4 ms·

The Germans did, because they love their children more than they hate their enemies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%

The Germans did, because they love their children more than they hate their enemies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%931950) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_German...

ashoeafoot 1y ago
actually they didn't https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkssturm https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkssturm they heil-hitler-hamased to the bitter end. They just had a working state with working institutions that carried on, prussian, protestant bureaucracy carrying on even after the die hard nazis had died out. Islamic culture is unable to produce these institutions .
- sudopluto 1y ago
  I mean I was trying to show that the Germans don't suicide bomb busses in Kaliningrad even after their own much worse version of the Nakba. In general, most losers of wars, especially of wars of aggression that they themselves started, don't spend then next century suicide bombing and turning down deals that they deem beneath them. They take what they can get and get on with their lives, being productive and improving the future for their children.
4gotunameagain 1y ago
These are very, very different situations. You are comparing nations and cultures that have be living side by side for thousands of years to a 77 year old state (Israel) occupying territory that has been Palestinean for thousands of years. Israel and Ozzy Osbourne were born on the same year. People that were born after Ozzy, can no longer return to their birthplace, because it is now Israel and they are besieged in Gaza.
- sudopluto 1y ago
  Not really Palestinian to be fair. Jewish, Greek, Roman, Islamic, Ottoman, and finally British, in that order. Palestinians then started a war of aggression to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state, and then lost that war. You can not lose what you never had. If you want to talk about occupying, why is the al-aqsa mosque built where it was, if not for trying to erase native ties to the land?
  - tdeck 1y ago
    > If you want to talk about occupying, why is the al-aqsa mosque built where it was, if not for trying to erase native ties to the land? The second temple was destroyed in 70 CE and the first Al Aqsa mosque was likely built in 600s. What is your argument here? Both religions share a common lineage so it's not unusual that Islam would revere the same location as an older religion with the same origin story.
    - YZF 1y ago
      It's a statement. Jerusalem is a lot less significant to Muslims than to Jews. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_non-Islamic_places_of_worship_into_mosques https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_non-Islamic_plac...
  - cogman10 1y ago
    Native ties? Who the do you think the Palestinians are? Did they just appear one day and occupied Palestine? The Palestinians are the natives of Palestine. They literally have direct ancetrial ties all the way back to the original Hebrew occupants. Like many people, they've been occupied, mixed, and they've adopted the religions and customs of their occupiers. That doesn't mean they've not been inhabiting the land for centuries. Are they less deserving of their ancetrial homes simply because European colonists decided they wanted a religious ethnostate? My family has ancetrial ties to Britain, do I get to go there and kick out someone from their home because of my ancetrial ties? Heck I likely have Roman ties, do I get to go to Italy to reclaim my birthright?
    - YZF 1y ago
