Q24 Posted April 27, 2011 #26 Share Posted April 27, 2011 Q24, Zionism prevailed since 1948. I agree that Zionism has prevailed up to the present day, I was more angling for a discussion on the future. I thought a discussion about how events might unfold would make a change to the usual tit for tat of past misdeeds. Oh well [at the risk of getting dragged in]... I don't know what kind of anti-Israeli brainwashing you've been fed with, but Zionism simply means : "A movement for (originally) the reestablishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann." I assure you I am not brainwashed and can give reason based in fact rather than prejudice for any of my views. I have no issue with the definition you give and this is the term in which I use the word. There are wider connotations with the word "Zionist" but these are created through the actions of individuals within that movement, nothing to do with me. Imagine this: you were kicked off your beloved house by a guy named Roman. Then after few years of being bullied and beaten by Roman and his friends, you return there, only to find out that your house is now filled with squatters. They won't live, and they won't accept you into your house, not wanting to share even one room with you. Would that be OK by you? I don't think so. Your analogy is okay, except... What do you mean "after a few years"? The point when the Jews returned en masse to reclaim their 'home' creating the current situation was nearly a couple of thousand years later. As obviously none of these modern-day Jews were the particular inhabitants of the land in ancient history, one might think they would have got this claim to ownership out of their system over so much time... I guess we should not underestimate the religious fanaticism within the Zionist movement. If we cut out all of the millennia old, indoctrinated religious nonesense and stop blaming the Romans... Imagine this scenario: You move into an old house, and you find out that the descendants of someone who used to live in that house have had their new house burned down. Would you be okay with the government placing them in your house and giving them weapons to use on you if you protest? Somehow I don't think so. This analogy better explains the recent development, from 1948 to the present day. Erikl, are you content for the current Israeli-Palestinian situation to continue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikl Posted April 28, 2011 #27 Share Posted April 28, 2011 What do you mean "after a few years"? The point when the Jews returned en masse to reclaim their 'home' creating the current situation was nearly a couple of thousand years later. As obviously none of these modern-day Jews were the particular inhabitants of the land in ancient history, So is the case with the Palestinians, who until the 1920s were indistinguishable from Arabs in modern Syria, Lebanon or Jordan. However, a common misconception regarding Zionism and Israel is that it's mainly inhabited by European Jews. This tool is used especially by the pro-apartheid comparer people. The truth is that about 50% of Israeli Jews originate from middle eastern Jews, from Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, Morocco, Iran and yes, even Israel. These people have constantly lived in this land, even before it became the Arab world. one might think they would have got this claim to ownership out of their system over so much time... I guess we should not underestimate the religious fanaticism within the Zionist movement. Nothing to do with religious fanaticism. Zionism was actually mainly socialistic until the 1980s, and at the beginning was opposed by religious jews (for things like reviving hebrew as a spoken language, for wanting to create a democracy instead a theocracy in the land of israel, etc). It has, however, something to do with the fact that Jews has been persecuted by the descendants of the Romans that kicked them out of their homes, for thousands of years. Jews have always longed to return to their homeland, but it was always occupied by either Christian fanatics or a Caliphate. Jews have also being persecuted by Arabs, that to this day treat minorities horribly. Imagine this scenario: You move into an old house, and you find out that the descendants of someone who used to live in that house have had their new house burned down. Would you be okay with the government placing them in your house and giving them weapons to use on you if you protest? Somehow I don't think so. I'm not quite understanding this scenario, as it's distorted with misconceptions about how Israel was formed. Which government gave Israel to the Jews? Jews were immigrating en masse since the 1880s, that's about 60 years before there was Israel and 40 years before the British mandate. Also, who gave who weapons? When Israel was created, there was a boycott on arms deals to the region, but nonetheless the British were actively fighting with the Arab Legion in Jordan, which was until the 1950s under a British General command. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted April 28, 2011 #28 Share Posted April 28, 2011 So is the case with the Palestinians, who until the 1920s were indistinguishable from Arabs in modern Syria, Lebanon or Jordan. However, a common misconception regarding Zionism and Israel is that it's mainly inhabited by European Jews. This tool is used especially by the pro-apartheid comparer people. The truth is that about 50% of Israeli Jews originate from middle eastern Jews, from Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, Morocco, Iran and yes, even Israel. These people have constantly lived in this land, even before it became the Arab world. I agree with all of this. The fact you mention, that Jews have constantly lived in this land, leads to some questions: - What was the impossibility of Jewish and Arab communities continuing to live side by side in Palestine as they had done for centuries before? Just why was it necessary to label a defined area of land as specifically Jewish? I ask because it was not until the partition plan was agreed, to create a Jewish state (on Arab majority land), that widespread violence and civil war broke out leading to the present situation. Nothing to do with religious fanaticism. Zionism was actually mainly socialistic until the 1980s, and at the beginning was opposed by religious jews (for things like reviving hebrew as a spoken language, for wanting to create a democracy instead a theocracy in the land of israel, etc). It has, however, something to do with the fact that Jews has been persecuted by the descendants of the Romans that kicked them out of their homes, for thousands of years. Jews have always longed to return to their homeland, but it was always occupied by either Christian fanatics or a Caliphate. Jews have also being persecuted by Arabs, that to this day treat minorities horribly. If Zionism had nothing to do with religious fanaticism then desire for a Jewish nation specifically in Palestine would not have been so great. Why do you think the Zionist Congress threw out the proposed immigration to Uganda when it was offered by the British? Prior to the creation of the State of Israel there was a greater Jewish population base in America (there still is)... if Zionism were a socialistic aim then why did the Jews not simply continue successful projects of immigration to the USA? No, it just had to be Palestine for the Jewish state, that was always the longterm aim of Zionism. Israel is the 'homeland' promised by God in the Jewish Bible. The whole premise of Zionism is racial and/or religious; that is what defines a Jew after all. Whether for religious factors or in the claim of a Jewish 'homeland' only because it is an area they ruled millennia ago... neither argument is anymore reasonable than the other; both are poor excuses for creating the conflict of today. Which government gave Israel to the Jews? Jews were immigrating en masse since the 1880s, that's about 60 years before there was Israel and 40 years before the British mandate. Also, who gave who weapons? These governments gave Israel to the Jews. Notice how the state of Israel was created right amongst all of the very nations which opposed the plan. The partition plan as it stood should never have gone ahead under those circumstances. As for weapons - first Czechoslovakia, then France and finally the United States have been Israel's largest weapons suppliers - all who voted in favour of the partition plan. Anyhow, as you did not answer the question that ended my last post, can we assume you are content for the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict to continue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikl Posted April 28, 2011 #29 Share Posted April 28, 2011 I agree with all of this. The fact you mention, that Jews have constantly lived in this land, leads to some questions: - What was the impossibility of Jewish and Arab communities continuing to live side by side in Palestine as they had done for centuries before? Just why was it necessary to label a defined area of land as specifically Jewish? I ask because it was not until the partition plan was agreed, to create a Jewish state (on Arab majority land), that widespread violence and civil war broke out leading to the present situation. I posted here an article few months ago, which I cannot find on the board anymore, but here's the link: http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2009/05/ben-dror-yemini-the-jewish-nakba-expulsi/. It answers both of your question pretty well. Also, there was a small issue of horrific antisemitism in Europe, where Zionism as a national movement was created (by assimilated, non-religious, socialistic Jews). Jews have been proven again and again by the world nations that they simply cannot trust others when it comes to their own security. Let's face it, the history of the Jewish