Historically, Germany did pay: Billions of DM in the 1950s and tens of billions of euros since, plus ongoing survivor pensions and restitution. But the broader strategy after 1945 paired accountability with reconstruction to reduce civilian suffering and long-term instability, rather than chasing maximal punishment.

But we often don't have world powers pay immeasurable or insurmountable amounts due to the game theory that slip-up's between world powers are inevitable, and when they find themselves in a compromising and vulnerable enough position that another nation state can exert enough power on them to "punish" them, those world powers are already decimated enough that the only logical reason for the punishment is retribution/revenge, thereby adding more "hurt" into the world - when that world power's decimation was already its justice.

You just put words to something I felt, but could not entirely find the words for. Also, war does not solve war.

Also about 15 million Germans were displaced from their homes. Whole regions with 95% German population were cleansed and given to Poland. I am not making judgement on this (I am Polish, part of my family lived in a German house like that, the, land with all belongings other part lost their home and were moved to a labor camp in Siberia by Russians) just pointing out that Germans did pay.

A lot of people were displaced, forcibly moved to other areas, often to labor camps after WWII. Somehow we are able to accept this new order and live in peace. Arabs started multiple war over it, lost all of them, are still waging war today. The road to peace for them is to lay down arms, surrender and accept the resolution made by the winning side - exactly what we all have done after WWII.

They did pay, but clearly not enough! Imagine: Berlin as the capital city of a revitalized Israel located in the heart of the rheinland. We could build so many beautiful resorts for the right kind of people (not Germans!).

> As a Jew, I don't think Arabs should pay for Germany's crimes.

Germany no, but the Arab states should definitely pay for ethnically cleansing the Mizrahi Jews who currently make up a majority of Israeli Jews.

Mizrahi Jews make up 45% of Israeli Jews (as of 2018). A plurality but not quite a majority.

Source: https://people.socsci.tau.ac.il/mu/noah/files/2018/07/Ethnic...

You honestly have no bone to pick with Germany? What does one even say to that?

No, I said the Arab states are not liable for Germany's crimes. But they are liable for their own crimes.

Zionism is the idea that Jewish people have rights in their historical homeland. That the Jewish people have maintained a physical and spiritual connection to this land despite having been forcibly removed from it and prevented from returning. And that Jewish people being persecuted everywhere need to return and reclaim their homeland.

As a Jew, what do you say every Seder? Do you do a Seder? לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה בִּירוּשָלָיִם

There is no colonial occupation. There is immigration. Jews are not a colonizing force and Jews, and Israelis, have (with very very few exceptions) have never engaged in ethnic cleansing. Zionism acknowledged that the current people living in the region have rights. Those people didn't acknowledge the rights of the Jewish people.

As the other comment mentions, Jews were ethnically cleansed from many countries in the middle east. Their land and property stolen. Jews were attacked and ethnically cleansed in the land of Israel (e.g. Hebron, Tsfat, Jersualem, Gaza). Did you know Jews used to live in Gaza from the second century BCE until finally removed by force in 1929?

A secular democratic state for all people is what was offered to the Arabs when Israel was established! The Palestinians don't want that. Look at how Jews are faring in all other Arab countries today when you talk about "re-education". Antisemitism is rampant in those societies and Jews are erased.

You're entitled to your opinions ofcourse but IMO you are completely disconnected from your heritage and the reality on the ground. If you haven't already I recommend reading a book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Love_Dead_Jews that might give you some glimpse into some history you might not be familiar with.

> Israelis, have (with very very few exceptions) have never engaged in ethnic cleansing.

You are wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet

1. I said with some exceptions.

2. This was during war time.

3. "This strategy is subject to controversy, with some historians characterizing it as defensive, while others assert that it was an integral part of a planned strategy for the expulsion, sometimes called an ethnic cleansing, of the area's native inhabitants".

4. This article seems to be pretty biased based on the terminology used. Wikipedia often is a political battleground.

5. This is regurgitating anti-Israel talking points. If you have a deeper insight please share it.

Let's just look at some details ( https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%A0%D7%99... ):

" ב-29 בנובמבר 1947 החליט האו"ם על תוכנית החלוקה, שכללה את סיום המנדט הבריטי בארץ ישראל ואת הקמתן של מדינה עברית ושל מדינה ערבית בשטחה. יום לאחר מכן, ב-30 בנובמבר 1947, תקפו ערבים ביריות אוטובוס יהודי בקרבת פתח תקווה, הרגו חמישה מנוסעיו ופצעו שבעה. ביריות אלה נפתחה מלחמת העצמאות, שנמשכה כשנה ושבעה חודשים."

