West Asia News and Discussions

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 11 Jun 2010 05:40

sure buddy, you are being attacked, the "peace activists" are being attacked - everybody is doing the attacking, while you and the "peace activists" are "suffering victims"

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 11 Jun 2010 06:42

^^ Yawn and thanks for confirming my point that you are just attacking me personally (just shows your lack of maturity, as you have to resort to such tactics).

"you and the peace activist" are suffering victims? I was not on the boat Sanjay.

Lets wait for a "fair trial" into what took place, unlike you who has already made his mind up and perhaps it would be prudent for israel to release entire unedited footage - which so far it has failed to do so.

If Israel was soo innocent in this case, why would they need to edit those audio conversations or create false propaganda (even about having guns on board which they tied themselves in a knot)?

Gaza convoy tapes edited, Israel acknowledges

Israel acknowledged Sunday that it edited recordings of what it said were anti-Semitic and anti-American radio calls by pro-Palestinian activists who tried to run the Gaza blockade and that it could not identify the origin of the broadcasts.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 11 Jun 2010 07:20

shyamd, your comments tell us more about you than about the subject you're commenting upon.

Clearly Erdogan is looking to make a power play, in the wake of having arrested so many senior Turkish military officers over an alleged "coup plot". He needs to quickly invoke Islamic street power to shore up his political position, and therefore this flotilla was an excellent opportunity for him to stage a Bluestar for himself, so that he could rally the outraged faithful to his side. Scapegoating "da jooz" in the usual way is just par for the course.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 11 Jun 2010 08:17

Pressed to End Gaza Embargo, Israel Looks for New Policy

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/world ... 1gaza.html

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 11 Jun 2010 09:49

Turkey Seeking 'Strategic Depth'?

Uh oh, where have we heard that before?
Sounds like they're going to get a mango crate instead

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 11 Jun 2010 09:53

Well, this is actually a longtime goal of Davutoglu. When it comes to FP, instead of looking at Erdogan, it is probably better to get an Davutoglu's ideas in order to understand their strategic view. I am not there yet, will probably hunt for some translations of his works this summer.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 11 Jun 2010 11:32

Israelis speak up

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... s_speak_up

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 11 Jun 2010 12:58

shyamd wrote:
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

Shymad, I dont know what is so difficult to understand about -- "Accept the state of Israel" -- its a pretty simple statement.

20 of 22 Arab league nations do not accept Israel, many have embargoes, and almost all do not allow travel of people.

Accept Israel, accept its passport, accept its citizen, allow trade, set up Dipolmatic missions.

Now is that really so hard to understand?

How does that become -- "Accept all territorial claims of Israel"

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.

Yeah right, and the still Hamas does not do that, as well as 20 of 22 Arab leaguers.

Perhaps Hamas won because the Pali's did not really like the 2002 process.

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

Nice, it is like asking India to negotiate with Pakistan on Kashmir without Pakistan changing its stand one bit.

I hope no other country has to go through the humiliation.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Jun 2010 14:13

Two facts exist.The establishment of the state of Israel under a UN mandate/vote and the agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians in setting up a separate state for the Palestinians under a comprehensive peace agreement.Other statements about settlement freezes,status of Jerusalem,refugees' right of return,etc. have become the bones of contention since the last major understanding between the two sides.Each of these points should be sbject to mutual discussions with specialist teams of negotiators in order to being both sides closer to a final full resolution of the conflict.One fundamental requirement though is that armed Arab/Palestinian entities like Hamas and the Hiz must recognise the state of Israel eventually if peace is to be obtained for the Palestinians.A series of gradual steps/ageements between both sides,"road map" has become a sad cliche, should be worked out,so that an incremental peace takes place according to a schedule.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 11 Jun 2010 19:09

brihaspati wrote:
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.

Just to be clear, I was giving a very brief history timeline. And let me just re-quote what I said earlier.

Okay, so who kicked the Israeli's out? there was a lot of people responsible for it

meaning, I do admit that muslims were also responsible, but so were the romans and christians who also persecuted/massacred the jews - case in point is your admission of the Romans massacring and exiling jews.

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".

I am not saying Muslims did not commit atrocities. Also do give me references for forced conversion in Israel by the islamic rulers (not other parts of their empire). Under romans,it was state policy to convert jews to Christianity.

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:

Errr.... The first bit was my statement that "didn't the christians kick the jews out?" Then I started with history. I agree I didn't make it clear. Okay, so lets forget wiki, lets take exclusively jewish/israeli sources (can't take the muslim sources they will be biased).

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 ordered the temple rebuilt. But what good is a temple without worshippers? To this end, he ordered that the Jews in Babylon return to Jerusalem. In fact, Cyrus sent many people back to the native lands in order to worship the local gods there, so the situation with the Jews was not unique. Not all of the Jews went home; a large portion stayed in Babylon and some had converted to Babylonian religions.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... xile1.html

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!

okay, have you got some references to read up on Josephus. TIA. The Jewish library says most of the jewish population was massacred and taken as slaves. And do give some more sources as to how many were expelled/massacred from Israel - most sources I checked all state similar figures.

About half a millennium later, the Roman Empire conquered ancient Israel for the second time, massacring most of the nation and taking the bulk of the remainder as slaves to Rome. Once the Roman Empire crumbled, descendants of these captives migrated throughout the European continent. Many settled in Spain (Sepharad) and Portugal, where they thrived until the Spanish Inquisition and Expulsion of 1492 and the Portuguese Inquisition and Expulsion shortly thereafter.

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

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??

Actually, the third paragraph came from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel, which is why I wrote MFA, Israel next to it.

I have never suggested that only non muslims expelled/killed jews. Perhaps, I should have made that a bit more clear in my first sentence.

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.

Okay, so lets look at what happened during the crusader period too.

Many of the secondary sources on this time period question how important the impact of the crusades was on both the Jewish and Christian communities. Robert Chazan's belief is that the effect was minimal in the end – both cultures were, in many ways, used to the persecution that was being enacted, and that this was just another step. R. I. Moore, within his novel The Formation of a Persecuting Society, argues that the effect on Christians was huge, with their entire society gaining feelings of the need for separation from their Jewish neighbors, which allowed them to persecute further in the future. Ivan G. Marcus in his article The Culture of the Early Ashkenaz argues that the Jews pulled away from the Christian community physically, mentally, and spiritually due to the sheer ferocity and shocking nature of the crusades. All of these and more provide differing opinions on the results of the crusades, but all agree that the crusades caused a separation to occur between the two religions.

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!!

Errr... no my point was that Muslims/arabs were not the only one responsible - it was also the Romans and of course others such as the muslims who expelled the jews from Israel.

No you have not! You had so far avoided saying that Jews faced discrimination in any form from Islamics.

I thought I said jewish population dwindled even further due to taxation. As in Jizya ( a discriminatory tax for non-muslims) - which I am sure you know what I meant. Sure I missed out massacre's, which of course the others did too - and in your view it was okay for them to do it, it was part of war. In your view, They rebelled against the romans, so romans conducted a genocide on them (1.1 million killed according to most historians), which is acceptable in your view as everyone did it. You neglected to show that christians were also just as responsible, So are you backing the extremist christians now and saying they didn't do anything but only the muslims were the "leading participants"?

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.

Oh I agree, that Islamic regimes were just as responsible - I haven't refuted it anywhere.

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".