people isn't butterflies and rainbows wherever they were a minority. If Zionism had nothing to do with religious fanaticism then desire for a Jewish nation specifically in Palestine would not have been so great. Why do you think the Zionist Congress threw out the proposed immigration to Uganda when it was offered by the British? Prior to the creation of the State of Israel there was a greater Jewish population base in America (there still is)... if Zionism were a socialistic aim then why did the Jews not simply continue successful projects of immigration to the USA? It had nothing to do with religious fanaticism, because the intellectuals and basic ideas that stood behind the founders of Zionism, grew up in Vienna, Germany and France. Even the followers of Zionism in places like Ukraine and Poland were usually non-religious intellectuals. The very idea of reviving Hebrew, a liturgical religious language in Judaism, as a spoken every day language, is going against religion. To quote Herzel, the founder of Zionism, about religion and the future jewish state: Shall we end by having a theocracy? No indeed. Faith unites us, knowledge gives us freedom. We shall therefore prevent any theocratic tendencies from coming to the fore on the part of our priesthood. We shall keep our priests within the confines of their temples in the same way as we shall keep our professional army within the confines of their barracks. Army and priesthood shall receive honors high as their valuable functions deserve. But they must not interfere in the administration of the state which confers distinction upon them, else they will conjure up difficulties without and within. - Theodor Herzl, The Jewish State: Theocracy(Der Judenstaat, Chapter 4, trans. from the German by Sylvie D’Avigdor, 1946 by the American Zionist Emergency Council.) And I do not need to go into details on the Kibbutz project, which were communist villages. Also, the fact that for the first 100 years, the ruling political parties of the zionist organizations and later on the state of Israel itself, were all socialist (the Labour party won every single election in Israel until 1977). The mere idea of returning to the land of Israel before the coming of the Messiah went against a lot of sects of religious sects in Judaism. No, it just had to be Palestine for the Jewish state, that was always the longterm aim of Zionism. Israel is the 'homeland' promised by God in the Jewish Bible. The whole premise of Zionism is racial and/or religious; that is what defines a Jew after all. Whether for religious factors or in the claim of a Jewish 'homeland' only because it is an area they ruled millennia ago... neither argument is anymore reasonable than the other; both are poor excuses for creating the conflict of today. When you say "Palestine", do you mean the geographic region, or some sort of a political entity that existed here? because I hope you are aware there was no country called "Palestine" back then. No, Israel meant a special place for Jews, because the mere essence of Judaism is in this land. I know that for the christian mind, Israel simply means "the holy land". For Jews, it's were we came to define ourselves as a nation. Israel is for the Jews what Italy is for the Italians, France is for the French, and England is for the English. Does it has something to do with religion for these people? The idea of Zionism is that even after Jews assimilated in Europe, just as they do now in America, they are still considered a minority. Jews in Germany and France were highly assimilated, frequently married to non-Jewish spouses, or converted themselves to Christianity. Yet, they were still considered Jews. Herzel himself, before "converting" to Zionism, believed that the solution for the problems of the Jews will come from assimilating and converting to Christianity en masse. These governments gave Israel to the Jews. Notice how the state of Israel was created right amongst all of the very nations which opposed the plan. The partition plan as it stood should never have gone ahead under those circumstances. As for weapons - first Czechoslovakia, then France and finally the United States have been Israel's largest weapons suppliers - all who voted in favour of the partition plan. Anyhow, as you did not answer the question that ended my last post, can we assume you are content for the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict to continue? They didn't simple gave Israel to the Jews, Jews has been working hard for building and developing the land with a lot of obstacles faced by both the Ottomans and then the British, who where actually given a mandate for this territory to help the Jews building a national home (ie a country). Then the British discovered oil and wanted to appease the Islamic radicals so they went back from their obligations to the Jews, issuing the infamous white papers. As for your question - no I am not content for the current Israeli-Palestinian situation, nor do I believe that simply blaming Israel for everything or portraying it as a great evil that it is not, or going under it's legitimate right to exist, will bring a good solution to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ships-cat Posted April 28, 2011 #30 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Hmmmm... I've often wondered... .what would have happened if Israel and the Palestinians had been left to overcome their differences by themselves ? It is my understanding that a great deal of the original 'displacement' of the Arab population in the Levant was a direct result of the "Arab League" invading. The "Palestinians" themselves did NOT rise up en-masse and attack the new state of Israel (though they where not above the occasional massacre in the past). Instead it was foreigners - Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Libya,Iraq etc - who sent in the tanks and bomber aircraft. Many Arabs in predominantly Jewish areas may have fled fearing that their homes where about to become the front line in a major battle. Others where evicted by the Israeli army in order to control vital strategic 'choke points' against the invading hordes. In the face of these attacks, I would imagine that sympathy for the Arabs would NOT be a particular priority amongst Iraeli's. Subsequent foreign influence - if not outright domination - over the various "Palestinian" resistance groups would have entrenched both Israels sense of isolation, and the feeling that the local Arabs where all potential fifth columnists. But suppose the Arab League had NOT attacked, and had NOT tried to use the "Palestinians" as puppets ? The Israeli government would have been deprived of the excuse to displace local Arabs... and of the nationalistic fervour to build up their military... and of much of the temptation to stereotype and demonise the Arab palestinians. With cooler heads prevailing on BOTH sides, it is conceivable that a "just settlement" would have been reached within a year or two of 1948. meow purr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp Posted April 28, 2011 #31 Share Posted April 28, 2011 I'm sure that had the first few wars hadn't happened this would be a lot more peaceful. After all the biggest issue is Israel annexing large tracks of land, which they only did after the Arab League decided to wipe them out. There wouldn't be as much bitterness towards the Israelis (provided they didn't start wars themselves) and Irsael wouldn't be as freaked out that the surrounding countries were looking to wipe them out. The Irsaelis and Palestinians would still hate each other I'm sure but they wouldn't be actively looking to butcher each other either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted April 29, 2011 #32 Share Posted April 29, 2011 I posted here an article few months ago, which I cannot find on the board anymore, but here's the link: http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2009/05/ben-dror-yemini-the-jewish-nakba-expulsi/. It answers both of your question pretty well. Also, there was a small issue of horrific antisemitism in Europe, where Zionism as a national movement was created (by assimilated, non-religious, socialistic Jews). Jews have been proven again and again by the world nations that they simply cannot trust others when it comes to their own security. Let's face it, the history of the Jewish people isn't butterflies and rainbows wherever they were a minority. I understand there have been numerous instances of Jewish persecution around Europe, Africa and the Middle East over the ages - the article notes some of these outbreaks without going into detail. I accept this explains why some Jews sought a land to safeguard their people, though not why the majority of the Zionist Congress demanded it should be created in Palestine (it appears to remain this particular location was targeted primarily for religious reason and an outdated claim of ownership from ancient history). The questions I raised are specific to creation of a Jewish state in Palestine - what was the impossibility of the situation in that area continuing; why was it necessary to redress the balance of the inhabitants so suddenly? Under rule of the Ottoman Empire up until 1917, there is very little violence recorded against Jews in the area that would fall uner the British Mandate. The article notes but one instance of a pogrom against the Jews of Jerusalem in 1847. Following this, there were 73 years of Jews and Muslims living side by side in relative peace in Palestine until Zionist lobbying of the British brought about renewed violence from 1920. I'm sure there would have been unease and isolated intances of violence between those peoples during that period but nothing compared to what would come to pass... The last 63 years, since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, have seen in the region of 30,000 Israeli forces deaths due to resultant