The phrase originally came from secular Palestinian nationalists in the 1960s calling for a democratic secular state within the boundaries of what was the British Mandate for Palestine, encompassing Israel, the then-Jordanian controlled West Bank and the then-Egyptian administered Gaza Strip — that is, the lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
The PLO of that era also advocated mass expulsion of Jews and their descendants except those who lived in Palestine before the late 19th century, and even that was ambiguous, so I don't know that "The phrase doesn't have any connotations of ethnic cleansing!" is really correct here.
The 19th century begins in 1801. I think you're likely referencing a later date (probably 1917).
First Aliyah, starting 1881.
Why? Though that's also not before the 19th century.
Why?
That's the commonly accepted date?
Though that’s also not before the 19th century.
Didn't mean to say before the whole 19th century. I'll edit that.
I've definitely seen PLO-friendly sources cite 1881 as the start of the invasion.
Ultimately, though, this is just an aside, the main thrust being that ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing regardless of whether the ethnic cleansers want a secular, democratic state (or, indeed, are being ethnically cleansed themselves).
I take the very shocking view that ethnic cleansing is bad, whether pre-emptive or in vengeance.
Seems like often ambiguous topic seem like the things both sides of any argument focus on and dig heels in about.
Certainly true. On one hand, ambiguous topics are a convenient way to discredit one's enemies by ascribing the more extreme position to them. On the other hand, they can just as easily be a dog whistle or motte-and-bailey argument.
I also wonder if when we talk about foreign and domestic troll farms if those are the topics they push.
Its like the Facebook math questions "8÷2(2×2)=?"
Which gets thousands and thousands of engagement and people all arguing not knowing better or they do know better and attempt to explain.
The PLO of that era also advocated mass expulsion of Jews and their descendants except those who lived in Palestine before the late 19th century, and even that was ambiguous, so I don't know that "The phrase doesn't have any connotations of ethnic cleansing!" is really correct here.
The 19th century begins in 1801. I think you're likely referencing a later date (probably 1917).
First Aliyah, starting 1881.
Why? Though that's also not before the 19th century.
That's the commonly accepted date?
Didn't mean to say before the whole 19th century. I'll edit that.
1917 is when the Jewish Virtual Library says was the start of the "Zionist invasion" in Arab literature.
I've definitely seen PLO-friendly sources cite 1881 as the start of the invasion.
Ultimately, though, this is just an aside, the main thrust being that ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing regardless of whether the ethnic cleansers want a secular, democratic state (or, indeed, are being ethnically cleansed themselves).
I take the very shocking view that ethnic cleansing is bad, whether pre-emptive or in vengeance.
Seems like often ambiguous topic seem like the things both sides of any argument focus on and dig heels in about.
Certainly true. On one hand, ambiguous topics are a convenient way to discredit one's enemies by ascribing the more extreme position to them. On the other hand, they can just as easily be a dog whistle or motte-and-bailey argument.
I also wonder if when we talk about foreign and domestic troll farms if those are the topics they push.
Its like the Facebook math questions "8÷2(2×2)=?" Which gets thousands and thousands of engagement and people all arguing not knowing better or they do know better and attempt to explain.