Over the past few years, the term Nakba (also spelled Naqba) has become the favorite nonsense word of the Anti-Israel Lobby. Meaning "catastrophe" in Arabic, it has been embraced by anti-Semites all over the planet to refer to Israel's creation, which supposedly imposed a "catastrophe" upon the "disenfranchised Palestinian Arabs."
They failed in their attempt to annihilate Israel and exterminate its population, and for that they paid a price.
Of course, the real catastrophe that befell the Arabs in 1948-49 was that they failed in their attempt to annihilate Israel and exterminate its population, and for that they paid a price.
Meanwhile, Nakba Nonsense has been spreading. Google finds over 85,000 web pages referring to Israel's creation as a nakba, and a Yahoo! search finds even more than that. The anti-Israel web magazine Counterpunch cannot mention Israel without using the term. Even Israel's leftist Minister of Education, Yuli Tamir, has ordered that the Nakba be taught as part of the curriculum in Israeli schools, where Israel's schoolchildren can be taught to mourn their own country's existence. Nakba ceremonies are now held each year by those leftist professors at Israeli universities who mourn the very creation of their country.
The nakba of the late 1940s and 1950s that befell large numbers of Jews living in Arab countries, who were suddenly expelled, persecuted and stripped of their property, does not interest such people. Those Jewish refugees made new homes in Israel and actually outnumbered the Palestinians who fled Israel.
Meanwhile, an urban legend has been fabricated about the origin of the term Nakba - a fairy tale that claims the word was a banner waved by Palestinians starting in 1948, and that its very use shows how deep the roots of "Palestinian nationality" go. So, here is a little current events quiz: What is the real origin of the term Nakba and what is its original meaning?
If you get the answer to the quiz wrong - in other words, if you say it refers to the events of 1948 - then you are in very good company. I myself would have flunked the quiz up until a few days ago, when I stumbled on the correct answer. Not only does the bandying about of the nakba nonsense word not point to any "depth of the roots of Palestinian nationality," it proves the very opposite: namely, that there is no such thing as a Palestinian nation or nationality at all.
The authoritative source on the origin of Nakba is none other than George Antonius, supposedly the first "official historian of Palestinian nationalism." Like so many "Palestinians," he actually wasn't (Palestinian, that is). He was a Christian Lebanese-Egyptian who lived for a while in Jerusalem, where he composed his official advocacy/history of Arab nationalism. The Arab Awakening, a highly biased book, was published in 1938 and for years afterward was the official text used at British universities.
Antonius was an "official Palestinian representative" to Britain, trying to argue the cause for creating an Arab state in place of any prospective homeland promised the Jews under the Balfour Declaration of 1917. By the 1930s, Antonius was an active anti-Zionist propagandist and, as such, was offered a job at Columbia University (where some things don't seem to change much). He served as an academic fig leaf for xenophobic Arab nationalists seeking to deny Jews any right to self-determination in or migration to the Land of Israel. And he was closely
Arabs living in Palestine regarded themselves as Syrian.
associated with the Grand Mufti Haj Amin Al-Husseini, Hitler's main Islamic ally, and also with the pro-German regime in Iraq in the early 1940s.
Antonius was so passionately anti-Zionist that he continues to serve as the hero and mentor of Jewish leftist anti-Zionists everywhere. For example, the late Hebrew University sociology professor Baruch Kimmerling relied on Antonius at length in his own pseudo-history, Palestinians: The Making of a People (Free Press, 1993).
So how does Antonius provide us with the answer to the current events quiz concerning the origin of Nakba?
The term was not invented in 1948, but rather in 1920. And it was coined not because of Palestinians suddenly getting nationalistic, but because Arabs living in Palestine regarded themselves as Syrian and were enraged at being cut off from their Syrian homeland.
At the end of World War I, Britain and France divided the spoils of the Ottoman Empire between them. Britain got Palestine, including what is now Jordan, while France got Lebanon and Syria. The problem was that the Palestinian Arabs saw themselves as Syrians and were seen as such by other Syrians. The Palestinian Arabs were enraged that an artificial barrier was being erected within their Syrian homeland by the infidel colonial powers - one that would divide northern Syrian Arabs from southern Syrian Arabs, the latter being those who were later misnamed "Palestinians."
The bulk of the Palestinian Arabs had in fact migrated to Palestine from Syria and Lebanon during the previous two generations, largely to benefit from the improving conditions and job opportunities afforded by Zionist immigration and capital flowing into the area. In 1920, both sets of Syrian Arabs, those in Syria and those in Palestine, rioted violently and murderously.