Where have I disputed that Israel did not exist in any shape or form? I feel that jews should be able to return there - but it needs to be done properly, not by evicting or annexing land. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

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!

No, what I am saying now is that the majority of the land owners were muslim/palestinian or arabs (whatever you want to call the people living there). And you know that jewish agency were only able to buy 7% of the land over the 40 or so years preceding independence.

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!!!

I think people reading it know that I didn't mean it in reaction. If I wanted to say in reaction, then I would have said that it was in response.

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.

Mate, I am not defending the muslim actions in history AT ALL! But I said they were also part of the others who were collectively responsible of the expulsion of jews from Israel. And by the way, most records state that there were more jews living in europe at the time than in the holy land.

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!

Are you suggesting arabs sold most of the land of Israel/Palestine? Typically less productive land was sold? Actually per records most of the land that the Jewish landowners possessed was cultivatable land as per Survey of Palestine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_Pa ... _ownership

You are referring to UN partition plan which gave less arable land to the Jews.

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!

You never answered my question, why was it not okay to upset Uganda and Oz? Coz they were christian?

What is the big problem if jews think of their region as occupied by Arabs? urmm well... is it fair to blame the arabs who live there for their leaders acts? Besides, if we take that precedent, oh do ask the native americans to vacate the people living on their land. Same goes for the ozzies too.

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?

Why complain if the ordinary guy was kicked out of his house that he and his ancestors have lived in for a while (lets say 300 years). I am sure you would be saying something different if you were one of them kicked out.

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.

Firstly, I never denied that muslims did genocide/ethnic cleansing etc.
For your second point, ermmm isn't that because they don't currently live there (i.e. the romans and the rest of the occupiers) and does not affect people of their origin/culture.

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

Thanks but why not? Native Indians fought and were massacred too - are you denying their rights in support of the numerous genocides/persecution - you know some experts say more people died in this genocide than the Holocaust. You know there was also forced conversion to christianity, some were forcefully made to cut their hair etc. So you would naturally have to support a state for them too and under UN conventions they would also be allowed legitimate resistance to an occupier. What about Aborigines of Australia - last I heard the australian PM had to apologise. So why is it not relevant? Good luck in getting back Sydney, Melbourne, Washington DC, New Jersey etc.

Australia apology to Aborigines

The Australian government has made a formal apology for the past wrongs caused by successive governments on the indigenous Aboriginal population.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised in parliament to all Aborigines for laws and policies that "inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss".

He singled out the "Stolen Generations" of thousands of children forcibly removed from their families.

I understand this is a long reply, So just to summarise:
- I do not defend muslims for their attrocities in occupied Israel, but I suggest that the Romans, Babylonians, arab/muslims, Crusaders are jointly responsible.

- if we set a precedent that the state of Israel in its present location is acceptable, that would mean it is okay for Native Americans to have an independent state in the current location of United States/South America (acceptable displacement of Washington DC, New Jersey and other major cities that were originally inhabited by Native americans) etc. Same for aborigines too.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 11 Jun 2010 19:48

Sanku wrote: Shymad, I dont know what is so difficult to understand about -- "Accept the state of Israel" -- its a pretty simple statement.

Which is why it was done in 2002.

20 of 22 Arab league nations do not accept Israel, many have embargoes, and almost all do not allow travel of people.

Arab League voted in favour of the 2002 Comprehensive Peace plan which accepted the state of israel under the 1967 borders. Does Israel accept the right of a Palestinian state to exist? Its a simple thing "accept the state of Palestine".

Accept Israel, accept its passport, accept its citizen, allow trade, set up Dipolmatic missions.

The last 2 was done by Qatar and Oman. Israeli cabinet minister visited Oman and also visited UAE for the first time in 2010(although this was part of a exhibition and had no relations with diplomatic links). Israel did have diplomatic relations with Mauritania - had a diplomatic mission. UAE/Qatar/Oman/Bahrain(KSA protected) have or had Israeli trade offices open. UAE continues to trade with Israel for strategic goods(although this may have stopped after Mabhouh assasination in Dubai).

By the way, King Abdullah says that Israel has to recognise Palestine and a 2 state solution, only then will there be a normalisation of relations.

Yeah right, and the still Hamas does not do that, as well as 20 of 22 Arab leaguers.

Perhaps Hamas won because the Pali's did not really like the 2002 process.

Look Hamas is hardline - the late Sheikh Ahmed Yassin actually said "we will negotiate" if Israel will withdraw to 1967 - that remains Hamas's policy. But this will change overnight if Israel accepts or negotiates with the Arab League on a the 2002 peace treaty - just as Hamas signed a document with the Fatah that was a huge climb down in their position on Israel.

Your suggestion that Hamas was voted in power in response to the peace initiative is ridiculous because there was presidential elections in 2005 - but people overwhelmingly voted for Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas). West Bank also continued to vote for the Fatah movement which backs the 2002 peace treaty. Of course it is convenient to ignore the decades of corruption by the PLO and local politics.

Nice, it is like asking India to negotiate with Pakistan on Kashmir without Pakistan changing its stand one bit.

Not really. Arabs went from not accepting to accepting. What did Israel offer? err....Nothing, just some words and more settlements that are declared illegal and annexe more land through the wall which has been declared illegal by the ICJ.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 11 Jun 2010 19:51

arrey baapre

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 11 Jun 2010 20:08

shyamd,

Very interesting discussion. IMO the two primary reasons for the stalemate are:

1. Israel's deep misgivings about the nature of any security agreements regarding defensible borders made with Arab regimes. Not so much because they think that the Arab leaders will blatantly wriggle out of any agreement made but because the nature of Arab regimes and governments make them susceptible to pressure from radical elements within their populations.

2. The Arab's disbelief that a "European race" has displaced the local people to establish the State of Israel. Not just any local people but Muslims.

These two adverserial positions make any kind of real peace a long long shot in the Middle East. The issue of settlements etc. is tactical skirmishing IMO.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Jun 2010 21:05

shyamd wrote
I understand this is a long reply, So just to summarise:
- I do not defend muslims for their attrocities in occupied Israel, but I suggest that the Romans, Babylonians, arab/muslims, Crusaders are jointly responsible.

Shyamd, I specifically noted the explicit figures you repeatedly quoted about non-Muslim atrocities Post after post you have described in details the supposed atrocities on the Jews by Christians and Persians - but nowhere you found any space tp write about any genocidic activity by the Muslims on Jews - no, not even when you are mentioning atrocities before and after "Arab conquest" - just miss any mention when Islamics come up. Yes you have not denied it, but neither have you mentioned it. You have consistently mentioned only the "good" things from Islamics - your highest concession was "taxation". Gradually I had to coax out of you "discriminatory", "social and economic discrimination".

Simultaneously when mentioning only patronage and encouragement from Islamics - you again remain totally silent of similar patronage and encouragement from Christians as well as Persians.

I had never even doubted or challenged (I could do so from sources) your claims and explicit descriptions of Christain atrocities on Jews especially when you brought up the Crusades. In fact your references about this suggests that you have not really studied up on the nature, extent and depth of anti-Semitic activities in Europe, and who were and involved and how. youc ould have got greater support for your points from that. However it would again have thrown the modern Islamists and certain European alignments known to be favourable towards the "Arabs" - in avery bad light. I guess, this is the reason Islamics also do not highlight this very much.

