we must never forget that the evil Jordanians stole Al-Quds from the Palestinians before the zionists stole it from the Jordanians & to this day Jordan still control it & refuse to return it to the Palestinians.
The jordanians even stole the Palestinian flag & murdered 10,000 Palestinians in 1970. Jordan stole Palestine before the zionists did. FUCK JORDAN
"a few out of context acts of the past 60 years"calling the dozens of massacres against civilians and the thousands of victims and more destruction and land theft. yes , the muslims gave something to the jews, in these 1400 years, a jewish golden age, never acheived in christian europe, that the now a day jews try to hide.
alright. You just whitewash everything that happened and go back to the golden age repetition.
Well done on being utterly ignorant.
I give you a medal. It's engraved: Champion of casually rejecting all the history that doesn't suit his viewpoint and repeating reguregetated lies that suit his viewpoint.
if zionist jews can claim what never belonged to them, at least have the decency and be grateful to real facts.
about Faisal , i know his story , and his sons. he was traitor blinded by greed for him self and his descendant. he never agreed to evict the Palestinians from their homes or to give up Jerusalem. he sold his sol to the British on the ground of the written Balfour's declaration to allow all minority to live together. but another face of the British was the Sykes-Picot Agreement.
I never said he agreed to evict the local population. You keep not reading correctly. Go and review my points. I said they (arabs) signed a deal (with Zionists) accepting a Jewish national homeland. As for Faisal, he was a decendant of the Sharif of Mecca and a direct decendant of Muhammad and ACCEPTED LEADER of the arab masses before his overthrow by the west.
Your attempts to attack his name are irrelevent. Regardless of personal ambition he was the recognized leader of the masses of Arabs.
the prophet Mohammad had no sons, and he left the leader to be appointed after his death. hussein ben ali was appointed by the ottmans, after them he aclaimed himself king of the arabs but he lost to the saud's clan. iraq was to his son but given away to the French. he just had no powers just a poppet to signe decrees in the hands of the British.
john - the king david hotel was the main base of the british forces. To regard that as a civilian site is laughable. Furthermore there was a phone call placed 30 minutes earlier warning them to evacuate. This has been verified. Deir Yassin - the majority of the residents said the reports released (that have now become the accepted view of 'deir yassin' was a fake and most civilians, with a few exceptions, died by being next to armed men hiding in houses who were killed with grandes
this about the king David casualties;The ensuing explosion caused the collapse of the south-western corner of the southern wing of the hotel. 91 people were killed, most of them staff of the secretariat and the hotel: 28 British, 41 Arab, 17 Jewish, and 5 others.
and the number of dead has CONSTANTLY decade after decade been downgraded to be lower by the PAlestinian researchers themselves. In any case posting some of the conflicts that happened as a result of the arab-israeli conflict is a pitiful defense of islamic massmurder of Jews for hundreds of years considering the things you mention are virtually exclusively as result of war unlike almost all acts committed by islamic empires where there was no conflict, so your comparison is 100% false.
Prime Minister Menachem Begin terror gang (IZL or ETZEL) committed the famous massacre which resulted in the murder of 94 people, many women and children. It is worth noting that 25 of the survivors were paraded in West Jerusalem as trophies, who later were brought back to Deir Yassin and murdered
it is also worth noting since you seem to be busy cutting and pasting that you ignored my other point: They were also given 30 minutes to evacuate. The British decided to ignore the phone call. There could've been 0 deaths. It was meant to be a symbolic attack. Clearly you need to read what I write better before you rush to cut and paste something that doesn't disprove what I said.
mass murdering civilians - again you have no answer. I just told you 2ce that a call was made to the hotel warning it of a bomb that will blow up in 30 minutes. The reason for the attack was a symbolic response after British attacks (including killings) on the Irgun and other groups.
They were warned about it. That doesn't absolve the group of the attack, but it does change the situation from your false untrue portrayal.
the way used by jews zionists to steal Palestinian land is well known. first, claim or create a security problem in a region. second, establish a military outpost on confiscated land, for security reasons of course. after,"armed zionist jews civilians" come and create a new settlement. that the population has a natural rate of grow , means more land has to be stolen.
you've 100% failed to reply on any of my points. At best you've done the "offense = defense" and thought that by pasting a few out of context acts of the past 60 years you somehow justify the things that happened for 1400 years before it.
C'mon. Either be able to reply or stop regurgetating ignorant nonsense without any real facts except saying "it's well known" as proof.
fauscailt32 name the false claims I made or accept you are just throwing out those statements as you have no proof. Throwing mud on my name when you have no proof is called slander. Either you can prove your claims, or you are involved in petty slander.
You cannot highlight anything wrong with anything I said. Yet accuse me of all sorts of things.
Slander - defamation - a malicious, false, and defamatory statement.
You accuse me of things that you cannot prove. You cannot disprove what I Said, yet accuse me of several negative things. Thats a form of slander.
What's wrong with my "analyses"? You fail to demonstrate any examples after several messages. Big talk & accusations, no proof - like many anti-israelis.
all talk no proof. you are a slanderous person who has more hate than logic. Otherwise you wouldn't be accusing a person who you clearly cannot disprove of lying.
I watched the programme. Absolute rubbish - my original concerns were justified. Getting a number of people who clearly hate Israel most of them not over policy, but over it's existence and in my view make up bad comparisons because they oversimplify it in order to relate it to their problems (like the south african intelligence minister) was just what I expected. They cared not for the countless imperfections in their case because most of the program there was nobody to correct them.
I'd be interested to see what I could've said that proves I'm an idiot... I keep asking you for proof.. should I expect it at some point or just more personal attacks?
As long as isreal is an ally of the US the palestinians WILL NEVER have that land. GIve it up palest. cuz its not going to happen. Take it like men and move on.
False premise from the beginning of this short video. Typical AlJazeera hatchet job.
Says 60 years ago Israel came into being on the ruins of another country.
Should have said something like Israel was mandated by a vote of the United Nations, rather than came into being, and should have said something like, part of Palestine was designated by the United Nations to become the home for Israel.
why dont the Jews thinks of the Future and not LAMENTING oh on the PAST and PAST!! show the world the GENEROUS and COMPASSIONATE Virtue as being CLAIMED "Chip of the Shoulder"( GOD CHOSEN PEOPLE)
UNLESS their GOD told them the rest of the world are SUBHUMAN not WORTHY to SAVE and LOVED...if thats the case why dont their GOD do them a FAVOR for the chosen ones and LET the REST DIES (subhumans) thousands years ago
Palestine existed as a nation since atleast the Jewish-Roman war around 100AD. Look at the map of Byzantine Empire, there's no Israel or Judah there, but Palestina. Palestinians have had that land since 100AD i.e 1800 years before the European Immigrant Jews arrived and illegally took it from them, and the reason for this was Holocaust, a European genocide. Israel should have been created in Germany any other European country where Gas chambers where, why should Palestine suffer for it.
Apparently, the non-nation Palestine is the nation Palestine.
Palestine didn't exist in the 1400 years it was under the Islamic empires, nor afterwards under British Rule, yet somehow, in that instant between english rule and Israeli delcaration of indepedenece, al jazeera implies that Palestine existed as a nation (and without saying so gives a misleading impression it's a long-standing nation).
I wonder why he didn't mention Jordanian/Egyptian occupation of Palestinian lands in 1948?
i'll wait to see the "documentary" before I judge, but the use of words causes different reactions in people, and al jazeera here seem to follow their long-line of slanting things against Israel while attempting to look unbias by being subtle in their attacks & phrases rather than outright as they are in arabic.
Lets not forget Israel is a nation of Palestinians - Palestinian Jews, Beduin, Druze and some Arabs. So to slant it as they did is a lie. nearly 40% of Palestinains made Israel.
Israel was a non-nation. Judaism was/is a religion, not a nation.
Palestinians can claim to be a native people, whereas many Jews are descended from people who left there centuries ago. The modern Israel has little or no connection with the Israel of 2000 years ago, which spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew.
Aramaic is the result of conquerers altering the ancient Hebrew. Many Palestinians are not natives either - Palestinian at the time meant someone who lived there for 2 years (those were the rules for becoming a native under the british). Stats show massive arab & other influx, so the claim you made is misleading.
Lastly Jews have always refered to themselves as a nation/people, not a religion, so that point too is untrue. In any case that does not take away from my original points in any way.
"Stats show massive arab & other influx, so the claim you made is misleading."
And DNA tests show that Palestinians have Jewish ancestry. Possibly even more than many of the people who have returned. They are natives. It was the Nazis who turned the Jews into a race, rather than a religion, prior to that, they suffered mainly religious persecution.
bobmonk - thanks for the reply but there is no medical studies (respected or otherwise) I've ever seen to say that Palestinians are "possibly even more" Jewish than the majority of Jews who moved to Israel. Even if there was, the persecution against Jews was worldwide (obviously to differing degrees), so the concept is still the same in any case.
Jews are a nation, but even then, since there have been very limited convertions, they have remined quite close to historic roots race or not.
Contrary to the myth, most of the Jews in the Holy Land never left. They just converted, to Christianity and Islam etc, like Jews elsewhere did in the middle ages. Sometimes forced, but not always.
Israel is not the answer to the Jewish question, and never has been. It has merely created a Palestinian question. Jews have been better and more successful moving to the USA, where they do not have to have a siege mentality.
You are comparing post-israel Jews in America and saying it was always like this.
America was too swept by the massive anti-semitic tide during the nazi era (even before). We had even high level media & business owners writting material against Jews from Ford to Disney. It was "in".
Comparing Jews today (with Israel existing) and saying things are better is a false comparison because Israel is PART OF that equasion of how Jews do worldwide.
"We had even high level media & business owners writting material against Jews from Ford to Disney. It was "in"."
Anti-Semitism existed in the USA and still does. But the only reason Israel survives right now is because of US foreign policy.
Israelis suffer from a siege mentality. At least Jews in the USA, don't feel they have to jump into the nearest bunker, or get their guns, at any moment. Israel has created more problems than it's solved. Young Israelis aren't even particularly Jewish.
My point was anti-semitism before Israel's creation was far far worse in the US than post Israels creation. Israel led to a world-change in all Jews and relations with Jews for many reasons - many of which have made things far better than before, certainly in the west. Until Israel's creation Jews worldwide were generally defeatist to the attacks against them, since Israel they have regained pride and self-determination which helped them rise in the US and take down anti-semitism rates.
Israel too has been "swept by the anti-semitic tide". It is no haven at all. In Petach Tikvah, a gang of *ISRAELI* neo-Nazis have gone around and beaten up Jews and desecrated synagogues. Beggars belief, but it happened.
