West Asia News and Discussions

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 09 Jun 2010 05:28

well thats a chicken and egg

but you can forget right to return - ain't happening

and while I am against the settlements and feel sorry for some of the arabs, I do find it harder to ask the Israelis to turn over East jerusalem.

Same with Golan.

But before we get anywhere near Jerusalem - WB and Jordan need to be merged and made into a Palestinian state. Gaza can fold back to Egypt.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 09 Jun 2010 05:58

Its simple , any Islamic claim , case or dispute ought to be judge by our own centuries long experience with islamists. We know the terms, techniques, methods and modus operandi of these peculiar people as applied on us in past . One can lie in the argument but experience is like self evident truth. As Reverened Jesse Jackson said , no one can no deny this.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 09 Jun 2010 08:39

Turkey Goes From Pliable Ally to Thorn for U.S.

Clearly Erdogan is making a play for leadership of the Islamic world. This is following Turkey's failure to get admission to EU, and following the deposing of the secular Kemalist military by Ergenekon. He's just trying to seal himself in place, by rallying the Muslim street to his side.

Once he is strong enough, he may as well do what Zia did, and Islamize the military and the judiciary, in order to really keep a lock on power. There's no reason for him not to.

In this kind of war for power, there's no place for losers, so the only way he can ensure his future is by entrenching Islamism. He's already burning his bridges with the secular West, so there's no real need to keep up the secular charade forever. All he has to do is take the opportunity to Islamize the remaining institutions of the country, and he won't have to worry about being dislodged.

Iran is on the waning end of its Islamic revolution - but Turkey could be on the verge of starting its Islamist era.

If you're going to be the kind of leader Turkey has been in its pre-WW1 past, you'll need nukes - so the question is, will Turkey go for them?

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 09 Jun 2010 09:46

Turkish Catholic Bishop Beheaded?

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/turki ... ce/631427/

http://www.news24.com/World/News/Turkis ... d-20100608

http://translate.google.com/translate?j ... l=de&tl=en

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Funeral- ... 18612.html

Strange - apparently his driver went crazy, but that's certainly a noteworthy way to kill somebody. Beheading isn't exactly a routine form of murder. In some countries, it has religious connotations. If a killer is shouting 'Allahu Akbar' - that's not something to be dismissed.

I'm not sure what to believe, here. We'll have to wait until more facts come out.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 09 Jun 2010 10:05

Turkey Bans Google

This is a follow-up to their longstanding ban on Youtube

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 09 Jun 2010 10:25

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=177902

Israel, which has eyes and ears on the ground knows the writing is on the wall...

quote by Israeli FM:

... it was a “mistake” to think that it was possible to change Turkey’s attitude toward Israel through any gesture or efforts, since the negative change in Ankara reflected a strategic change by the Turkish leadership stemming from deep shifts in Turkish society.

It is exactly the same message MMS and WKKs have to learn as re Pakbarians....what you do does not matter...bending over backwards is no solution...

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 09 Jun 2010 11:48

shyamd wrote: Point 1 - No, that is tantamount to accepting the annexation of the lands, and voids resolution 242, so what is Israel willing to give up or give?

Shyam I will not reply to the rest of your post because frankly, its meaningless and desperate attempts at spinning the basics

I just want ti take one such example the above

By what lahori logic is accepting the state if Israel tantamount to accepting its borders?

By that logic either India accepts all Chinese claims or has no contact?

And dont give me the BS about de facto -- the real fact is all very well captured in many sources including the wiki link. Despite Israels best efforts the Arabs will not give them recoginiztion but instead fool around with nonsense like some progress.

We know about such progresses.

Why should Israel return to 67 borders? Only because the Arabs lost, they wanted to destroy Israel, would they be ok with return if Israel if Israel had lost?

These guys dont want peace; they want destruction of Israel -- if they want peace they can always follow the very basic sense of truth and justice. Their approach is same as Pakistan "You want peace, you do as we tell you"

And yes -- it is up to Arabs to make amends; they have always been the chief starters of violence and other such despicable acts -- ALWAYS.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Jun 2010 12:46

Was Israel a victim of a Hamas trick?This may be the case says this report,where the Israeli's were duped into believing that the boat attacked was carrying lethal cargo and Hamas activists.It could explain why the israeli's were so heavy-handed with the Marmara alone,as if they had prior knowledge about some of the occupants.

Excerpt:

Deadly games in the Middle East: Hamas, Israel and the war for hearts
The real victor in the recent crisis involving the raid on a Turkish ship is Iran
By Andre Gerolymatos, Special to the Sun June 8, 2010 The recent crisis involving Israel and Hamas at first glance appears to be part of the endless cycle of violence that has doomed the region to perpetual conflict. It's certainly not conventional warfare, although the Middle East has had its share, but a type of war that is fought mostly in the shadows with only its outcome making it to the light of day.

Ordinarily six ships trying to break the Israeli embargo of Gaza would not cause much of a stir in the capitals of the world. But when Israeli commandos descend from helicopters onto small ships carrying milk and bread, medicine, etc., and kill nine of the volunteers, the story dominates all news cycles.

Shock and consternation are the results of this tragic event as both friends and enemies of Israel try to understand why such a terrible event took place.

Yet, the Israeli political-military establishment, not to mention the formidable intelligence community, is surely a lot more careful than to sanction such a thoughtless attack, particularly against a ship belonging to Turkey, Israel's only Muslim ally.

Perhaps the best means of understanding the situation is to evaluate who benefits. The Israelis have maintained the embargo and they have paid a heavy price for the short-term satisfaction of preventing aid to the people of Gaza. As a result, Israel is on the verge of becoming a pariah state to be shunned by the international community. Indeed, there is considerable pressure from the European Union along with a host of countries that are demanding that the Israelis end the embargo. Even the United States and Canada have had to state

Remarkably, Hamas has managed to reinvent itself from a terrorist organization to a quasi-governing

body in Gaza and is building momentum to be recognized as a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. However, Hamas has strong links to Iran and although it has toned down its suicide bombing campaign, it continues to find creative ways of killing Israelis.

their concerns, albeit subdued, over the incident and have recommended that an independent Israeli commission investigate the incident.

Undoubtedly Hamas has scored a major public relations victory and with it has achieved a greater degree of legitimacy within the international community. Hamas has also skilfully been manoeuvring events to detach Turkey from the alliance with Israel and thus isolate the Israelis in the Middle East. Effectively, the only allies of Israel would be Canada and the United States, both of which have limited cachet in the region.

Remarkably, Hamas has managed to reinvent itself from a terrorist organization to a quasi-governing body in Gaza and is building momentum to be recognized as a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. However, Hamas has strong links to Iran and although it has toned down its suicide bombing campaign, it continues to find creative ways of killing Israelis.

The end of the embargo will mean that Iran, and other radical states, will flood Gaza with rockets, bombs, guns and grenades along with other weapons of war. This will incite the Israelis to once again invade Gaza and fight Hamas in street and house-to-house battles that will take their toll on civilians -- effectively handing another public relations success to Hamas.

The real victor in the recent crisis, of course, is Iran. It is the Iranians who have provide sophisticated training to Hamas, enabling that organization to take on the Israeli military-intelligence apparatus with such success. It is a cruel irony that back in the early 1970s, Israeli intelligence organizations had, at the behest of the CIA, undertaken to train Iran's SAVAK (National Intelligence and Security Organization) in espionage, counterintelligence and other covert tactics as well as deception operations.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Deadly ... z0qL5HoD9X

Other reports say that a deal is being reached with israel to "ease" the Gaza blockade for a less stringent inquiry into the Marmara attack..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ckade.html

Israel 'to accept British plan to ease Gaza blockade'

Israel is poised to accept a British plan to ease its blockade of Gaza in exchange for international acceptance of a watered-down investigation into last week's deadly raid on a Turkish aid ship, sources said on Tuesday.