So post the UN resolution to end the British Mandate and create a Jewish (and Arab) state in the region (which the Arabs rejected) there was an attack that killed 5 civilians near Petah Tikva that started Israel's war of independence (terrorism has been a theme back then before there was Israel).

"המטרה האסטרטגית של הערבים: ליצור טרור ברחבי הארץ שיגרום להפסקת עלייה, לעזיבת יישובים יהודיים ולהתנוונות היישוב היהודי בארץ "

The Arabs' strategic plan was via terrorism to deter Jewish people from migrating to Israel and "ethnically cleanse" it from Jews (the text says "make them leave their villages").

" .

יש היסטוריונים הטוענים כי סילוק הערבים מתחומי המדינה היהודית היה המטרה העיקרית של התוכנית. חלקם סבור כי מטרת תוכנית ד' הייתה להשתלט על שטחי המדינה הערבית המיועדת ומניעת הקמתה. לדעת ההיסטוריון יואב גלבר קריאה כזו במסמכים מתמקדת בסעיף אחד ומוציאה אותו מהקשרו. לדבריו, סעיפים אלו הנוגעים להתנהגות עם האוכלוסייה הערבית הם משניים בתוכנית שעיקרה היה היערכות לפלישה הצפויה של צבאות ערב. בנוסף, הוא טוען כי קיימת התעלמות מכך שההנחיה לגרש כפריים התייחסה רק לאלו שיגלו התנגדות פעילה ויילחמו ולא למי שייכנע לאנשי ההגנה, וזאת מתוך כוונה למנוע מלוחמים ערבים להפוך את הכפרים לבסיסים נגד היישובים היהודיים הסמוכים.["

Some historians claim that removing Arabs from Israel was the main idea. However Yoav Gelber (mentioned here, a history professor that research this), says that was a minor portion of the plan that shouldn't be read out of context and points out that this only applies to villages that would be used as bases for attacking nearby Jewish towns during the war, where there are armed forces and refuse to surrender.

" "כיתור הכפר ועריכת חיפוש בתוכו. במקרה של התנגדות - השמדת הכוח המזוין וגירוש האוכלוסייה אל מעבר לגבול המדינה... במקרה של אי התנגדות - יוכנס חיל מצב לתוך הכפר, אשר יתבצר במקום או במקומות המאפשרים שליטה טקטית מוחלטת. מפקד חיל המצב יחרים את כל כלי הנשק, כל מקלטי א-ט [אלחוט רדיו] וכל כלי הרכב... יאסור את כל האישים החשודים מבחינה פוליטית. בהתייעצות עם הגורמים המדיניים ימונו מוסדות מבין תושבי הכפר להנהלת ענייניו הפנימיים. "

The plan was basically the strategic plan for being able to defend the territory of Israel against the attack by the Arabs (local and surrounding). So the context is already the understanding that once the British leave Israel will be attacked - which happened. It dealt with villages that were hostile, in certain areas, and with being able to create and control defensible territory against Arab armies. Only given armed resistance the population was to be expelled. This was 1948, maybe today this doesn't fly but this sort of stuff happened a lot in the world those days. At the end of the day, Israel was not ethnically cleansed in 1947-48, many Arabs live there to date. Of those that left (the 1948 refugees) the forced expulsion are a minority.

I'm not necessarily proud of all these aspects but given the creation of a new state, with armed forces threatening it from day 1, this is what happened. As I mentioned in other replies, Israel called on the Arabs to become full and equal citizens of the new state (a solutions some people are suddenly remembering to advocate for) and the Arabs refused. They refused. This conflict is not about the Arabs wanting to live in their property as equal citizens in a free/democratic country. They had this option and they refused. This conflict is about erasing Jewish presence in the region. Has been and still is.

> As a Jew, what do you say every Seder? Do you do a Seder? לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה בִּירוּשָלָיִם

Insinuating that diaspora Jews don’t do Seder, or don’t do it “the right way”, is insulting and gross.

No all Jews do a Seder. I am a diaspora Jew. We do two Seders - not one. The right way meaning what?

I am making an assumption that a Jewish person who claims Jews have no connection to Israel doesn't practice those aspects of Judaism that emphasize this connection, of which there are many. I am also making this point for the benefit of the non-Jews who are not familiar with Jewish traditions who claim Jews have no connection to Israel and Zionism is some sort of modern invention of that connection.

But if I insulted anyone, given that Yom Kippur is upon us, I apologize and hope you forgive me.

Zionism is a progressive cause that suffers from its success. It transformed victims into sovereigns, now recast as privileged colonial occupiers.

Isn't the very goal of "progress" in progressive to move away from victimhood to self-determined?