I think you may need to widen up your historical absorption from a much wider variety of sources compared to only the Islamic indicated ones.

Combining all these aspects of your posts - not denying but never mentioning islamic atrocity when in the same passage you explictly describe Chrisrtian or persian ones, mentioning only at most "taxation" but not genocide or discriminatory taxation but more encouragement and patronage under Islamcis while at the same time you remain totally silent on similar behaviour from Christians or Persians - only shows that you tried to suppress the Muslim record as much as feasible given the limitations of your own knowledge of anti-Semtism, while trying to pass the buck on to mainly Christians or non-Muslims.

Even in your reply again you have conveniently jumped stages in history and important events. As usual you have to paint the "happy Jew" under Ummayad Spain as a continuous run of good luck from break-up of Roman emoire to Spanish Inquisition!!! Gone are Morocco under Idris's, or even the sequence of progressively more and more violent repression of Jews in Spain under the islamics, in Egypt, in Muslim Persia, in Yemen during the same period.

About the "question" on "why choose to upset the Arabs" I think I answered with one negative and one assertive reply. First the negative : "why is it wrong to upset the Arabs", second - that the Jews did not consider Uganda or Oz as their homeland - since they had little cultural and holy site connection to those places compared to the southern shores of the eastern Mediterranean.

Oh yes, i guess you need many more lessons in history. I find it rather absurd that you come to discuss Jewish history so confidently without ever having touched Josephus. Google and you will get several resources, and there could be translations available in your regional library. The Norde-land had several interesting encounters with anti-Semitism (long before the Nazis) and Stockholm surely would have a library stocking one shelf copy. Sacred texts dot com could be an useful online resource.

I have refused to discuss Aborigines or Native Americans because they are not relevant for this thread. Take the discussion somewhere else appropriate and I will happily join you there.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 11 Jun 2010 21:13

shyamd wrote: Arab League voted in favour of the 2002 Comprehensive Peace plan which accepted the state of israel under the 1967 borders. Does Israel accept the right of a Palestinian state to exist? Its a simple thing "accept the state of Palestine".

Shyamd I cant hear you, did you say

20 of 22 Arab league nations accept Israel, accept its passport, accept its citizen for free travel, allow trade, set up Diplomatic missions?

Yes or no?

(dont worry I am quiet used to the BRFiets who talk about every thing on earth other than what is being really talked about since its inconvenient, in response I have developed a really thick hide and persistence)

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Jun 2010 21:58

Shyamd, here goes one of my first promised posts about the attitudes and treatment of Jews under "normal" conditions (not of war or conquest) or "Jihad" under Islamic rule - aspects which never appeared in your default "patronage/encouragement" model of Islam on the Jews.
[Carl_T do you see the connection now?]

Maimonides (1135-1204), was a famous Jewish philosopher and author who fled Spain from a murderous Muslim persecution and took up the job of a physician to Saladin. However over time his experiences come out in his "Letter to Yemen" [1]

[as punishment] God has hurled us into the midst of this people, the Arabs, who have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us... Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they.

Maimonides had correspondence with Jews over a large area (yes, includingIndia), and was therefore in a position to compare.

The 9th century Muslim writer al-Jahiz (an Arab settled in Baghdad) wrote: "...the hearts of the Muslims are hardened toward the Jews but inclined toward the Christians."[2] He pointed out that "in his time the Christians were both socially and economically better off than the Jews."[3] He explained this by the political resistance of the Jews of Medina to Muhammad.
Bernard Lewis refers to attempts at reform in the 19th century Ottoman empire by quoting a Turk "... whereas in former times, in the Ottoman state, the communities were ranked, with the Muslims first, then the Greeks [Greek Orthodox], then the Armenians, then the Jews, now all of them were put on the same level. Some Greeks objected to this, saying: "The government has put us together with the Jews. We were content with the supremacy of Islam."[4] Most likely this refers to the reform decrees that resulted out of the powersstruggle between Muhammad Ali of Egypt and the Ottomans.

The British envoy, Dr John Bowring was in Lebanon and Syria in the 1830s, and he writes:

The Mussulmans. . . deeply deplore the loss of that sort of superiority which they all & individually exercised over and against the other sects. . . a Mussulman. . . believes and maintains that a Christian — and still more a Jew — is an inferior being to himself.[5]
[...] The condition of the Jews forms, perhaps, an exception [to the general improvement of non-Muslims] and cannot be said to have improved comparatively with that of the other Sects[6]

Towards the end of Mameluk rule (from the Mongol withdrawal in 1260 to the Ottoman conquest in 1517), a Franciscan monk named Francesco Suriano lived in the monastery in Jerusalem for about a quarter of a century. He served as Custos Terrae Sanctae or Guardian of the Holy Land for his order for some time and therefore the highest ranking Catholic official there, charged by the pope with overseeing Roman Catholic interests in the Christian holy places and Church affairs in the country. He writes about the Jews in Jerusalem:

"I wish you to know how these dogs of Jews are trampled upon, beaten and ill-treated, as they deserve, by every infidel nation, and this is the just decree of God. They live in this country in such subjection that words cannot describe it. . . there in Jerusalem, where they committed the sin for which they are dispersed throughout the world [i.e., the Crucifixion], they are by God more punished and afflicted than in any other part of the world. And over a long time I have witnessed that . . . No infidel [= Muslim] would touch with his hand a Jew lest he be contaminated but when they wish to beat them, they take off their shoes with which they strike them on the mustaches; the greatest wrong and insult to a man is to call him a Jew. And it is a right notable thing that the Moslems do not accept a Jew into their creed unless he first become a Christian. . . And if they were not subsidised by the Jews of Christendom, the Jews who live in Judea would die like dogs of hunger."[7]

The Ottoman Empire needed the Jewish expertise in various fields including finances so initially after conquest they brought in some of the more outstanding into service. This was vehemently opposed by the local muslims. Therefore, "The Jewish community... paid the jizya at rates somewhat higher than the [Greek] Orthodox."[8] Now, even under and after such "great" patronage by the Ottomans, Chateaubriand, (a famous French author), visited Jerusalem in 1806, and later wrote:

Special target of all contempt [i.e., of both Muslims and Christians], they lower their heads without complaint; they suffer all insults without demanding justice; they let themselves be crushed by blows... Penetrate the dwellings of these people, you will find them in frightful poverty...

Nothing can prevent them from turning their gaze towards Zion. When one sees the Jews dispersed throughout the world,... one is probably surprised, but, to be struck by supernatural astonishment, it is necessary to find them in Jerusalem.. . to see these legitimate owners of Judea, slaves and strangers in their own land. One must see them under all oppressions, awaiting a king who is to redeem them.[9]

Neophytos was a Greek Orthodox monk belonging to the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher, which governed Orthodox church affairs in Jerusalem. Around 1834, Neophytos writes:

"As we are on the question of repairs, we must say something about the Jewish Synagogue. One year ago only, seeing the liberal dispositions of Mehemet Ali Pasha [Muhammad Ali] and Ibrahim Pasha [his son, general, and deputy], they dared to speak about their Synagogue. They asked that their House of Prayer, being in a ruinous condition and in danger of falling in, might be repaired. So, those who did not even dare to change a tile on the roof of the Synagogue at one time, now received a permit and a decree to build."[10]

Felix Bovet, a Swiss Protestant minister who visited Jerusalem in 1858, writes "the Jews are still, to this day, the most miserable part of the population of the Holy City."[11] Bovet quotes a French convert to Islam, who wrote: "the Jerusalem Jew only half lives, scarcely daring to breathe."[12]

1. Maimonides, "Epistle to Yemen," in David Hartman, ed., Crisis and Leadership: Epistles of Maimonides (tr. A Halkin; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society 1985), p 126.