By Adrian Blomfield in Jerusalem and Alex Spillius in Washington

EXcerpt:

Facing growing international criticism over the humanitarian situation in Gaza, Israeli officials said that would agree, in principle, to permit the passage of substantially more aid through Israel's land crossings with the Hamas-controlled territory.

Related Articles
International donors pledge more than £3bn to help rebuild Gaza
Israeli navy boards Lebanese boat trying to break Gaza blockade
Human rights activists 'arrested' off Gaza coast
Netanyahu defies Barack Obama's calls for halt to West Bank settlements
Amnesty International urges Barack Obama to suspend military aid to Israel
Gordon Brown to meet Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas

Since the Islamist group seized control in 2007, Israel has allowed only basic humanitarian supplies into Gaza, while forbidding the importation of most electronic and construction materials that it says could be used by Hamas for military purposes.

While aid agencies will welcome a relaxation of the rules, others, particularly Turkey, will be concerned about the price exacted by Israel. They fear the trade-off will mean that Israel is never held to account for the nine deaths on board the Mavi Marmara, the lead ship in an international flotilla that tried to break the naval blockade of Gaza last week.

Israeli officials denied there was any direct link between their willingness to cooperate over the blockade and the apparent ebbing of Western support for a UN-led international inquiry into to flotilla raid.

But a Western source close to international discussions with Israel said: "A quid pro quo deal is in the offing".

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 09 Jun 2010 18:06

Sanku wrote:
Why should Israel return to 67 borders? Only because the Arabs lost, they wanted to destroy Israel, would they be ok with return if Israel if Israel had lost?

These guys dont want peace; they want destruction of Israel -- if they want peace they can always follow the very basic sense of truth and justice. Their approach is same as Pakistan "You want peace, you do as we tell you"

And yes -- it is up to Arabs to make amends; they have always been the chief starters of violence and other such despicable acts -- ALWAYS.

There is a known trend to that. Islamist

always stops at the historical date when they were victorious. Take any issue where Islam is one party.

Perhaps they should return to pre 9374 BC borders.

There is no islam then.... problem solved.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 09 Jun 2010 18:47

RamaY wrote:
There is a known trend to that. Islamist always stops at the historical date when they were victorious. Take any issue where Islam is one party.

Perhaps they should return to pre 9374 BC borders. There is no islam then.... problem solved.

No need to go that far 600-610 AD would be enough or may be 500 AD to be on safer side.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 09 Jun 2010 20:49

RamaY wrote:
Sanku wrote:
Why should Israel return to 67 borders? Only because the Arabs lost, they wanted to destroy Israel, would they be ok with return if Israel if Israel had lost?

These guys dont want peace; they want destruction of Israel -- if they want peace they can always follow the very basic sense of truth and justice. Their approach is same as Pakistan "You want peace, you do as we tell you"

And yes -- it is up to Arabs to make amends; they have always been the chief starters of violence and other such despicable acts -- ALWAYS.
There is a known trend to that. Islamist always stops at the historical date when they were victorious. Take any issue where Islam is one party.

Perhaps they should return to pre 9374 BC borders. There is no islam then.... problem solved.

Jews are not in Israel then either if we go to that date.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 09 Jun 2010 20:56

Sorry if posted already

Turkish Kurdish rebels declare end to unilateral ceasefire

Show time!!!!

ajit_tr · Post by **ajit_tr** » 09 Jun 2010 21:35

Turkish PM: World Should React Not Only To Iran But Also To Other Countries With Nuclear Weapons

ISTANBUL, June 9 (Bernama) -- Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Wednesday that the international community should show a fair stance and react to not only Iran but also other regional countries that have nuclear weapons, Turkey's Anadolu news agency reported.

"All countries in the world must know that crimes they committed and rules they violated will not be unreciprocated. A fair stance must be displayed against these states," he said in his address at the "Millennium Development Goals Regional Conference" organised in Istanbul by Turkey's State Planning Organisation, UN Development Programme (UNDP) and UN Economic Commission for Europe (ECE).

Reiterating that Turkey does not want nuclear weapons in its region, Erdogan said that Turkey and Brazil had signed a uranium swap deal with Iran which he said was "a diplomatic victory."

Erdogan said Turkey and Brazil achieved a diplomatic victory for the sake of regional and global peace."

"The international community, which shows a rightful sensitivity against Iran's having nuclear weapons, must show the same reaction to nuclear weapons of other countries in the region," he said.

"There must be a reaction that could satisfy everyone," Anadolu quoted Erdogan as saying.

-- BERNAMA

http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsw ... ?id=504739

sum · Post by **sum** » 09 Jun 2010 21:52

Venkarl wrote:Sorry if posted already

Turkish Kurdish rebels declare end to unilateral ceasefire

Show time!!!!

Now this is what is called having a "leverage"...

If only India had such leverages in Pak every time Pak misbehaves just like the PKK mysteriously calls off ceasefires when Israeli- Turkey relations go south..

kittoo · Post by **kittoo** » 09 Jun 2010 22:08

Carl_T wrote:
RamaY wrote: There is a known trend to that. Islamist always stops at the historical date when they were victorious. Take any issue where Islam is one party.

Perhaps they should return to pre 9374 BC borders. There is no islam then.... problem solved.

Jews are not in Israel then either if we go to that date.

I think he just meant quite an old date, older than Islam, not specifically that old.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 09 Jun 2010 22:27

Yeah I know, I just meant that if we keep going back we will continually see different claims for the land.

What I seriously think Israel should do is stop with this two state nonsense, demand the Arab population take an oath of loyalty to the Jewish state, teach only Hebrew in schools etc etc, and give the Arabs who do not want to stay an option to leave Israel. Even conversion from Islam is an option. Not forcible of course, but tax-deductible.

Yeah I know there will be gripes, but in the long run, that is probably best. But Pakis will fly before that happens.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 09 Jun 2010 22:31

="kittoo"quote="Carl_T"ote="RamaY"]
There is a known trend to that. Islamist always stops at the historical date when they were victorious. Take any issue where Islam is one party. Perhaps they should return to pre 9374 BC borders. There is no islam then.... problem solvedJews are not in Israel then either if we go to that date.I think he just meant quite an old date, older than Islam, not specifically that old.

We should not give a damn about this region as long as the date be applied on Indiclan/d. My personal opinion is that what is their's is their and what is our's is our, we desire none of their's and we require what is our's. They stay in their land beyond Indician borders and we stay in our's beyond Arabian etc borders. One day it is bound to happen as skunk stink stick short time d last not long ,incapable of polluting whole enviorenment permanentally.

munna · Post by **munna** » 09 Jun 2010 23:07

sum wrote:Now this is what is called having a "leverage"...

If only India had such leverages in Pak every time Pak misbehaves just like the PKK mysteriously calls off ceasefires when Israeli- Turkey relations go south..

The paqs took care of that and genocided all communities barring the ROP-ers in 1947, similar strategy bore fruits in Kashmir valley in the 1990s but luckily we were able to stall them in Jammu. The Jammu Amarnath agitation at some level was a demonstration of such leverage tactics but sadly one that was within our own country and that too on a backfoot.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 10 Jun 2010 01:59

Palestine's Great Hope

http://www.slate.com/id/2255903/

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 10 Jun 2010 04:44

Gates slams EU over Turkey

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 10 Jun 2010 07:58

Obama Pledges New Aid to Palestinians

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world ... prexy.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 10 Jun 2010 08:32

Guilty Until Proven Guilty

The uproar over Israel's actions aboard a Gaza-bound vessel proves that the world holds the Jewish state to an impossibly high standard. For their own sake, Americans should think twice about joining this flood of international condemnation.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... ven_guilty

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 10 Jun 2010 10:08

abhishek_sharma wrote:Guilty Until Proven Guilty

The uproar over Israel's actions aboard a Gaza-bound vessel proves that the world holds the Jewish state to an impossibly high standard. For their own sake, Americans should think twice about joining this flood of international condemnation.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... ven_guilty

That's because the Atlanticist/Islamist-led Left want to hold their kangaroo court as expediently as possible.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 10 Jun 2010 11:19

Israel Without Clichés

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/opinion/10judt.html

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 10 Jun 2010 14:11

Surya wrote:well thats a chicken and egg

but you can forget right to return - ain't happening

I have a feeling the Arabs know it but they have to push hard too for their people. In negotiations, both sides push hard, then come to an agreement right? Are Israeli's coming forward for negotiations?

and while I am against the settlements and feel sorry for some of the arabs, I do find it harder to ask the Israelis to turn over East jerusalem.

