The UNHCR: Stateless People

[RavenHawk]

Dwight Eisenhower claimed that Hitler invented preventative war. And you're in blind denial of it.

You really want to go there? Fine…

Just for historical background, this is the quote you use:

“Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.”

Now here is the full Eisenhower quote:

“All of us have heard this term "preventive war" since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time, if we believe for one second that nuclear fission and fusion, that type of weapon, would be used in such a war — what is a preventive war? I would say a preventive war, if the words mean anything, is to wage some sort of quick police action in order that you might avoid a terrific cataclysm of destruction later. A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war. I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing. It seems to me that when, by definition, a term is just ridiculous in itself, there is no use in going any further. There are all sorts of reasons, moral and political and everything else, against this theory, but it is so completely unthinkable in today's conditions that I thought it is no use to go any further.” - News Conference of 8/11/54.

Eisenhower devotes those first two sentences on it. Now where does it say Hitler invented it? What Eisenhower was referring to was the Allies attacking Hitler during the Phony War in 1939. If they had preemptively attacked, then WWII would have never occurred and millions of people would still be alive. But the fear at the time was that France and England would have the stigma of being looked on unfavorably as the aggressor. And then the second sentence in your quote is another twist from what was actually said. So please, try and tell me that I’m in blind denial of it and I’ll be glad to rub your nose in it again!

It's genocide; it's no a choice; I showed you a map and a definition. I don't need mass graves and ovens to get genocide. Don't confuse words in dictionaries with specific events from WW2.

And what Israel is doing is not destroying all or in part the Palestinian culture. If you are calling it genocide then there absolutely needs to be mass graves and ovens, etc. That is what constitutes genocide. If not, then it’s not genocide. If it’s ethnic cleansing, then that is something different. No doubt that deaths occur during ethnic cleansing but the intent of EC is not to kill off the population, just subjugate it (Dhimmis) or cause it to move on. The intent of genocide is the premeditated, complete, and utter destruction of a people. Examples would be the Jews in Nazi Germany, Tutsi in Rwanda, non-Arabs in Darfur, Arabs in Bosnia. Examples of EC are the Jews in pre WWI Ukraine, Native Americans in the 1800’s West, Palestinians in Black September, and probably the best example is the Alhambra Decree in Spain, starting with Jews but ended with Muslims. It was quite simple, you were given the choice to convert, leave, or die. When the population is given the choice, it is not premeditated. Death is the choice of the individual.

I don't hate nations and by the same token I don't love nations. I don't love the flag. I don't love to wave it.

You clearly hate Israel. You should at least be honest with yourself. And because you say you hate the flag (implying your own), you hate this nation. If you think that the flag and waiving it is all it stands for then you do not understand the meaning of this symbol and this act. You talk about preserving a culture yet you spit on it at the same time. That flag is symbolic of that culture. In fact, it is that culture or it represents what it is. But I don’t think you understood that. Cultures are distinct; if not then there really is no loss to Mankind if the Palestinian would just disappear. Now would it? If you can’t respect the symbol of a people, how can you respect the people?

I'm not symbol-minded and I'm the farthest thing from a nationalist that you can get.

You fly the Palestinian flag and spit on the Israeli flag every single time the subject comes up. You are the farthest thing from *NOT* being a nationalist.

But why is this always about me?

Why do you always attack and insult those that don’t agree with you?

Well that about has you covered.

Tweaking things that were not said, again…

The poor in most countries are not being occupied;

To a degree they are. They are not fully represented. They are more or less wards of the state and not their own person. They can be controlled very easily by the state.

and you are only responsible for the poor in your own. Not Israel.

Then take your own advice and stop attacking Israel. Take care of the poor here and not there.

No they're not refugees; you spin the definitions of words so dizzy you can't possibly know what they mean.

What do you call the homeless in shanty towns? At any moment when the state determines it a threat to public safety, will go in and tear it down and disperse the populace. Police are constantly chasing homeless from under overpasses or out of open space. Those are refugees.

You have a feeling anytime somebody says something that infers criticism of Israel.

No, I have a feeling about having a pet peeve against self-righteous pompous ar$es. Israel is not exempt from criticism. Criticism is to correct something gone wrong. But you use it as a weapon to attack with. I just can’t let that go.