2. Quoted in Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam (Princeton 1984), pp 59-60.

3. Words of Moshe Sharon, op. cit., p 94; also see Carlo Panella, Il 'Complotto Ebraico' — L'antisemitismo islamico da Maometto a Bin Laden (Torino: Lindau 2005), p 89

4. Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong? (London: Orion House 2002), p 104.

5. Quoted in William R Polk, The Opening of South Lebanon, 1788-1840 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1963), p 138. Other 19th century Western observers noted the same Arab-Muslim Judeophobia, as quoted by Saul S Friedman, Land of Dust (Washington, DC: University Press of America 1982), p 136.

6. William R Polk, The Opening of South Lebanon, 1788-1840 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1963), p 138.

7. Francesco Suriano, Treatise on the Holy Land (Jerusalem: Franciscan Press, 1949) [in original: Trattato di Terra Santa e dell'Oriente], pp 101-02. For a scholarly view of the Jews in Jerusalem in the late Mamluk period, when Suriano lived there, see Avraham David in "The Mamluk Period" in Israel: People, Land, State (Avigdor Shinan, ed.: Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 2005).

8. Amnon Cohen, "On the Realities of the Millet System: Jerusalem in the 16th century," in B Braude and B Lewis, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire (New York: Holmes & Meier 1982), p 14.

9. Chateaubriand, Itinéraire de Paris à Jérusalem (Paris: Juilliard 1964), pp 426-427.

10. Neophytos, Extracts from Annals of Palestine 1821-1841 (Jerusalem, Ariel Publishing House, 1979; compiled by Eli Schiller), p 78. Originally published in Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society, vol. XVIII (1938; tr S N Spyridon).

11. Felix Bovet, Egypt, Palestine, and Phoenicia (Eng. trans; London: 1872), p 180

12. Ibid., p 181.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that all these i have referred to were way before any Jewish attempt at buying land and causing economic hardship to "Arabs"!!!

I will take up the explicit descriptions of genocide from the muslim side under the "tolerant" protective Islamic regimes - next.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 11 Jun 2010 22:07

Sorry uh to intrude, but what exactly are you guys debating? We have gone from flotilla to Maimonides.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 11 Jun 2010 22:09

Actually, shyamd,
I think you have raised interesting angle too. I think people here should also know the special relationship of Protestantism with anti-Semitism. The role of certain European nations in making common cause with Islam against the Jews- and I have not even quoted one tenth of sources in my previous post. There is after all a valid point that Muslims were in it "together" with "other forces". It will be so enjoyable to bring up that aspect in this discussion. But will that clear the Islamic name or blacken it further - with respect to Jews - remains to be seen!

munna · Post by **munna** » 11 Jun 2010 22:28

B-ji you are a Thaparite's nightmare!!!

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 12 Jun 2010 03:17

brihaspati wrote: Shyamd, I specifically noted the explicit figures you repeatedly quoted about non-Muslim atrocities Post after post you have described in details the supposed atrocities on the Jews by Christians and Persians - but nowhere you found any space tp write about any genocidic activity by the Muslims on Jews - no, not even when you are mentioning atrocities before and after "Arab conquest" - just miss any mention when Islamics come up. Yes you have not denied it, but neither have you mentioned it. You have consistently mentioned only the "good" things from Islamics - your highest concession was "taxation". Gradually I had to coax out of you "discriminatory", "social and economic discrimination".

I quoted straight from wiki from the beginning. I agreed that massacres took place, but I could not find any specific figures on genocide/enslavement. Do post if you find them.

Firstly, I looked up Israel's history with the MFA - which stated discriminatory taxation "social and economic discrimination", added wiki's comment on it which did say "massacre's".

I think we are heading back to the original point I was trying to make, which was not to absolve the Islamic guys of their persecution/genocide of jews BUT to show that the others (christians/romans etc) were just as responsible for the dispersion of jews - therefore it is not easy to blame Muslims ONLY. This is the 2nd time I am making that clear.

I had never even doubted or challenged (I could do so from sources) your claims and explicit descriptions of Christain atrocities on Jews especially when you brought up the Crusades. In fact your references about this suggests that you have not really studied up on the nature, extent and depth of anti-Semitic activities in Europe, and who were and involved and how.

Oh, I purposely didn't post anything that happened in europe and other muslim empires simply because each incident is affected by different politics, I kept it fixed on what happened on Israel/Palestine. Call that a crime if you want.

youc ould have got greater support for your points from that. However it would again have thrown the modern Islamists and certain European alignments known to be favourable towards the "Arabs" - in avery bad light. I guess, this is the reason Islamics also do not highlight this very much.

I think you may need to widen up your historical absorption from a much wider variety of sources compared to only the Islamic indicated ones.

Dude, did you even read what I posted? I quoted from exclusively jewish resources too - jewish library, MFA of Israel and others like Israel Science and Tech Uni etc. Are you calling them islamic now?

Combining all these aspects of your posts - not denying but never mentioning islamic atrocity when in the same passage you explictly describe Chrisrtian or persian ones, mentioning only at most "taxation" but not genocide or discriminatory taxation but more encouragement and patronage under Islamcis while at the same time you remain totally silent on similar behaviour from Christians or Persians - only shows that you tried to suppress the Muslim record as much as feasible given the limitations of your own knowledge of anti-Semtism, while trying to pass the buck on to mainly Christians or non-Muslims.

I repeat: I think we are heading back to the original point I was trying to make, which was not to absolve the Islamic guys of their persecution/genocide of jews BUT to show that the others (christians/romans etc) were just as responsible for the dispersion of jews - therefore it is not easy to blame Muslims ONLY. They are collectively responsible.

Even in your reply again you have conveniently jumped stages in history and important events. As usual you have to paint the "happy Jew" under Ummayad Spain as a continuous run of good luck from break-up of Roman emoire to Spanish Inquisition!!! Gone are Morocco under Idris's, or even the sequence of progressively more and more violent repression of Jews in Spain under the islamics, in Egypt, in Muslim Persia, in Yemen during the same period.

Explained this above. And do tell me when I painted a "happy jew" under Ummayad spain in my last post.

About the "question" on "why choose to upset the Arabs" I think I answered with one negative and one assertive reply. First the negative : "why is it wrong to upset the Arabs", second - that the Jews did not consider Uganda or Oz as their homeland - since they had little cultural and holy site connection to those places compared to the southern shores of the eastern Mediterranean.

Why is it wrong to upset anybody in that case? So, you want to upset the arabs to set history right? Brilliant excuse.

For the second: Yes, if they were offered empty land (one that would affect the local population the least), why not take it? So just because jews were inconvenienced, its okay to inconvenience a population that was residing in Palestine for a long time too? If jews, wanted to make pilgramage to jerusalem, they could still fly out etc to the holy sites - would that have been an impossible task?

I have refused to discuss Aborigines or Native Americans because they are not relevant for this thread. Take the discussion somewhere else appropriate and I will happily join you there.