wars, military operations and Palestinian attacks. This is without inclusion of the additional thousands of Israeli civilian deaths and those further thousands maimed and injured. We then need to multiply all of that to account for the even greater number of Muslim casualties, factor in the displacements and consider the sorry state we are left today. As anyone can see by this comparison of the before and after period - the Zionist movement has caused far greater harm to Jews, to Muslims and to the world than ever existed in the area previously. The effects are far from over and, it is no exaggeration to say, have the potential to drag us all into World War 3. I know what Jews might say - "it's not our fault, the horrific Nazi discrimination, the tradgedy of the Holocaust, the sickening persecutions throughout history!" - I'm sorry for the common Jewish people, I really am so much... but it does not ever excuse the Zionist actions in Palestine, and nor could those actions change the past. Fine, escape Europe, continue the relatively peaceful immigrations to those Jewish centres in the United States and especially Palestine if that's such a strong spiritual home. The natural balance of the population would have turned in your favour eventually if this had been done with respect to other peoples. Whatever you do, don't go declaring and violently enforcing a Jewish State on Arab majority land on the basis of religious and historic claims... it's the worst thing you could do... too late... It just cannot be justified as moral, sensible or the only way. All I see is the Zionist movement using those past wrongs to justify thier religious and historic agenda... this is the true brainwashing, to make us think their actions are justified. When you say "Palestine", do you mean the geographic region, or some sort of a political entity that existed here? because I hope you are aware there was no country called "Palestine" back then. The Ottoman province of Syria, the Mutasarrifiyet of Jerusalem, the British Mandate of Palestine, the State of Israel, the Palestinian territories, numerous other descriptions we could use... I think we all know which bit of ground is referred to. Whilst there was no "country" called Palestine, there has always been a rulership and jurisdiction of some Empire under which citizens of the land lived. We cannot pretend Palestine was some long forgotten, lawless piece of wateland that no one cared about - this seems to be the impression your argument attemps to give. No, Israel meant a special place for Jews, because the mere essence of Judaism is in this land. I know that for the christian mind, Israel simply means "the holy land". For Jews, it's were we came to define ourselves as a nation. Israel is for the Jews what Italy is for the Italians, France is for the French, and England is for the English. Does it has something to do with religion for these people? It is a nonsense from the outset to place "Judaism" as the basis of the claim and then conclude it is nothing to do with religion; a complete contradiction. How you have convinced yourself of this is beyond me. I do not think your, "Italy is for the Italians" etc, analogies work. To state the obvious, nationality is determined through geographical place of birth, i.e. by definition Italy is the home of Italians. Applying this to Palestine should give the home of the Palestinians. Alternatively applying this to Israel gives the home of the Israelis - not the home of the Jews (the land being multicultural)! Jerusalem has huge religious significance to Christians and Muslims... what entitles the Jews to take this land as their own? And so we see that the idea of a Jewish homeland is one not of nationality but again, one of religion. They didn't simple gave Israel to the Jews, Jews has been working hard for building and developing the land with a lot of obstacles faced by both the Ottomans and then the British, who where actually given a mandate for this territory to help the Jews building a national home (ie a country). Then the British discovered oil and wanted to appease the Islamic radicals so they went back from their obligations to the Jews, issuing the infamous white papers. I'm not sure how to view the British role other than 1) they had an oil interest in the region, 2) they wanted to ensure that area of the Middle East was divided permanently and 3) they did not seem to have fully appreciated consequences of the partition. It is wrong to say the British Mandate came about specifically to help the Jews build a national home. The British invaded, promises were made to different sides, everything was up in the air. I agree the Jews had been working hard in the area - they should have carried on this constructive and peaceful transformation rather than allowing the radical Zionists to drive their antagonistic policy. As for your question - no I am not content for the current Israeli-Palestinian situation, nor do I believe that simply blaming Israel for everything or portraying it as a great evil that it is not, or going under it's legitimate right to exist, will bring a good solution to it. So let's say you are Benjamin Netanyahu, Khaled Mashal or Barrak Obama. What proposal would you put on the table? How about the Palestinian claim to right of return for a start - how would you deal with that one? I mean, you believe in the general essence of a right of return for all I hope; not just a special case for the Jews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted April 29, 2011 #33 Share Posted April 29, 2011 But suppose the Arab League had NOT attacked, and had NOT tried to use the "Palestinians" as puppets ? The Israeli government would have been deprived of the excuse to displace local Arabs... and of the nationalistic fervour to build up their military... and of much of the temptation to stereotype and demonise the Arab palestinians. With cooler heads prevailing on BOTH sides, it is conceivable that a "just settlement" would have been reached within a year or two of 1948. The very reason the Arab countries attacked was because an unjust settlement was being forced through, i.e. even if they had not attacked there would have been no "just settlement". Saying that, if restraint were at all possible, I agree with Corp - the situation would have turned out a damn sight better than it has. But suppose the Zionist Congress did not have this crackpot idea of imposing a Jewish state on Arab majority land for religious and historic reasons... hmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozner Posted April 29, 2011 #34 Share Posted April 29, 2011 The very reason the Arab countries attacked was because an unjust settlement was being forced through, i.e. even if they had not attacked there would have been no "just settlement". Saying that, if restraint were at all possible, I agree with Corp - the situation would have turned out a damn sight better than it has. Nothing was being forced on Egypt, Syria, or Jordon. Palestine was not their land, and Isreal was not their land. Why were they justified in attacking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted April 30, 2011 #35 Share Posted April 30, 2011 (edited) Nothing was being forced on Egypt, Syria, or Jordon. Palestine was not their land, and Isreal was not their land. Why were they justified in attacking? Take a look at a map of the Ottoman Empire as it existed before the British and French started carving the land up during and prior to WW1. Palestine was actually a part of the Syrian province, Jordan did not exist but the land came under the British Mandate, as did Egypt and Iraq come under the Ottoman Empire at one time. That is to say the whole area was predominantly united as Arab land under the Ottoman Empire. You might think it would be easy to find an image showing this but every map I come across has the borders re-drawn and areas re-named. Okay, if you look at the light green shaded area, that is the Ottoman Empire at 1914 with the green line showing the Empire at its peak : - I hope this explains why those particular countries you mention got involved. I'm not sure the Arab attack was much more justified than the partition plan itself - all as bad as each other, it's just the Zionist plan for a Jewish state that upset the balance big-time and kicked off the present day situation as I see it. Edited April 30, 2011 by Q24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozner Posted April 30, 2011 #36 Share Posted April 30, 2011 Take a look at a map of the Ottoman Empire as it existed before the British and French started carving the land up during and prior to WW1. Palestine was actually a part of the Syrian province, Jordan did not exist but the land came under the British Mandate, as did Egypt and Iraq come under the Ottoman Empire at one time. That is to say the whole area was predominantly united as Arab land under the Ottoman Empire. Yes, an Ottoman Empire that was not Arab, that Arabs had been actively fighting against. Without the Ottoman Empire, and with the failure of Arab nationalism, Egypt and Syria had no more business in the territory that was British Palestine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikl Posted April 30, 2011 #37 Share Posted April 30, 2011 (edited) I accept this explains why some Jews sought a land to safeguard their people, though not why the majority of the Zionist Congress demanded it should be created in Palestine (it appears to remain this particular location was targeted primarily for religious reason and an outdated claim of ownership from ancient history). The questions I raised are specific to creation of a Jewish state in Palestine - what was the impossibility of the situation in that area continuing; why was it necessary to redress the balance of the inhabitants so suddenly? Where else would Jews create their national home? no one wanted to give them a land, and I guarantee