On page 312 of The Arab Awakening, Antonius writes: "The year 1920 has an evil name in Arab annals: it is referred to as the Year of the Catastrophe (Aam An-Nakba). It saw the first armed risings that occurred in protest against the post-War settlement imposed by the Allies on the Arab countries. In that year, serious outbreaks took place in Syria, Palestine, and Iraq."
The original Nakba had nothing to do with Jews, and nothing to do with demands by Palestinian Arabs for self-determination, independence and statehood. To the contrary, it had everything to do with the fact that the Palestinian Arabs saw themselves as Syrians. They rioted at this nakba - at this catastrophe - because they found deeply offensive the very idea that they should be independent from Syria and Syrians. In the 1920s, the very suggestion that Palestinian Arabs constituted a separate ethnic nationality was enough to send those same Arabs out into the
The original Nakba had nothing to do with Jews and nothing to do with demands by Palestinian Arabs for self-determination.
streets to murder and plunder violently in outrage.
If they themselves insisted they were simply Syrians who had migrated to the Land of Israel, by what logic are the Palestinian Arabs deemed entitled to their own state today? Palestinian Arabs are no more a nation and no more entitled to their own state than are the Arabs of Detroit or of Paris.
Speaking of Palestinians as Syrians, it is worth noting what one of the early Syrian nationalists had to say. The following quote comes from the great-grandfather of the current Syrian dictator, Bashar Assad:
"Those good Jews brought civilization and peace to the Arab Muslims, and they dispersed gold and prosperity over Palestine without damage to anyone or taking anything by force. Despite this, the Muslims declared holy war against them and did not hesitate to massacre their children and women.... Thus, a black fate awaits the Jews and other minorities in case the Mandates are canceled and Muslim Syria is united with Muslim Palestine."
That statement is from a letter sent to the French prime minister in June 1936 by six Syrian Alawi notables (the Alawis are the ruling class in Syria today) in support of Zionism. Bashar's great-grandfather was one of them (hat tip to Daniel Pipes for reference).
www.israelnationalnews.com/Arti.../7964
They failed in their attempt to annihilate Israel and exterminate its population, and for that they paid a price.
Of course, the real catastrophe that befell the Arabs in 1948-49 was that they failed in their attempt to annihilate Israel and exterminate its population, and for that they paid a price.
Meanwhile, Nakba Nonsense has been spreading. Google finds over 85,000 web pages referring to Israel's creation as a nakba, and a Yahoo! search finds even more than that. The anti-Israel web magazine Counterpunch cannot mention Israel without using the term. Even Israel's leftist Minister of Education, Yuli Tamir, has ordered that the Nakba be taught as part of the curriculum in Israeli schools, where Israel's schoolchildren can be taught to mourn their own country's existence. Nakba ceremonies are now held each year by those leftist professors at Israeli universities who mourn the very creation of their country.
The nakba of the late 1940s and 1950s that befell large numbers of Jews living in Arab countries, who were suddenly expelled, persecuted and stripped of their property, does not interest such people. Those Jewish refugees made new homes in Israel and actually outnumbered the Palestinians who fled Israel.
Meanwhile, an urban legend has been fabricated about the origin of the term Nakba - a fairy tale that claims the word was a banner waved by Palestinians starting in 1948, and that its very use shows how deep the roots of "Palestinian nationality" go. So, here is a little current events quiz: What is the real origin of the term Nakba and what is its original meaning?
If you get the answer to the quiz wrong - in other words, if you say it refers to the events of 1948 - then you are in very good company. I myself would have flunked the quiz up until a few days ago, when I stumbled on the correct answer. Not only does the bandying about of the nakba nonsense word not point to any "depth of the roots of Palestinian nationality," it proves the very opposite: namely, that there is no such thing as a Palestinian nation or nationality at all.
The authoritative source on the origin of Nakba is none other than George Antonius, supposedly the first "official historian of Palestinian nationalism." Like so many "Palestinians," he actually wasn't (Palestinian, that is). He was a Christian Lebanese-Egyptian who lived for a while in Jerusalem, where he composed his official advocacy/history of Arab nationalism. The Arab Awakening, a highly biased book, was published in 1938 and for years afterward was the official text used at British universities.