I don't think it has reduced anti-Jewish feeling in the US, and in other parts of the world, especially Arab ones, it has increased it. Jewish Arab families who lived in harmony with Gentile Arabs for years suddenly found themselves under attack after the creation of Israel.
it is utterly pointless to make theoretical assumptions as you have, when the evidence goes against it, and when clearly you cannot make assumptions that you have because you simply pluck israel out of the equasion and leave everything else the same... when everything else was completely different until israel's creation led to mental, cultural and physical changes in jews worldwide. So I strongly feel your assertions are based on false logic as you oversimplify bigtime in your equasions.
and look at what the started Zionism. Herzl originally thought cultural assimilation was the answer, but he saw that even culturally loca Jews were being harrased and blamed for things they never did. Thats when he realized this wasn't about the seige mentality you just brought up, nor about religious aspects, but a much more basic hatred.
Since Israel's creation anti-semitism is down bigtime in the west. Respect for rights of Jews to live in peace is much much higher than anytime b4 israel.
But it hasn't worked has it? Not only are all Israelis on permanent yellow alert from military attack, they now have citizens who are neo-Nazis!
This is without mentioning the pretty obvious racism amongst Jews. Attempts have been made to rectify this, but East Europeans are on top, and blacks and Arabs at the bottom. This is because Judaism is a religion, not a people. Falashas and Lithuanians in Israel have nothing in common other than some ceremonies and circumcision.
We'll continue disagree on the anti-semitism issue. I think the anti-semitism today with the exception of the arab world is on a different league to that 6 decades ago.
As for internal Israeli problems - You can call it a religion but any religious Jew will reject your call. So you can use whatever word you want, it doesn't make it true. Further, Israel has had an iranian president, defense minister, finance minister moroccan defense minister only in the past few years. all top positions
You are still doing something wrong... you are saying "take everything as it is, pluck out Israel today and see how much nicer the arabs are to Jews" (not in those words of course). Thats such a massive overgeneralization that you cannot hope to factor in all the differences.. so i don't know why you think you are equiped to do so.
Israel has actually GENERATED anti-Jewish feeling, particularly in North Africa and the Middle East. What kind of "haven" puts refugees back into danger?
no, the concept of any Jewish self-rule in predominantely Jewish areas of anywhere in the Arab world has generated that. There have been a number of massacres in history relating to Jews 'getting too big' in arab lands which I've mentioned previously. Remember that Jews were being killed in Iraq, Palestine and others decades before Israel's creation. To say Israel began this is a cop out to try to use ignorance of most people to demonstrate a point.
so while there have not been sephardic prime ministers, to say thats absolute proof when all other top jobs have been filled mizrahi jews is a very very weak case. Shas are also a middle eastern Haredi party and they dictated when elections will be held last 4 gov's!
In normal society - Ashkenazi Jews generally brought greater finances and education level so did better. Ethiopians lowest western education and finances... the inequalities have lessened but still exist, just like everywhere else
There is still a racial pecking order in Israeli society. These people have little in common but a few religous ceremonies. By the same token, Samoans and Botswanans are the same race, because most are Christian.
Falashas are an exception for a variety of reasons, but similarly they are insignificant in terms of the population of Israel. A few thousand from a few million.
The overwelming majority - (of the Jews) are distant cousins.
You constantly take VERY small examples and turn it in to a "case". It's very non-academic to do that (take a very small example and use it to make it appear as if it's a massive number or a massive proof of something).
"The overwelming majority - (of the Jews) are distant cousins."
So are most Europeans, all natives of the Americas, and probably everyone else. I hear the natives of the Americas are descended from something like 20 individuals.
Some of the Jews left the area well over 2000 years ago. The ones that remained mostly converted & the ones who left often intermarried. Back 2000 years ago, most of the population of the world would be in a completely different place. Judaism is a religion.
Thats different. Jews of the middle east and Jews of Europe have genetic traits in common not common to europeans or arabs... so the claim that they are virtually unrelated is untrue.. sorry, but genetic tests prove more than your claims.
You are making a incorrect interpretation of what I said. I was discussing in relative near-term (e.g. since the old kingdoms destruction by the romans and many Jews going in to exile). I did not mean "lets go to the origins of the race of the human beings".
What you are saying is actually racist nonsense. Not only are we all related, but if you go back hundreds of years millions of us are.
Jews and Gentiles have ALWAYS intermarried. They were even intermarrying within the Holy Land. Look at the Bible, even there people convert to Judaism. And as I keep reminding you, Palestinian Arabs are descendants of Jews in most cases. They didn't just wander in.
it's not racist nonsense.. it's just genetic testing. I didn't say it covers 100% of Jews because yes there were converts. And there was some intermarriage... but most Jews can trace themselves back to those days.
Why do you keep ignoring that concept of "most" or "vast majority of".
You are yet to supply evidence that most Palestinains are converts. Jews lived all over arab lands and many not converted... Unlikely they'd simply massconvert in Palestine alone as you imply.
Gene testing's no basis 4 a state, & even if it was, you'd find Jews & Gentiles have ALWAYS intermarried. There were no ethnic purity laws back then, & both groups were better for it.
Most Jews converted. Where do you think the large medieval Jewry of Italy went to?
Anyhow, Judaism is still a religion. Arabs and Japanese with no recent Jewish ancestry can become Jews, just as they can become Christians/Buddhists/Jains... Likewise Jews can go and become members of any religion they care for
This discussion is becoming a neverending repetition. I've said my thoughts. I didn't say genetic testing should ever be a reason for a state in any way or form.. you keep altering what I say to mean something else.
In any case I can do little more than again repeat myself in order for you to again misrepresent what I say which for some reason you keep doing.
Take care. It was interesting but there's not much more to say I feel.
Maybe that's because you're only looking at one side of the story. Zionism has only achieved one thing, and that is reuniting Jews with the places most associated with their religion. However, it has come at a massive price, and is not the rosy "land without people for a people without land". Even "making the desert bloom" is coming to an end, as Israel realises it only has so much water to sprinkle on the Negev...
c'mon! Even making the desert bloom is coming to an end? Thats not true. While the large scale projects have scaled back and there have been a few setbacks, I see every time i'm there new parks and things constructed on what was once a big dune. You only have to use your eyes for a few minutes while there to see the changes.
In any case I've already stated I think you are very wrong on the issue of Judaism today vs before Israel. But your opinion, your choice.
Yes it is below that level. So is the dead sea (although thats part-west bank part-Jordan too). But a lake going down doesn't prove that parts of the negev arn't less desert-based. The kinneret area is also green, it's no desert.
But Israel is starting to deal with low-rainfall now by building sea-water purification systems. It takes time but it's on it's way.
Kinneret (the Sea of Galilee to most of the world) is being used to water the Negev. That area is not (yet) desert, but the simple fact is that Israel may well face environmental collapse within the next fifty years as well (probably along with much of California, Arizona/Nevada and Australia). Combined with the fact that the region is unstable, it is not much of a haven at all.
You don't think in the next 10-15 years ISrael can easily build several massive sea-water purification systems? There's already one off ashkelon. But in any case... this is bad reasoning to try to unjustify Israel's creation by saying that now, 60 years on, it faces water problems which is a worldwide phenomenon.
I'm in the UK and we have SOME water problems.. not to Israel's situation but it's more and more every year.
England has water problems - that's why it drowns Welsh villages. Scotland doesn't.
But the point is, that Israel, like the south west USA, most of Australia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Chad etc is going to have MAJOR problems soon. Ditto Central Asia which still suffers from desertification caused by Soviet irrigation plans.
Will Kinneret (Sea of Galilee) become the next Aral Sea?
you cannot make an argument about the rights and wrong of 60 years ago based on 2008's strategic situation. It makes no sense. In any case, when in Israel, I feel far far safer walking around than I do in the UK. I met americans in Israel who said they want to move here because they've never felt safer.. you can repeat your points over and over.. but on the ground, many people (not all, but many) feel the difference.
Yes you can. The refugee camps STILL exist. The Israelis still complain (rightly) about the Holocaust. It is not ancient history, but recent history.
"I met americans in Israel who said they want to move here because they've never felt safer."
To be frank, the Americans that I've met in Israel have tended to be loonies. There is absolutely nothing in Israel that they couldn't get by moving somewhere else in the USA.
Next you'll say it's racist to say that most arabs have certain genetic traits that link them (in genetic traits from their history) to each other more than to Japanese.
Erm, can I firstly point out that many Arabs are Jewish?! Secondly, Arabs are descended from a variety of peoples, because their identity is based mostly on language. Yemenis and Moroccans come from very different stock. Egyptians and Lebanese all descend from peoples who became Arabised.
There are inequalities in the reality of the economic situations (and therefore opportunities) of different groups for historic reasons, and cultural differences have, here and there, caused differences, but you take that as a "racist superiority complex" is laughable. Go to Israel you'll see'm all playing together, working together, laughing together even with some socio-economic inequalities.
Continue your weird studies you'll see "pecking orders".
well then you must have some funny sight. Judging by your method of discussing the topic it seems to me IF you were there (which I am skeptical) than you were looking for signs to connect your dots and found them.
The simple fact is less educated immigrants or those who came as refugees were generally sent to developing towns that are still underdeveloped and so problems sometimes cover certain groups... but again, you manipulate true problems to cause racial tensions, thats a bad argument.
"Judging by your method of discussing the topic it seems to me IF you were there (which I am skeptical) than you were looking for signs to connect your dots and found them."
Wrong. I was actually very pro-Israel, but arriving there, I was not impressed by what I saw. Jews prosper better in the USA, Australia etc than in Israel.
The Yemeni quarters were the worst Jewish sections I saw.
When was this 30 years ago during the hyperinflation? Jews prosper more in the USA? Again, you make an illogical assumption that somehow you can just look at American Jews as if it's unrelated to Israel. Or australia or whatever.
Jewish progress in those countries is partially related to Israel's existence. Your interpretaion that Israel can be blamed for the bad on Jews but not anything for the good is simply incorrect logic. It simply makes no sense.
everything you've been saying is stereotypes and overblown miniture examples to make them appear as very very significant. Also you take cases of problems that exist in every single society and use that it exists in Israel as "proof" of something.
It's a very very very hypocritical, bias case and spending 15 minutes in Israel disproves 50% of what you said. Spending a further few days, disproves the other 50% and shows how clearly you manipulated real problems to make them something else.
look at any pre-Israel leaders, media. Compare it to post-Israel. You'll see the difference. Saying it hasn't helped solve the problems Jews face (although of course there are still many many problems) is a very arrogant thing to say. You completely oversimplify, not provide facts, then make a conclusion anyway. I don't see how that makes sense.
What would have happened (unless the Nazis had come along) would have been that most Jews in Europe would have stopped being religious. Like the Christians. Synagogues would have shut down from lack of interest, like the churches. Religion was the main problem. Remove the religion, and you would have removed almost all the prejudice.
Again you miss the point. The reasons for Herzl coming up with the idea of creating a state for the persecuted Jews WAS EXACTLY BECAUSE NON-RELIGIOUS, CULTURALLY INTEGRATED JEWS were falsly accused of crimes, attacked. So your point is utterly false.
What the hell ever you evil bastard the fact of the matter is you invaded a sovereign nation, terrorized the people with murder until they ran for their lives, some probobly not even aware what was happening, rolled in their with all of our country's (America) equipment, against a nation without the capability to even defend itself against an attack like that, UNPROVOKED BY THE ARABS.