you, if we would have created a country in Uganda, this thread would have been about "Ugandan state" and Zionist evilness. If Jews have any claim to any land in the world, why Uganda? Jews had never lived there before. Judea, however, is where the very name "Jew" comes from. You may call it a religious issue, but the fact is that Jews are a "are a nation and ethnoreligious group originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East. The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation." (-wikipedia). Jews are a very ancient people, and as such, their religion also define their ethnicity. I know it's hard for someone coming from a Christian background, with Christianity being a universal religion and unrelated to one's ethnicity or culture, but there are many nations like that around the world. New examples are the Serbs, Croats and Bosnians - all same people but different nations because they adhere to different religions. Indians are Indians because they adhere to the Hindu religion. Armenians and their specific church is what makes them unique. Zoroastrians are both a nation and a religion, and such are the Samaritans as well. In ancient Greece, to become a Greek one would just have to adopt the Greek religion. In such a way, Jewish religion is strongly connected to the Jewish ethnicity, to such a degree that even secular Jews (that is - atheistic Jews), still adhere Jewish ceremonies for cultural reasons (this is my case, btw). Jews in the USSR were not religious at all - ate pork (they still do in Israel), do not fast on Yom Kippur, and eat bread on passover - yet they were highly Zionist. As such, Jews see the Old Testament as not only a religious book, but as the mythology of the Jews as a nation. The Jerusalem Temple wasn't just a religious center of Judaism, it was also a sign of national independence. I know, for a Christian these are all religious aspects. For Jews, however, the Old Testament is as the Iliad and Odyssey are for the Greeks. This is why it must have been Judea, where Israel is now, and nowhere else. Hell, this is the only place in the world you dig into the ground and find literally tons of Hebrew and Jewish history. Under rule of the Ottoman Empire up until 1917, there is very little violence recorded against Jews in the area that would fall uner the British Mandate. The article notes but one instance of a pogrom against the Jews of Jerusalem in 1847. Following this, there were 73 years of Jews and Muslims living side by side in relative peace in Palestine until Zionist lobbying of the British brought about renewed violence from 1920. I'm sure there would have been unease and isolated intances of violence between those peoples during that period but nothing compared to what would come to pass... The first case of blood libel in the Ottoman Empire was reported during the reign of Sultan Mehmed II in the 15th century (according to other sources - at the beginning of the 16th century[12]). Subsequently such cases, despite the mass migration of Jews from Spain in 1492, occurred rarely and usually were condemned by the Ottoman authorities. Some Jewish sources mention blood libel incidents during the reign of Sultan Murad IV.[13] Sultan Mehmet II issued firman, first of its kind in the Ottoman Empire, ordering that all cases related to the blood libel, should be considered by Divan in the central office in Istanbul.In general, the migration of Jews from Western Europe to Ottoman Empire was greeted kindly by the authorities. In 1553, Sultan Suleiman I taking up the opinion of his personal doctor and adviser, Moses Hamon, reconfirmed the orders of Mehmed II, which prohibit local courts from adjudicating the cases connected with Jewish ritual murder.[14] He also successfully counter-measured the intention of Pope Paul IV to succumb the Jews of Ancona into the hands of the Inquisition.[15] However, later the attitude of the authorities towards the Jews has deteriorated. In 1579 Sultan Murad III having learned that Jewish women wear silk clothes decorated with precious stones, has ordered to destroy all the Jews in the Empire.[16] Even though the decree was lifted, thanks to Shlomo Ashkenazi, the adviser to the Grand Vizier, a special clothing was ordered for Jews to wear, in particular, women were forbidden to wear silk, and men have been prescribed to wear a special form of hat.[17] Jews in the Ottoman Empire had a status of dhimmi, which meant a subordinate position compared with Muslims, however, it guaranteed personal inviolability and freedom of religion.[17] There were a number of known cases of blood libel in the 19th century on the territory of the Ottoman Empire: Aleppo (1810), Beirut (1824), Antakya (Antioch, 1826), Hama (1829), Tripoli (1834), Jerusalem (1838), Rhodes and Damascus (1840), Marmora (1843), Izmir (Smyrna, 1864), Corfu (1894). The most famous of them were the Rhodes and Damascus affaires in 1840, since both had major international repercussions. Painting of a Jewish man from the Ottoman Empire, 1779. Blood libel in Rhodes occurred in February 1840, when the Greek Orthodox community in the island of Rhodes, with the active participation of the consuls of several European states accused the Jews of kidnapping and murdering a Christian boy for ritual purposes. The Ottoman governor of Rhodes supported the accusation. Several Jews were arrested, some of whom have made self-incriminating confessions under duress (torture), the entire Jewish quarter was blocked for twelve days. In July 1840 the Jewish community of Rhodes was formally acquitted of accusations.[18] The same year Damascus affair occurred, in which several Jews were accused of ritual murder of father Thomas, a Capuchin monk from the Island of Sardinia and his Greek servant, Ibrahim Amarah.[17][18] Famous British politician Sir Moses Montefiore persuaded Sultan Abdulmecid I to issue a decree on November 6, 1840, declaring that blood libel accusations is a slander against Jews and to be prohibited throughout the Ottoman Empire.[17] The decree read: "We cannot permit the Jewish nation... to be vexed and tormented upon accusations, which have not the least foundation in truth..." In 1866, with the resumption of cases of blood libel, the Sultan Abdul-Aziz issued a firman, according to which the Jews were declared to be under his protection. This prompted the Orthodox clergy in the Ottoman Empire to abandon the spreading of such accusations.[15] Another accusation was raised against the Jews in 1875 in Aleppo, but the alleged victim of the murder - the Armenian boy - was soon found alive and healthy. Most of the conflicts and persecutions of Jews in the Empire was initiated by Christians, and specially by Greeks and Armenians. The motive for persecution was often rooted in a commercial rivalry among the ethnic communities.[19] However, there were conflicts with Muslims too. For instance, in March 1908 there was a major pogrom in Jaffa. The Arab population participated in it, 13 people were seriously injured, several of them died. The local government later was sacked.[20][21] In the second half of the XIX century (from 1839 until 1870) Ottoman Empire initiated Tanzimat (state reforms) aimed at aligning the rights among its subjects regardless of ethnic origin and religion. These transformations positively affected the Jews, who finally acquired equal rights.[17] In the beginning of 20th century, the Jewish population in the Empire has reached 400-500 thousand people, in 1887 there were five Jewish members in the Ottoman Parliament.[19][22] The real equality has been achieved by the Jews much later. At the end of the XIX century, in parallel with the massive population of Muslims of Palestine, a law was passed forbidding Jews to settle in Palestine or live in Jerusalem, regardless of whether they were subjects of the Empire or the foreigners.[23][24] During the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922 the Jewish communities in Western Anatolia and Eastern Thrace were persecuted by the Greeks, a Corlu pogrom occurred.[17 SOURCE. And besides, it has nothing to do with the fact that Jews, just like the Greeks, Arabs, Kurds, Armenians, Assyrians and many other minorities under the Ottomans wanted their own nation. The last 63 years, since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, have seen in the region of 30,000 Israeli forces deaths due to resultant wars, military operations and Palestinian attacks. This is without inclusion of the additional thousands of Israeli civilian deaths and those further thousands maimed and injured. We then need to multiply all of that to account for the even greater number of Muslim casualties, factor in the displacements and consider the sorry state we are left today.As anyone can see by this comparison of the before and after period - the Zionist movement has caused far greater harm to Jews, to Muslims and to the world than ever existed in the area previously. The effects are far from over and, it is no exaggeration to say, have the potential to drag us all into World War 3. Wow there. Israel and Zionism will open WW3?! LOL !! Not the Shiia Sunni conflict, that killed and still kills hundreds of thousands every day. In the Iran Iraq war alone, 1 million Muslims died. Not the Islam vs. Nationalism that is currently killing thousands around the world. Not the inner Palestinian fightings between Hamas and Fatah, that in the last few years killed much more Palestinians than Israeli forces did (but that doesn't get any coverage... gee I wonder why). You just make yourself look foolish when you write something like that. Come on. Fine, escape Europe, continue the relatively peaceful immigrations to those Jewish centres in the United States and especially Palestine if that's such a strong spiritual home. The natural balance of the population would have turned in your favour eventually if this had been done with respect to other