The Holy Land/Jordan/Syria/Judea etc.

The Jews were kept in dhimmitude (second class citizens) in the Ottoman Empire.

The Ottoman Empire (Turks) sided with Germany in World War I (1914–18); post-war treaties dissolved the empire, and in 1922 the sultanate was abolished by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who proclaimed the Republic of Turkey the following year.

So technically the landed didn't belong to anyone. It wasn't empty because some Turks, Jews, Arabs eked out a nomadic existence there as 'hunter gathers'..

Palestine per se did not exist. The Romans had called the area 'Judea'.

The “Philistines” refers to an ancient enemy of Israel who occupied the coast of what had been called “Canaan” prior to their arrival from overseas, which was around 1200 B.C. (Israelite tribes were in control of the hill country of what had been Canaan at that same time.) Most of where the Philistines lived is in the modern-day Gaza Strip. However there is no evidence that those that now live in Gaza have a common heritage with the Philistines.

The Jews were kept in dhimmitude (second class citizens) in the Ottoman Empire.
May I, respectfully, suggest that you read a bit more of the history of the region. I highly recommend the books of historian and scholar, Prof Iftikhar Malik on the subject or Diana Darke's The Ottomans: A Cultural Legacy .

shareabear · 11/01/2024 08:52

AdamRyan · 11/01/2024 08:01

This thread has taught me a lot about how far people are prepared to go to minimise what has and is happening to Palestinians.

Yes, I suppose it is an interesting, depressing, but not entirely unexpected (given what we've seen in recent weeks of how the Palestinian experience is minimised and denied) consequence of trying to bring light to what happened.

Truly enlightening and makes you realise what Palestinians are up against.

shareabear · 11/01/2024 08:45

ConnieCounter · 11/01/2024 08:38

So long as people continue to deny that it happened it needs to be publicised and talked about.

Exactly. A few posts upthread have already stated we should all "forget" about it. Seriously disrespectful.

shareabear · 11/01/2024 08:43

@Estersouwester

"IMO I don't really see what there is to discuss or the point of bringing up events of 76 years ago. The Nakba happened."

I want to refer you to an article I quoted upthread and this paragraph in particular.

This denial effectively demands that Palestinians similarly "forget" or ignore the Nakba, focusing solely on Israel's actions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip through the framework or lens of human rights—thereby ignoring Israel's violent colonial past and linking it to its violent colonial present. Policymakers draw a line—the Green Line—where there isn't one, with actions on one side condemnable and actions on the other side not worthy of attention. How is it legitimate for a whole community to be demolished more than 100 times (the "unrecognized" Bedouin village of al-Araqib, in the southern Negev) simply because it is inside Israel and claimed as state land?

Anyway lest we continually get derailed or veer into whataboutery, as certain posts have been very effective at doing, as the OP has appealed against several times, I hope we can get back on track and look at what actually happened from the Palestinian perspective.

I'm especially dismayed at the minimisation and distraction tactics on this thread.

ConnieCounter · 11/01/2024 08:38

So long as people continue to deny that it happened it needs to be publicised and talked about.

Watermelonpower · 11/01/2024 08:03

Estersouwester · 11/01/2024 06:24

IMO I don't really see what there is to discuss or the point of bringing up events of 76 years ago.

The Nakba happened. I know someone who experienced it in 1948 as a little boy of 5. He is now a retired GP in UK.

History is full, sadly, of wars and conflicts and the viewpoints will be different to the protagonists.

January 30, 2023 marks 100 years since the signing of the Lausanne Convention a compulsory "population exchange" between Greece and Turkey. An estimated 1.5 million people were forcibly expelled from their homes: over one million Greek Orthodox Christians from the Ottoman Empire and 500,000 Muslims from Greece.

After WW2 in1945, the Allied Powers carried out the Potsdam Agreement where between nine and 12 million ethnic Germans were expelled from Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary.

In August 1947 British India was partitioned, ending three hundred years of colonial rule with the creation two independent nations: India and Pakistan (comprising West and East Pakistan, present-day Bangladesh). Partition, caused the ‘greatest mass movement of humanity in history.

This was a division based upon religious affiliation, with the creation of a Muslim majority in West and East Pakistan and a Hindu majority in India. Between 500,000 and 2 million people perished as a result of the ensuing upheaval and violence. 80,000 women were abducted. India and Pakistan have since fought three wars over disputed boundaries in Kashmir (1947, 1965, and 1999).
In the long term, Partition has meant an ‘enduring rivalry’ between two nuclear-armed nations and continues to define the tone and character of Indian and Pakistani politics to this day.