Your leaders and terrorist soldiers who invaded set mankind back a hundred years and set up armaggeddon.
america's equipment? someone doesn't know their history. America refused to arm israel at the time. Also, unprovoked? Israel declared in 1948. Do you know why the Haganah (the militia that became the Israeli army) was in action? Cos of Arab attacks on Jewish farmers. 1929 Massacre, 1936 massacre, long before Israel, so your attacks on me fall on deaf ears since the facts tell a better much more complex reality-based story than your personalized hate-attacks on me.
I never said it was. I was discussing the creation of the Haganah, which did not exist until there was a need for defense from attackers (haganah means defense in hebrew).
The Haganah were firstly locals (E.g. farmers, young people) whose orders at first were just to guard livestock, farms, farmers at night from attack.
It got so bad they eventually became the IDF.
The fact that it's not a one-way street doesn't mean I cannot bring up it's original reason for existing.
"The Haganah were firstly locals (E.g. farmers, young people) whose orders at first were just to guard livestock, farms, farmers at night from attack."
often it does, as we see from what the arab vigilantism against Jewish farmers, villagers has resulted in causing this massive seperation of the two people.
To attack Haganah self-defense (that you rephrase as vigilantism to try to negatively portray it), without noting the causes (which was true non-justice-based vigilantism), smells of hypocracy.
Vigilantes always believe themselves to be in the right, and they often have genuine grievances. However, they often result in vendetta, which is exactly what you have in the Holy Land. Reprisal upon reprisal.
thats quite an interpretation. In any case vigilantes means what? The Jewish farmers should've depended on teh British who never came to their aid? So defending their farms in your view here is vigilantism? You need to explain this point more clearly. Would a more logical policy have been to just do nothing and allow Arabs to kill them/burn their crops?
Vigilantes are people who either defend themselves or take revenge for perceived wrongs, unofficially, and not as part of the state armed forces, police etc. Sometimes their grievances are real, but because they act unofficially and through emotion, they invariably worsen a situation or kill the wrong people.
godsavethepres - please also tell me if "I" (as you said) invaded a sovereign nation (Palestine) then where was their UN seat? Who was their president/prime minister? What is their official army name? Where was their parliament and how many members did it have?
You have no answers as there was no sovereign nation there you deceiver. It was a set of families and clans clashing with a racist hitler supporting mufti at the top. No country, just a set of groups.
The idea of country, president started after European Colonization. Before that, there no such thing as country, it was Empires , Palestine was under British, called British Mandate of Palestine (NOT Israel), before that it was Ottoman nation Palestine, before that it was under Arabs and before that all the way to 100AD (Jewish-Roman war), it was still called Palestina. From 100AD, it belonged to Palestinians.
All the Gas Chambers of Holocaust were in Europe, NOT a single was in Palestine, yet Israel was created on Palestine by wiping them out. Israel should have been created in European regions which had the "Gas Chambers", not in Palestine. The Germans should pay price of Holocaust, not Palestinians.
As for the holocaust - your assumption is false. Firstly the idea for Israel is a response to anti-semitism which existed greatly in the arab world. There were no mass exterminations but periods of massmurder of Jews existed, and descrimination existed although not to the extent of europe. Secondly most zionists originally felt the need to be in their homeland, the support for a seperate nation mostly came from arab attacks on people who moved created a self-defense reaction that led to today.
anti-semitism in arab world started mostly after Zionist movement in 1890's. Before that Arabs and Jews lived side by side in relative peace (ignoring exceptions). Otherwise, you wouldn't have greatest Jewish Rabbi Maimonides or Yahudi Halevy (Jewish Poet) or many other Jewish scholars emerging under Arabs.
As I said, there were no Gas Chambers in Palestine or in Arab Lands, if someone should pay price for Holocaust, it should be the Germans or Europeans not Arabs.
you can only be anti somebody if this person had hurt you. there is no anti antisemitism in the Muslim world ,because other religion are protected, and history prove that. it is more adequate to talk about anti zionism, this racist colonialist movement started by the Ashkenazies in europe.
really John? Is that right? No antisemitism in the Arab world? Funny. A new book exactly on the issue of Arab antisemitism throughout the centuries is just about to be released in a few weeks. Maybe you should read it before you regurgetate things you've been taught.
johnh - In the ninth century, Baghdad's Caliph al-Mutawakkil designated a yellow badge for Jews (ring a bell of nazism).
1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants
1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive
I can list also DECREES to mass-destroy synagogues and other massmurders throughout those centuries. Your claim was false
Do you realize you are picking some random atrocities from here and there. I can list countless cases where Muslims protected the Jews from countless times. I will list some here:
On 638AD, with the conquest of Jerusalem by Muslim Caliph Omar (r.a), the Jews were again allowed to enter Jerusalem after 400 yrs of expulsion by the Byzantines.
In 711, the Muslims Moors conquered nearly all of the Iberian Peninsula. Spain flourished under Muslim rule. The era is called the "Golden Age" of Jews in Spain.
During this periodm Hebrew poetry and literature flourished. Among the early Hebraists of the time were Yehudah HaLevi who became known as one of the first great Hebrew poets, and Menahem ben Saruq who compiled the first ever Hebrew dictionary.
In 1492, after the collapse of Islamic Spain, 200,000 Sephardi Jews were expelled. They were all welcomed with open arms under the Muslim Turks.
In 1493, only one year after their expulsion from Spain, David & Samuel ibn Nahmias established the First Hebrew printing press in Istanbul under Islamic Empire.
"THERE IS no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together ... That was, indeed, the Golden Age."
"Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith."
The article is titled 'Muhammads Sword' written by Israeli Jewish Uri Avnery.
In any case Uri Avnery is not exactly a religious man nor is he an academic historian. He leads the extreme gush shalom movement and was formally a journalist. As I said as a former MK, and elder member of the state, but to quote him (the one who covers up arab aggresison against ISrael) in an attempt to cover up middle eastern anti-semitism long before zionism is not credible.
Even recent history, entire jewish communities in libya were massacred in the 18th century, in Algiers hundreds killed over several attacks, in Damascus in 1840 there were pogroms against Jews - which spread THROUGHOUT the muslim world over the decade after. In 1839 in today's Iran a mob broke in to the Jewish quarter of Meshed and burnt and destroyed everything - only stopped by Jews converting in the end... these are signs of a deeper hate, not random instances. No excuse of zionism then.
in Algeria , after living in prosperity for hundreds of years and independence in education , courts , business.jews sided with the French occupying forces. they denied their identity, and betrayed the Algerians for privileges in Decree Cremieux,engaged in the French army to torture and murder the Algerians. the jews were against the algerian liberation army, the self determination referendum for in dependence.the jews traitors lost their right to stay in an independent Algeria.
The French invaded Algiers in 1830. So you are saying that the Jews were massacred for joining the french after the invasion?
Algeirs, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830 with smaller instances not mentioned. Only 1 massacre happened the same year as the actual invasion (by the way the french didn't have full real control by end of 1830, so couldn't of been what you mentioned since Algerian Jews weren't french yet).
Uri Avnery - I didn't realize you'd go as far as getting the most pro-arab Israeli to try to convince me.
Uri Avnery wants Israel deconstructed. He was writing pamphlets of support for the Arab regimes at the time that those regimes were calling for rivers of blood of Jews in the late 40's... how exactly can you quote him to me and call him credible? He might've been influencial in the 50's, 60's, but his ability to ignore arab regime threats & actionss are incrediable.
In any case the past is in the past. The point is that a lot of the case against Israel is based on the notion that everything was great until some european Jews came and destroyed it all. Thats an utter lie and a completely rape of historical events. Records show arabs flocked to the Jobs created by Jewish-led enterprise. The problems began when a few locals began to massmurder Jews as in the times before, except this time it was to hurt them 100 fold instead of be allowed to happen.
Palestine is one of the oldest populated regions on the planet with or without the jews. local areb jews lived in it with muslims and christians the problem started when the zionists started conspiring to establish a home land for the jews, excluding the other local groups. the declaration was made in a letter from Arthur James Balfour (Foreign Secretary) to Lord Rothschild, jew leader, for transmission to the Zionist Federation. the conspiracy started way before the real events.
again you lie, Even in 1919 an agreement was signed between Weizmann (as rep of the zionist movement) and King Faisal - leader of the popular arab uprising for Arab liberation from turkey that came from Mecca & media that later made him king of syria & iraq before the western powers overthrew him.
That agreement was to have a Jewish state with minorities. You clearly cannot read all of history, but only the side that fits your viewpoint.
ignorant, read the balfour declaration, liar. u said: "excluding the other local groups" with Balfour as proof... Joker. go read the Balfour declaration. IT CLEARLY SAYS: "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-jewish communities in palestine ".
Less cut and paste knowledge please. Go learn some history and come back when you actually know something. You clearly didn't even know what Balfour said in the letter.
the zionist jews ,ever since the beginning of their movement, for a so called home land ,with Herzl in the 19th century , have one objective . to become a majority in Palestine or why not evict all the non jews , it is the "promised land" after all and we are "the chosen people".
waw, this is what you've come down to? No more facts. The chosen people? The chosen people is a covonent with god to do his commandments (mitzvot), not any superiority.
In any case Herzl advocated it as a solution to anti-semitism, not for superiorities sake so 1896 zionism has nothing to do with your claim.
I knew once you stopped cutting and pasting the conversation would dumb down. And I note that you have failed to respond to any of my points...
fact about the zionist jew occupation can be found in books, where you can find the numbers. Noam Chomsky ,fate full triangle is one. more the Palestinians ,under british occupation, never accepted the monstrous organized immigration of the jew to change the demographic of the holy land. the referendum in early 1920's was very clear and the demonstration few years after
In any case, Faisal who led and represented the arabs of all the middle east and had widespread support signed MORE THAN todays Israel (inc west bank and gaza) to the Jews by 1919. You have no answer to that. Also The partition plan was majority Jews = Israel, Majority arab = arabs. No harm would've been if they accepted Jews ruling themselves in majority-Jewish areas. That was the whole point of the partition.
you have no leg to stand on with those aspects. The biggest Arab leader signed.
alif - on the picking random.. yes, i picked a few notables (although the list is much bigger). The point is that it was not perfectly safe for Jews. THOUSANDS were killed here, thousands were killed there, hundreds here, hundreds there... ALL THROUGHOUT the Islamic empires history. So the 'golden age' claim is not true in the sense you guys portray, that was my point to john and yourself. A few decades of "reasonable" good times followed by a massacre is not a TRUE "golden age".
Nice of you to mention Maimonides... you should real his writings on how Muslims treated Jews. One interesting letter discusses how nobody has treated the Jews worse than the Muslims. I'm glad you brought him up and we had this discussion.