For me, both claims are strong - I think it is better to make it an international territory, at the end of the day it is a religious site, that doesn't belong to one country but the people of the faiths who live all over the world. What do you think?

Same with Golan.

At the end of the day, look at Egypt - Israel gave back Sinai, and there was peace. So, there is some expectation of something similar with Syria which is what the west is pushing for. Look at the Golan issue too - Israel diverted some water that should have gone to arab territories, so Syria and Jordan responded by diverting some water to the Litani, then Israel attacked it. Then there were border disputes over the demilitarized zones - Moshe Dayan was quoted of what they used to do to irritate the Syrian side by farming on arab land - which was confirmed by Michael Oren (the ambassador of Israel)

But before we get anywhere near Jerusalem - WB and Jordan need to be merged and made into a Palestinian state. Gaza can fold back to Egypt.

Yes, but what about the annexed land that has been declared illegal by the ICJ in the Hague and the UN General Assembly. Transfer back to Egypt and Jordan can involve a fair bit of politics too. Lets see what happens on that front, right now I don't feel there is any idea to revert to these countries among the leadership.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 10 Jun 2010 15:34

Sanku wrote: Shyam I will not reply to the rest of your post because frankly, its meaningless and desperate attempts at spinning the basics

Desperate attempts at spinning the basics? You said there is a lack of acceptance in "ANY" form, which I completely shattered. So I think your desperate LIE has failed.

I just want ti take one such example the above

By what lahori logic is accepting the state if Israel tantamount to accepting its borders?

By that logic either India accepts all Chinese claims or has no contact?

By what lahori logic is accepting borders of a country not equal to accepting the right to exist? Erm.... Israel and Arab countries have had contact and some still do - which I showed to you.

And dont give me the BS about de facto -- the real fact is all very well captured in many sources including the wiki link. Despite Israels best efforts the Arabs will not give them recoginiztion but instead fool around with nonsense like some progress.

LOL! Despite Israeli's best efforts - please show us the best efforts of Israeli's - I want to hear this one. Ermm... the arabs gave recognition and the right to exist under 1967 borders, the rest is disputed territory - and some of that territory is confirmed to exist with Palestinians by the International Court of Justice, as well as the US/western administrations AND for that matter the UN General Assembly confirmed so. So please spare us the BS.

We know about such progresses.

Why should Israel return to 67 borders? Only because the Arabs lost, they wanted to destroy Israel, would they be ok with return if Israel if Israel had lost?

Not really, they want that back because that land belongs to the arabs - last I remembered west bank still has many arabs living there as has East Jerusalem. For arguments sake, lets say that it is only because arabs lost, the arabs also lost the first war too, so by your definition the arab league should claim the whole of Israel.

A census conducted by the Israeli authorities in 1967 registered 66,000 Palestinian residents (44,000 residing in the area known before the 1967 war as East Jerusalem; and 22,000, in the West Bank area annexed to Jerusalem after the war). Only a few hundred Jews were living in East Jerusalem at that time. By June 1993, a Jewish majority was established in East Jerusalem: 155,000 Jews were officially registered residents, as compared to 150,000 Palestinians.[11]
As of 2006, the population of East Jerusalem was 428,304, comprising 59.5% of Jerusalem's residents. Of these, 181,457 (42%) are Jews, (comprising 39% of the Jewish population of Jerusalem as a whole), 229,004 (53%) are Muslim (comprising 99% of the Muslim population of Jerusalem) and 13,638 (3%) are Christian (comprising 92% of the Christian population of Jerusalem).[12] The size of the Palestinian population living in East Jerusalem is controversial because of political implications. In 2008, the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics reported the number of Palestinians living in East Jerusalem was 208,000 according to a recently completed census.[13]

Israel annexing East Jerusalem, says EU

We know about such progresses. So lets just take a look at the Israeli reaction to the arab offer

Barack Obama links Israel peace plan to 1967 borders deal

Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv and Sarah Baxter
RECOMMEND? (1)
Barack Obama is to pursue an ambitious peace plan in the Middle East involving the recognition of Israel by the Arab world in exchange for its withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, according to sources close to America’s president-elect.

Obama intends to throw his support behind a 2002 Saudi peace initiative endorsed by the Arab League and backed by Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister and leader of the ruling Kadima party.

The proposal gives Israel an effective veto on the return of Arab refugees expelled in 1948 while requiring it to restore the Golan Heights to Syria and allow the Palestinians to establish a state capital in east Jerusalem.

On a visit to the Middle East last July, the president-elect said privately it would be “crazy” for Israel to refuse a deal that could “give them peace with the Muslim world”, according to a senior Obama adviser.

The Arab peace plan received a boost last week when President Shimon Peres, a Nobel peace laureate and leading Israeli dove, commended the initiative at a Saudi-sponsored United Nations conference in New York.

Peres was loudly applauded for telling King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who was behind the original initiative: “I wish that your voice will become the prevailing voice of the whole region, of all people.”

A bipartisan group of senior foreign policy advisers urged Obama to give the Arab plan top priority immediately after his election victory. They included Lee Hamilton, the former co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Democrat former national security adviser. Brzezinski will give an address tomorrow at Chatham House, the international relations think tank, in London.

Brent Scowcroft, a Republican former national security adviser, joined in the appeal. He said last week that the Middle East was the most troublesome area in the world and that an early start to the Palestinian peace process was “a way to psychologically change the mood of the region”.

Advisers believe the diplomatic climate favours a deal as Arab League countries are under pressure from radical Islamic movements and a potentially nuclear Iran. Polls show that Palestinians and Israelis are in a mood to compromise.

The advisers have told Obama he should lose no time in pursuing the policy in the first six to 12 months in office while he enjoys maximum goodwill.

..........

........................

Ross and Daniel Kurtzer, a former American ambassador to Israel, accompanied Obama on a visit to Israel last July. They also travelled to Ramallah, where Obama questioned Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, about the prospects for the Arab plan.

According to a Washington source Obama told Abbas: “The Israelis would be crazy not to accept this initiative. It would give them peace with the Muslim world from Indonesia to Morocco.”

Kurtzer submitted a paper to Obama on the question before this month’s presidential elections. He argued that trying to reach bilateral peace agreements between Israel and individual countries in the Middle East, was a recipe for failure as the record of Bill Clinton and George W Bush showed. In contrast, the broader Arab plan “had a lot of appeal”. A leading Democratic expert on the Middle East said: “There’s not a lot of meat on the bones yet, but it offers recognition of Israel across the Arab world.”

Livni, the leader of Kadima, which favours the plan, is the front-runner in Israeli elections due in February. Her rival, Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of Likud, is adamantly against withdrawing to borders that predate the Six Day war in 1967.

Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, last week expressed his support for Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank Golan and east Jerusalem.