Lol. It is relevant to the thread because their positions are very similar and comparable - I am sure you know that.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 12 Jun 2010 03:22

brihaspati wrote:Actually, shyamd,
I think you have raised interesting angle too. I think people here should also know the special relationship of Protestantism with anti-Semitism. The role of certain European nations in making common cause with Islam against the Jews- and I have not even quoted one tenth of sources in my previous post. There is after all a valid point that Muslims were in it "together" with "other forces". It will be so enjoyable to bring up that aspect in this discussion. But will that clear the Islamic name or blacken it further - with respect to Jews - remains to be seen!

Do post. Will be good to see what happened. Thanks.

BTW Do you agree that Muslims were not the only one's responsible for the exile of jews and that Roman's, Babylonians, Crusaders were also responsible for inhumane atrocities against the jewish population?

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 12 Jun 2010 03:41

Sanku wrote: Shyamd I cant hear you, did you say

20 of 22 Arab league nations accept Israel, accept its passport, accept its citizen for free travel, allow trade, set up Diplomatic missions?

Lol, I can't hear you either, did you say that Israel accepts the rights of the Palestinian people and a Palestinian nation?

Yes or no?

From the Likud charter:
http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/kne ... ikud_m.htm

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.

This adds to the debate because the west sanctioned Hamas for not recognising Israel's right to exist, but doesn't say anything about Likud which has a similar charter on Palestine. Lol. Talk about double standards.

(dont worry I am quiet used to the BRFiets who talk about every thing on earth other than what is being really talked about since its inconvenient, in response I have developed a really thick hide and persistence)

Oh no way! I got that thick hide and persistence too.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 12 Jun 2010 04:17

shyamd wrote,

I quoted straight from wiki from the beginning. I agreed that massacres took place, but I could not find any specific figures on genocide/enslavement. Do post if you find them.
Firstly, I looked up Israel's history with the MFA - which stated discriminatory taxation "social and economic discrimination", added wiki's comment on it which did say "massacre's".

I think we are heading back to the original point I was trying to make, which was not to absolve the Islamic guys of their persecution/genocide of jews BUT to show that the others (christians/romans etc) were just as responsible for the dispersion of jews - therefore it is not easy to blame Muslims ONLY. This is the 2nd time I am making that clear.

Initially your post was very brief and clear - you specifically mentioned expulsion and genocide from Romans and Christians under Romans, and Persians, but you mentioned that with the Arab onset - muslim armies created and improved situation/gave some freedom/rights and that this increased further under Ottomans. Because you went on pointing out atrocities of Romans and Christians on Jews - I pointedly noted the "figures". You still did not find any opportunity to mention atrocities by Islamics. On the other hand you were mentioning the "encouragement" provided by the Islamics. On both counts this is a typcial Thaparite method.

I you are trying to show an equal-equal onlee - then you cannot highlight only the negatives on one side and the positives on the other side. Until I forced you to go into the details of the history you did not mention "massacres" and "dsicrimination". Remember that the basic start of the debate was about continuity of Jewish presence in the Levant? In your first version you forgot entirely about Cyrus and the return of the Jews - then you highlighted the "poor" aspect, which I explained and you still remained silent, only much later providing the sarcastic comment that Cyrus sent Jews back to maintain temple worship! Do you have the original source of the number of Jewish elite taken as hostage to Babylon? (One of the first sources is Herodotus).

Even then you omitted Herod and his rebuilding of the temple. You had not mentioned the earlier Maccabean uprising and independent state for Jews. That debate from my side was not about genocide primarily - but I tried to show to you that Jews were there continuously in "Israel", which you appeared to deny saying Romans and Persians "kicked" them out . In discussing Moorish Spain, you forgot the massacres and other repressions on the Jews under Islamic rule - and went straight from fall of Roman empire to Catholic Inquisition.

In that exchange of posts, I saw you carefully avoiding all incidence of Islamic genocidal tendencies on the Jews and trying only to highlight incidents of positive attitude. But you were at the same time explicitly describing Roman, Christian, Persian atrocities while not even mentioning any positive "encouraging" aspects from that side.

This is how Thaparites work. They are careful not to mention atrocities or any evidence that may point to so - from Islamics. At the same time they would only mention those that would imply positive attitude of Islamists towards non-Muslims. At the same time they would highlight in great details the atrocities perpetrated by non-Muslims on the same Islamic-target populations of non-Muslims and suppress all positive indications from the non-Muslim side.

Oh, I purposely didn't post anything that happened in europe and other muslim empires simply because each incident is affected by different politics, I kept it fixed on what happened on Israel/Palestine. Call that a crime if you want.

What happened to Jews under Crusaders had a connection with intra-Christian conflicts in Europe, so Palestinian Jews faced certain things because of a long previous history of doctrinal conflicts within European Christianity. Moreover, by "Europe" at this stage in this connection also includes the Byzantines. I am surprised that you could not find the gory details of Islamic atrocities on Jews in Palestine when you could find plenty about Romans, Persians and Christians! You never wondered that given the record of muslims elsewhere - why suddenly you are finding all atrocities at the door of Christians or persians and none whatsoever for Palestinian Muslims or Muslims holding power over Palestine?

Quote:
I think you may need to widen up your historical absorption from a much wider variety of sources compared to only the Islamic indicated ones.

Dude, did you even read what I posted? I quoted from exclusively jewish resources too - jewish library, MFA of Israel and others like Israel Science and Tech Uni etc. Are you calling them islamic now?

It only shows your unfamiliarity with modern Jewish politics. This is why I directed you to Josephus - to research how throughout Jewish history a small proportion of elite or intellectuals have found it beneficial to go soft on Muslims or Christians - basically change sides a bit in rhetoric. They simply do not highlight too much all the details in material meant for general public consumption. But the material exists alright - if you are a methodical researcher of history - and it exists from impeccable academic research too - not so-called Zionist propaganda. I have already given you a glimpse in Muslim attitudes at peace-time towards Jews - long before the Jews were apparently causing huge stress and raising fear of economic doom with the magnificient amount of what land you mentioned - 7% was it?

I will give descriptions of the "violent" part which you could not find, don't worry!

Quote:
Combining all these aspects of your posts - not denying but never mentioning islamic atrocity when in the same passage you explictly describe Chrisrtian or persian ones, mentioning only at most "taxation" but not genocide or discriminatory taxation but more encouragement and patronage under Islamcis while at the same time you remain totally silent on similar behaviour from Christians or Persians - only shows that you tried to suppress the Muslim record as much as feasible given the limitations of your own knowledge of anti-Semtism, while trying to pass the buck on to mainly Christians or non-Muslims.

I repeat: I think we are heading back to the original point I was trying to make, which was not to absolve the Islamic guys of their persecution/genocide of jews BUT to show that the others (christians/romans etc) were just as responsible for the dispersion of jews - therefore it is not easy to blame Muslims ONLY. They are collectively responsible.

Well, others had their part to play in that Jewish trauma - but they are not going there to Palestine and claiming the right to expel the Jews again? or to deny the right of the Israelis to have their homeland where they have been for thousands of years - where their most holy sites have been taken over and built over by Muslims? It is only the Muslims, and the neo-Muslim-Persians claiming that right!

Why is it wrong to upset anybody in that case? So, you want to upset the arabs to set history right? Brilliant excuse.

Once again, the Oz or Ugandans did not commit genocide on the Jews. Why upset them? If anyone has the grand qualification to deserve being upset it is the Muslims who are continuing their claimed right to persecute the Jews in their own homeland. Did you read up on the post on Muhammad Bari and his statements?