P.S. he was around during the so-called "golden age" of ISlam, so when he wrote that, things were 'at their best'.
alif - further to my last comment on maimonides, i dug up the quote (well, one translation of it, there are several all saying the same thing in slightly different translations): The nation of Ishmael, which harms us and decrees laws against us . . . as never any people did which rose up against Israel, harms us, humiliates us, and hates us so much as they [Ishmael] do.
So again, nice of you to open up oppertunities for discussion. I'll await for you to call this a fake.
I need some time to verify the credibility of this statement. However, it was Maimonides on his 'Iggeret Teman' (Epistole to Yemen) wrote that its OK for a Jew to pray inside a Mosque if he cannot find a Synagogue, because Muslims are not Idol worshipers.
no. It is not a more appropriate term. Anti-semitism has been coined in English to refer to attacks on Jews. Whether or not anti-semitism covers arabs doesn't take away from it's common-use purpose.
look at the overwelming majority of the usage of the word 'anti-semitic' as spoken in English, even in German.
It has been used to refer to those who hate Jews 100+ years.
Since it's been used like that for decades, and it's usage to refer to Arabs is new and mainly by people who attack Israel defending those views by saying "I'm semitic", my, common definition, of Jews, is fine.
you are telling me I cannot use a word thats had a certain definition for over a century... get a better case!
anti-semitism has meant mostly Jews for 100 years. A football club "named after" is not the same as "this word was more or less invented and exclusively used for this purpose".
VERY different comparisons.
You are telling me it's wrong of me to use the word in the same context as it's earliest usages all the way to today.
More or less accurate is mental, not linguistic. Anti-semitic against Jews is a true (and most used) meaning of the word, so it's perfectly accurate to use it like that.
Semitic originally refers to the sons of Shem. Which included the Hebrews, the Phoenecians and Arabs. Anti-Jewish behaviour is anti-Semitic, but so is anti-Arab behaviour. Something which may prove uncomfortable for some.
it doesn't prove uncomfortable for me at all. You are the one who wanted to manipulate it so that anti-semitic cannot include an arab since an arab is semitic. You began this whole pointless point and now you say I might be uncomfortable. I know what semitic means very well. My point was that it's perfectly fine to use anti-semitic to mean anti-jewish since thats it's historic usage of that word!! I don't see what your problem is.
the zionist always try to rewrite history. their movement was founded by Hetzel in eastern Europe in the 2nd half of 19th century because of the pogroms in europe and russia. the inquisition 15th century where the jews found refuge in the Muslim north Africa and ottomans and were very well received.
but for a zionist , a good reception is not good enough. even if they were a minority they want to be crowned as the kings and princess.
zionst try to rewrite history? Actually in Israel people are taught that things were better with the Arabs.
However it is you who rewrites history. Better from completely aweful does not mean good. Better than inquision does not mean treated equally. Your assertion (which is commonplace in the anti-israeli community) that somehow "better than europe" = really well treated is absolutely nonsense. Also Middle eastern Jews are the ones who elect the right-wing likud party, not the ashkenazi.
oh P.S. you said: "Israel was created on Palestine by wiping them out". Nobody was wiped out. You might need a dictionary to look up "wiped out". Clearly at the time there were an estimated 1.2m arabs (or called arabs by badly made estimates), 400-600K left (with a few cases of forced out), and the rest lived in Gaza/West bank already.
So where is this "wiped out"? How could they be wiped out if so few were killed? You need to use words more carefully and not be overeager to falsely slander.
Read the book 'Ethnic cleansing of Palestine' by Ilan Pape, an Israeli Jewish Historian of Haifa University, he gave all the details of how the ethnic cleansing was carried out on the Palestinians.
pape has been criticized strongly for his trusting of secondary facts and personal stories above primary facts. His interpretationh has also been critized strongly by fellow historians for being a bit too kind in the sense that he uses limited facts to "prove" his case that goes far beyond what his facts demonstrate. But i'm guessing you have no qualms with that since he agrees with you.
His "Plan Daled" expose has NEVER been proven, yet he repeats it over and over. Some historian u trust.
the zionists brought death and destruction to the holy land. when the Muslims took Jerusalem from the Christian it was jews free. the place of the dome of the rock was a roman garbage dump. the Muslims cleaned up and restore the holy places also allowed the jews to the city.
at the present, the zionists are destroying the foundation of the dome of the rock and exiling the arab ( muslim & christain alike) population.
God destroyed the jewish temples twice because of Idolatry practices..what more
John - zionists brought death? destruction? Check the facts. You guys seem completely incapable of anything beyond verbal diarrhea and regurgetation. All British reports said that thanks to Zionist enterprise arabs flocked from all over the region consistantly to find work. How can things be worse if everyone wants to go there?
Dome of the rock? Actually the Muslims complained about the foundations of the Al Aqsa mosque - get your facts right, but even then it's far from all foundations u liar
so stop lying about the foundations (e.g. more regurgetation), stop making mistakes in your regurgetations and get a few facts out instead of repeating long worn out stereotypes about golden age and racist ideology. It's extremely worn out and disproven by history.
Oh wait, zionists makes up history don't they? So me correcting all your mistakes and regurgetations (lack of self thought) is probably just lies. Don't worry, i'm sure you sleep better simply ignoring the truth by calling it a lie.
Your case is false. You are calling an area a nation. Yorkshire is part of the United Kingdom, it is not a nation/kingdom. Palestine is a name made up by Roman imperialists. Arabs were not even in the region until many 100's of years later. In any case at time of Israel's creation 40% of Palestinians were Jewish/Beduin/Druze/Arabs who are all today Israeli, so it was a name change, not a population change from a year before israel's creation to israel's creation.
As I said it was not a nation even in the classical sense that you try to portray. The idea of a nation is achieved via a shared heritage, history, language (amongst other things). Palestinians were a number of unconnected factions. By 1948 it was 33% Jews of shared language & self rule, a number of random greeks, armenians, beduins, druze circassians, etc. Your grouping them (you havn't said so, but based on your description) as simply some connected arab nation is simply false for 1948.
Exactly rullar, the groups that you displaced illegally with terrorists tactics. its inconsequential how much of an establishment they had prior-ottoman empire. you jews will say anything to justify your evil
that all you have to reply with? It's clear you have no reply and you just wish to continue projecting your hate. It's inconsequencial? Arabs rushed in massive numbers to "Palestine" during the british mandate. Yet you count them as native arabs it seems from your phrasing. That means they are consequencial, but the Jews are not.
And i'm the one who misreads history? also: "you Jews"? Another racist slur by an anti-israeli. Don't worry, it's no secret most anti-israelis are racist.
This has been flagged as spam show
we must never forget that the evil Jordanians stole Al-Quds from the Palestinians before the zionists stole it from the Jordanians & to this day Jordan still control it & refuse to return it to the Palestinians.
The jordanians even stole the Palestinian flag & murdered 10,000 Palestinians in 1970. Jordan stole Palestine before the zionists did. FUCK JORDAN
ALLAHU AKBAR
howie1962 8 months ago
Free Palestine! Free Palestine Now!
okturus 3 years ago 2
"a few out of context acts of the past 60 years"calling the dozens of massacres against civilians and the thousands of victims and more destruction and land theft. yes , the muslims gave something to the jews, in these 1400 years, a jewish golden age, never acheived in christian europe, that the now a day jews try to hide.
johnh1922 3 years ago
alright. You just whitewash everything that happened and go back to the golden age repetition.
Well done on being utterly ignorant.
I give you a medal. It's engraved: Champion of casually rejecting all the history that doesn't suit his viewpoint and repeating reguregetated lies that suit his viewpoint.
congrats.
rulllar 3 years ago
if zionist jews can claim what never belonged to them, at least have the decency and be grateful to real facts.
about Faisal , i know his story , and his sons. he was traitor blinded by greed for him self and his descendant. he never agreed to evict the Palestinians from their homes or to give up Jerusalem. he sold his sol to the British on the ground of the written Balfour's declaration to allow all minority to live together. but another face of the British was the Sykes-Picot Agreement.
johnh1922 3 years ago
I never said he agreed to evict the local population. You keep not reading correctly. Go and review my points. I said they (arabs) signed a deal (with Zionists) accepting a Jewish national homeland. As for Faisal, he was a decendant of the Sharif of Mecca and a direct decendant of Muhammad and ACCEPTED LEADER of the arab masses before his overthrow by the west.
Your attempts to attack his name are irrelevent. Regardless of personal ambition he was the recognized leader of the masses of Arabs.
rulllar 3 years ago
the prophet Mohammad had no sons, and he left the leader to be appointed after his death. hussein ben ali was appointed by the ottmans, after them he aclaimed himself king of the arabs but he lost to the saud's clan. iraq was to his son but given away to the French. he just had no powers just a poppet to signe decrees in the hands of the British.
johnh1922 3 years ago
have to go, see you
johnh1922 3 years ago
byee
rulllar 3 years ago
rullar, you claim that Muslims while in power committed 3 atrocities against the jews in a fram of 1400 years.
this the list of zionist jews crimes in 60 years:
The King David Massacre
The Massacre at Baldat al-Shaikh
YEHIDA MASSACRE,KHISAS MASSACRE,QAZAZA MASSACRE,The Semiramis Hotel Massacre
The Massacre at Dair Yasin
NASER AL-DIN MASSACRE,THE TANTURA MASSACRE
BEIT DARAS MASSACRE,THE DAHMASH MOSQUE MASSACRE,DAWAYMA MASSACRE,HOULA MASSACRE,SHARAFAT MASSACRE,Salha Massacre,The Massacre at Qibya
johnh1922 3 years ago
john - the king david hotel was the main base of the british forces. To regard that as a civilian site is laughable. Furthermore there was a phone call placed 30 minutes earlier warning them to evacuate. This has been verified. Deir Yassin - the majority of the residents said the reports released (that have now become the accepted view of 'deir yassin' was a fake and most civilians, with a few exceptions, died by being next to armed men hiding in houses who were killed with grandes
rulllar 3 years ago
this about the king David casualties;The ensuing explosion caused the collapse of the south-western corner of the southern wing of the hotel. 91 people were killed, most of them staff of the secretariat and the hotel: 28 British, 41 Arab, 17 Jewish, and 5 others.
johnh1922 3 years ago
and the number of dead has CONSTANTLY decade after decade been downgraded to be lower by the PAlestinian researchers themselves. In any case posting some of the conflicts that happened as a result of the arab-israeli conflict is a pitiful defense of islamic massmurder of Jews for hundreds of years considering the things you mention are virtually exclusively as result of war unlike almost all acts committed by islamic empires where there was no conflict, so your comparison is 100% false.
rulllar 3 years ago
Prime Minister Menachem Begin terror gang (IZL or ETZEL) committed the famous massacre which resulted in the murder of 94 people, many women and children. It is worth noting that 25 of the survivors were paraded in West Jerusalem as trophies, who later were brought back to Deir Yassin and murdered
johnh1922 3 years ago
it is also worth noting since you seem to be busy cutting and pasting that you ignored my other point: They were also given 30 minutes to evacuate. The British decided to ignore the phone call. There could've been 0 deaths. It was meant to be a symbolic attack. Clearly you need to read what I write better before you rush to cut and paste something that doesn't disprove what I said.
rulllar 3 years ago
"symbolic attack" when you plant bombs in a busy hotel. mass murdering civilians in public places, and you talk about"There could've been".
johnh1922 3 years ago
mass murdering civilians - again you have no answer. I just told you 2ce that a call was made to the hotel warning it of a bomb that will blow up in 30 minutes. The reason for the attack was a symbolic response after British attacks (including killings) on the Irgun and other groups.