These guys dont want peace; they want destruction of Israel -- if they want peace they can always follow the very basic sense of truth and justice. Their approach is same as Pakistan "You want peace, you do as we tell you"

They don't want peace, they want destruction of Israel - That statement is soo full of ideology and doesn't bare resemblance to any reality in the present day whatsoever wrt the arab league(which compromises all the arab nations - its not even worthy of a response. Well, I ask you again. WTF was the arab peace plan for? That was such a violent act by the arabs wasn't it?

And yes -- it is up to Arabs to make amends; they have always been the chief starters of violence and other such despicable acts -- ALWAYS.

[/quote]
Lol! CNN confirmed who really started the Gaza war - and that was Israel in case you missed it. Just goes to show how much lies you state.

asprinzl · Post by **asprinzl** » 10 Jun 2010 15:38

What a revelation. CNN is the paragon of fair and ballanced journalism. Amazing indeed.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 Jun 2010 15:39

Shyamd wake me up after the 20 of the 22 nations of the Arab league accept the state of Israel, not de facto, not in principle not this and not that.

Full acceptance of Israel as a state and abolition of anti-Jew laws in their countries.

Your contortions would be funny if they were not hiding a brutal truth.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 10 Jun 2010 15:45

sum wrote:Now this is what is called having a "leverage"...

If only India had such leverages in Pak every time Pak misbehaves just like the PKK mysteriously calls off ceasefires when Israeli- Turkey relations go south..

IOL says there is no connection and Turkey knows it. Israel is present only on the Iraqi side, and that is jointly with Turkish MIT.

However, I personally feel that it is a possibility since Israel has had strong relations with Kurds - Barzani gang. But I am sure Turkey would have anticipated it and predicted before they started the peace flotilla. So, wait for Turkey to show some cards.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Jun 2010 16:07

I cannot see Israel "retreating" to 1967 borders,giving up the Golan Heights,West Bank,etc. allowing a Palestinian state in East Jerusalem merely for a veto on the right of return of the Palestinian refugees! It is very impractical.If you ask me a way should be found for the assimilation of the refugees in the neighbouring states /West Bank without dramatically affecting the current population in such a densely populated area of the Middle East.An influx of half a million refugees could be catastrophic for the new "P" state which would collapse under the weight of insufficient infrastructure and internal conflicts (Hamas vs the rest).Like Indian expats,the refugees could be given "PIO status" (Palestinian/Israeli Origin),as many of them were also living in what is Israel today.This could give them dual ciitizenship,citizenship in neighbouring Arab nations and PIO status, which could enable them to live/work anywhere in the world but still call Palestine their home,which they could visit as often as they pleased with special rights.

A "binding" security agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is the most important,where the Palestinians should possess only para-military forces,no air force,navy,etc.-perhaps a Coast Guard,as Israel can look after the major security of the region and also the new Palestinian state.Unless each guarantees the security of the other,mutual suspicion will fester.Another agreement with all Israels' neighbours should exist for water and other scarce natural rsources,so that none suffer as a result of one nation's development plans as is being feared over Chinese plans to dam the Brahmaputra in TIbet.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 10 Jun 2010 17:21

asprinzl wrote:What a revelation. CNN is the paragon of fair and ballanced journalism. Amazing indeed.

Yeah, but that show in particular checked other sources as well(local/regional/international) - it was meant to be the outside view, and we do know that CNN tends to be biased towards the Israeli's. There are rumours that one of the main reasons why the Israeli Embassy in Atlanta exists is to coordinate with CNN office in Atlanta - but lets just assume this isn't true.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 10 Jun 2010 17:35

Sanku wrote:Shyamd wake me up after the 20 of the 22 nations of the Arab league accept the state of Israel, not de facto, not in principle not this and not that.

Urmm... so you want Arabs to accept the illegally annexed settlements in West Bank too? Do explain your position and also tell us about the Israeli's "best efforts" of peace. TIA

Full acceptance of Israel as a state and abolition of anti-Jew laws in their countries.

Full acceptance of Israel as a state was done in 2002 comprehensive plan, so obviously Kadima party stalwarts were smoking on something when they chose to support it as well as 22% of Israeli's in the elections, not to mention that Yisrael Beiteinu (got 3rd highest seats) and Labour party(4th) do support similar peace plans that advocate going back to the 67 borders. Haven't checked for the rest.

Your contortions would be funny if they were not hiding a brutal truth.

Brutal truth? I think I have answered that above.

Let me make it clear, Israel doesn't have to accept everything in the Arab peace plan, but come forward to negotiate.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 10 Jun 2010 19:10

brihaspati wrote: This is news to me - so Christians came before the Babylonians? Well yes, Babylonians took part of them - mostly the elite - to Babylon. But there were sufficient numbers left behind because this gave rise to sectarian difference later on between those who had been allowed to stay behind and those who later on returned. Why miss conveniently this piece of history and also the fact that Cyrus allowed the Jews to return? Neither the internal difference nor the question of return would have arisen if the Jews had all been "cleaned up"! From there it did not go straight to Roman rule. It went through the Greek and then they had the Macabean uprising leading to an independent principality. Romans destroyed the temple built by Herod but complete expulsion of all Jews is hard to prove. Byzantines did not expel Jews in any significant numbers, and in fact Jews were persecuted by the Goths on suspicion of being collaborators of the Byzantines.

Okay, let me just be clear, I was just talking off the top of my head, so I may have got bits wrong and I do apologise for that. So lets take a look at history properly.

Taken from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... _of_Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... uslim_rule

Here is a nice timetable:

1050CE - Israel becomes independent.
950 BCE - Kingdom splits into 2, i.e Israel in the north, Judah in the South.
Israel becomes conquered by Assyrians and the elite is expelled to Babylon.

The Babylonian army, under the commandment of Nebuzaradan,[1] also named "chief executioner" [chief Headsman] by the Bible, had destroyed the First Temple in Jerusalem. The king of Judah, Zedekiah, was forced to watch his own two sons being slaughtered, and thereafter, his own eyes were put out and he was exiled to Babylon (2 Kings 25).[2] The population of the middle class and above was also deported alongside King Zedekiah, whereas the Kingdom of Judah was left only with the poor ones.

My comment:These people part of the 10 tribes expelled, where we find a population in India too.

Cyrus declares jews are allowed to return - They build the 2nd temple.

Under Persian rule and protection, the Zion Returnees settled in what became known as Yehud Medinata.[3] Yehud, or Judah, was a self-governing Jewish province under the ruling of the Persian Empire, and included a small piece of territory out of the Land of Israel which contained Jerusalem and Judea, which even issued their own small silver coins inscribed with the three letters Yehud. The Yehud Medinata automony has known to inspire the future generation of Jews, their notion of their own national identity and aspirations, the need to end 2000 years of exile since the Babylon captivity and to continue to make Aliyah to the Land of Israel. The ancient name Yehud Medinata also resembles to the name of modern Hebrew name Medinat Yisrael (the State of Israel).

Greek rule - Alexander the great.

A deterioration of relations between hellenized Jews and religious Jews led the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes to impose decrees banning certain Jewish religious rites and traditions. Consequently, the orthodox Jews revolted under the leadership of the Hasmonean family, (also known as the Maccabees).
The ensuing Maccabbee Revolt (167 BCE) began a twenty-five-year period of Jewish independence potentiated by the steady collapse of the Seleucid Empire under attacks from the rising powers of the Roman Republic and the Parthian Empire. However, the same power vacuum that enabled the Jewish state to be recognized by the Roman Senate c. 139 BCE was next exploited by the Romans themselves.

The deaths of Pompey (48 BCE), Caesar (44 BCE), and the related Roman civil wars relaxed Rome's grip on Israel, allowing a brief Hasmonean resurgence backed by the Parthian Empire. This short independence was rapidly crushed by the Romans under Mark Antony and Octavian.