Antonius was an "official Palestinian representative" to Britain, trying to argue the cause for creating an Arab state in place of any prospective homeland promised the Jews under the Balfour Declaration of 1917. By the 1930s, Antonius was an active anti-Zionist propagandist and, as such, was offered a job at Columbia University (where some things don't seem to change much). He served as an academic fig leaf for xenophobic Arab nationalists seeking to deny Jews any right to self-determination in or migration to the Land of Israel. And he was closely
Arabs living in Palestine regarded themselves as Syrian.
associated with the Grand Mufti Haj Amin Al-Husseini, Hitler's main Islamic ally, and also with the pro-German regime in Iraq in the early 1940s.
Antonius was so passionately anti-Zionist that he continues to serve as the hero and mentor of Jewish leftist anti-Zionists everywhere. For example, the late Hebrew University sociology professor Baruch Kimmerling relied on Antonius at length in his own pseudo-history, Palestinians: The Making of a People (Free Press, 1993).
So how does Antonius provide us with the answer to the current events quiz concerning the origin of Nakba?
The term was not invented in 1948, but rather in 1920. And it was coined not because of Palestinians suddenly getting nationalistic, but because Arabs living in Palestine regarded themselves as Syrian and were enraged at being cut off from their Syrian homeland.
At the end of World War I, Britain and France divided the spoils of the Ottoman Empire between them. Britain got Palestine, including what is now Jordan, while France got Lebanon and Syria. The problem was that the Palestinian Arabs saw themselves as Syrians and were seen as such by other Syrians. The Palestinian Arabs were enraged that an artificial barrier was being erected within their Syrian homeland by the infidel colonial powers - one that would divide northern Syrian Arabs from southern Syrian Arabs, the latter being those who were later misnamed "Palestinians."
The bulk of the Palestinian Arabs had in fact migrated to Palestine from Syria and Lebanon during the previous two generations, largely to benefit from the improving conditions and job opportunities afforded by Zionist immigration and capital flowing into the area. In 1920, both sets of Syrian Arabs, those in Syria and those in Palestine, rioted violently and murderously.
On page 312 of The Arab Awakening, Antonius writes: "The year 1920 has an evil name in Arab annals: it is referred to as the Year of the Catastrophe (Aam An-Nakba). It saw the first armed risings that occurred in protest against the post-War settlement imposed by the Allies on the Arab countries. In that year, serious outbreaks took place in Syria, Palestine, and Iraq."
The original Nakba had nothing to do with Jews, and nothing to do with demands by Palestinian Arabs for self-determination, independence and statehood. To the contrary, it had everything to do with the fact that the Palestinian Arabs saw themselves as Syrians. They rioted at this nakba - at this catastrophe - because they found deeply offensive the very idea that they should be independent from Syria and Syrians. In the 1920s, the very suggestion that Palestinian Arabs constituted a separate ethnic nationality was enough to send those same Arabs out into the
The original Nakba had nothing to do with Jews and nothing to do with demands by Palestinian Arabs for self-determination.
streets to murder and plunder violently in outrage.
If they themselves insisted they were simply Syrians who had migrated to the Land of Israel, by what logic are the Palestinian Arabs deemed entitled to their own state today? Palestinian Arabs are no more a nation and no more entitled to their own state than are the Arabs of Detroit or of Paris.
Speaking of Palestinians as Syrians, it is worth noting what one of the early Syrian nationalists had to say. The following quote comes from the great-grandfather of the current Syrian dictator, Bashar Assad:
"Those good Jews brought civilization and peace to the Arab Muslims, and they dispersed gold and prosperity over Palestine without damage to anyone or taking anything by force. Despite this, the Muslims declared holy war against them and did not hesitate to massacre their children and women.... Thus, a black fate awaits the Jews and other minorities in case the Mandates are canceled and Muslim Syria is united with Muslim Palestine."
That statement is from a letter sent to the French prime minister in June 1936 by six Syrian Alawi notables (the Alawis are the ruling class in Syria today) in support of Zionism. Bashar's great-grandfather was one of them (hat tip to Daniel Pipes for reference).
www.israelnationalnews.com/Arti.../7964
-
Re: The Real Naqba
Fri, May 9, 2008 - 11:03 AM
Well... there might be some truth to what you say.