peoples. Whatever you do, don't go declaring and violently enforcing a Jewish State on Arab majority land on the basis of religious and historic claims... it's the worst thing you could do... too late... USA was closed to Jewish immigrants during WW2 and right after WW2. As a matter of fact, the entire world closed it's doors to Jews, in the time we needed it the most. As for "on't go declaring and violently enforcing a Jewish State on Arab majority land", as you love maps so much: Yes, Arabs have no where to go in the Middle East . Are they so greedy as to not accept 0.5% of their precious middle east to spare to people that have nowhere to go, and their historical homeland lies in that land? If the Arabs would have accepted the Partition Plan, and agree to share it with us, they would have another Arab state. Instead, they decided to open a genocidal war on the Jews of the area, and only Zionist Jews, as evident from the massacres against the local Jews. Also, why were the Jews of the Arab world expelled? what did they do to the Arab governments for being expelled? You seem to justify a whole lot of atrocities done by the Arab and Palestinian side, yet check and magnify everything the Israeli side is doing. I agree the Jews had been working hard in the area - they should have carried on this constructive and peaceful transformation rather than allowing the radical Zionists to drive their antagonistic policy. You seem to just ignore all the information I provide here and stick to your version of "radical Zionists" - Zionism isn't some sinister ideology. It's merely the support for the self-determination of the Jewish people. Zionists weren't, and aren't, some bunch of religious fanatics and terrorists, but a national movement like many other around the world. I do not think your, "Italy is for the Italians" etc, analogies work. To state the obvious, nationality is determined through geographical place of birth, i.e. by definition Italy is the home of Italians. Applying this to Palestine should give the home of the Palestinians. Alternatively applying this to Israel gives the home of the Israelis - not the home of the Jew Where did I say "Italy is for the Italians"? I said Judea/Land of Israel is to the jews like Italy is for the Italians, not that Israel should be only for the Jews (like your quoting of me implies). I think I explained the national feelings of Jews towards the land in the first paragraph of this post, anyhow. How about the Palestinian claim to right of return for a start - how would you deal with that one? I mean, you believe in the general essence of a right of return for all I hope; not just a special case for the Jews. If you ask me, in 1948 there were two great migrations in the middle east. Both of them the result of hatred towards Jews. The first one, was the expelling of 900,000 Middle Eastern Jews from all over the middle east, which had no justification. The second one, was the call of Arab leaders to the Palestinians to clear the land so they could kill all the Jews in new born Israel. This, coupled with the war that broke after that, caused the fleeing of 600,000 Arabs who recently started to call themselves "Palestinians". The difference? Israel accepted these Jews and integrated them completely. It also gave all the remaining Palestinians full civil and human rights (they now number 1.5 million Israeli Arabs). The Arab countries, however, that were the main reason for the existence of Palestinian refugees to begin with, kept them locked in "refugee camps", even in their own land (West Bank and Gaza under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation until 1967), prevented them from having civil rights and created with UNRAW an unprecedented title of "hereditary" refugee - now people that were born in countries are still considered refugees. If it was up to me, those Palestinian would have received citizenships in the countries they fled too, long time ago. Being that the Arab countries are not known in their respect to civil or human rights, the solution is the Right of Return to a future Palestinian state. If you wish to see this conflict resolved, however, I'm afraid until we learn to trust the Arabs again and the Arabs will come to their senses and accept us in the middle east, the two countries should have pretty homogeneous populations. This will cancel any dream of radicals from either side to annex the land to his own state in the future. So I suggest the 300,000 settlers that currently live on 5% of the west bank, will be annexed to Israel, and as a compensation for the loss of land, the future Palestine will annex a land that borders the West Bank, that also has a majority of Israeli Palestinians. I also believe that in this way, a Palestinian state will receive substantial population that had lived under a democracy for 3-4 generations, as so maybe will be an instrument to create a democratic Palestinian state. However, this cannot happen with Hamas. If you want equations to Nazism and racism, please check Hamas' manifesto. I'm afraid that unless they really change, there cannot be real peace. Palestinian incitement against Jews and Israel in their schools must stop. Palestinian insistence to a right of return to Israel, that will destroy Israel as a democracy or a Jewish state, is unacceptable. Palestinians insist of having their state clean of Jews, but on the mean time also insist of having all their "refugees" returned to Israel, not Palestine. This can only be interpreted as an aspiration to destroy Israel and create two Palestinian states that will eventually unite. Edited April 30, 2011 by Erikl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted April 30, 2011 #38 Share Posted April 30, 2011 (edited) Yes, an Ottoman Empire that was not Arab, that Arabs had been actively fighting against. Without the Ottoman Empire, and with the failure of Arab nationalism, Egypt and Syria had no more business in the territory that was British Palestine. It is correct that the Ottomans did not dictate the land as an Arab Empire in the same way that say, Israel are identified a Jewish State. The Ottoman Empire was accepting of, and made allowance for, different cultures and religions under their jurisdiction. It is also true that the population of the Ottoman Empire, including that of the area which would come to be Palestine, so happened to be predominantly Arab. Yes there was infighting within the area of the Ottoman Empire, not least when Egypt became separated (after French and British intervention) and later made a failed grab at control of Syria. It remains that this was Arab fighting Arab over Arab majority land. As you still dont appear to see the interest of Arab countries in Palestine, even after explaining these areas were one and the same prior to WW1, perhaps another map would help: - You see the whole purple area? That was Ottoman Syria prior to WW1. It encompasses part or all of modern day Syria (obviously), Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian territories. We always have to keep in mind the borders were very different then to what we see now. So overall, it is a bit perplexing when you claim that Arabs and Syria in particular have no business in the region. Edited April 30, 2011 by Q24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted April 30, 2011 #39 Share Posted April 30, 2011 The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation." (-wikipedia). This is what worries me about the Jews - they identify with and have sought to model themselves so completely on the bolded factors, personified by the Zionist movement in particular. These factors of ethnicity, nationality and religion have no place in the modern civilised world and the Jewish psyche combines them in abundance to a degree far greater than any other people. It is these ingredients which bring out the worst in humans: racism, discrimination and conflict. For the Jews these bonds are all heavily present, “strongly interrelated” and go together to define their very make-up – then combine with the fact many Jews see themselves as a special people, and we have a recipe for disaster. It really does worry me because all of the factors that existed for Jewish persecution in the past are still present. Only now they have been focused and fomented in Israel to generate ever greater resentment. I’m genuinely scared for the long-term future of those people. Past lessons have not been learnt. A new project has been undertaken. The potential for another catastrophic fall remains. The Jews will have no one to blame but themselves if it comes to pass. Not today, but in 20, 50 or 100 years... don’t say I didn’t warn you. Concessions need to be made now to avoid this outcome. Wow there. Israel and Zionism will open WW3?! LOL !! Potentially – it is Zionist interests in Israel and the U.S. most significantly behind the drive against Iran. This is currently one of the largest threats to world peace. It will not be a repeat of Afghanistan or Iraq and woe betide us all if they get their wish for military intervention. How is this funny? If the Arabs would have accepted the Partition Plan, and agree to share it with us... That is some real double-speak. The land was shared; Jews and Arabs had been living there under the neutral religious banner of the Ottoman Empire together for centuries – it was the Jews who would not accept a natural multi-ethnic region determined by majority will of the population and it is the partition plan which drew borders based on religion. It is the Jews who decided they did not want to share the land anymore. If you ask me, in 1948 there were two great migrations in the middle east. Both of them the result of hatred towards Jews. The first one, was the expelling of 900,000 Middle Eastern Jews from all over the middle east, which had no justification. The second one, was the call of Arab leaders to the Palestinians to clear the land