For the second: Yes, if they were offered empty land (one that would affect the local population the least), why not take it? So just because jews were inconvenienced, its okay to inconvenience a population that was residing in Palestine for a long time too? If jews, wanted to make pilgramage to jerusalem, they could still fly out etc to the holy sites - would that have been an impossible task?

Why can't they have their holy sites back in their possession - because Arabs or Muslims whose only qualification is to threaten violence on more productive people so that they can live off the product of the fruits of others labour - holding on to the pilgrim centres is important to extract "taxes"?

Quote:
I have refused to discuss Aborigines or Native Americans because they are not relevant for this thread. Take the discussion somewhere else appropriate and I will happily join you there.

Lol. It is relevant to the thread because their positions are very similar and comparable - I am sure you know that.

Assuming for arguments sake they are similar (I doubt it!) BRF thread discipline I think requires a more dedicated thread for that. Take it up in the Oz thread or US or Canada-Mexico thread. no problem!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Jun 2010 04:20

A great discussion going on here by some heavyweights.

Not much history to contribute here, but as a bystander, I would just say:

a) A people or a faith which has contributed to the displacement of another people earlier, simply lose the moral high ground to claim human rights abuses, when they themselves get displaced. People who have a history of living by the principle of 'might is right' cannot turn around another day and shout foul when they find themselves weak. It is not credible.

b) Even if a multitude of people like Romans, Babylonians, Christians, Arabs and whoever else contributed to abuse and displacement of Jews in the past, does not absolve the Arabs of their sins. More importantly Romans, Babylonians and Christians are/were not the ones denying the Israelis repossession of their historical lands. It is/was the Arabs, so naturally it is the Arabs who will have to take the brunt.

c) The Palestinian Arabs have got other Arab lands to move to, Israelis don't! So Israeli claims on the land is existential.

d) If the argument goes that since the Israelis were evicted out of their lands too far back in history and have since lost the right to live in present day Israel, well the Palestinians too have been away from their lands since over a generation ago, so they too are losing claims on the land.

e) Jews are in Israel because they are strong enough to be there, historical claims not withstanding. So argumentation on the basis of 'right and wrong' and morality is meaningless, when none of the conflict-parities believe in this motto.

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 12 Jun 2010 04:53

I echo similar sentiments as that of Rajesh Aji. However, I find Shyamdji take on things refreshing.

It is not about either-or but identifying all the players in this theater / in this mess. Don't know why most participants including esteemed B garu is trying to put words in Shyamd's mouth and picking on what he didn't say.

The game is still on between various Abrahamites and the discussions from Indic perspective is who is the major bunch of **fos. We should be applying somethings we learnt the hard way.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 12 Jun 2010 08:39

^^^Because of avoiding the part played by the Muslims. The current crisis is not between the descendants of the Italian Roman or Byzantine Roman Church, or the pre-Islamic Persians, (let alone Germans, Goths, Viennese, French, Brits, Spaniards, Portuguese) trying to "kick out" Jews but between almost all Muslims who rarely if ever support the right of Israelis to stay on - and the Israelites.

This is the reason, doing an equal equal with "others" is not only not relevant but also playing into the hands of Islamists who try to shift all blame on "others" but suppress their own role in genocide of Jews and their continued intent to erase Israel forever.

Read carefully. I have not put words into shyamd's mouth. I have opposed his contrasting treatment of the role of Islamics versus non-Muslims - suppression of negatives on Islamic side while at the same time highlighting negatives for "others", and highlighting positives on Islamic side while suppressing positives on the other. If he acknowledged both aspects from the beginning then I would not have touched this issue.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 12 Jun 2010 09:20

Purefool's wishful thinking in a pureland paper

If Israel continues to ignore sane advice, it will be eventually reined the way apartheid South Africa was -- by a combination of global sanctions and external pressure, with opposition from the Palestinians and sections of domestic and global Jewish opinion.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 12 Jun 2010 09:32

Sources: Obama Administration to Support Anti-Israel Resolution at UN Next Week
BY William Kristol

THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned that senior Obama administration officials have been telling foreign governments that the administration intends to support an effort next week at the United Nations to set up an independent commission, under UN auspices, to investigate Israel's behavior in the Gaza flotilla incident. The White House has apparently shrugged off concerns from elsewhere in the U.S. government that a) this is an extraordinary singling out of Israel, since all kinds of much worse incidents happen around the world without spurring UN investigations; b) that the investigation will be one-sided, focusing entirely on Israeli behavior and not on Turkey or on Hamas; and c) that this sets a terrible precedent for outside investigations of incidents involving U.S. troops or intelligence operatives as we conduct our own war on terror.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sou ... -next-week

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 12 Jun 2010 10:37

Israelis Agree With Bibi

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

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 12 Jun 2010 10:42

Israel supporters launch pre-emptive strike on the U.N.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... _on_the_un

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 12 Jun 2010 11:06

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 148555.ece

guys, this can be quite interesting if true...Saudi Barbaria facilitating a raid by Israel on Iran!

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 12 Jun 2010 11:15

Suppiah wrote:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 148555.ece

guys, this can be quite interesting if true...Saudi Barbaria facilitating a raid by Israel on Iran!

I believe this was actually approved last fall in a meeting between King abdullah, meir dagan, and john scarlett of mi5. Idk though, shyamd is up to date on that stuff.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Jun 2010 12:41

Yep,here are more details on the Saudi-Israeli "agreement".It underscores why the Russians are saelling Iran the S-300s as being "defensive weapons" and thus outside any UN embargo/sanctions .

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 148555.ece

Excerpt:

Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites
Hugh Tomlinson

Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal.

In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran. To ensure the Israeli bombers pass unmolested, Riyadh has carried out tests to make certain its own jets are not scrambled and missile defence systems not activated. Once the Israelis are through, the kingdom’s air defences will return to full alert.

“The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way,” said a US defence source in the area. “They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department.”

Sources in Saudi Arabia say it is common knowledge within defence circles in the kingdom that an arrangement is in place if Israel decides to launch the raid. Despite the tension between the two governments, they share a mutual loathing of the regime in Tehran and a common fear of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “We all know this. We will let them [the Israelis] through and see nothing,” said one.

The four main targets for any raid on Iran would be the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qom, the gas storage development at Isfahan and the heavy-water reactor at Arak. Secondary targets include the lightwater reactor at Bushehr, which could produce weapons-grade plutonium when complete.

The targets lie as far as 1,400 miles (2,250km) from Israel; the outer limits of their bombers’ range, even with aerial refuelling. An open corridor across northern Saudi Arabia would significantly shorten the distance. An airstrike would involve multiple waves of bombers, possibly crossing Jordan, northern Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Aircraft attacking Bushehr, on the Gulf coast, could swing beneath Kuwait to strike from the southwest.

Passing over Iraq would require at least tacit agreement to the raid from Washington. So far, the Obama Administration has refused to give its approval as it pursues a diplomatic solution to curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Military analysts say Israel has held back only because of this failure to secure consensus from America and Arab states. Military analysts doubt that an airstrike alone would be sufficient to knock out the key nuclear facilities, which are heavily fortified and deep underground or within mountains. However, if the latest sanctions prove ineffective the pressure from the Israelis on Washington to approve military action will intensify. Iran vowed to continue enriching uranium after the UN Security Council imposed its toughest sanctions yet in an effort to halt the Islamic Republic’s nuclear programme, which Tehran claims is intended for civil energy purposes only. President Ahmadinejad has described the UN resolution as “a used handkerchief, which should be thrown in the dustbin”.