I don't even say the word Israel in the post and you come right out with the same old pathetic anti-semitic crap, on schedule.

That’s because every time you open your mouth, it’s the same old pathetic anti Semitic crap. It’s your track record.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

And what Israel is doing is not destroying all or in part the Palestinian culture. If you are calling it genocide then there absolutely needs to be mass graves and ovens, etc. That is what constitutes genocide. If not, then it's not genocide. If it's ethnic cleansing, then that is something different. No doubt that deaths occur during ethnic cleansing but the intent of EC is not to kill off the population, just subjugate it (Dhimmis) or cause it to move on. The intent of genocide is the premeditated, complete, and utter destruction of a people. Examples would be the Jews in Nazi Germany, Tutsi in Rwanda, non-Arabs in Darfur, Arabs in Bosnia. Examples of EC are the Jews in pre WWI Ukraine, Native Americans in the 1800's West, Palestinians in Black September, and probably the best example is the Alhambra Decree in Spain, starting with Jews but ended with Muslims. It was quite simple, you were given the choice to convert, leave, or die. When the population is given the choice, it is not premeditated. Death is the choice of the individual.

Friend, Bosnia is in Europe, we are not arabs and Bosnia is not only muslims country, it never was and will never be btw being muslim doesnt mean that u are arab.

[RavenHawk]

Friend, Bosnia is in Europe, we are not arabs and Bosnia is not only muslims country, it never was and will never be btw being muslim doesnt mean that u are arab.

Good catch! That should also have been non-Muslims. At least I was consistent. But I never said Bosnia was a Muslim only country.

[Yamato]

"Arabs" and "Muslims" and "non-Muslims" and "Jews" and "Muslim-only" and all the rest of this deliberated tripe...

If your human rights were being violated, you'd understand what's important Ravenhawk. You're not empathetic or compassionate enough to walk in someone else's shoes. You're just fine in your own.

As for what Eisenhower said, your preventative wars are as absurd as Eisenhower said they are.

[RavenHawk]

Very intelligent response. Exactly what people would expect from you. Right at your level. After having your nose rubbed in it, this is all you can respond with?

"Arabs" and "Muslims" and "non-Muslims" and "Jews" and "Muslim-only" and all the rest of this deliberated tripe...

We are not all homogenous. Here the differences are important.

If your human rights were being violated, you'd understand what's important Ravenhawk. You're not empathetic or compassionate enough to walk in someone else's shoes. You're just fine in your own.

So if Israel did not have the upper hand, the Muslims would be violating their civil rights. That is the history of the region. Would you lift a finger to prevent that? Somehow, I don’t think so. Dhimmitude is a violation of human rights and if the Israelis are not able to establish their own identity, they will be force to live that way. Constantly under the Islamic thumb. As long as both exist in a place for only one, there will always be conflict. You talk about compassion. You know nothing of the kind. You’d rather see perpetual war and misery. The only way peace will come is to allow them to work it out between the two. That also means that only one will be left standing but in the end, will be the most compassionate outcome.

As for what Eisenhower said, your preventative wars are as absurd as Eisenhower said they are.

And you still didn’t understand what he said. He was referencing “preventative” in terms of nuclear weapons. A preventative war that leaves cities in ruins is no preventative war, it is all out war. That is what he was saying was absurd. Using preventative war in conventional terms is still a viable means of exerting power. What Israel did in 67 was a preventative war and it saved thousands of lives on both sides.

[Yamato]

We are not all homogenous. Here the differences are important.

The differences aren't important to people who value human rights first. This is plainly a difference of opinion. But unfortunately your rights don't defend themselves. Neither do Palestinians'.

That is the history of the region.

An unsourced sentence from you is not "the history of the region." Jews and Arabs lived at peace for hundreds of years while Germany and Europe had their problems. This was exported, by both Zionist will and UN mandate.

And you still didn’t understand what he said. He was referencing “preventative” in terms of nuclear weapons.

So tell me then, why couldn't you fire a few nukes at Iran and prevent a much wider nuclear war against Israel years later?

[RoofGardener]

...Jews and Arabs lived at peace for hundreds of years.....

Ummmm.... not REALLY, Yamato. Jews in Turkey - under the Ottoman Empire period - DID do reasonably well, and the Dhimmi laws where somewhat lightly imposed. (but imposed nontheless).