They were warned about it. That doesn't absolve the group of the attack, but it does change the situation from your false untrue portrayal.
rulllar 3 years ago
the way used by jews zionists to steal Palestinian land is well known. first, claim or create a security problem in a region. second, establish a military outpost on confiscated land, for security reasons of course. after,"armed zionist jews civilians" come and create a new settlement. that the population has a natural rate of grow , means more land has to be stolen.
johnh1922 3 years ago
waw john... really go back to cutting and pasting. Your argument has gone from misrepresentation to outright old worn out ignorant statements.
For a few minutes earlier I thought you were knowledgeable. Now I See you are simply a regurgetator machine of old 1950's slogans.
rulllar 3 years ago
you've 100% failed to reply on any of my points. At best you've done the "offense = defense" and thought that by pasting a few out of context acts of the past 60 years you somehow justify the things that happened for 1400 years before it.
C'mon. Either be able to reply or stop regurgetating ignorant nonsense without any real facts except saying "it's well known" as proof.
rulllar 3 years ago
yes but there are many more here..ready to educate brainwashed comments and false claims by you and others
fuascailt32 3 years ago
fauscailt32 name the false claims I made or accept you are just throwing out those statements as you have no proof. Throwing mud on my name when you have no proof is called slander. Either you can prove your claims, or you are involved in petty slander.
rulllar 3 years ago
actually ..
you should check what slander means..
by your analyses ,what you say is much worse.
byebye
fuascailt32 3 years ago
Very good.
You cannot highlight anything wrong with anything I said. Yet accuse me of all sorts of things.
Slander - defamation - a malicious, false, and defamatory statement.
You accuse me of things that you cannot prove. You cannot disprove what I Said, yet accuse me of several negative things. Thats a form of slander.
What's wrong with my "analyses"? You fail to demonstrate any examples after several messages. Big talk & accusations, no proof - like many anti-israelis.
rulllar 3 years ago
i'm anti-zionist .
your comments are inept.
biased.
and ill-informed..
fuascailt32 3 years ago
all talk no proof. you are a slanderous person who has more hate than logic. Otherwise you wouldn't be accusing a person who you clearly cannot disprove of lying.
rulllar 3 years ago
no i'm not hateful far from it.
but i know you are an idiot.
did you watch this programme..
i answered to this thread after watching it on tv.
fuascailt32 3 years ago
I watched the programme. Absolute rubbish - my original concerns were justified. Getting a number of people who clearly hate Israel most of them not over policy, but over it's existence and in my view make up bad comparisons because they oversimplify it in order to relate it to their problems (like the south african intelligence minister) was just what I expected. They cared not for the countless imperfections in their case because most of the program there was nobody to correct them.
rulllar 3 years ago
I'd be interested to see what I could've said that proves I'm an idiot... I keep asking you for proof.. should I expect it at some point or just more personal attacks?
rulllar 3 years ago
rula..
tyou' just said it your previous comment ...ie.that the palestinians hated the zionist state...as if thats what its about..
they were far clevere..and their arguments were just.!!!
fuascailt32 3 years ago
rullar ..stop it...
convince no one but yourself
its also symbolic...
and it was a crime against humanity.
fuascailt32 3 years ago
Free Palestine! Free Palestine Now!
okturus 3 years ago
Palestine is free. Would like the whole world to be given to the palestinians.
MeLikeGoFast 3 years ago
is the word palestine a metaphor for
people power ,gofast?
nice
fuascailt32 3 years ago
shame about zionist dove and the muslim philosopher from europe..
you should make that programme regular..
please!
fuascailt32 3 years ago
this was a brilliant programme....
very good....
encore!!!!
fuascailt32 3 years ago
As long as isreal is an ally of the US the palestinians WILL NEVER have that land. GIve it up palest. cuz its not going to happen. Take it like men and move on.
MeLikeGoFast 3 years ago
I thought al jazeera is different, i was wrong.
2JcS2 3 years ago
Nope they are no different. They are a hate spewing, fact twisiting evil network.
MeLikeGoFast 3 years ago
i think people can make their own minds up...
my analysis of usa news is similar to what you think about jazeera...
fuascailt32 3 years ago
Only in countries where the people are brain washed. the rest of the world doesnt.
MeLikeGoFast 3 years ago
depends how you you view the word "brainwashed"...
i doubt it can be dedfined by internationally recognised boundaries..lol
fuascailt32 3 years ago
False premise from the beginning of this short video. Typical AlJazeera hatchet job.
Says 60 years ago Israel came into being on the ruins of another country.
Should have said something like Israel was mandated by a vote of the United Nations, rather than came into being, and should have said something like, part of Palestine was designated by the United Nations to become the home for Israel.
TAMARLANE 3 years ago
all this talking about RECLAIMING LOST RIGHTS
why dont the Jews thinks of the Future and not LAMENTING oh on the PAST and PAST!! show the world the GENEROUS and COMPASSIONATE Virtue as being CLAIMED "Chip of the Shoulder"( GOD CHOSEN PEOPLE)
UNLESS their GOD told them the rest of the world are SUBHUMAN not WORTHY to SAVE and LOVED...if thats the case why dont their GOD do them a FAVOR for the chosen ones and LET the REST DIES (subhumans) thousands years ago
think DEEPLY..What is your GOD???
cradle2light 3 years ago
the Headache that Israel has STARTED 60 years ago has Become a TUMOR
UNLESS treated by "ENLIGHTENED" leaders rather than "WAR MONGRELS"
our Mother Earth would be engulfed with MANMADE CALAMITIES that MANY may REGRET making....
BUT ITS TOO LATE for HUMANITY!!!!
so we must RALLY to stop this MADNESS from Brewing....
cradle2light 3 years ago
Palestine existed as a nation since atleast the Jewish-Roman war around 100AD. Look at the map of Byzantine Empire, there's no Israel or Judah there, but Palestina. Palestinians have had that land since 100AD i.e 1800 years before the European Immigrant Jews arrived and illegally took it from them, and the reason for this was Holocaust, a European genocide. Israel should have been created in Germany any other European country where Gas chambers where, why should Palestine suffer for it.
alifbah0 3 years ago
May God Bless Palestine and free it of the Oppressors.
wb678 3 years ago 3
YES WB...
if it was called canaan or Palestine..
palestinians have always been their..
if only the zionists knew...!!?!
fuascailt32 3 years ago
Apparently, the non-nation Palestine is the nation Palestine.
Palestine didn't exist in the 1400 years it was under the Islamic empires, nor afterwards under British Rule, yet somehow, in that instant between english rule and Israeli delcaration of indepedenece, al jazeera implies that Palestine existed as a nation (and without saying so gives a misleading impression it's a long-standing nation).
I wonder why he didn't mention Jordanian/Egyptian occupation of Palestinian lands in 1948?
rulllar 3 years ago
i'll wait to see the "documentary" before I judge, but the use of words causes different reactions in people, and al jazeera here seem to follow their long-line of slanting things against Israel while attempting to look unbias by being subtle in their attacks & phrases rather than outright as they are in arabic.
Lets not forget Israel is a nation of Palestinians - Palestinian Jews, Beduin, Druze and some Arabs. So to slant it as they did is a lie. nearly 40% of Palestinains made Israel.
rulllar 3 years ago
Israel was a non-nation. Judaism was/is a religion, not a nation.
Palestinians can claim to be a native people, whereas many Jews are descended from people who left there centuries ago. The modern Israel has little or no connection with the Israel of 2000 years ago, which spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago 3
Aramaic is the result of conquerers altering the ancient Hebrew. Many Palestinians are not natives either - Palestinian at the time meant someone who lived there for 2 years (those were the rules for becoming a native under the british). Stats show massive arab & other influx, so the claim you made is misleading.
Lastly Jews have always refered to themselves as a nation/people, not a religion, so that point too is untrue. In any case that does not take away from my original points in any way.
rulllar 3 years ago
"Stats show massive arab & other influx, so the claim you made is misleading."
And DNA tests show that Palestinians have Jewish ancestry. Possibly even more than many of the people who have returned. They are natives. It was the Nazis who turned the Jews into a race, rather than a religion, prior to that, they suffered mainly religious persecution.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
bobmonk - thanks for the reply but there is no medical studies (respected or otherwise) I've ever seen to say that Palestinians are "possibly even more" Jewish than the majority of Jews who moved to Israel. Even if there was, the persecution against Jews was worldwide (obviously to differing degrees), so the concept is still the same in any case.
Jews are a nation, but even then, since there have been very limited convertions, they have remined quite close to historic roots race or not.
rulllar 3 years ago
rullar ...bobmonk is right....
...its proven in conuntless studies...
even by zionists...
fuascailt32 3 years ago
show me. you are all talk no proof.
rulllar 3 years ago
Contrary to the myth, most of the Jews in the Holy Land never left. They just converted, to Christianity and Islam etc, like Jews elsewhere did in the middle ages. Sometimes forced, but not always.
Israel is not the answer to the Jewish question, and never has been. It has merely created a Palestinian question. Jews have been better and more successful moving to the USA, where they do not have to have a siege mentality.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
you are making a false comparison.
You are comparing post-israel Jews in America and saying it was always like this.
America was too swept by the massive anti-semitic tide during the nazi era (even before). We had even high level media & business owners writting material against Jews from Ford to Disney. It was "in".
Comparing Jews today (with Israel existing) and saying things are better is a false comparison because Israel is PART OF that equasion of how Jews do worldwide.
rulllar 3 years ago
"We had even high level media & business owners writting material against Jews from Ford to Disney. It was "in"."
Anti-Semitism existed in the USA and still does. But the only reason Israel survives right now is because of US foreign policy.
Israelis suffer from a siege mentality. At least Jews in the USA, don't feel they have to jump into the nearest bunker, or get their guns, at any moment. Israel has created more problems than it's solved. Young Israelis aren't even particularly Jewish.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
My point was anti-semitism before Israel's creation was far far worse in the US than post Israels creation. Israel led to a world-change in all Jews and relations with Jews for many reasons - many of which have made things far better than before, certainly in the west. Until Israel's creation Jews worldwide were generally defeatist to the attacks against them, since Israel they have regained pride and self-determination which helped them rise in the US and take down anti-semitism rates.
rulllar 3 years ago
Israel too has been "swept by the anti-semitic tide". It is no haven at all. In Petach Tikvah, a gang of *ISRAELI* neo-Nazis have gone around and beaten up Jews and desecrated synagogues. Beggars belief, but it happened.