so they could kill all the Jews in new born Israel. This, coupled with the war that broke after that, caused the fleeing of 600,000 Arabs who recently started to call themselves "Palestinians". Sorry, no. The first expulsion was the mass exodus of the Arabs from Palestine which occurred in 1948. The second (which included non-forced migration) was of Jews from all over the Middle East, the number which you provided occurring over a much longer period from 1948-1972. The creation of the State of Israel was direct cause of both movements – Arabs would not have been going one way and Jews the other if not for the Zionist proposed religious border. Before I go on... Do you accept that if not for the Zionist agenda neither of those mass expulsions would have occurred? If you want equations to Nazism and racism... You really don’t want to go that route – too many comparisons between Nazi Aryans and Israeli Jews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozner Posted April 30, 2011 #40 Share Posted April 30, 2011 (edited) So overall, it is a bit perplexing when you claim that Arabs and Syria in particular have no business in the region. While the land was ethnically Arab, it was under British control after WW1. By the end of WWII Syria, Egypt, and Palestine were separate political entities even before the creation of Israel. Why would it matter if Palestine became a Jewish state, it wasn't Arab controlled anyway. If Egypt or Syria actually cared about Palestine, why not attack and try to annex it before it became Israel? Edited April 30, 2011 by Ozner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted April 30, 2011 #41 Share Posted April 30, 2011 Why is Israel so greedy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikl Posted May 1, 2011 #42 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) It is correct that the Ottoman’s did not dictate the land as an ‘Arab Empire’ in the same way that say, Israel are identified a ‘Jewish State’. The Ottoman Empire was accepting of, and made allowance for, different cultures and religions under their jurisdiction. It is also true that the population of the Ottoman Empire, including that of the area which would come to be Palestine, so happened to be predominantly Arab. Yes there was infighting within the area of the Ottoman Empire, not least when Egypt became separated (after French and British intervention) and later made a failed grab at control of Syria. It remains that this was Arab fighting Arab over Arab majority land. As you still don’t appear to see the interest of Arab countries in Palestine, even after explaining these areas were one and the same prior to WW1, perhaps another map would help: - .... You see the whole purple area? That was Ottoman Syria prior to WW1. It encompasses part or all of modern day Syria (obviously), Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian territories. We always have to keep in mind the borders were very different then to what we see now. So overall, it is a bit perplexing when you claim that Arabs and Syria in particular have no business in the region. And I still claim you fail to see the interest of the Jews in the Ottoman empire and around the world in the middle east. The Ottoman Empire was collapsing, and every minority wanted a part. There was no "Syria" as a nation. It was an administrative district. There was no sense of nationality among Arabs back then - there were tribes and families. You are revising history for you own agenda by viewing past situations in modern eyes. A thing you did manage to prove, though, is that there was no Palestine. As you love maps so much, I allowed myself to draw the borders of modern Israel on top of your Ottoman "Syria": . Which raises the question - why were the Arabs so greedy? Why couldn't they share a small part of the land, not even half of it? Oh wait, they weren't. "The two main branches of the Semitic family, Arabs and Jews, understand one another, and I hope that as a result of interchange of ideas at the Peace Conference, which will be guided by ideals of self-determination and nationality, each nation will make definite progress towards the realization of its aspirations. Arabs are not jealous of Zionist Jews, and intend to give them fair play and the Zionist Jews have assured the Nationalist Arabs of their intention to see that they too have fair play in their respective areas. Turkish intrigue in Palestine has raised jealousy between the Jewish colonists and the local peasants, but the mutual understanding of the aims of Arabs and Jews will at once clear away the last trace of this former bitterness, which, indeed, had already practically disappeared before the war by the work of the Arab Secret Revolutionary Committee, which in Syria and elsewhere laid the foundation of the Arab military successes of the past two years." Emir Faisal, Faisal bin Hussein bin Ali al-Hashemi, King of Greater Syria and Iraq (which according to you, was the legal owner of the land), December 1918. He signed the Faisal-Weizmann agreement, with Chaim Weizmann, on Jan 3rd, 1919: Main points of the agreement: * The agreement committed both parties to conducting all relations between the groups by the most cordial goodwill and understanding, to work together to encourage immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale while protecting the rights of the Arab peasants and tenant farmers, and to safeguard the free practice of religious observances. The Muslim Holy Places were to be under Muslim control. * The Zionist movement undertook to assist the Arab residents of Palestine and the future Arab state to develop their natural resources and establish a growing economy. * The boundaries between an Arab State and Palestine should be determined by a Commission after the Paris Peace Conference. * The parties committed to carrying into effect the Balfour Declaration of 1917, calling for a Jewish national home in Palestine. * Disputes were to be submitted to the British Government for arbitration. Faisal–Weizmann Agreement. So what went wrong? This guy, and many other pro-Nazis, came into the scene: The founder of Palestinian nationalism. You really don’t want to go that route – too many comparisons between Nazi Aryans and Israeli Jews. I just proved to you, that the Palestinian movement was born in a "sinful" act of a Nazi Arab. Their entire ideology and their antisemitism is filled with Nazi-style streotypes. Like this guy, Haj Amin, the founder of the Palestinian national movement, which I just gave you a link on: Sometimes called the "fuhrer of the Arab world",[165] he was known for his anti-Jewish hatred, having an extensive anti-Semitic and pan-Arab history.[166] His speeches were anti-Semitic to the core, like: "Kill the Jews wherever you find them — this serves God."[165] He met with Hitler and other Nazi leaders on various occasions and attempted to coordinate Nazi and Arab policies to solve the "Jewish problem" in Palestine.[167] In a report of recently declassified information by the American government and published in the National Archives, the British head of Palestine’s Criminal Investigation Division told an American military attaché that the Mufti might be the only person who could unite the Palestinian Arabs and “cool off the Zionists".[151] He is blamed by many as the main culprit of sowing the seeds of the Arab-Israeli conflict.[168] "Authoritarian and racist (as he's called), al-Husseini opposed any compromise with the Jews."[169] From the Wall Street Journal: "Muslim Judeophobia is not—as is commonly claimed—a reaction to the Mideast conflict but one of its main 'root causes.' It has been fueling Arab rejection of a Jewish state long before Israel's creation."[170] When he visited Auschwitz he "reproached the Germans for not being more determined in exterminating the Jews."[171] SOURCE. You want more? No problem... Middle EastSkorzeny had also been spending time in Egypt. In 1952 the country had been taken over by General Mohammed Naguib. Skorzeny was sent to Egypt the following year by former General Reinhard Gehlen, who was now working for the CIA, to act as Naguib's military advisor. Skorzeny recruited a staff made up of former SS officers to train the Egyptian army. Among these officers were SS General Wilhelm Farmbacher, Panzer General Oskar Munzel, Leopold Gleim, head of the Gestapo Department for Jewish Affairs in Poland, and Joachim Daemling, former chief of the Gestapo in Düsseldorf joined Skorzeny in Egypt. In addition to training the army, Skorzeny also trained Arab volunteers in commando tactics for possible use against British troops stationed in the Suez Canal zone. Several Palestinian refugees also received commando training, and Skorzeny planned their initial strikes into Israel via the Gaza Strip in 1953-1954. One of these Palestinians was Yasser Arafat.[16] He would eventually serve as an adviser to Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser.[17] Nazis training Palestinians? oh my.... SOURCE. So to end this, the conflict would not have happened if it wasn't for a bunch of Islamist fanatics. The Arabs at the beginning viewed a Jewish state favorably. What went wrong? The Arab world has been taken over by pro-Nazi highly religious antisemites. These people indoctrinated the public with such antisemitism, from the mind of Goebbels translated to Arabic, and then even after the war continuing such ties in their war against Israel, that now days antisemitism is as bad in the Arab world as it was in the Third Reich. Edited May 1, 2011 by Erikl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted May 1, 2011 #43 Share Posted May 1, 2011 And I still claim you fail to see the interest of the Jews in the Ottoman empire and around the world in the middle east. The Ottoman Empire was collapsing, and every minority wanted a part. There was no "Syria" as a nation. It was an administrative district. There was no sense of nationality among Arabs back then - there were tribes and families. You are revising history for you own agenda by viewing past situations in modern eyes. A thing you did manage to prove, though, is that there was no Palestine. As you love maps so much, I allowed myself to draw the borders of modern Israel on top of your Ottoman "Syria": . Which raises the question - why were the Arabs so greedy? Why couldn't they share a small part of the land, not even half of it? You are attributing a number of false positions to me. Of course I see that Jews have a religious and historic interest in the area, I have made reference to it several times. It was Ozner, who claimed Arabs have no business in the area, that I was responding to. The fact is both peoples have ties to the land. I did not define Ottoman Syria as a "nation". The point I was making is that the district was united under one administration/jurisdiction and contained a majority Arab population. Muslims, Jews and Christians lived together on the land in relative peace until the Zionist movement began lobbying the British to partition part of the land as specifically Jewish. I did not prove there is, or was, no Palestine. There has been an area described as Palestine since at least 450BC... this is why it was named the British mandate of "Palestine"... they did not come up with it by chance. No, Palestine was never a defined nation but the point again, as above, the majority people who lived on the land for the past couple of millenia did not identify themselves as Jewish. I am more interested in the balance of people who lived on the land than the drawn and re-drawn borders and titles - it is a conflict of people and religion at its core, this is all what the maps help to show. Thank you for your drawing of modern Israel over Ottoman Syria - this focuses the land we are discussing. You ask why the Arabs could not "share" that land. This is a false premise. The land was shared between all religions for centuries until a Jewish State was imposed. A more accurate question would be, why did the Arabs not wish a Jewish State imposed on that land? Well here is another map focussing on the area with the population balance in 1946: - The answer is obvious - so much for 'will of the people'. Nazis training Palestinians? oh my.... It is quite clear that Nazis and Palestinians had an area of common interest (though with different underlying cause). I might also point out that the United States had a common interest with the Mujahideen when it came to fighting the Soviets - it does not mean they were overall on the same page. Your claim that Nazis trained Palestinians is also disingenuous considering the intention was actually to train the Egyptian army and this was on orders of the CIA. I understand that Jewish regiments fought for the Germans alongside Adolf Hitler in WW1, but I wouldn't claim that tells us much about Jewish policy. For every (weak) comparison you can draw between the Nazis and Palestinians, there is a more recent and relevant example to the Jews. It is not without reason that a 2010 report by an Israeli civil rights group stated that the current Knesset was, "the most racist in Israeli history". For just one example, see comments of the current Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who has referred to Israeli Arabs as a "demographic problem" for which a policy is required to protect the "Jewish character". That Israel has parallels to a facist state is not in any doubt to the objective viewer. You can argue against this but it would not change the many facts which confirm it. I would be interested if you could answer the last question in my post #39 above. It needs to be seen if the Jews can accept their share of responsibility for the present situation, otherwise there is no hope for a resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikl Posted May 1, 2011 #44 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I did not prove there is, or was, no Palestine. There has been an area described as Palestine since at least 450BC... this is why it was named the British mandate of "Palestine"... they did not come up with it by chance. No, Palestine was never a defined nation but the point again, as above, the majority people who lived on the land for the past couple of millenia did not identify themselves as Jewish. More misinformation and declaration of your own opinions as historical fact. Palestine was named like that by the British, because this is the way the Christian world knows this area by. Yes, back in 450 BC Hertodus the greek historian named a geographic area called Philistina, but that was in reference to a small strip of line that used to be ruled by the Philistines, a greek nation, that disappeared long before this reference. The reason the Christian world came to call this land Palestine, however, is the Romans. When they exiled the Jews from their land, Judea, they renamed it to Palestine, as a painful humiliation to the Jews, after their most bitter historical arch-enemies. They also renamed Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina. Ofcourse the name "Palestinians" to the local Arab population is a new one. This is the result of the British Mandate. Before that, there were no borders, and the people their called themselves Fallahin (meaning "farmers") and identified each other by villages and tribal membership. The fact that the Arabs have been slaughtering and massacring Jews all around the middle east as a result of rising antisemitism coming straight from Nazi-Arab collaboration, Jews in the Arab world were not safe living there anymore. Google up "Farhoud", as an example. This was a pogrom against Iraqi Jewry, resulting from Haj Amin Al Husseini, and financed by Nazi Germany. It is quite clear that Nazis and Palestinians had an area of common interest (though with different underlying cause). Common interest? LOL ! Read a bit more about it. It began since the Nazi rose to power, with Arab Hitler youth around the Arab world, and well after that, when Nazi war criminals became advisors to Arab leaders against Israel. There underlying cause was one and the same - to kill the Jews. This is what Arab leaders where inciting on the radio prior to 1967, and this is what radical Islamic organizations like Hamas still preach to do. That Israel has parallels to a facist state is not in any doubt to the objective viewer. You can argue against this but it would not change the many facts which confirm it. Erm, no. It is very much a subjective view, held by you and many other, who believe the Palestinian propaganda machine. Israel currently is a mixed nation. We have minorities here living freely with full civil rights. Open any news channel, and tell me how open and free the Arab countries are. Your double standards are shocking. I would be interested if you could answer the last question in my post #39 above. It needs to be seen if the Jews can accept their share of responsibility for the present situation, otherwise there is no hope for a resolution. And I would like you to refer to the Faisel-Weizmann Agreement, which shows that until antisemitic radical muslims took over the issue, the Arab world and the legal leader of the Greater Syria - the region that is on the map here for three posts now - after the fall of the Ottoman empire, there was a chance to peace here. I think Israel has accepted it's part in the conflict, long time ago. It is us who are willing to divide our capital city. It is Israel who froze any building the settlements for a year. It is Israel who agrees to a two state solution, living a Palestine clean of Jews and an Israel with 20% Palestinian minorties. We evacuated the Gaza strip from all settlers and military. What did the Palestinians do? They still insist on flooding Israel with millions of Palestinian "refugees". They obsess that their future country will be clean of Jews. Hamas is against the two state solution, and they keep teaching their kids that all of Israel is part of Palestine, and that Jews are inherently evil. And this is a party that was democratically voted by the Palestinians after Israel pulled out of Gaza. The Palestinians have made no progress on their behalf towards peace. None. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted May 1, 2011 #45 Share Posted May 1, 2011 More misinformation and declaration of your own opinions as historical fact. Palestine was named like that by the British, because this is the way the Christian world knows this area by. Yes, back in 450 BC Hertodus the greek historian named a geographic area called Philistina, but that was in reference to a small strip of line that used to be ruled by the Philistines, a greek nation, that disappeared long before this reference. The reason the Christian world came to call this land Palestine, however, is the Romans. When they exiled the Jews from their land, Judea, they renamed it to Palestine, as a painful humiliation to the Jews, after their most bitter historical arch-enemies. They also renamed Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina. Ofcourse the name "Palestinians" to the local Arab population is a new one. This is the result of the British Mandate. Before that, there were no borders, and the people their called themselves Fallahin (meaning "farmers") and identified each other by villages and tribal membership. The fact that the Arabs have been slaughtering and massacring Jews all around the middle east as a result of rising antisemitism coming straight from Nazi-Arab collaboration, Jews in the Arab world were not safe living there anymore. Google up "Farhoud", as an example. This was a pogrom against Iraqi Jewry, resulting from Haj Amin Al Husseini, and financed by Nazi Germany. Common interest? LOL ! Read a bit more about it. It began since the Nazi rose to power, with Arab Hitler youth around the Arab world, and well after that, when