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 T
he 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.