I don't think it has reduced anti-Jewish feeling in the US, and in other parts of the world, especially Arab ones, it has increased it. Jewish Arab families who lived in harmony with Gentile Arabs for years suddenly found themselves under attack after the creation of Israel.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
it is utterly pointless to make theoretical assumptions as you have, when the evidence goes against it, and when clearly you cannot make assumptions that you have because you simply pluck israel out of the equasion and leave everything else the same... when everything else was completely different until israel's creation led to mental, cultural and physical changes in jews worldwide. So I strongly feel your assertions are based on false logic as you oversimplify bigtime in your equasions.
rulllar 3 years ago
and look at what the started Zionism. Herzl originally thought cultural assimilation was the answer, but he saw that even culturally loca Jews were being harrased and blamed for things they never did. Thats when he realized this wasn't about the seige mentality you just brought up, nor about religious aspects, but a much more basic hatred.
Since Israel's creation anti-semitism is down bigtime in the west. Respect for rights of Jews to live in peace is much much higher than anytime b4 israel.
rulllar 3 years ago
But it hasn't worked has it? Not only are all Israelis on permanent yellow alert from military attack, they now have citizens who are neo-Nazis!
This is without mentioning the pretty obvious racism amongst Jews. Attempts have been made to rectify this, but East Europeans are on top, and blacks and Arabs at the bottom. This is because Judaism is a religion, not a people. Falashas and Lithuanians in Israel have nothing in common other than some ceremonies and circumcision.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
We'll continue disagree on the anti-semitism issue. I think the anti-semitism today with the exception of the arab world is on a different league to that 6 decades ago.
As for internal Israeli problems - You can call it a religion but any religious Jew will reject your call. So you can use whatever word you want, it doesn't make it true. Further, Israel has had an iranian president, defense minister, finance minister moroccan defense minister only in the past few years. all top positions
rulllar 3 years ago
"I think the anti-semitism today with the exception of the arab world is on a different league to that 6 decades ago."
That's because people are aware of the horrors of Nazism, through film and books, not because of the state of Israel.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
You are still doing something wrong... you are saying "take everything as it is, pluck out Israel today and see how much nicer the arabs are to Jews" (not in those words of course). Thats such a massive overgeneralization that you cannot hope to factor in all the differences.. so i don't know why you think you are equiped to do so.
rulllar 3 years ago
Israel has actually GENERATED anti-Jewish feeling, particularly in North Africa and the Middle East. What kind of "haven" puts refugees back into danger?
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
no, the concept of any Jewish self-rule in predominantely Jewish areas of anywhere in the Arab world has generated that. There have been a number of massacres in history relating to Jews 'getting too big' in arab lands which I've mentioned previously. Remember that Jews were being killed in Iraq, Palestine and others decades before Israel's creation. To say Israel began this is a cop out to try to use ignorance of most people to demonstrate a point.
rulllar 3 years ago
so while there have not been sephardic prime ministers, to say thats absolute proof when all other top jobs have been filled mizrahi jews is a very very weak case. Shas are also a middle eastern Haredi party and they dictated when elections will be held last 4 gov's!
In normal society - Ashkenazi Jews generally brought greater finances and education level so did better. Ethiopians lowest western education and finances... the inequalities have lessened but still exist, just like everywhere else
rulllar 3 years ago
There is still a racial pecking order in Israeli society. These people have little in common but a few religous ceremonies. By the same token, Samoans and Botswanans are the same race, because most are Christian.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
Falashas are an exception for a variety of reasons, but similarly they are insignificant in terms of the population of Israel. A few thousand from a few million.
The overwelming majority - (of the Jews) are distant cousins.
You constantly take VERY small examples and turn it in to a "case". It's very non-academic to do that (take a very small example and use it to make it appear as if it's a massive number or a massive proof of something).
rulllar 3 years ago
"The overwelming majority - (of the Jews) are distant cousins."
So are most Europeans, all natives of the Americas, and probably everyone else. I hear the natives of the Americas are descended from something like 20 individuals.
Some of the Jews left the area well over 2000 years ago. The ones that remained mostly converted & the ones who left often intermarried. Back 2000 years ago, most of the population of the world would be in a completely different place. Judaism is a religion.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
Thats different. Jews of the middle east and Jews of Europe have genetic traits in common not common to europeans or arabs... so the claim that they are virtually unrelated is untrue.. sorry, but genetic tests prove more than your claims.
rulllar 3 years ago
No, it's not different. Especially as many Arabs in Palestine come from Jewish roots anyway.
All mankind are cousins, if you go back far enough. To state otherwise is actually a form of racism.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
You are making a incorrect interpretation of what I said. I was discussing in relative near-term (e.g. since the old kingdoms destruction by the romans and many Jews going in to exile). I did not mean "lets go to the origins of the race of the human beings".
rulllar 3 years ago
What you are saying is actually racist nonsense. Not only are we all related, but if you go back hundreds of years millions of us are.
Jews and Gentiles have ALWAYS intermarried. They were even intermarrying within the Holy Land. Look at the Bible, even there people convert to Judaism. And as I keep reminding you, Palestinian Arabs are descendants of Jews in most cases. They didn't just wander in.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
it's not racist nonsense.. it's just genetic testing. I didn't say it covers 100% of Jews because yes there were converts. And there was some intermarriage... but most Jews can trace themselves back to those days.
Why do you keep ignoring that concept of "most" or "vast majority of".
You are yet to supply evidence that most Palestinains are converts. Jews lived all over arab lands and many not converted... Unlikely they'd simply massconvert in Palestine alone as you imply.
rulllar 3 years ago
Gene testing's no basis 4 a state, & even if it was, you'd find Jews & Gentiles have ALWAYS intermarried. There were no ethnic purity laws back then, & both groups were better for it.
Most Jews converted. Where do you think the large medieval Jewry of Italy went to?
Anyhow, Judaism is still a religion. Arabs and Japanese with no recent Jewish ancestry can become Jews, just as they can become Christians/Buddhists/Jains... Likewise Jews can go and become members of any religion they care for
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
This discussion is becoming a neverending repetition. I've said my thoughts. I didn't say genetic testing should ever be a reason for a state in any way or form.. you keep altering what I say to mean something else.
In any case I can do little more than again repeat myself in order for you to again misrepresent what I say which for some reason you keep doing.
Take care. It was interesting but there's not much more to say I feel.
rulllar 3 years ago
Maybe that's because you're only looking at one side of the story. Zionism has only achieved one thing, and that is reuniting Jews with the places most associated with their religion. However, it has come at a massive price, and is not the rosy "land without people for a people without land". Even "making the desert bloom" is coming to an end, as Israel realises it only has so much water to sprinkle on the Negev...
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
c'mon! Even making the desert bloom is coming to an end? Thats not true. While the large scale projects have scaled back and there have been a few setbacks, I see every time i'm there new parks and things constructed on what was once a big dune. You only have to use your eyes for a few minutes while there to see the changes.
In any case I've already stated I think you are very wrong on the issue of Judaism today vs before Israel. But your opinion, your choice.
rulllar 3 years ago
Have you seen Kinneret recently? That's where the water for the Negev is coming from. It's way below the level it was.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
i was there a month ago.
Yes it is below that level. So is the dead sea (although thats part-west bank part-Jordan too). But a lake going down doesn't prove that parts of the negev arn't less desert-based. The kinneret area is also green, it's no desert.
But Israel is starting to deal with low-rainfall now by building sea-water purification systems. It takes time but it's on it's way.
rulllar 3 years ago
You do have serious water problems.
Kinneret (the Sea of Galilee to most of the world) is being used to water the Negev. That area is not (yet) desert, but the simple fact is that Israel may well face environmental collapse within the next fifty years as well (probably along with much of California, Arizona/Nevada and Australia). Combined with the fact that the region is unstable, it is not much of a haven at all.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
You don't think in the next 10-15 years ISrael can easily build several massive sea-water purification systems? There's already one off ashkelon. But in any case... this is bad reasoning to try to unjustify Israel's creation by saying that now, 60 years on, it faces water problems which is a worldwide phenomenon.
I'm in the UK and we have SOME water problems.. not to Israel's situation but it's more and more every year.
rulllar 3 years ago
England has water problems - that's why it drowns Welsh villages. Scotland doesn't.
But the point is, that Israel, like the south west USA, most of Australia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Chad etc is going to have MAJOR problems soon. Ditto Central Asia which still suffers from desertification caused by Soviet irrigation plans.
Will Kinneret (Sea of Galilee) become the next Aral Sea?
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
you cannot make an argument about the rights and wrong of 60 years ago based on 2008's strategic situation. It makes no sense. In any case, when in Israel, I feel far far safer walking around than I do in the UK. I met americans in Israel who said they want to move here because they've never felt safer.. you can repeat your points over and over.. but on the ground, many people (not all, but many) feel the difference.
rulllar 3 years ago
Yes you can. The refugee camps STILL exist. The Israelis still complain (rightly) about the Holocaust. It is not ancient history, but recent history.
"I met americans in Israel who said they want to move here because they've never felt safer."
To be frank, the Americans that I've met in Israel have tended to be loonies. There is absolutely nothing in Israel that they couldn't get by moving somewhere else in the USA.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
Next you'll say it's racist to say that most arabs have certain genetic traits that link them (in genetic traits from their history) to each other more than to Japanese.
rulllar 3 years ago
Erm, can I firstly point out that many Arabs are Jewish?! Secondly, Arabs are descended from a variety of peoples, because their identity is based mostly on language. Yemenis and Moroccans come from very different stock. Egyptians and Lebanese all descend from peoples who became Arabised.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
there is no racial pecking order.
There are inequalities in the reality of the economic situations (and therefore opportunities) of different groups for historic reasons, and cultural differences have, here and there, caused differences, but you take that as a "racist superiority complex" is laughable. Go to Israel you'll see'm all playing together, working together, laughing together even with some socio-economic inequalities.
Continue your weird studies you'll see "pecking orders".
rulllar 3 years ago
There certainly is. I saw it with my own eyes. I was in Israel for a while myself.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
well then you must have some funny sight. Judging by your method of discussing the topic it seems to me IF you were there (which I am skeptical) than you were looking for signs to connect your dots and found them.
The simple fact is less educated immigrants or those who came as refugees were generally sent to developing towns that are still underdeveloped and so problems sometimes cover certain groups... but again, you manipulate true problems to cause racial tensions, thats a bad argument.
rulllar 3 years ago
"Judging by your method of discussing the topic it seems to me IF you were there (which I am skeptical) than you were looking for signs to connect your dots and found them."
Wrong. I was actually very pro-Israel, but arriving there, I was not impressed by what I saw. Jews prosper better in the USA, Australia etc than in Israel.
The Yemeni quarters were the worst Jewish sections I saw.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
When was this 30 years ago during the hyperinflation? Jews prosper more in the USA? Again, you make an illogical assumption that somehow you can just look at American Jews as if it's unrelated to Israel. Or australia or whatever.