. In 66 CE, Judeans began to revolt against the Roman rulers of Judea. The revolt was defeated by the Roman emperors Vespasian and Titus. The Romans destroyed much of the Temple in Jerusalem and, according to some accounts, stole artifacts from the temple, such as the Menorah. Altogether, 1,100,000 Jews perished during the revolt and another 97,000 were taken captive.

Judeans continued to live in their land in significant numbers, and were allowed to practice their religion, until the 2nd century when Julius Severus ravaged Judea while putting down the Bar Kokhba revolt. 985 villages were destroyed. Banished from Jerusalem, the Jewish population now centred on Galilee.

From:http://www.science.co.il/israel-history.asp
After the exile by the Romans, the Jewish people migrated to Europe and North Africa. In the Diaspora (scattered outside of the Land of Israel), they established rich cultural and economic lives, and contributed greatly to the societies where they lived.
---
Jews at this time in the province of Palestine were living under the oppressive rule of the Byzantines under whom there were two more Jewish revolts and three Samaritan revolts. Under the oppression, Jews still lived in at least forty-three Jewish communities in Palestine: twelve towns on the coast, in the Negev, and east of the Jordan, and thirty-one villages in Galilee and in the Jordan valley.
In 438, The Empress Eudocia removed the ban on Jews' praying at the Temple site and the heads of the Community in Galilee issued a call "to the great and mighty people of the Jews": "Know that the end of the exile of our people has come"!
In about 450, the Jerusalem Talmud is completed.

In 613, a Jewish revolt against the Byzantine Empire coming into aid of the Persian invaders erupted. The Jews gained autonomy in Jerusalem for 5 years but were frustrated with its limitations. At that time the Persians betrayed the agreements with the Jews and Jews were again expelled from Jerusalem. The Byzantine Emperor Heraclius then managed to overcome the Persian forces with the aid of Jewish leader Benjamin of Tiberias. Nevertheless, he betrayed the Jews too and put thousands of Jewish refugees to flight from Palestine to Egypt.

A testament of the cruelty of the Byzantines towards the Jews can be noted in the great number of Jews who fled remaining Byzantine territories in favour of residence in the Caliphate over the subsequent centuries

Now under Islamic empires:
During early Islam, Leon Poliakov writes, Jews enjoyed great privileges, and their communities prospered. There was no legislation or social barriers preventing them from conducting commercial activities. Many Jews migrated to areas newly conquered by Muslims and established communities there. The vizier of Baghdad entrusted his capital with Jewish bankers. The Jews were put in charge of certain parts of maritime and slave trade. Siraf, the principal port of the caliphate in the 10th century CE, had a Jewish governor.[11]

Under the various regimes the Jews suffered massacres and were forced to flee the inland villages towards the coast. They were subsequently induced to return inland after the coastal towns had been destroyed. Nevertheless, the Jews still controlled much of the commerce in Palestine. According to Arab geographer Al-Muqaddasi, the Jews worked as "the assayers of coins, the dyers, the tanners and the bankers in the community."[4] During the Fatimid period, many Jewish officials served in the regime.[4] Professor Moshe Gil documents that at the time of the Arab conquest in 7th century CE, the majority of the population was Jewish.

MFA, Israel: The imposition of heavy taxes on agricultural land compelled many to move from rural areas to towns, where their circumstances hardly improved, while increasing social and economic discrimination forced others to leave the country. By the end of the 11th century, the Jewish community in the Land had diminished considerably and had lost some of its organizational and religious cohesiveness.

Under crusader period:
n 1099, along with the other inhabitants of the land, the Jews vigorously defended Jerusalem against the Crusaders. When the city fell, the Crusaders gathered them in a synagogue and set it alight. In Haifa, the Jews almost single-handedly defended the town against the Crusaders, holding out for a whole month, (June-July 1099).[4] At this time there were Jewish communities scattered all over the country, including Jerusalem, Tiberias, Ramleh, Ashkelon, Caesarea, and Gaza. Jews were not allowed to hold land in the Crusader period but concentrated their efforts on the commerce in the coastal towns during times of quiescence. Most of them were artisans: glassblowers in Sidon, furriers and dyers in Jerusalem.[4]

Under Mamluk's: Jews still there. Upto 30 Jewish centres existed.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... e_pop.html
During 1517 total population: 300,000 est. 5,000 jewish 295,000 non jewish residents

Ottomon period:
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Middle East and North Africa estimates the Jewish population of the Palestine region at "approximately 10,000 during the first half-century of Ottoman rule. Bold development projects for reviving the Holy Land were conceived by Jewish courtiers in Constantinople, such as Don Garcia Mendes and Don Joseph Nasi. Jerusalem, Tiberias and above all, Safad, became centres of Jewish spiritual and commercial activity... Many of the gains achieved by Islamic Jewry during the 16th century were lost over the next 200 years ... as Ottoman rule became more inefficient, corrupt and religiously conservative."[8]

In Safed, the Jews developed a number of branches of trade, especially in grain, spices, and cloth. They specialised once again in the dyeing trade. Lying halfway between Damascus and Sidon on the Mediterranean coast, Safed gained special importance in the commercial relations in the area. The 8,000 or 10,000 Jews in Safed in 1555 grew to 20,000 or 30,000 by the end of the century.

Then came the british mandate.

But a lot of this depends on who you ask:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... alem1.html

The next important phase in the history of Jerusalem was the conquest of the Ottoman Turks at the beginning of the sixteenth century. The Turkish sultan then became responsible for Jerusalem. The Holy Land was important to the Turks only as a source of revenue; consequently, like many of their predecessors, they allowed Palestine to languish. They also began to impose oppressive taxes on the Jews.

Neglect and oppression gradually took their toll on the Jewish community and the population declined to a total of no more than 7,000 by the end of the seventeenth century. It wasn't until the nascent Zionist movement in Eastern Europe motivated Jews to return to Palestine that the first modern Jewish settlement was established -- in Petah Tikvah in 1878.

So... pre partition there were 1.2million Arabs and 600,000 jews. It is more than agreed that majority of jews lived in Europe - Between 800 and 1100 there were 1.5 million Jews in Christian Europe.

Persians expelled the Jews!!! In the Persian(Parthian)-Byzantine conflict, a portion of the Jews did side with the Byzantines. Did it lead to expulsion? Byzantium actually won in the end (Heraclius). Ah yes, the population dwindled under "taxation" - of course, there cannot be any role of forced conversions or genocides at the hands of Islamics!! of course - but why should taxation decrease population? I thought the Hamas claimed that Jews had always been protected under Islam! Okay those who could not pay the taxes converted? Migrated out? Are you saying that Jews were subjected to discriminatory taxation beyond their means - by the Muslims? For otherwise all populations should have decreased under taxation and not just the Jews!

All of the above answered.

So, I have now disproved your point that it was only Islamic rule who were responsible for jews to leave or be expelled etc. As I originally stated, there were a lot of people who were responsible for jews to leave or immigrate or be expelled.

Okay, Crusaders expelled all Jews - lets say! Kind Muslims let them return [I will post the other side of the story. Since the propaganda here is now turning to Muslims being most kind to the Jews!]. So the Jews were returning already from the time after the Crusades? And their "return" increased? In spite of constant protests and demands that Jews should not be allowed to settle? But you are already saying Jews were there for the previous five hundred years from 1948!!!

There were some jews of course. But doesn't mean, the whole nation of Israel should return to those few jews.

You seem to relish the expression "kicking Israelis out". Assuming that it s no personal problem with you, have you ever thought how you can "kick" a "nation" or whole community out repeatedly? Unless some were definitely not kicked out? Or why allow some one to "return" if they did not have a "homeland" to return to? You are completely suppressing the lead up to the 1948 war. You are now probably even going to deny the antics of the so-called Grand Mufti of the region, the various conflicts and open declarations of intent to expel the Jews, agitating to stop Jewish immigration from the Muslim side. We even know that the Brits actually gave in to this Islamist demand and tried to restrict Jewish inflow. At that stage, Jews were buying land - they were not simply squatting or occupying land.