      The Jewish people are the natives of Israel. Some Palestinians have direct ties to ancient Israelites as well. But the Hebrew occupants were expelled by force, hence the spread out Jewish population. The story is not one of the Jewish people remaining in the region and converting to Islam. At least not for the most part. The Palestinians are not less worthy because the Jewish people, refugees, returned to their historic homeland. They are less worthy because they chose to wage war against them and lost. Let's zoom in on an example, Petah Tikvah: https://escholarship.org/content/qt8md2t1k6/qt8md2t1k6_noSplash_d94745cb2091e870efc313a4f69cb43d.pdf https://escholarship.org/content/qt8md2t1k6/qt8md2t1k6_noSpl... - The site of Tell Mulabbis is usually identified with the Casale Bulbus, which the Count of Jaffa handed over to the Hospitaller Order in 1133 CE together with the 'des moulins des trois ponts' (the mills of the three-bridges - villagers from hills of Samaria repopulated Mulabbis during the 18th century (Yaʿari 1947, 244). Mulabbis figures on Pierre Jacotin's map, which was surveyed in 1799 (Karmon 1960, 168-170) Avraham Yaʿari claims that malaria and disputes with neighbouring nomadic tribes led to the abandonment of the village (Yaʿari 1947, 243-244) - Both Jewish and Arab sources ascertain that Mulabbis was settled again by the Abu Hamed al-Masri clan, of Egyptian origins at some point before the middle of the 19th century. - "Following Ibrahim Pasha’s campaign, Egyptian immigrants, headed by Abu Hamed al-Masri, settled in Mulabbis. It was a part of a larger wave of Egyptian migration to Palestine’s coastal plain.21 Ottoman cadestral (tapu) registers mention common Egyptian names, like ‘Abed b. ‘Abd al-‘Al and Musa b. Muhammad Bardawil, indicating that the village was mainly, if not solely, inhabited by Egyptian immigrants" https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7qb5r2mx https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7qb5r2mx - In 1878, Mulabbis became the first village in Palestine to be acquired by Jews with the intention of establishing an agricultural colony in 1878, establishing the moshava (colony) of Petah Tikva on its lands So you are telling me that the Jewish people that legally immigrated to the region, bought land from people of Egyptian descent that lived there, almost 200 years ago, don't have rights? The Jews in Israel didn't kick anyone out of their homes before the 1948 war on them started. Where do you live? What's your right to the land? If you are persecuted everywhere and in your tradition there is a strong and proven connection to Rome then yes, you can go back to Rome. Do you pray to go back to Rome? Was your family evicted by force from Rome? If I go digging in Rome am I going to find historical artifacts linking you to Rome? If you immigrated to Rome and bought property should we consider you to be a colonialist? EDIT: I don't look at my neighbor and say that because he's an immigrant he has no rights. I don't say Palestinians that lived in the region have no rights either. I do stand by the Jewish people being the indigenous people of the region. The only reason they were not there is that they were expelled by force and prevented from returning. They never left, in spirit, and they never gave up on wanting to return. The height of hypocrisy is that European colonizers of the new world, with zero connection to it, who massacred the local populations wherever they arrived, cause them suffering to date, and who stole the land and resources they live on, are calling the Jewish people who have one of the clearest and strongest connections to their land, supported by rich historical and archeological accounts, who once they could, as refugees themselves with almost nowhere to go, immigrated legally to their land and bought it back, colonizers. That the Arabs who attacked the Jews and ethnically cleansed them from the region even before Zionism was a thing (In Tsfat, in Hebron, in Jerusalem), who attacked Israel on the day it was established even though it offered its Arab/Palestinian residents to become equal citizens ( https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/israel.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/israel.asp ), who like the Hussein's in Jordan are often themselves colonizers, are somehow the ones wronged in this story and who deserve the sort of self determination as countries they never had before WW-I and WW-II.