Jewish progress in those countries is partially related to Israel's existence. Your interpretaion that Israel can be blamed for the bad on Jews but not anything for the good is simply incorrect logic. It simply makes no sense.
rulllar 3 years ago
everything you've been saying is stereotypes and overblown miniture examples to make them appear as very very significant. Also you take cases of problems that exist in every single society and use that it exists in Israel as "proof" of something.
It's a very very very hypocritical, bias case and spending 15 minutes in Israel disproves 50% of what you said. Spending a further few days, disproves the other 50% and shows how clearly you manipulated real problems to make them something else.
rulllar 3 years ago
No, these are not stereotypes. Israel is no solution. It is on permanent yellow alert, and for that reason is no safe haven for anyone.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
look at any pre-Israel leaders, media. Compare it to post-Israel. You'll see the difference. Saying it hasn't helped solve the problems Jews face (although of course there are still many many problems) is a very arrogant thing to say. You completely oversimplify, not provide facts, then make a conclusion anyway. I don't see how that makes sense.
rulllar 3 years ago
What would have happened (unless the Nazis had come along) would have been that most Jews in Europe would have stopped being religious. Like the Christians. Synagogues would have shut down from lack of interest, like the churches. Religion was the main problem. Remove the religion, and you would have removed almost all the prejudice.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
Again you miss the point. The reasons for Herzl coming up with the idea of creating a state for the persecuted Jews WAS EXACTLY BECAUSE NON-RELIGIOUS, CULTURALLY INTEGRATED JEWS were falsly accused of crimes, attacked. So your point is utterly false.
rulllar 3 years ago
not trying to be confrontational, just responding.
rulllar 3 years ago
What the hell ever you evil bastard the fact of the matter is you invaded a sovereign nation, terrorized the people with murder until they ran for their lives, some probobly not even aware what was happening, rolled in their with all of our country's (America) equipment, against a nation without the capability to even defend itself against an attack like that, UNPROVOKED BY THE ARABS.
Your leaders and terrorist soldiers who invaded set mankind back a hundred years and set up armaggeddon.
GodSaveThePres 3 years ago
america's equipment? someone doesn't know their history. America refused to arm israel at the time. Also, unprovoked? Israel declared in 1948. Do you know why the Haganah (the militia that became the Israeli army) was in action? Cos of Arab attacks on Jewish farmers. 1929 Massacre, 1936 massacre, long before Israel, so your attacks on me fall on deaf ears since the facts tell a better much more complex reality-based story than your personalized hate-attacks on me.
rulllar 3 years ago
"Arab attacks on Jewish farmers"
This has never been a one way process.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
I never said it was. I was discussing the creation of the Haganah, which did not exist until there was a need for defense from attackers (haganah means defense in hebrew).
The Haganah were firstly locals (E.g. farmers, young people) whose orders at first were just to guard livestock, farms, farmers at night from attack.
It got so bad they eventually became the IDF.
The fact that it's not a one-way street doesn't mean I cannot bring up it's original reason for existing.
rulllar 3 years ago
"The Haganah were firstly locals (E.g. farmers, young people) whose orders at first were just to guard livestock, farms, farmers at night from attack."
Vigilante-ism always ends in tears.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
often it does, as we see from what the arab vigilantism against Jewish farmers, villagers has resulted in causing this massive seperation of the two people.
To attack Haganah self-defense (that you rephrase as vigilantism to try to negatively portray it), without noting the causes (which was true non-justice-based vigilantism), smells of hypocracy.
rulllar 3 years ago
Vigilantes always believe themselves to be in the right, and they often have genuine grievances. However, they often result in vendetta, which is exactly what you have in the Holy Land. Reprisal upon reprisal.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
thats quite an interpretation. In any case vigilantes means what? The Jewish farmers should've depended on teh British who never came to their aid? So defending their farms in your view here is vigilantism? You need to explain this point more clearly. Would a more logical policy have been to just do nothing and allow Arabs to kill them/burn their crops?
rulllar 3 years ago
Vigilantes are people who either defend themselves or take revenge for perceived wrongs, unofficially, and not as part of the state armed forces, police etc. Sometimes their grievances are real, but because they act unofficially and through emotion, they invariably worsen a situation or kill the wrong people.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
godsavethepres - please also tell me if "I" (as you said) invaded a sovereign nation (Palestine) then where was their UN seat? Who was their president/prime minister? What is their official army name? Where was their parliament and how many members did it have?
You have no answers as there was no sovereign nation there you deceiver. It was a set of families and clans clashing with a racist hitler supporting mufti at the top. No country, just a set of groups.
rulllar 3 years ago
hey ruller thank for putting your time into this it is important the arabs will understand the propoganda they were feeding themselves.
bengold44 3 years ago
They generally do not stop believing the lies they were taught but it's important to always try.
rulllar 3 years ago
what iou talking about
scentciti 3 years ago
The idea of country, president started after European Colonization. Before that, there no such thing as country, it was Empires , Palestine was under British, called British Mandate of Palestine (NOT Israel), before that it was Ottoman nation Palestine, before that it was under Arabs and before that all the way to 100AD (Jewish-Roman war), it was still called Palestina. From 100AD, it belonged to Palestinians.
alifbah0 3 years ago
All the Gas Chambers of Holocaust were in Europe, NOT a single was in Palestine, yet Israel was created on Palestine by wiping them out. Israel should have been created in European regions which had the "Gas Chambers", not in Palestine. The Germans should pay price of Holocaust, not Palestinians.
alifbah0 3 years ago
As for the holocaust - your assumption is false. Firstly the idea for Israel is a response to anti-semitism which existed greatly in the arab world. There were no mass exterminations but periods of massmurder of Jews existed, and descrimination existed although not to the extent of europe. Secondly most zionists originally felt the need to be in their homeland, the support for a seperate nation mostly came from arab attacks on people who moved created a self-defense reaction that led to today.
rulllar 3 years ago
anti-semitism in arab world started mostly after Zionist movement in 1890's. Before that Arabs and Jews lived side by side in relative peace (ignoring exceptions). Otherwise, you wouldn't have greatest Jewish Rabbi Maimonides or Yahudi Halevy (Jewish Poet) or many other Jewish scholars emerging under Arabs.
As I said, there were no Gas Chambers in Palestine or in Arab Lands, if someone should pay price for Holocaust, it should be the Germans or Europeans not Arabs.
alifbah0 3 years ago
you can only be anti somebody if this person had hurt you. there is no anti antisemitism in the Muslim world ,because other religion are protected, and history prove that. it is more adequate to talk about anti zionism, this racist colonialist movement started by the Ashkenazies in europe.
johnh1922 3 years ago
really John? Is that right? No antisemitism in the Arab world? Funny. A new book exactly on the issue of Arab antisemitism throughout the centuries is just about to be released in a few weeks. Maybe you should read it before you regurgetate things you've been taught.
rulllar 3 years ago
johnh - In the ninth century, Baghdad's Caliph al-Mutawakkil designated a yellow badge for Jews (ring a bell of nazism).
1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants
1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive
I can list also DECREES to mass-destroy synagogues and other massmurders throughout those centuries. Your claim was false
rulllar 3 years ago
Do you realize you are picking some random atrocities from here and there. I can list countless cases where Muslims protected the Jews from countless times. I will list some here:
On 638AD, with the conquest of Jerusalem by Muslim Caliph Omar (r.a), the Jews were again allowed to enter Jerusalem after 400 yrs of expulsion by the Byzantines.
alifbah0 3 years ago
In 711, the Muslims Moors conquered nearly all of the Iberian Peninsula. Spain flourished under Muslim rule. The era is called the "Golden Age" of Jews in Spain.
During this periodm Hebrew poetry and literature flourished. Among the early Hebraists of the time were Yehudah HaLevi who became known as one of the first great Hebrew poets, and Menahem ben Saruq who compiled the first ever Hebrew dictionary.
alifbah0 3 years ago
In 1492, after the collapse of Islamic Spain, 200,000 Sephardi Jews were expelled. They were all welcomed with open arms under the Muslim Turks.
In 1493, only one year after their expulsion from Spain, David & Samuel ibn Nahmias established the First Hebrew printing press in Istanbul under Islamic Empire.
alifbah0 3 years ago
In the words of Uri Avnery:-
"THERE IS no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together ... That was, indeed, the Golden Age."
alifbah0 3 years ago
"Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith."
The article is titled 'Muhammads Sword' written by Israeli Jewish Uri Avnery.
alifbah0 3 years ago
In any case Uri Avnery is not exactly a religious man nor is he an academic historian. He leads the extreme gush shalom movement and was formally a journalist. As I said as a former MK, and elder member of the state, but to quote him (the one who covers up arab aggresison against ISrael) in an attempt to cover up middle eastern anti-semitism long before zionism is not credible.
rulllar 3 years ago
* typo correction (part missed out): as I said -he may have been influencial- as a former MK....
rulllar 3 years ago
Even recent history, entire jewish communities in libya were massacred in the 18th century, in Algiers hundreds killed over several attacks, in Damascus in 1840 there were pogroms against Jews - which spread THROUGHOUT the muslim world over the decade after. In 1839 in today's Iran a mob broke in to the Jewish quarter of Meshed and burnt and destroyed everything - only stopped by Jews converting in the end... these are signs of a deeper hate, not random instances. No excuse of zionism then.
rulllar 3 years ago
in Algeria , after living in prosperity for hundreds of years and independence in education , courts , business.jews sided with the French occupying forces. they denied their identity, and betrayed the Algerians for privileges in Decree Cremieux,engaged in the French army to torture and murder the Algerians. the jews were against the algerian liberation army, the self determination referendum for in dependence.the jews traitors lost their right to stay in an independent Algeria.
johnh1922 3 years ago
The French invaded Algiers in 1830. So you are saying that the Jews were massacred for joining the french after the invasion?
Algeirs, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830 with smaller instances not mentioned. Only 1 massacre happened the same year as the actual invasion (by the way the french didn't have full real control by end of 1830, so couldn't of been what you mentioned since Algerian Jews weren't french yet).
Your point is again utterly misleading.
rulllar 3 years ago
Uri Avnery - I didn't realize you'd go as far as getting the most pro-arab Israeli to try to convince me.
Uri Avnery wants Israel deconstructed. He was writing pamphlets of support for the Arab regimes at the time that those regimes were calling for rivers of blood of Jews in the late 40's... how exactly can you quote him to me and call him credible? He might've been influencial in the 50's, 60's, but his ability to ignore arab regime threats & actionss are incrediable.
rulllar 3 years ago
In any case the past is in the past. The point is that a lot of the case against Israel is based on the notion that everything was great until some european Jews came and destroyed it all. Thats an utter lie and a completely rape of historical events. Records show arabs flocked to the Jobs created by Jewish-led enterprise. The problems began when a few locals began to massmurder Jews as in the times before, except this time it was to hurt them 100 fold instead of be allowed to happen.
rulllar 3 years ago
Palestine is one of the oldest populated regions on the planet with or without the jews. local areb jews lived in it with muslims and christians the problem started when the zionists started conspiring to establish a home land for the jews, excluding the other local groups. the declaration was made in a letter from Arthur James Balfour (Foreign Secretary) to Lord Rothschild, jew leader, for transmission to the Zionist Federation. the conspiracy started way before the real events.
johnh1922 3 years ago
again you lie, Even in 1919 an agreement was signed between Weizmann (as rep of the zionist movement) and King Faisal - leader of the popular arab uprising for Arab liberation from turkey that came from Mecca & media that later made him king of syria & iraq before the western powers overthrew him.