Jews in Arabia, on the other hand, had a much grimmer time of it. They where very much second class citizens, existing at the whim of successive Caliphs with no security of tenure.... or even life. The "peace" was the "peace" of the subjugated, punctured by numerous pogroms and massacres.

Edited April 9, 2014 by RoofGardener

[RavenHawk]

The differences aren't important to people who value human rights first. This is plainly a difference of opinion. But unfortunately your rights don't defend themselves. Neither do Palestinians'.

Without an identity, one doesn’t have human rights. Who the person is gives them their human rights. If you don’t value the differences of the individual, you can’t value their human rights. They are tied together. They are GOD given and it’s up to the individual to defend them.

An unsourced sentence from you is not "the history of the region." Jews and Arabs lived at peace for hundreds of years while Germany and Europe had their problems. This was exported, by both Zionist will and UN mandate.

Unsourced? Anything that you don’t agree with just happens to be unsourced, eh? You do realize that there is still plenty of sources not on the net? I think you should try learning history, then you wouldn’t need sources all the time. That is a positive of the net, it’s just not all encompassing. Just pulling one from the net, the 1834 Safed pogrom was but one example which came before the Zionist movement in 1882, so Europe’s problems were not exported. Jews and Muslims did indeed have periods where they lived in peace but the Jew were still Dhimmis. If you consider the concept of Dhimmitude as “at peace”, there’s nothing to stop you. But if you see Dhimmitude for what it is, it is a violation of human rights. The Ottoman Empire did try to change that concept in the 1840s (Tanzimat Reforms) but it never really spread.

So tell me then, why couldn't you fire a few nukes at Iran and prevent a much wider nuclear war against Israel years later?

You certainly could but it wouldn’t be a preventative war, even though that would be the result. It would be all out war. The idea of a preventative war is to destroy the opponents capability of making war on you, not laying waste of their nation.

[+and-then]

Without an identity, one doesn't have human rights. Who the person is gives them their human rights. If you don't value the differences of the individual, you can't value their human rights. They are tied together. They are GOD given and it's up to the individual to defend them.

Unsourced? Anything that you don't agree with just happens to be unsourced, eh? You do realize that there is still plenty of sources not on the net? I think you should try learning history, then you wouldn't need sources all the time. That is a positive of the net, it's just not all encompassing. Just pulling one from the net, the 1834 Safed pogrom was but one example which came before the Zionist movement in 1882, so Europe's problems were not exported. Jews and Muslims did indeed have periods where they lived in peace but the Jew were still Dhimmis. If you consider the concept of Dhimmitude as "at peace", there's nothing to stop you. But if you see Dhimmitude for what it is, it is a violation of human rights. The Ottoman Empire did try to change that concept in the 1840s (Tanzimat Reforms) but it never really spread.

You certainly could but it wouldn't be a preventative war, even though that would be the result. It would be all out war. The idea of a preventative war is to destroy the opponents capability of making war on you, not laying waste of their nation.

This is what the world seems incapable of discerning, IMO. There are growing calls sanction, boycott, divest -to evict Israel eventually from the land they possess today. If Israel succumbs and retreats yet again we know it won't stop the calls for more - it never has in the past. So when the final attempt to solve the Jewish problem comes, Israel will go down by destroying all their enemies, real and perceived. This is so rational any fool should be able to see it coming yet the world continues apace with the pressure as though Israel will just commit national suicide. It's like watching a bad slasher movie. You see it coming but the idiot victims never do....

[Yamato]

Without an identity, one doesn't have human rights. Who the person is gives them their human rights. If you don't value the differences of the individual, you can't value their human rights. They are tied together. They are GOD given and it's up to the individual to defend them.

Unsourced? Anything that you don't agree with just happens to be unsourced, eh? You do realize that there is still plenty of sources not on the net? I think you should try learning history, then you wouldn't need sources all the time. That is a positive of the net, it's just not all encompassing. Just pulling one from the net, the 1834 Safed pogrom was but one example which came before the Zionist movement in 1882, so Europe's problems were not exported. Jews and Muslims did indeed have periods where they lived in peace but the Jew were still Dhimmis. If you consider the concept of Dhimmitude as "at peace", there's nothing to stop you. But if you see Dhimmitude for what it is, it is a violation of human rights. The Ottoman Empire did try to change that concept in the 1840s (Tanzimat Reforms) but it never really spread.