But, like I've told Steve4, _anything_ labeled as the "real truth" is almost undoubtedly one-sided propaganda. -
-
Re: The Real Naqba
Fri, May 9, 2008 - 11:48 AMYehudi,
You are spreading propaganda as a method to address propaganda. You are doing exactly what you are criticizing others of. You don't think for yourself so you spread hatred, prejudice, and lies. If you think you're persuading people to see the world from your racist eyes you're sadly mistaken. Again, why should anyone take you seriously when you have suggested that a massacre conducted by Baruch Goldstein against Arabs actually saved lives. You blatantly lied about that and have mislead and made excuses for the vindictive and violent behavior of many settlers against indigenous Arabs.
Nothing that you have ever said justifies your racism and hatred. Nothing that you have posted justifies the violent and abusive measures practiced by the settlers against the Arab communities in the West Bank. The West Bank does not belong to Jews. It is a territory under occupation by Israelis who exemplify unmatched greed and inhumanity, and you are a contributor to this injustice.
-
-
Re: The Real Naqba
Sat, May 10, 2008 - 3:04 PMyou are so cute shriek, do you cut and paste the same response to every one of my post's? I guess if it is easier for you to label me than think about the topics I bring up than more power to you for avoiding conflict within your own feeble morality. -
-
Re: The Real Naqba
Sat, May 10, 2008 - 3:38 PMYehudi,
You're transparent. You can try to turn this around and attempt to insult me because you don't like being exposed as the racist pig that you truly are, I really don't care. Unlike you I give a shit about what is right and wrong and your propaganda is nothing but a load of crap. You condemn the Palestinians and Arabs for spreading and using propaganda and then you are too stupid to recognize that you do the same thing. You are as bad as the people you are trying to criticize. Deny it all you want......you are nothing but an embarassment and a hypocrite.
You don't want peace and are willing to dispose of the human rights of an indigenous people because of your sickening greed. Not only are you an example how blind religion can be...you also represent how utterly ignorant and inhumane the settlers in the West Bank are. Jews like you cause shame to the others that want peace. -
-
Re: The Real Naqba
Sat, May 10, 2008 - 3:51 PMYehudi,
You are about the last person to debate morality when you had the nerve do declare that Baruch Goldstein saved lives when he massacred 29 Palestinians. You are a humiliation to Jews who want peace. -
-
Re: The Real Naqba
Sat, May 10, 2008 - 4:03 PMyou don't know what "peace" is. -
-
Re: The Real Naqba
Sat, May 10, 2008 - 4:17 PMYehudi,
You should be ashamed of yourself. If the settlers were experiencing the treatment that you condone against the Palestinians would you think it was justifiable? Just because you're a jew doesn't mean that you should turn a blind eye to what is wrong with Judaism. That is why you are a total and complete hypocrite. You make exceptions for Jews even though they are committing inhumane acts and contributing to a conflict that is causing tremendous hardship and poverty.
You wanna tell me that I don't know what peace is???? Who gives a shit!!!! The truth is that you are contributing and condoning a racist and filthy ideology that humiliates people and will continue to cause a black eye to all Jews around the world. The excuses that you make are despicable...the justifications that you make are unconscionable....what you said about Baruch Goldstein is so far from the realm of reality that I believe you are mentally disturbed. A terrible catastrophe happened and all you could do was suggest that it was a good thing. How fucked up is that???? Seriously, anyone who can justify a massacre because it was committed by a Jew should have their fucking head examined....That is sociopathic thinking.
What the settlers are doing is an outrage any way you look at it. This occupation is unjustified and the restrictions placed on the Palestinian people is unacceptable. These are human beings Yehudi, not cattle. They have families, communities, histories, and they are entitled to be treated as equals regardless of how greedy the settlers are. You weren't even born there yet you think you have more right to the land then people that have been there for generations. It's senseless and it's criminal and it is harming the Jewish people as a whole.
I don't know peace??? I dream about peace...I believe that peace is the only way for the Jews to survive....I stand for peace... You on the other hand justify murder and hardship. -
-
Re: The Real Naqba
Sat, May 10, 2008 - 5:46 PM
Let's just have everyone go back to Camp David and get to the agreeing part. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: The Real Naqba
Sat, May 10, 2008 - 8:05 PMAndrew,
I'm tired of this shit from Yehudi and his repeated attempts to make Palestinians living in the West Bank into the villains when the settlers are guilty of despicable acts that are tantamount to racism and prejudice. And honestly I'm disappointed that the best that you and Adam can do is agree with the propaganda that he posts and that is all it is. If we are going to be critical of the Palestinians for their actions then we MUST be equally critical of what the settlers have caused. They are just as fanatical as the worst Palestinians and if you think otherwise then you're making excuses for their actions and the abuse that they perpetrate.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-