That agreement was to have a Jewish state with minorities. You clearly cannot read all of history, but only the side that fits your viewpoint.
Get a good history book, not your partial one.
rulllar 3 years ago
ignorant, read the balfour declaration, liar. u said: "excluding the other local groups" with Balfour as proof... Joker. go read the Balfour declaration. IT CLEARLY SAYS: "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-jewish communities in palestine ".
Less cut and paste knowledge please. Go learn some history and come back when you actually know something. You clearly didn't even know what Balfour said in the letter.
rulllar 3 years ago
the zionist jews ,ever since the beginning of their movement, for a so called home land ,with Herzl in the 19th century , have one objective . to become a majority in Palestine or why not evict all the non jews , it is the "promised land" after all and we are "the chosen people".
johnh1922 3 years ago
waw, this is what you've come down to? No more facts. The chosen people? The chosen people is a covonent with god to do his commandments (mitzvot), not any superiority.
In any case Herzl advocated it as a solution to anti-semitism, not for superiorities sake so 1896 zionism has nothing to do with your claim.
I knew once you stopped cutting and pasting the conversation would dumb down. And I note that you have failed to respond to any of my points...
but down to "chosen people" stuff? heh.
rulllar 3 years ago
fact about the zionist jew occupation can be found in books, where you can find the numbers. Noam Chomsky ,fate full triangle is one. more the Palestinians ,under british occupation, never accepted the monstrous organized immigration of the jew to change the demographic of the holy land. the referendum in early 1920's was very clear and the demonstration few years after
is another fact.
johnh1922 3 years ago
just pasting a full book? More cut and paste. You clearly never even read Balfour you expect me to believe you've read Chomsky? not quite.
rulllar 3 years ago
In any case, Faisal who led and represented the arabs of all the middle east and had widespread support signed MORE THAN todays Israel (inc west bank and gaza) to the Jews by 1919. You have no answer to that. Also The partition plan was majority Jews = Israel, Majority arab = arabs. No harm would've been if they accepted Jews ruling themselves in majority-Jewish areas. That was the whole point of the partition.
you have no leg to stand on with those aspects. The biggest Arab leader signed.
rulllar 3 years ago
alif - on the picking random.. yes, i picked a few notables (although the list is much bigger). The point is that it was not perfectly safe for Jews. THOUSANDS were killed here, thousands were killed there, hundreds here, hundreds there... ALL THROUGHOUT the Islamic empires history. So the 'golden age' claim is not true in the sense you guys portray, that was my point to john and yourself. A few decades of "reasonable" good times followed by a massacre is not a TRUE "golden age".
rulllar 3 years ago
Nice of you to mention Maimonides... you should real his writings on how Muslims treated Jews. One interesting letter discusses how nobody has treated the Jews worse than the Muslims. I'm glad you brought him up and we had this discussion.
P.S. he was around during the so-called "golden age" of ISlam, so when he wrote that, things were 'at their best'.
rulllar 3 years ago
alif - further to my last comment on maimonides, i dug up the quote (well, one translation of it, there are several all saying the same thing in slightly different translations): The nation of Ishmael, which harms us and decrees laws against us . . . as never any people did which rose up against Israel, harms us, humiliates us, and hates us so much as they [Ishmael] do.
So again, nice of you to open up oppertunities for discussion. I'll await for you to call this a fake.
rulllar 3 years ago
I need some time to verify the credibility of this statement. However, it was Maimonides on his 'Iggeret Teman' (Epistole to Yemen) wrote that its OK for a Jew to pray inside a Mosque if he cannot find a Synagogue, because Muslims are not Idol worshipers.
alifbah0 3 years ago
By the way, the Arabs are Semites (like the Maltese etc), and anti-Jewishness is probably a more appropriate term here.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
no. It is not a more appropriate term. Anti-semitism has been coined in English to refer to attacks on Jews. Whether or not anti-semitism covers arabs doesn't take away from it's common-use purpose.
rulllar 3 years ago
It certainly is. The ARABS ARE SEMITES WITH A SEMITIC LANGUAGE AND MORE SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND CULTURE THAN MOST JEWS.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
look at the overwelming majority of the usage of the word 'anti-semitic' as spoken in English, even in German.
It has been used to refer to those who hate Jews 100+ years.
Since it's been used like that for decades, and it's usage to refer to Arabs is new and mainly by people who attack Israel defending those views by saying "I'm semitic", my, common definition, of Jews, is fine.
you are telling me I cannot use a word thats had a certain definition for over a century... get a better case!
rulllar 3 years ago
Yes, and "Celtic" football club is named after Irish people, although it could equally refer to Welsh, Scots, Cornish, Manx, Bretons, Gauls etc.
Arabs are Semites. It is ignorance not to claim that they are. Hence I prefer the term anti-Jewishness. It is more accurate.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
anti-semitism has meant mostly Jews for 100 years. A football club "named after" is not the same as "this word was more or less invented and exclusively used for this purpose".
VERY different comparisons.
You are telling me it's wrong of me to use the word in the same context as it's earliest usages all the way to today.
More or less accurate is mental, not linguistic. Anti-semitic against Jews is a true (and most used) meaning of the word, so it's perfectly accurate to use it like that.
rulllar 3 years ago
Semitic originally refers to the sons of Shem. Which included the Hebrews, the Phoenecians and Arabs. Anti-Jewish behaviour is anti-Semitic, but so is anti-Arab behaviour. Something which may prove uncomfortable for some.
BobMonkfish 3 years ago
it doesn't prove uncomfortable for me at all. You are the one who wanted to manipulate it so that anti-semitic cannot include an arab since an arab is semitic. You began this whole pointless point and now you say I might be uncomfortable. I know what semitic means very well. My point was that it's perfectly fine to use anti-semitic to mean anti-jewish since thats it's historic usage of that word!! I don't see what your problem is.
rulllar 3 years ago
the zionist always try to rewrite history. their movement was founded by Hetzel in eastern Europe in the 2nd half of 19th century because of the pogroms in europe and russia. the inquisition 15th century where the jews found refuge in the Muslim north Africa and ottomans and were very well received.
but for a zionist , a good reception is not good enough. even if they were a minority they want to be crowned as the kings and princess.
johnh1922 3 years ago
zionst try to rewrite history? Actually in Israel people are taught that things were better with the Arabs.
However it is you who rewrites history. Better from completely aweful does not mean good. Better than inquision does not mean treated equally. Your assertion (which is commonplace in the anti-israeli community) that somehow "better than europe" = really well treated is absolutely nonsense. Also Middle eastern Jews are the ones who elect the right-wing likud party, not the ashkenazi.
rulllar 3 years ago
oh P.S. you said: "Israel was created on Palestine by wiping them out". Nobody was wiped out. You might need a dictionary to look up "wiped out". Clearly at the time there were an estimated 1.2m arabs (or called arabs by badly made estimates), 400-600K left (with a few cases of forced out), and the rest lived in Gaza/West bank already.
So where is this "wiped out"? How could they be wiped out if so few were killed? You need to use words more carefully and not be overeager to falsely slander.
rulllar 3 years ago
Read the book 'Ethnic cleansing of Palestine' by Ilan Pape, an Israeli Jewish Historian of Haifa University, he gave all the details of how the ethnic cleansing was carried out on the Palestinians.
alifbah0 3 years ago 2
pape has been criticized strongly for his trusting of secondary facts and personal stories above primary facts. His interpretationh has also been critized strongly by fellow historians for being a bit too kind in the sense that he uses limited facts to "prove" his case that goes far beyond what his facts demonstrate. But i'm guessing you have no qualms with that since he agrees with you.
His "Plan Daled" expose has NEVER been proven, yet he repeats it over and over. Some historian u trust.
rulllar 3 years ago
the zionists brought death and destruction to the holy land. when the Muslims took Jerusalem from the Christian it was jews free. the place of the dome of the rock was a roman garbage dump. the Muslims cleaned up and restore the holy places also allowed the jews to the city.
at the present, the zionists are destroying the foundation of the dome of the rock and exiling the arab ( muslim & christain alike) population.
God destroyed the jewish temples twice because of Idolatry practices..what more
johnh1922 3 years ago
John - zionists brought death? destruction? Check the facts. You guys seem completely incapable of anything beyond verbal diarrhea and regurgetation. All British reports said that thanks to Zionist enterprise arabs flocked from all over the region consistantly to find work. How can things be worse if everyone wants to go there?
Dome of the rock? Actually the Muslims complained about the foundations of the Al Aqsa mosque - get your facts right, but even then it's far from all foundations u liar
rulllar 3 years ago
so stop lying about the foundations (e.g. more regurgetation), stop making mistakes in your regurgetations and get a few facts out instead of repeating long worn out stereotypes about golden age and racist ideology. It's extremely worn out and disproven by history.
Oh wait, zionists makes up history don't they? So me correcting all your mistakes and regurgetations (lack of self thought) is probably just lies. Don't worry, i'm sure you sleep better simply ignoring the truth by calling it a lie.
rulllar 3 years ago
Your case is false. You are calling an area a nation. Yorkshire is part of the United Kingdom, it is not a nation/kingdom. Palestine is a name made up by Roman imperialists. Arabs were not even in the region until many 100's of years later. In any case at time of Israel's creation 40% of Palestinians were Jewish/Beduin/Druze/Arabs who are all today Israeli, so it was a name change, not a population change from a year before israel's creation to israel's creation.
rulllar 3 years ago
As I said it was not a nation even in the classical sense that you try to portray. The idea of a nation is achieved via a shared heritage, history, language (amongst other things). Palestinians were a number of unconnected factions. By 1948 it was 33% Jews of shared language & self rule, a number of random greeks, armenians, beduins, druze circassians, etc. Your grouping them (you havn't said so, but based on your description) as simply some connected arab nation is simply false for 1948.
rulllar 3 years ago
Exactly rullar, the groups that you displaced illegally with terrorists tactics. its inconsequential how much of an establishment they had prior-ottoman empire. you jews will say anything to justify your evil
GodSaveThePres 3 years ago
that all you have to reply with? It's clear you have no reply and you just wish to continue projecting your hate. It's inconsequencial? Arabs rushed in massive numbers to "Palestine" during the british mandate. Yet you count them as native arabs it seems from your phrasing. That means they are consequencial, but the Jews are not.
And i'm the one who misreads history? also: "you Jews"? Another racist slur by an anti-israeli. Don't worry, it's no secret most anti-israelis are racist.
rulllar 3 years ago
God Bless the good people of Palestine.
feherman86 3 years ago 7
Can't wait!
ogjimkenobi 3 years ago 3