You certainly could but it wouldn't be a preventative war, even though that would be the result. It would be all out war. The idea of a preventative war is to destroy the opponents capability of making war on you, not laying waste of their nation.

Humans have human rights by the fact that they're identified as humans. Telling me they don't have identity is just rhetoric. Governments don't give people their rights. People have them already; the role of government is to protect and secure those rights, not use tyrannical force like Israel to deprive people of them.

Unsourced? Anything that you don't agree with just happens to be unsourced, eh? You do realize that there is still plenty of sources not on the net?

Yes, please share yours.

If you consider the concept of Dhimmitude as "at peace", there's nothing to stop you.

Your concepts of the past don't replace reality today. If people don't even have human rights, struggle is the rule.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

Good catch! That should also have been non-Muslims. At least I was consistent. But I never said Bosnia was a Muslim only country.

I mention this so anyone who read it can have fast explanation about that 'arabs in Bosnia' part Kinda important to mention.

[RoofGardener]

Humans have human rights by the fact that they're identified as humans.

No, they don't. They have "human rights" as, when and if their Country elects to incorporate elements of the UN UDHR into its own body of law. Legally enforceable Human Rights are a relatively recent (post WW2) innovation.

Telling me they don't have identity is just rhetoric.

Funnily enough, one of the priority rights in the UNUDHR is the right to be recognised as a human being.

Governments don't give people their rights. People have them already; the role of government is to protect and secure those rights, not use tyrannical force like Israel to deprive people of them.

That is a pretty theory, but the reality is that the government has to summon those "rights" into existence by embodying them into their national legislation. Otherwise they are powerless words.

Anyway, in the context of the Arab/Israeli conflicts, WHICH definition of human rights should we be considering ? The Arab nations don't even recognise the UN version. (they object to the clauses on equality for women, religious freedom, and democratic systems of government).

[RavenHawk]

Well that sounded more like you were talking about some shiny peacekeepers force. 'Islamic dogma'? Do you know that, by Islam, if muslims are not threatened or attacked it is strictly forbidden for muslims to attack others, no matter who it is? But doesnt matter at all because when u check history of that conflict its easy to relize something... Problems in Israel and Palestine are greater and more complicated for anyone to simply blame religious belief.

In Islam, it is very very very subjective as to what poses a threat. It was Mohammed himself that established that tradition. Shirk, Apostasy, and Idolatry are major sins and even the most minor of violations could be considered a threat. And all non-Muslims commit those sins daily.

Here are the words of Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja of Algiers in 1786, when Thomas Jefferson asked him why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts and Adja had answered that “Islam was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

So we can see that just being ourselves is a threat to the Ummah and that would allow the Muslim to attack us in defense.

Jewish people have right to have their country, and they have country and defense - Israel is strong and will always be but isnt it time to start working on making that area safe rather then making your strong position stronger day after day, on someone else's expense.

You can’t be safe unless you are strong. That’s a basic law. With 7 billion people on the planet, if you do something pleasing to one group usually means that it is not so good for another group. That is the nature of the beast. So in essence, in order for one group to be safe means that it is at someone else’s expense.

I dont remember that there was Israel on the map in, for example, 1950. So who did attack Israel for them to justify taking others territory?

In 1909, Jews legally bough about 200,000 acres in the Jezreel Valley and evicted those squatters. It was their right to do so but that event turned the sporadic pogroms into outright massacres, in which Jews began to fight back. It became tit-for-tat, then the Great Arab Revolt in 1936 targeted British as well as Jews settlements. But this revolt failed drawing British and Jews into an alliance that lasted through the WWII era. On 14 May 1948, Israel became an independent nation and immediately Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, including Palestinians attacked. The Arabs lost again and fled. Those that fled gave up all rights to the land. That’s proof that they were squatters because that is what squatters do. That’s what happens to people whose ties to the land is weak. Israel didn’t invade, but they laid claim to the vacated land.

What can you provide as a proof that there were any owners of that land anytime in history, other then occupying forces? If owners really existed, how were their heirs found? Sounds complicated.