Okay, yes there was an agititation against Jews. Yes, there were efforts by jews for peaceful settlement. Did the Irgun massacre some muslim villages in order to evict them? Yes. Did muslims massacre jews also? Yes.

They were buying land and they employed only jews, which was worsening the economic situation of the arabs. And add to that more jews fleeing persecution arriving. The British offered to create a jewish homeland in Palestine as the jews refused Uganda, and other locations - because the local population there would have refused to allow them per the jewishvirtuallibrary.

So why was it okay to upset arabs, but not upset local population in australia or Uganda?

Your comparison is fallacious. Jews were in continuous occupation of the land, maybe their numbers dwindled, and they lost out state power. "Kicked out for whatever reasons" is a highly callous attitude.

So that gives someone a fundamental right to kick out the people living there?

Those reasons are all-important. Who kicked whom for what. Those who try to avoid the reasons do so because they perhaps have some thing to hide. In the case of "kicking Jews" - the Islamic reason is out and out ideological, racial and genocidic. Why are you avoiding looking at the Islamic narratives themselves about descriptions about which Muslims kicked "Jews" for what motivation? The Badr wars, the genocide of Banu Quraizah, the battle of Khyber? It is not Judaic claim - it is all there in the most respected texts of Islam!

So it was the muslims who kicked out the jews only?

Your claim of "those who bought" the house is again legally fallacious.

You say the occupants were "kicked out" and new residents bought them from the "possessors". Now if the initial act of "kicking out" was illegal then the subsequent occupation was illegal. If you buy stolen goods or "illegally occupied" property/object then your rights are not legally acceptable. At least not in most modern legal thinking

ummm... okay... fair enough.

So lets take Israel's claim as a precedent. By this definition, A native Indian state should be created in the US - its stolen land, so let the Indians sell their land in New Jersey and give it back to its original inhabitants.

Aborigine's too - Australia to be given back to the aborigines. Good luck in asking those respective current resident's to leave.

(only in Islamic thinking there is a justification for that in the context of property/women obtained through jihad - that "vague" thing you mock, and which is supposed to be non-violent according to you - the basis for this starts in Al Baqara of Quran and explictly mentioned in the Hidaya).

Discuss with an islamic scholar.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 10 Jun 2010 22:05

DNA study confirms geographical origin of Jews
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... y8VoeNc26A

PARIS — New research has found Jews share a genetic bond with Cypriots and Druze and confirms the Jewish diaspora maintained a strong DNA continuity despite its long separation from the Middle East, scientists said on Wednesday.The work, published in the British journal Nature, is part of a wider exploration into human migration based on clusters of tiny differences in genetic code.
"We found evidence that Jewish communities originated in the Near East," said molecular scientist Doron Behar of the Rambam Health Care Campus in Haifa, Israel, who led an investigation gathering experts in eight countries."Our genetic findings are concordant with historical records."The work entailed taking DNA samples from 121 people living in 14 Jewish communities around the world, ranging from Israel to North Africa and Europe to Central Asia and India.The samples were then compared with those from 1,166 individuals in 69 non-Jewish populations, including the "host" country or region where there was a Jewish community.Throwing another dataset into the mix, the researchers added analyses of 16,000 samples of the Y chromosome -- which only males have -- and of mitochondrial DNA, which is handed down through the maternal line.What the scientists were looking for were combinations of markers called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Jun 2010 03:30

shyamd wrote: Okay, let me just be clear, I was just talking off the top of my head, so I may have got bits wrong and I do apologise for that. So lets take a look at history properly.

Well in your earlier post this is what you wrote :

Didn't the christians expel the jews first in israel? Then the Babylonians conquered Judah - expelled them to babylon. Then went to Roman rule - Byzantine - Persians (fought together with the Jews and then expelled the jews) - Arab rule (jewish population dwindled even further due to taxation) - Crusaders (killed more jews left or sold them as slaves) - Muslim army's back (give jews some freedom, so some return) - Ottomon (slowly more jews come from russia/eastern europe) - British.

So you carefully dropped any word or expulsion/genocide associated with any of the Islamics - Arabs (Jews decreased only because of taxation, not killing or forced conversion), Muslim army's back - more freedom to Jews - no killing, no forced conversion, Ottomans - more freedom for Jews since more come, no killing no forced conversion. But it does not seem that you suddenly forgot the "killings" when you reached the Arabs in the sequence - you remembered it again briefly for Crusaders whose enslavement and killing action you explicitly remembered - then forgot again as Muslim armys "returned".

Then the Christian Babylonian goof up forced you to look up wiki (which is heavily moderated with a really active pro-Islamist-whitewashing campaign on) :Lets see now what is missing in your refreshed timeline:

1050CE - Israel becomes independent.
950 BCE - Kingdom splits into 2, i.e Israel in the north, Judah in the South.
Israel becomes conquered by Assyrians and the elite is expelled to Babylon.

The Babylonian army, under the commandment of Nebuzaradan,[1] also named "chief executioner" [chief Headsman] by the Bible, had destroyed the First Temple in Jerusalem. The king of Judah, Zedekiah, was forced to watch his own two sons being slaughtered, and thereafter, his own eyes were put out and he was exiled to Babylon (2 Kings 25).[2] The population of the middle class and above was also deported alongside King Zedekiah, whereas the Kingdom of Judah was left only with the poor ones.

My comment:These people part of the 10 tribes expelled, where we find a population in India too.

Okay at least this is an improvement from the first crude statement implying all Jews expelled or "kicked out". Now for those left behind : does being poor disqualify them as Jews? Or does it imply that they were a minority of the "Isrraeli nation" ? In most societies for almost all historical periods - the "poor" formed the bulk of the population. The lurid description of torture is noted - since you chose to highlight it.

Cyrus declares jews are allowed to return - They build the 2nd temple.

Under Persian rule and protection, the Zion Returnees settled in what became known as Yehud Medinata.[3] Yehud, or Judah, was a self-governing Jewish province under the ruling of the Persian Empire, and included a small piece of territory out of the Land of Israel which contained Jerusalem and Judea, which even issued their own small silver coins inscribed with the three letters Yehud. The Yehud Medinata automony has known to inspire the future generation of Jews, their notion of their own national identity and aspirations, the need to end 2000 years of exile since the Babylon captivity and to continue to make Aliyah to the Land of Israel. The ancient name Yehud Medinata also resembles to the name of modern Hebrew name Medinat Yisrael (the State of Israel).

Thanks for noting that return and autonomy! Something that missed your first declaration.

Greek rule - Alexander the great.

A deterioration of relations between hellenized Jews and religious Jews led the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes to impose decrees banning certain Jewish religious rites and traditions. Consequently, the orthodox Jews revolted under the leadership of the Hasmonean family, (also known as the Maccabees).
The ensuing Maccabbee Revolt (167 BCE) began a twenty-five-year period of Jewish independence potentiated by the steady collapse of the Seleucid Empire under attacks from the rising powers of the Roman Republic and the Parthian Empire. However, the same power vacuum that enabled the Jewish state to be recognized by the Roman Senate c. 139 BCE was next exploited by the Romans themselves.

The deaths of Pompey (48 BCE), Caesar (44 BCE), and the related Roman civil wars relaxed Rome's grip on Israel, allowing a brief Hasmonean resurgence backed by the Parthian Empire. This short independence was rapidly crushed by the Romans under Mark Antony and Octavian.

Thats a big chunk of history mashed up into a mess. You dropped out Herod and his second building of the "Temple". His complicated personal ambition, relationship on both sides of the Greek and Judaic lineages, but still a degree of autonomy he maintained pussyfooting first with Antony and then with Octavius.