In my lifetime - On the 4 August 1972, Ugandan President Idi Amin ordered the expulsion of all Asians from Uganda. Just over 28,000 men, women and children came to the UK, making them one of the largest groups of displaced people to enter the country.
Some have argued that there were gross inequalities in the way Asians treated Ugandans back then. We know that around 90% of the economy was controlled by Asians before 1972. So were they fair to locals, or did they "milk" the economy??

Now before anyone shouts 'whataboutery', we need to learn from other historical events

At the moment Israel is fighting a proxy war with Iran in Gaza. Until Hamas is removed along with Iran's influence in the area there won't be peace. This what should be aimed for, not dredging up the past.

If you feel that way, can I ask that you please leave this thread? You have come on and derailed it from the outset, and now the essence of your message is what’s the point of talking about this people should move on. I wonder if you would have that view it was your family that was dispossessed or killed. It shows a clear lack of empathy and respect on your part.

feel free to start other threads that you consider more worthy of discourse.

OP posts:
AdamRyan · 11/01/2024 08:01

This thread has taught me a lot about how far people are prepared to go to minimise what has and is happening to Palestinians.

Scirocco · 11/01/2024 07:24

The points of bringing up events from 76 years ago...

Remembering losses - lives, identities, homes - and paying our respects to the people who died.

Reflecting on and learning from the past.

Putting current and recent events in context.

The other significant events you've mentioned are also worth discussing and remembering, maybe in their own threads in the relevant topics?

Estersouwester · 11/01/2024 06:24

shareabear · 10/01/2024 20:33

I can see that we are going way off track with this. There are definitely two sides to every story. So what one party believes is not necessarily what the other believes.

Can we get back to the original point of the thread please? Which was to discuss the Nakba.

IMO I don't really see what there is to discuss or the point of bringing up events of 76 years ago.

The Nakba happened. I know someone who experienced it in 1948 as a little boy of 5. He is now a retired GP in UK.

History is full, sadly, of wars and conflicts and the viewpoints will be different to the protagonists.

January 30, 2023 marks 100 years since the signing of the Lausanne Convention a compulsory "population exchange" between Greece and Turkey. An estimated 1.5 million people were forcibly expelled from their homes: over one million Greek Orthodox Christians from the Ottoman Empire and 500,000 Muslims from Greece.

After WW2 in1945, the Allied Powers carried out the Potsdam Agreement where between nine and 12 million ethnic Germans were expelled from Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary.

In August 1947 British India was partitioned, ending three hundred years of colonial rule with the creation two independent nations: India and Pakistan (comprising West and East Pakistan, present-day Bangladesh). Partition, caused the ‘greatest mass movement of humanity in history.

This was a division based upon religious affiliation, with the creation of a Muslim majority in West and East Pakistan and a Hindu majority in India. Between 500,000 and 2 million people perished as a result of the ensuing upheaval and violence. 80,000 women were abducted. India and Pakistan have since fought three wars over disputed boundaries in Kashmir (1947, 1965, and 1999).
In the long term, Partition has meant an ‘enduring rivalry’ between two nuclear-armed nations and continues to define the tone and character of Indian and Pakistani politics to this day.

In my lifetime - On the 4 August 1972, Ugandan President Idi Amin ordered the expulsion of all Asians from Uganda. Just over 28,000 men, women and children came to the UK, making them one of the largest groups of displaced people to enter the country.
Some have argued that there were gross inequalities in the way Asians treated Ugandans back then. We know that around 90% of the economy was controlled by Asians before 1972. So were they fair to locals, or did they "milk" the economy??

Now before anyone shouts 'whataboutery', we need to learn from other historical events

At the moment Israel is fighting a proxy war with Iran in Gaza. Until Hamas is removed along with Iran's influence in the area there won't be peace. This what should be aimed for, not dredging up the past.

statsfun · 10/01/2024 23:37

Each death is a tragedy. The massacres on both sides are horrific. All current civilians would benefit from a lasting peace, in which they could live and bring up their families in safety.

But some people on this thread are trying to build up a narrative of Jews being the main aggressors in 1947-48, eg @MercanDede saying "It wasn’t one-sided, but it was very unbalanced with the majority of massacres being done by Jewish militant groups on Arab civilians."

And that simply doesn't stand up to any kind of basic fact checking.

People sometimes seem to read these threads and be drawn to the emotional appeal without really looking into it. So I'm trying to bring some balance and fact-checking.

I don't think it benefits the Palestinians to push a false narrative of one-sided victimhood.

AdamRyan · 10/01/2024 23:17

Oh well, as long as both sides were massacred equally, that's fine Confused

Swipe left for the next trending thread