That’s the problem that the British were having. The British were running into deed forgeries from the indigenous. This is why Palestine became unorganized territory. And that encouraged partition and eventual statehood for both but the Palestinians rejected that. Primarily thanks to the anti-Jewish Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The British gave up on trying to find all the rightful owners and they were going to do what the landowners did, just give up and let the squatters have the land.

As for Israel being capable, sure it is its a modern state now with many strenghts but i think that there is great reason why those before Israel didnt make any progress... Constant 'colonization', if i can call it that. Years before occupying of that land started there were British, Spanish, Italian, Franch and i dont know which other army gone tru that area, they all have taken part in 'forming' it. That land was under constant foreign rule. Its logical to see that all of the resources were exported to their home countries, local population used on many ways... All that mythology about heirs and owners cant be used for excuses, reality is that Israel made great country but haven't done that in a peaceful way.

From the 1500s to 1922, the Levant was under control of the Ottoman Empire. Most of the land owners in Palestine were absentee. That implied that the Empire would grant land in Palestine to citizens that lived elsewhere in the Empire for meritorious service, etc. A very common practice to do. Most found that they could not live there but they kept the land because it probably gave them some kind of privilege and because land is power. Many probably rarely visited that land. And only a few probably utilized the land to generate revenue. The tendency of squatters is to “try the waters” until they get kicked off. That never happened so the squatters stayed and more came in. In time, I’m sure that some of these squatters purchased the land or even some sympathetic absentee landowners may have deeded the land over but very few actually acquired the land legally.

Islamic dogma, nice term, actually beautiful one, perfect term for use when u need to explain more complicated stuff and you are not in the mood to write alot jk,

Or when it is beyond the scope of the op to go further. There is a ton of research material on the subject too. A whole series of threads could be devoted to the subject.

money can solve anything and everything but if u, somehow, get in a problem and cant solve it with money - u can solve it with alot more money. ( lines from Black cat, White cat, so wise )

I don’t speak Romani but it looks like a fun comedy. But money can’t solve every problem. Money isn’t the solution but when a solution is found, then the money helps.

It might be a easy solution, if opposing palestinian factions negotiate some kind of centralization for them to even be able to negotiate peace with Israel, that would be best for people, maybe... Separation of palestinians was greatest defeat for Palestine so far, but again, it was not them only who are responsible for separation.

That was what I was inferring with my example of “Lawrence of Arabia”. I think that movie faithfully expresses the division between the Arab tribes and the futility of organization. Lawrence could unite them in war but Faisal didn’t have a chance in peace.

Whatever happens in future, i am sure that there will always be this two countries - Israel and Palestine. Maybe both will look a little different but both have every right to 'survive'.

Yes, both have every right to survive but that alone does not guarantee that either will. As with species of animals, cultures of man go extinct. Should we always preserve every species that is going extinct? The answer is no. So should we expect to preserve every culture? In the long run, it is healthier for Mankind to let the weak die off. As I pointed out in a prior post, for reasons of defense and homeland, a two-state solution is not feasible.

Yeah, i assumed that. Is it possible to have positive outcome from talking in that thread, i wonder.

I don’t think so because Muslims and their apologists are too defensive and most non-Muslims see through the façade.

[RavenHawk]

I mention this so anyone who read it can have fast explanation about that 'arabs in Bosnia' part Kinda important to mention.

I would think that most people on this forum will understand that Arabs are not native to Bosnia and that I basically got lost in thought and made a typo and I missed it in the proof reading.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

RoofGardener, you always have an alibi for *everything* the murderous Israelis have done wrong, don't you.

Read the ten commandments, RG: "Thou Shalt not Kill" "Thou Shalt not steal". They're written in stone.

Bring any alibis you have to the attention of the Big Guy upstairs, and I will pray for you.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

RoofGardener, you always have an alibi for *everything* the murderous Israelis have done wrong, don't you.

Read the ten commandments, RG: "Thou Shalt not Kill" "Thou Shalt not steal". They're written in stone.

Bring any alibis you have to the attention of the Big Guy upstairs, and I will pray for you.

If you're using Biblical justifications, you need to know that God gave that land to the Hebrew people, they were only driven off when God wanted to teach them a lesson.

It's their land because God said so. The question is, however, is what happens after the last Palestinian is out of Israeli borders?

[RoofGardener]

RoofGardener, you always have an alibi for *everything* the murderous Israelis have done wrong, don't you.