Nazi war criminals became advisors to Arab leaders against Israel. There underlying cause was one and the same - to kill the Jews. This is what Arab leaders where inciting on the radio prior to 1967, and this is what radical Islamic organizations like Hamas still preach to do. Erm, no. It is very much a subjective view, held by you and many other, who believe the Palestinian propaganda machine. Israel currently is a mixed nation. We have minorities here living freely with full civil rights. Open any news channel, and tell me how open and free the Arab countries are. Your double standards are shocking. And I would like you to refer to the Faisel-Weizmann Agreement, which shows that until antisemitic radical muslims took over the issue, the Arab world and the legal leader of the Greater Syria - the region that is on the map here for three posts now - after the fall of the Ottoman empire, there was a chance to peace here. I think Israel has accepted it's part in the conflict, long time ago. It is us who are willing to divide our capital city. It is Israel who froze any building the settlements for a year. It is Israel who agrees to a two state solution, living a Palestine clean of Jews and an Israel with 20% Palestinian minorties. We evacuated the Gaza strip from all settlers and military. What did the Palestinians do? They still insist on flooding Israel with millions of Palestinian "refugees". They obsess that their future country will be clean of Jews. Hamas is against the two state solution, and they keep teaching their kids that all of Israel is part of Palestine, and that Jews are inherently evil. And this is a party that was democratically voted by the Palestinians after Israel pulled out of Gaza. The Palestinians have made no progress on their behalf towards peace. None. Thats because you steal thier land for housing development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted May 1, 2011 #46 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) More misinformation and declaration of your own opinions as historical fact. My opinion is based on facts which are available for anyone to check. Erm, no. It is very much a subjective view, held by you and many other, who believe the Palestinian propaganda machine. Netanyahu is a mouthpiece for the Palestinian propaganda machine?? You are in denial of blatant fascist views of the Jews own leader... that is quite interesting. I wonder if the German people accepted the Nazi's were fascist. I just looked it up quickly - apparently they did not. Do you accept that if not for the Zionist agenda neither of those mass expulsions would have occurred? I would be interested if you could answer the last question in my post #39 above. It needs to be seen if the Jews can accept their share of responsibility for the present situation, otherwise there is no hope for a resolution. And I would like you to refer to the Faisel-Weizmann Agreement, which shows that until antisemitic radical muslims... [cue rant: Jews are good, Arabs are bad] These are the attitudes which mean the conflict will not be resolved. I ask if the Zionist agenda led to the mass expulsions and migrations and immediately... no, it's all the Arabs' fault. It is a complete denial of responsibility for the instigating act. Netanyahu is not responsible for his words... the Palestinians are. Zionists are not responsible for their agenda... the Arabs are. It is Israel, in a position of power, holding all the cards. It is Jews who must accept their responsibility for beginning this modern chain of events and the wrongs committed if there is to be any hope of a resolution. But apparently as God's chosen people were dispersed from their land millenia ago they can do no wrong. And when it ends badly for the Jews one day because of the path they followed, as it has time and again... it surely won't be their fault. Will it Erikl? The Jewish people need to take responsibility for their own actions or face the consequences. Edit: the above is not intended as a threat - it is a warning from history; a repeated story of failed integration of the Jews that no one wants to see again. Edited May 1, 2011 by Q24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozner Posted May 1, 2011 #47 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) Of course I see that Jews have a religious and historic interest in the area, I have made reference to it several times. It was Ozner, who claimed Arabs have no business in the area, that I was responding to. The fact is both peoples have ties to the land. I did not claim that Arabs had no business there, only that the land at the time was not under Arab control. You keep ignoring the fact that Palestine was not an Arab country that was suddenly invaded by Jews. Before the creation of Israel, There was British Palestine. They took the land (rather dubiously, but that's another issue...) from the "spoils of war." They could technically do what they wanted with it. It would make no difference to any Arab country if they turned it into a giant llama petting zoo or a Jewish state. No one attacked the region until it became an independent country though. Why is this? Edited May 1, 2011 by Ozner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikl Posted May 1, 2011 #48 Share Posted May 1, 2011 And when it ends badly for the Jews one day because of the path they followed, as it has time and again... it surely won't be their fault. Will it Erikl? The Jewish people need to take responsibility for their own actions or face the consequences. Jews? .... and here I thought we're talking about Israelis.... not Jews .... caught in the act, aren't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted May 1, 2011 #49 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I did not claim that Arabs had no business there, only that the land at the time was not under Arab control. You keep ignoring the fact that Palestine was not an Arab country that was suddenly invaded by Jews. Before the creation of Israel, There was British Palestine. They took the land (rather dubiously, but that's another issue...) from the "spoils of war." They could technically do what they wanted with it. It would make no difference to any Arab country if they turned it into a giant llama petting zoo or a Jewish state. No one attacked the region until it became an independent country though. Why is this? No one is claiming it was the 'Arab State of Palestine', I have said it was a multi-ethnic land under the Ottoman Empire. On top of this remains the fact that the inhabitants were an Arab majority and a large swathe of the area was suddenly declared specifically Jewish land - see map of the population distribution here. One moment it's the land of everyone, the next it's the land of the Jews. This is naughty... not to mention racist and immoral. The period of British rule does not change any of the above. By your logic Germany invaded France, could technically do what they wanted with the land and it had nothing to do with anyone else, including the French - I'm sure the Nazis would have loved your argument but thankfully most of the world did not. Alternatively, if the land had been devoid of inhabitants at the time of the British invasion I would agree with your argument... but it was not; it was majority Arab (I keep repeating this fact in the hope it will sink in). The Arab countries did not declare war until the Israeli declaration of independence because... what was there to attack beforehand? The war was against the imposed State of Israel, not against the Jewish people. It also didn't help that the Arab rulers were trying to cut their own deals at the time, promises were made and broken... it wasn't until the Israeli declaration of Independence that their cause became united. Plus perhaps the most obvious factor - if the Arabs had united and gone in wholesale before the British Mandate came to an end they would have had the British to deal with. At the end of it all I'm not interested in British rule or Arab rule or Jewish rule... I believe in will of the people (democracy and popular sovereignty), and that got thrown out of the window with the creation of the State of Israel. Jews? .... and here I thought we're talking about Israelis.... not Jews .... caught in the act, aren't we? The unfortunate fact history shows is that the backlash has always come against 'the Jews'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozner Posted May 2, 2011 #50 Share Posted May 2, 2011 (edited) No one is claiming it was the 'Arab State of Palestine', I have said it was a multi-ethnic land under the Ottoman Empire. On top of this remains the fact that the inhabitants were an Arab majority and a large swathe of the area was suddenly declared specifically Jewish land - see map of the population distribution here. One moment it's the land of everyone, the next it's the land of the Jews. This is naughty... not to mention racist and immoral. History has proved how problematic it is for the Jewish people to not have a country. When the tipping point was reached, they had to go somewhere, and unfortunately someone was going to have to get the short end of the stick. No matter where they would have gone someone was going to lose out. I don't think it is immoral to suggest that a group of people deserves land of their own. The fact that they have a historical claim to it does help though. Also at the time many people thought that the Arabs living there would actually like the new Jewish influx, since the boost in a new population would greatly increase their economy overall. Back to my original point though, on the attack on Israel in 1948- They attacked because new people had "invaded" Arab land. People who they wanted removed, but where would they retreat to? Realistically, what would have happened if the Arab alliance had won? Edited May 2, 2011 by Ozner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now