. In 66 CE, Judeans began to revolt against the Roman rulers of Judea. The revolt was defeated by the Roman emperors Vespasian and Titus. The Romans destroyed much of the Temple in Jerusalem and, according to some accounts, stole artifacts from the temple, such as the Menorah. Altogether, 1,100,000 Jews perished during the revolt and another 97,000 were taken captive.

Judeans continued to live in their land in significant numbers, and were allowed to practice their religion, until the 2nd century when Julius Severus ravaged Judea while putting down the Bar Kokhba revolt. 985 villages were destroyed. Banished from Jerusalem, the Jewish population now centred on Galilee.

Oh Jews did survive - some of them in grand manner! One was Josephus, the foremost source of the history of the period supposedly from an "insider". Follow up on his writings and his background (translation available) - a favourite of Vespasian, friend of his son Titus, a leader of the uprising against the Romans who switched allegiance after "persuasion" by old friend Titus during a siege. But his writings show up that Jews were not really expelled. Mostly the leadership and the "priestly" class was targeted. Josephus is also a good model to study exactly which portion of the Israeli elite from time to time finds it convenient to support the enemy. Yes again the "killings" and "genocidic" figures noted!

From:http://www.science.co.il/israel-history.asp
After the exile by the Romans, the Jewish people migrated to Europe and North Africa. In the Diaspora (scattered outside of the Land of Israel), they established rich cultural and economic lives, and contributed greatly to the societies where they lived.
---
Jews at this time in the province of Palestine were living under the oppressive rule of the Byzantines under whom there were two more Jewish revolts and three Samaritan revolts. Under the oppression, Jews still lived in at least forty-three Jewish communities in Palestine: twelve towns on the coast, in the Negev, and east of the Jordan, and thirty-one villages in Galilee and in the Jordan valley.
In 438, The Empress Eudocia removed the ban on Jews' praying at the Temple site and the heads of the Community in Galilee issued a call "to the great and mighty people of the Jews": "Know that the end of the exile of our people has come"!
In about 450, the Jerusalem Talmud is completed.

In 613, a Jewish revolt against the Byzantine Empire coming into aid of the Persian invaders erupted. The Jews gained autonomy in Jerusalem for 5 years but were frustrated with its limitations. At that time the Persians betrayed the agreements with the Jews and Jews were again expelled from Jerusalem. The Byzantine Emperor Heraclius then managed to overcome the Persian forces with the aid of Jewish leader Benjamin of Tiberias. Nevertheless, he betrayed the Jews too and put thousands of Jewish refugees to flight from Palestine to Egypt.

A testament of the cruelty of the Byzantines towards the Jews can be noted in the great number of Jews who fled remaining Byzantine territories in favour of residence in the Caliphate over the subsequent centuries

Thanks for elaborating the complexity I mentioned previously!

Now under Islamic empires:
During early Islam, Leon Poliakov writes, Jews enjoyed great privileges, and their communities prospered. There was no legislation or social barriers preventing them from conducting commercial activities. Many Jews migrated to areas newly conquered by Muslims and established communities there. The vizier of Baghdad entrusted his capital with Jewish bankers. The Jews were put in charge of certain parts of maritime and slave trade. Siraf, the principal port of the caliphate in the 10th century CE, had a Jewish governor.[11]

Under the various regimes the Jews suffered massacres and were forced to flee the inland villages towards the coast. They were subsequently induced to return inland after the coastal towns had been destroyed. Nevertheless, the Jews still controlled much of the commerce in Palestine. According to Arab geographer Al-Muqaddasi, the Jews worked as "the assayers of coins, the dyers, the tanners and the bankers in the community."[4] During the Fatimid period, many Jewish officials served in the regime.[4] Professor Moshe Gil documents that at the time of the Arab conquest in 7th century CE, the majority of the population was Jewish.

MFA, Israel: The imposition of heavy taxes on agricultural land compelled many to move from rural areas to towns, where their circumstances hardly improved, while increasing social and economic discrimination forced others to leave the country. By the end of the 11th century, the Jewish community in the Land had diminished considerably and had lost some of its organizational and religious cohesiveness.

This is what happens when wiki is used for political arguments without really also studying the history from sources and research. In the breadth of three short paragraphs, we have great privileges+prosperity+massacres+social and economic discrimination all rolled over the Jews from the Islamic side. Now did we hear the word "massacre" and "increasing social and economic discrimination" before in that glorious passage where only the non-Muslim "kickers of Jews" did such ahem ahem stuff - and such things could not even be mentioned against Islamics? On the contrary they supposedly increasingly "encouraged" the Jews!!! Is it the first time you are even reading up wiki on Jews??

Under crusader period:
n 1099, along with the other inhabitants of the land, the Jews vigorously defended Jerusalem against the Crusaders. When the city fell, the Crusaders gathered them in a synagogue and set it alight. In Haifa, the Jews almost single-handedly defended the town against the Crusaders, holding out for a whole month, (June-July 1099).[4] At this time there were Jewish communities scattered all over the country, including Jerusalem, Tiberias, Ramleh, Ashkelon, Caesarea, and Gaza. Jews were not allowed to hold land in the Crusader period but concentrated their efforts on the commerce in the coastal towns during times of quiescence. Most of them were artisans: glassblowers in Sidon, furriers and dyers in Jerusalem.[4]

Yes, I did try to tell you - that they were treated as any resistors were treated in that area and in that period. Muslim armies did the same to cities that resisted.

Under Mamluk's: Jews still there. Upto 30 Jewish centres existed.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... e_pop.html
During 1517 total population: 300,000 est. 5,000 jewish 295,000 non jewish residents

Poor crusaders, after almost 200 years of expelling and "ethnic cleansing" there still were Jews left!

Ottomon period:
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Middle East and North Africa estimates the Jewish population of the Palestine region at "approximately 10,000 during the first half-century of Ottoman rule. Bold development projects for reviving the Holy Land were conceived by Jewish courtiers in Constantinople, such as Don Garcia Mendes and Don Joseph Nasi. Jerusalem, Tiberias and above all, Safad, became centres of Jewish spiritual and commercial activity... Many of the gains achieved by Islamic Jewry during the 16th century were lost over the next 200 years ... as Ottoman rule became more inefficient, corrupt and religiously conservative."[8]

In Safed, the Jews developed a number of branches of trade, especially in grain, spices, and cloth. They specialised once again in the dyeing trade. Lying halfway between Damascus and Sidon on the Mediterranean coast, Safed gained special importance in the commercial relations in the area. The 8,000 or 10,000 Jews in Safed in 1555 grew to 20,000 or 30,000 by the end of the century.

But a lot of this depends on who you ask:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... alem1.html

The next important phase in the history of Jerusalem was the conquest of the Ottoman Turks at the beginning of the sixteenth century. The Turkish sultan then became responsible for Jerusalem. The Holy Land was important to the Turks only as a source of revenue; consequently, like many of their predecessors, they allowed Palestine to languish. They also began to impose oppressive taxes on the Jews.

Neglect and oppression gradually took their toll on the Jewish community and the population declined to a total of no more than 7,000 by the end of the seventeenth century. It wasn't until the nascent Zionist movement in Eastern Europe motivated Jews to return to Palestine that the first modern Jewish settlement was established -- in Petah Tikvah in 1878.

So... pre partition there were 1.2million Arabs and 600,000 jews. It is more than agreed that majority of jews lived in Europe - Between 800 and 1100 there were 1.5 million Jews in Christian Europe.

which one do you believe? You never mentioned any atrocity-repression-genocide from Islamics on Jews, rather patronage and encouragement until you quoted wiki here. But then surely wiki or other sources wisdom says more Jews preferred to stay on in the land of torture and repression in Europe and fled the land of milk, honey and tolerance for them in Palestine under Islam!!