ashoeafoot 1y ago

actually they didn't https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkssturm https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkssturm they heil-hitler-hamased to the bitter end. They just had a working state with working institutions that carried on, prussian, protestant bureaucracy carrying on even after the die hard nazis had died out. Islamic culture is unable to produce these institutions .

sudopluto 1y ago
I mean I was trying to show that the Germans don't suicide bomb busses in Kaliningrad even after their own much worse version of the Nakba. In general, most losers of wars, especially of wars of aggression that they themselves started, don't spend then next century suicide bombing and turning down deals that they deem beneath them. They take what they can get and get on with their lives, being productive and improving the future for their children.

4gotunameagain 1y ago

These are very, very different situations. You are comparing nations and cultures that have be living side by side for thousands of years to a 77 year old state (Israel) occupying territory that has been Palestinean for thousands of years. Israel and Ozzy Osbourne were born on the same year. People that were born after Ozzy, can no longer return to their birthplace, because it is now Israel and they are besieged in Gaza.

sudopluto 1y ago
Not really Palestinian to be fair. Jewish, Greek, Roman, Islamic, Ottoman, and finally British, in that order. Palestinians then started a war of aggression to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state, and then lost that war. You can not lose what you never had. If you want to talk about occupying, why is the al-aqsa mosque built where it was, if not for trying to erase native ties to the land?
- tdeck 1y ago
  > If you want to talk about occupying, why is the al-aqsa mosque built where it was, if not for trying to erase native ties to the land? The second temple was destroyed in 70 CE and the first Al Aqsa mosque was likely built in 600s. What is your argument here? Both religions share a common lineage so it's not unusual that Islam would revere the same location as an older religion with the same origin story.
  - YZF 1y ago
    It's a statement. Jerusalem is a lot less significant to Muslims than to Jews. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_non-Islamic_places_of_worship_into_mosques https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_non-Islamic_plac...
- cogman10 1y ago
  Native ties? Who the do you think the Palestinians are? Did they just appear one day and occupied Palestine? The Palestinians are the natives of Palestine. They literally have direct ancetrial ties all the way back to the original Hebrew occupants. Like many people, they've been occupied, mixed, and they've adopted the religions and customs of their occupiers. That doesn't mean they've not been inhabiting the land for centuries. Are they less deserving of their ancetrial homes simply because European colonists decided they wanted a religious ethnostate? My family has ancetrial ties to Britain, do I get to go there and kick out someone from their home because of my ancetrial ties? Heck I likely have Roman ties, do I get to go to Italy to reclaim my birthright?
  - YZF 1y ago
    The Jewish people are the natives of Israel. Some Palestinians have direct ties to ancient Israelites as well. But the Hebrew occupants were expelled by force, hence the spread out Jewish population. The story is not one of the Jewish people remaining in the region and converting to Islam. At least not for the most part. The Palestinians are not less worthy because the Jewish people, refugees, returned to their historic homeland. They are less worthy because they chose to wage war against them and lost. Let's zoom in on an example, Petah Tikvah: https://escholarship.org/content/qt8md2t1k6/qt8md2t1k6_noSplash_d94745cb2091e870efc313a4f69cb43d.pdf https://escholarship.org/content/qt8md2t1k6/qt8md2t1k6_noSpl... - The site of Tell Mulabbis is usually identified with the Casale Bulbus, which the Count of Jaffa handed over to the Hospitaller Order in 1133 CE together with the 'des moulins des trois ponts' (the mills of the three-bridges - villagers from hills of Samaria repopulated Mulabbis during the 18th century (Yaʿari 1947, 244). Mulabbis figures on Pierre Jacotin's map, which was surveyed in 1799 (Karmon 1960, 168-170) Avraham Yaʿari claims that malaria and disputes with neighbouring nomadic tribes led to the abandonment of the village (Yaʿari 1947, 243-244) - Both Jewish and Arab sources ascertain that Mulabbis was settled again by the Abu Hamed al-Masri clan, of Egyptian origins at some point before the middle of the 19th century. - "Following Ibrahim Pasha’s campaign, Egyptian immigrants, headed by Abu Hamed al-Masri, settled in Mulabbis. It was a part of a larger wave of Egyptian migration to Palestine’s coastal plain.21 Ottoman cadestral (tapu) registers mention common Egyptian names, like ‘Abed b. ‘Abd al-‘Al and Musa b. Muhammad Bardawil, indicating that the village was mainly, if not solely, inhabited by Egyptian immigrants" https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7qb5r2mx https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7qb5r2mx - In 1878, Mulabbis became the first village in Palestine to be acquired by Jews with the intention of establishing an agricultural colony in 1878, establishing the moshava (colony) of Petah Tikva on its lands So you are telling me that the Jewish people that legally immigrated to the region, bought land from people of Egyptian descent that lived there, almost 200 years ago, don't have rights? The Jews in Israel didn't kick anyone out of their homes before the 1948 war on them started. Where do you live? What's your right to the land? If you are persecuted everywhere and in your tradition there is a strong and proven connection to Rome then yes, you can go back to Rome. Do you pray to go back to Rome? Was your family evicted by force from Rome? If I go digging in Rome am I going to find historical artifacts linking you to Rome? If you immigrated to Rome and bought property should we consider you to be a colonialist? EDIT: I don't look at my neighbor and say that because he's an immigrant he has no rights. I don't say Palestinians that lived in the region have no rights either. I do stand by the Jewish people being the indigenous people of the region. The only reason they were not there is that they were expelled by force and prevented from returning. They never left, in spirit, and they never gave up on wanting to return. The height of hypocrisy is that European colonizers of the new world, with zero connection to it, who massacred the local populations wherever they arrived, cause them suffering to date, and who stole the land and resources they live on, are calling the Jewish people who have one of the clearest and strongest connections to their land, supported by rich historical and archeological accounts, who once they could, as refugees themselves with almost nowhere to go, immigrated legally to their land and bought it back, colonizers. That the Arabs who attacked the Jews and ethnically cleansed them from the region even before Zionism was a thing (In Tsfat, in Hebron, in Jerusalem), who attacked Israel on the day it was established even though it offered its Arab/Palestinian residents to become equal citizens ( https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/israel.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/israel.asp ), who like the Hussein's in Jordan are often themselves colonizers, are somehow the ones wronged in this story and who deserve the sort of self determination as countries they never had before WW-I and WW-II.