Read the ten commandments, RG: "Thou Shalt not Kill" "Thou Shalt not steal". They're written in stone.

Bring any alibis you have to the attention of the Big Guy upstairs, and I will pray for you.

No, I don't have an alibi for *everything* that the Israeli's do.

What I DO frequently post about is what I see as hypocritical dual-standard criticism of Israel. (or outright disinformation/slander.. of which there is a LOT. )

As an atheist, your recall of the JEWISH ten commandments means very little to me. I like the ones about not killing or stealing, but they are only commandments #6 and #8. The first FOUR commandments require grovelling to an imaginary sky-fairy.

And anyway, I derive FAR too much pleasure in Coveting my Neighbours Ass to start observing them NOW.

[Yamato]

No, they don't. They have "human rights" as, when and if their Country elects to incorporate elements of the UN UDHR into its own body of law. Legally enforceable Human Rights are a relatively recent (post WW2) innovation.

Funnily enough, one of the priority rights in the UNUDHR is the right to be recognised as a human being.

That is a pretty theory, but the reality is that the government has to summon those "rights" into existence by embodying them into their national legislation. Otherwise they are powerless words.

Anyway, in the context of the Arab/Israeli conflicts, WHICH definition of human rights should we be considering ? The Arab nations don't even recognise the UN version. (they object to the clauses on equality for women, religious freedom, and democratic systems of government).

Zionism==Statism

It was a pretty theory, it is the rule of law now. You're not an American, so you weren't wounded by American bullets in the Revolutionary War to teach you that lesson. But your King knew all about it. Now you statists prove what you really are by serving this silly sausage that people don't have a right to defend themselves until some crap government says they do. Apparently one ass whooping wasn't enough to get every Brit's head on straight. Rights are inalienable, and it's the worst governments in the world that infringe upon them. Israel, case in point.

[RoofGardener]

WHICH rule of law ? In WHICH jurisdiction ?

And what does "statist" mean ?

(scratch that.. I'll google it).

Yamato, you have a VERY interesting viewpoint on "Human Rights". I'd love to split this off into its own discussion thread... but....

Where should it go ? You've been longer on this forum that I have... can you suggest a location ? (or perhaps there is an existing thread covering it that I can use ? )

[Yamato]

WHICH rule of law ? In WHICH jurisdiction ?

And what does "statist" mean ?

(scratch that.. I'll google it).

Yamato, you have a VERY interesting viewpoint on "Human Rights". I'd love to split this off into its own discussion thread... but....

Where should it go ? You've been longer on this forum that I have... can you suggest a location ? (or perhaps there is an existing thread covering it that I can use ? )

Which law. The US Constitution is the highest law of the land.

Yamato, you have a VERY interesting viewpoint on "Human Rights". I'd love to split this off into its own discussion thread... but....

But, the stated primary purpose of the UNHCR is securing the rights of these people, so you can't.

Where should it go ? You've been longer on this forum that I have... can you suggest a location ? (or perhaps there is an existing thread covering it that I can use ? )

"It" shouldn't go anywhere. Policies, laws, regimes and governments that don't respect inalienable human rights should go into the trash bin.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Ummmm.... not REALLY, Yamato. Jews in Turkey - under the Ottoman Empire period - DID do reasonably well, and the Dhimmi laws where somewhat lightly imposed. (but imposed nontheless).

Jews in Arabia, on the other hand, had a much grimmer time of it. They where very much second class citizens, existing at the whim of successive Caliphs with no security of tenure.... or even life. The "peace" was the "peace" of the subjugated, punctured by numerous pogroms and massacres.

This is quite a curiously telling post, RoofGardener.

Did I catch you in a moment of sympathy for the politically oppressed?

[RoofGardener]

That would depend on the context, EOT.

In general, I would say "yes". However, you also have to factor in the behaviour of any specific "oppressed" group, and ask "why are they oppressed" ?

To use a Reduction ad Absurdum:

Governments are political entities

Governments enact laws

Laws are therefore political creations.

It is against the law to steal.

Thieves can be prosecuted and sent to jail.

Confinement in jail is oppressive.

Therefore all thieves are politically oppressed.

In Germany, it is illegal to form a political party advocating fascism, and specifically Adolph Hitlers version of "National Socialism". That is political oppression, but is it a BAD thing ?