Persians expelled the Jews!!! In the Persian(Parthian)-Byzantine conflict, a portion of the Jews did side with the Byzantines. Did it lead to expulsion? Byzantium actually won in the end (Heraclius). Ah yes, the population dwindled under "taxation" - of course, there cannot be any role of forced conversions or genocides at the hands of Islamics!! of course - but why should taxation decrease population? I thought the Hamas claimed that Jews had always been protected under Islam! Okay those who could not pay the taxes converted? Migrated out? Are you saying that Jews were subjected to discriminatory taxation beyond their means - by the Muslims? For otherwise all populations should have decreased under taxation and not just the Jews!
All of the above answered.

So, I have now disproved your point that it was only Islamic rule who were responsible for jews to leave or be expelled etc. As I originally stated, there were a lot of people who were responsible for jews to leave or immigrate or be expelled.

No you have not! You had so far avoided saying that Jews faced discrimination in any form from Islamics. Now you have quoted even "massacre", "discriminatory" taxation - social and economic discrimination against the Jews by Muslims. There was no dispute that many subjected the Jews to genocidic treatment - dispute was your studied refusal to acknowledge that Islamics were also a leading participant in this noble enterprise. Because others did it, does not absolve the Islamic regimes.

There were some jews of course. But doesn't mean, the whole nation of Israel should return to those few jews.

Aha - this is one of those grand self-knotting moments! So there was a "whole nation of Israel" but which you think should not return to those few "Jews". So land should be divided up according to size of the population? This is wonderful! I can already see the potential in lands currently under Islamic rule!

Okay, yes there was an agititation against Jews. Yes, there were efforts by jews for peaceful settlement. Did the Irgun massacre some muslim villages in order to evict them? Yes. Did muslims massacre jews also? Yes.

Once again all muslim atrocities always have to be shown as in reaction and in defense! So Irgun massacre of Muslim villages have to be placed first and then Muslim massacre has to be written!!! This is now bordering on Islamization of history! Are you sure you are prepared to be forced to discuss Muslim activities of the period against the Jews - reaction or provocation - whatever it turns out to be? Think carefully - as you may very well land up being forced to write about the planned genocidic organization of Muslims for the specific purpose of going against the Jews.

They were buying land and they employed only jews, which was worsening the economic situation of the arabs. And add to that more jews fleeing persecution arriving. The British offered to create a jewish homeland in Palestine as the jews refused Uganda, and other locations - because the local population there would have refused to allow them per the jewishvirtuallibrary.

Now who were selling the Jews the land? The Arabs themselves? Why complain after selling and taking the money? Or was this standard Islamic behaviour of the period? Actually there appears to be a nice arrangement - by which every two-bit Islamic official involved would take his "cut" over and above the price of the land. Typically the less productive or more difficult to work land was sold. The Arabs wanted the money and swindle the Jews and they simply did not want to fulfill their side of the extortionary bargain - thats the crux of the matter!

So why was it okay to upset arabs, but not upset local population in australia or Uganda?

Why is not okay to upset the Arabs? Because they were Muslims? What is the big problem if the Jews think of the region occupied by the Arabs as their homeland? Their cultural centre and focus - where their holy sites lie! Not in Uganda or Oz!

Your comparison is fallacious. Jews were in continuous occupation of the land, maybe their numbers dwindled, and they lost out state power. "Kicked out for whatever reasons" is a highly callous attitude.
So that gives someone a fundamental right to kick out the people living there?

From Islamic Jurisprudence viewpoint - kicking out those who do not belong to their faith and occupying is legal. Why complain if it is acceptable and declared policy for Islamism?

Those reasons are all-important. Who kicked whom for what. Those who try to avoid the reasons do so because they perhaps have some thing to hide. In the case of "kicking Jews" - the Islamic reason is out and out ideological, racial and genocidic. Why are you avoiding looking at the Islamic narratives themselves about descriptions about which Muslims kicked "Jews" for what motivation? The Badr wars, the genocide of Banu Quraizah, the battle of Khyber? It is not Judaic claim - it is all there in the most respected texts of Islam!
So it was the muslims who kicked out the jews only?

Back to square one - you had denied Muslims doing any such things. it was not a question of only! It is a question because those others who also participated in "kicking" out are in general not still claiming the right to kick Jews out. Only the Muslims persist in doing so.

ummm... okay... fair enough.
So lets take Israel's claim as a precedent. By this definition, A native Indian state should be created in the US - its stolen land, so let the Indians sell their land in New Jersey and give it back to its original inhabitants. Aborigine's too - Australia to be given back to the aborigines. Good luck in asking those respective current resident's to leave.

Aha! Good sense of argument but not relevant for this thread.

(only in Islamic thinking there is a justification for that in the context of property/women obtained through jihad - that "vague" thing you mock, and which is supposed to be non-violent according to you - the basis for this starts in Al Baqara of Quran and explictly mentioned in the Hidaya).
Discuss with an islamic scholar.

Done many times, those who did not stutter out in rage - agreed with what I said. It belongs to a list of ten elements of Sharia that I place to Islamists and their collaborators - and none can ultimately deny them.

I will take up the cases of atrocities from Muslims on Jews you carefully omitted in your eagerness to prove the Ottomans or the early Islamic or pre-Ottoman regimes being so benign on the Jews.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Jun 2010 03:36

By the way - why is it always "Palestinian Arabs"? Are Arabs by birth/origin "Palestinians"? I thought they claimed their homeland to be on the peninsula! Aren't "Arabs" also occupiers of Palestinian lands?

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 11 Jun 2010 03:43

brihaspati, I wouldn't bother with shyamd - he seems to be a blatant Islamophile, boasting of all his Pak friends, and claiming to have provided some kind of irrefutable "proof" that Hamas attacks were not the cause of blockade. Muslims can do no wrong, in his eyes. Their "peace activists" can carry all the knives and iron bars they want, and he will shower them with accolades. Everyone else is guilty before proven innocent.

munna · Post by **munna** » 11 Jun 2010 04:53

^^Sanjayji, Brihaspati is doing a yeoman's service by thoroughly challenging and debunking the perversion of history. Otherwise a random person coming across one sided arguments from Shyam may be led to believe falsehoods. Atleast this way whenever someone googles the topic both sides of the stories will appear. Under no circumstances should any right thinking individual concede the moral ground to forces of extremism by way of silence.

A similar strategy was used to curry favour on this forum for Chechen terrorists before it was shown that these very "peaceful" and "oppressed" people were spilling blood of our troops in J&K.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 11 Jun 2010 05:08

Sanjay M wrote:brihaspati, I wouldn't bother with shyamd - he seems to be a blatant Islamophile, boasting of all his Pak friends, and claiming to have provided some kind of irrefutable "proof" that Hamas attacks were not the cause of blockade.

Dude, you continue to make personal attacks to malign me. This is hilarious, you are embarressing yourself and showing everyone that you are getting personal because I proved to you Hamas rocket attacks were NOT the cause of the blockade!

LOL! Grow up please! I can't believe that you can't accept that Hamas was blockaded because of winning the elections despite the amount of evidence given. You just showed how desperate you are to all the readers.

Muslims can do no wrong, in his eyes. Their "peace activists" can carry all the knives and iron bars they want, and he will shower them with accolades. Everyone else is guilty before proven innocent.

Lol, and Jews could never do a thing wrong! And the rest of it was answered in my replies to you.

Brihaspati has raised lots of interesting points and we shall continue to have an intellectual debate as gentlemen without issuing personal attacks against each other.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 11 Jun 2010 05:14

Munna Ji,
Haath kanga ko Arsi kya,Parre Likhe ko Gurmukhi kya.
Our own experience with islamist speaks volumes . No one has suffered at their hands in past as much as Hanoods and Yahoods has. While we wish both Israeli and Palestinian can live side by side,supporting genocidal Islamist is not in our long term interests>