Israeli officials refused to comment yesterday on details for a raid on Iran, which the Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has refused to rule out. Questioned on the option of a Saudi flight path for Israeli bombers, Aharaon Zeevi Farkash, who headed military intelligence until 2006 and has been involved in war games simulating a strike on Iran, said: “I know that Saudi Arabia is even more afraid than Israel of an Iranian nuclear capacity.”

In 2007 Israel was reported to have used Turkish air space to attack a suspected nuclear reactor being built by Iran’s main regional ally, Syria. Although Turkey publicly protested against the “violation” of its air space, it is thought to have turned a blind eye in what many saw as a dry run for a strike on Iran’s far more substantial — and better-defended — nuclear sites.

Israeli intelligence experts say that Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are at least as worried as themselves and the West about an Iranian nuclear arsenal.Israel has sent missile-class warships and at least one submarine capable of launching a nuclear warhead through the Suez Canal for deployment in the Red Sea within the past year, as both a warning to Iran and in anticipation of a possible strike. Israeli newspapers reported last year that high-ranking officials, including the former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, have met their Saudi Arabian counterparts to discuss the Iranian issue. It was also reported that Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, met Saudi intelligence officials last year to gain assurances that Riyadh would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets violating Saudi airspace during the bombing run. Both governments have denied the reports.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 12 Jun 2010 17:58

KSA has serious dilemma over its stance on Iran. It is not a pure and simple case of sectarian and regional competition.

Yes, the Saudis have always been in competition with the Iranians for control over the Gulf, ME in general and leadership over the supposed Ummah globally. Previously, this was a tri-centric contest for supremacy between the Iranians, Turk-Ottomans, and Arabs. For some time, while the Islamists in Turkey were recovering from the debacle of the fall of the Ottoman empire, the Turks were out of the fray. Now it has come back to the old format.

The Persian-Arab Shia-Sunni conflicts have been raging on in a mini cold war for a long time with proxy and sometimes not-so-proxy wars and conflicts. Most of the ME conflicts, coups, confrontations since WWII can be understood better keeping this element in mind.

So it is in KSA's interest to use any third party aggression on the Iranians for its own long term strategic interests. Talk of allowing Israelis to use KSA airspace coming out to western magazines seems highly interesting. If it was really so real, then none of these would have been leaked. If leaked, it is therefore more in the nature of a psy-ops. Various groups could have tactical interest in saying such stuff - those who want to confuse and divide the "Ummah", those who want the Iranians to shake a bit, and those who want Israel to be further discredited.

I am ruling out the other super-psy-ops aspect : that the leak was deliberately made so that it would appear a psy-ops and therefore incredible from the Iranian side who would therefore hopefully dismiss the threat. The reason for this is that KSA is in a critical position regarding any change in the Iranian setup.

The Saudi royal family (SRF) cannot be comfortable with the Iranian model of theocratic government where power is not held by the dynasty and the mullahs rule supreme. Saudis have their own homegrown anti-dynastic and theocratic supremacy movements - now mostly underground or exiled. so the Iranian contamination has to be checked. On the other hand, if the Iranian theocracy is overthrown and a regular modern "secular" democracy is established (it was actually such a leftist radical pro-democracy anti-autocracy uprising started by the urbanites that was used and taken over by the Ayatollahs using their broader and more numerous Islamic rural heartland), then that also means potential danger for the SRF.

So it is in SRF's interest to damage and weaken or constrain the Iranians, but not an entire overthrow of the theocracy. This is the backdrop to Turkish alliance with the Iranians. For SRF it would be good to have Israelis getting embroiled into a war of attrition with Turkey and Iran. The KSA's long term targets have been obvious for a long time - in their sponsorship of radical Islamization through educational and charity networks not only within the Sunni world but also outside as far as UK or northern EU or in India, BD, Indonesia.

Similarly any potential covert understanding between the SRF and the Israelis would be based on such cold calculations and not on any so-called Juadeo-Islamic conspiracy theories.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 12 Jun 2010 20:40

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Jun 2010 23:41

Sanku wrote: Shyamd I cant hear you, did you say

20 of 22 Arab league nations accept Israel, accept its passport, accept its citizen for free travel, allow trade, set up Diplomatic missions?

Lol, I can't hear you either, did you say that Israel accepts the rights of the Palestinian people and a Palestinian nation?

Yes or no?
[/quote]

I am still waiting......

20 out of 22 Arab nations not accepting Israel == Likud not accepting Palestine?

The emperor is naked and getting red out of anger is not a color.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 13 Jun 2010 01:08

Israeli wanted over Dubai killing 'held in Poland'(BBC)

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 13 Jun 2010 05:50

brihaspati wrote:
Initially your post was very brief and clear - you specifically mentioned expulsion and genocide from Romans and Christians under Romans, and Persians, but you mentioned that with the Arab onset - muslim armies created and improved situation/gave some freedom/rights and that this increased further under Ottomans.

I will try and locate the website where I read it (which was actually a jewish resource), So I did a bit more research and this is what I found.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... f15.html#c
While Jewish communities in Islamic countries fared better overall than those in Christian lands in Europe, Jews were no strangers to persecution and humiliation among the Arabs.

I also note, that you are fixated on how Muslims were chief exilers of jews. But you neglect to mention any christian/roman affect on the jewish population.

http://wsu.edu/~dee/HEBREWS/DIASPORA.HTM

The Jewish state comes to an end in 70 AD, when the Romans begin to actively drive Jews from the home they had lived in for over a millenium. But the Jewish Diaspora ("diaspora" ="dispersion, scattering") had begun long before the Romans had even dreamed of Judaea. When the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722, the Hebrew inhabitants were scattered all over the Middle East; these early victims of the dispersion disappeared utterly from the pages of history. However, when Nebuchadnezzar deported the Judaeans in 597 and 586 BC, he allowed them to remain in a unified community in Babylon. Another group of Judaeans fled to Egypt, where they settled in the Nile delta. So from 597 onwards, there were three distinct groups of Hebrews: a group in Babylon and other parts of the Middle East, a group in Judaea, and another group in Egypt. Thus, 597 is considered the beginning date of the Jewish Diaspora. While Cyrus the Persian allowed the Judaeans to return to their homeland in 538 BC, most chose to remain in Babylon. A large number of Jews in Egypt became mercenaries in Upper Egypt on an island called the Elephantine. All of these Jews retained their religion, identity, and social customs; both under the Persians and the Greeks, they were allowed to run their lives under their own laws. Some converted to other religions; still others combined the Yahweh cult with local cults; but the majority clung to the Hebraic religion and its new-found core document, the Torah.

In 63 BC, Judaea became a protectorate of Rome. Coming under the administration of a governor, Judaea was allowed a king; the governor's business was to regulate trade and maximize tax revenue. While the Jews despised the Greeks, the Romans were a nightmare. Governorships were bought at high prices; the governors would attempt to squeeze as much revenue as possible from their regions and pocket as much as they could. Even with a Jewish king, the Judaeans revolted in 70 AD, a desperate revolt that ended tragically. In 73 AD, the last of the revolutionaries were holed up in a mountain fort called Masada; the Romans had besieged the fort for two years, and the 1000 men, women, and children inside were beginning to starve. In desperation, the Jewish revolutionaries killed themselves rather than surrender to the Romans. The Romans then destroyed Jerusalem, annexed Judaea as a Roman province, and systematically drove the Jews from Palestine. After 73 AD, Hebrew history would only be the history of the Diaspora as the Jews and their world view spread over Africa, Asia, and Europe.

You sound like an evanjihadi - who fails to mention that the christians/romans were the leaders of the pack which of course included muslims.

Because you went on pointing out atrocities of Romans and Christians on Jews - I pointedly noted the "figures". You still did not find any opportunity to mention atrocities by Islamics. On the other hand you were mentioning the "encouragement" provided by the Islamics. On both counts this is a typcial Thaparite method.

I thought I said massacres took place. You forgot that bit. Dude, I couldn't find any precise figures on muslim genocide, and you are more than aware I chose to stick to one source which was wiki, which did not have any figures on arab rulers' genocide of jews but did mention massacres taking place.

I you are trying to show an equal-equal onlee - then you cannot highlight only the negatives on one side and the positives on the other side. Until I forced you to go into the details of the history you did not mention "massacres" and "dsicrimination". Remember that the basic start of the debate was about continuity of Jewish presence in the Levant? In your first version you forgot entirely about Cyrus and the return of the Jews - then you highlighted the "poor" aspect, which I explained and you still remained silent, only much later providing the sarcastic comment that Cyrus sent Jews back to maintain temple worship! Do you have the original source of the number of Jewish elite taken as hostage to Babylon? (One of the first sources is Herodotus).

Herodotus - the guy who is called the "father of lies" and just reports speculation etc?

On babylon, apart from the post above, you can look at:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... xile1.html
As I posted previously.

Even then you omitted Herod and his rebuilding of the temple. You had not mentioned the earlier Maccabean uprising and independent state for Jews. That debate from my side was not about genocide primarily - but I tried to show to you that Jews were there continuously in "Israel", which you appeared to deny saying Romans and Persians "kicked" them out . In discussing Moorish Spain, you forgot the massacres and other repressions on the Jews under Islamic rule - and went straight from fall of Roman empire to Catholic Inquisition.

Lol. I don't need to comment on it. I answered this one in my last post. Do tell where I discussed ummayad spain. Hehe. I even asked you this very question in my last post - You seem to be debating with someone else and about points I didn't even raise. LOL!

In that exchange of posts, I saw you carefully avoiding all incidence of Islamic genocidal tendencies on the Jews and trying only to highlight incidents of positive attitude. But you were at the same time explicitly describing Roman, Christian, Persian atrocities while not even mentioning any positive "encouraging" aspects from that side.

Firstly, this just goes to show that you are jumbling bits of my statements.

That "encouraging" bit came in my first statement on the topic - not in the second

It was my later post(s) that stated explicitly Roman, Christian persian atrocities. I think we are heading back to the original point I was trying to make, which was not to absolve the Islamic guys of their persecution/genocide of jews BUT to show that the others (christians/romans etc) were just as responsible for the dispersion of jews - therefore it is not easy to blame Muslims ONLY. This is the 3rd time I am making that clear.

We are going round and round in circles, you are asking the same question again and again, I am giving you the same answer again and again.

This is how Thaparites work. They are careful not to mention atrocities or any evidence that may point to so - from Islamics. At the same time they would only mention those that would imply positive attitude of Islamists towards non-Muslims. At the same time they would highlight in great details the atrocities perpetrated by non-Muslims on the same Islamic-target populations of non-Muslims and suppress all positive indications from the non-Muslim side.

So mentioning massacres and social, economic discrimination is too kind to muslim/arabs?
I think we are heading back to the original point I was trying to make, which was not to absolve the Islamic guys of their persecution/genocide of jews BUT to show that the others (christians/romans etc) were just as responsible for the dispersion of jews - therefore it is not easy to blame Muslims ONLY.

Moreover, by "Europe" at this stage in this connection also includes the Byzantines. I am surprised that you could not find the gory details of Islamic atrocities on Jews in Palestine when you could find plenty about Romans, Persians and Christians! You never wondered that given the record of muslims elsewhere - why suddenly you are finding all atrocities at the door of Christians or persians and none whatsoever for Palestinian Muslims or Muslims holding power over Palestine?

As I stated, in my last post - I mentioned "massacres" from wiki. I ask you again do post the attrocities on jews in Palestine/occupied Israel. TIA

Well, others had their part to play in that Jewish trauma - but they are not going there to Palestine and claiming the right to expel the Jews again? or to deny the right of the Israelis to have their homeland where they have been for thousands of years - where their most holy sites have been taken over and built over by Muslims? It is only the Muslims, and the neo-Muslim-Persians claiming that right!

The muslims are claiming it because they are in a majority and residing/have been residing there for the last 500 plus years. Of course to endorse Israel was a political decision too. Besides, how many People of Greek/Roman origin did you see in pre-independence Israel/Palestine. A lot of anti Semitic activity was conducted in Europe as we all know, so it was easy for them to make things right by creating Israel, at the end of the day creating Israel in its present location, didn't affect europeans did it?

I answered this in my last post btw.

Once again, the Oz or Ugandans did not commit genocide on the Jews. Why upset them? If anyone has the grand qualification to deserve being upset it is the Muslims who are continuing their claimed right to persecute the Jews in their own homeland. Did you read up on the post on Muhammad Bari and his statements?

Did the people who lived there in pre partition Israel/Palestine at the time commit the genocide on the jews? No. So, the mistake of an ancestor, means the later generations of arabs who reside there should be affected too? Lol. By that definition you are justifiying christian persection of jews, the christians abused jews as they blame the jews for killing Jesus. Lol!

Why can't they have their holy sites back in their possession - because Arabs or Muslims whose only qualification is to threaten violence on more productive people so that they can live off the product of the fruits of others labour - holding on to the pilgrim centres is important to extract "taxes"?

Holy sites of jews should always be in jewish (don't need to create a state for it) possession as should christian sites be controlled by christians, doesn't warrant a creation of a state.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 13 Jun 2010 05:58

Sanku,
Lol, I can't hear you either, did you say that Israel accepts the rights of the Palestinian people and a Palestinian nation?

Yes or no?

I am still waiting......

20 out of 22 Arab nations not accepting Israel == Likud not accepting Palestine?

The emperor is naked and getting red out of anger is not a color.

Arab League voted in favour of the 2002 Comprehensive Peace plan which accepted the state of israel under the 1967 borders. Does Israel accept the right of a Palestinian state to exist? Its a simple thing "accept the state of Palestine".

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 13 Jun 2010 07:02

When push comes to shove I do not think Israel too would be unhappy going back to 67 borders and also a two state solution - but they are looking to accomplish two things along with it - one is permanent peace (and of course, arab recognition) and another is on the issue of 'right of return' - they want none because it will practically defeat the whole point of what Israel is...on the second issue one can have moral arguments for and against. No point elaborating here.

Hamas which is leading the show (along with new found supporters like Turkey) is agreeable to neither. All they want to offer is some kind of vague 'truce' on the first and nothing on the second. And no recognition. Their charter itself calls for destruction of Israel.

So the point is to defeat the likes of Hamas so that sensible heads can sit down and sort this mess out. Or it can be like trying to talk peace with Prabakaran.