The last Antisemitic Events

[Agent327]

It's important to not confuse the religious sects with the political sects with the races. I know there's giant overlap, but you've still got to be careful.

Seeing as we only have one race, I will assume sarcasm here.

There is no smiley adequate to express the genius of this.

Stating the obvious is genius?

 

[El_Machinae]

Seeing as we only have one race, I will assume sarcasm here.

Don't. Just assume that people might have different definitions than you do. If we're going to distinguish 'jew' from 'arab', then allow me to say that difference is based on race. And, if you're going to peanut gallery your criticisms, at least make them constructive.

 

[Agent327]

Oh dear. There's a racial difference between Jews and Arabs now? I think we went over the edge already...

(Oh, and it's not about 'my definition'. Seriously, there's only one human race - although of course it should be properly referred to as species, but I see we're not to particular here.)

 

[El_Machinae]

It was Domen who distinguished between Israelis and arabs. You were just jumping down my throat for my warning him to be careful to not do something like that.

 

[Borachio]

Stating the obvious is genius?

Indeed, it can be.

Who was it said: "Evolution is such an obvious idea, it's a wonder no one thought of it earlier"?

 

[Tahuti]

Seeing as we only have one race, I will assume sarcasm here.

Unrelated to the thread, but still...

Spoiler :

Also, +1 to TF for his Israel pic.

 

[Squonk]

That may be true, yet Egypt and Palestine were quite Romanised by the time the Arabs got there.

They weren't romanised at all... there were few Roman colonies in the East, and the language of administration (but not of the army, and there was a Latin-speaking belt around Danube) was (since Alexander) Greek, not Latin... Which was only spoken by elite and some areas in Greater Syria, and Alexandria perhaps. The most popular languages were Aramaic in Greater Syria and Coptic in Egypt...

Especially in respect of policies towards the state of Israel, all Arabs seem to be very united.

Not enough, actually... in declarations, perhaps.
And not even in that... not anymore.

Rather, Palestinians use children as soldiers, while Israeli soldiers protect children from terrorists.

1) Israelis use Palestinian children as life shields while entering Palestinian houses

2) Palestinian children do throw rocks at Israeli occupant, but that hardly makes them soldiers.

2) We Poles shouldn't really complain

Modern Syrians and Iraqis are descendents of the Assyrians, as are the Egyptians.

I would rather you used Aramaic-speakers instead of Assyrians... and Egyptians were never Assyrian, Assyrian conquest was very temporary... I believe you mean most of Egyptians are just Arabised Copts and that would be right...
And that is actually something very important because Israelis often tend to portrait Palestinians as some new people who came in VII century, or even just when they came there, while in fact Palestinians are autochtons - Jews and other population of Palestine - Canaan, Phoenicians, etc, who got arameised, christianised, and then arabised and islamised, but remain the original population.

I was under the impression that the Roman administration didn't really care what you identified as so long as you did as they said and paid taxes.

I'm not a specialist in this field but I think they just constructed their identity differently. First there was a vast difference between Roman citizens and subjected peoples... Then everyone was given citizenship and one tried to build a common identity around the cult of the emperor, which lead to confrontation with Christianity. Then Christianity was tried to be used as something unifying the Empire, but it lead to christological controversies and did more harm than benefit. But people actually did feel some unity with the Empire. It was a natural process after several centuries of that rule... Do you know that Ammianus Marcellinus, a superb pagan historian, was the first person to use the name of Romania, that is to treat the Empire as one land, not just a state... and he was from Antioch, which is sort of Syrian even today, even though it's in Turkey. It's interesting to what extent did people feel Roman... I don't really know. There's a lot of silly stuff written in this matter, about the "oriental nationalism" that resurrected through monophysitism etc... I don't know... But at least some of the people there embraced Roman identity... May I add that the Empire survived in the East, speaking Greek...

 

[Tahuti]

They weren't romanised at all... there were few Roman colonies in the East, and the language of administration (but not of the army, and there was a Latin-speaking belt around Danube) was (since Alexander) Greek, not Latin... Which was only spoken by elite and some areas in Greater Syria, and Alexandria perhaps. The most popular languages were Aramaic in Greater Syria and Coptic in Egypt...

The majority was like Greek-speaking? I'm definitely no expert on this though. The Copts definitely have sticked best to their Ancient Egyptian heritage though.

I believe you mean most of Egyptians are just Arabised Copts and that would be right...

Exactly.

And that is actually something very important because Israelis often tend to portrait Palestinians as some new people who came in VII century, or even just when they came there, while in fact Palestinians are autochtons - Jews and other population of Palestine - Canaan, Phoenicians, etc, who got arameised, christianised, and then arabised and islamised, but remain the original population.

I do consider Palestinians to be descendents of the Hebrews, just like Jews. However, the reason I tend to support the Jewish Israelis over the Palestinians because the former has managed to better conserve the Hebrew heritage of themselves and thus are far more likely to maintain stable institutions in the holy land. They are more representative of sovereignty the holy land, despite the fact that Palestinians are not one bit less autochtonous than the Jews are.

After the Jewish exodus from Israel during Roman times until the independence of Israel, the holy land has always been ruled by outsiders, whether Franks, Arabs (from the Arabian peninsula), Turks or British. And until the return of the Jews, the native populace lacked sufficient capabilities to rule over themselves. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will end once Jews and Palestinians all realise their common Hebrew heritage and fulfill their duties towards one another. However, a one-state solution where political, cultural and military duties are fulfilled mostly by Jews and economic roles are to be fulfilled mostly by Palestinians will be the route getting there.

 

[Squonk]

Just for you to be aware: most of the videos are edited/recorded in very particular way that the IDF will look bad, sometimes the situation isn't what it seems (I remember a picture that the soldier is claimed to be an Israeli stepping upon a little Palestinian girl, both the soldier and girl were Syrian)...
And if you are talking about the Gaza Wars, you should know that this organization (Hamas) has fired everyday for 7 years rockets to Israel, targeting civilian population, it halted after the first war ended, and renewed some time after, the second one was mainly to stop it again.
Civilian structures weren't intentionally aimed, and if does, the IDF will try to evacuate the civilians in it (by calling or drop pamphlet) and then attack, usually because of the ammo or other warfare equipment stored inside.
Hamas is an Islamic Terror organization (brother organization/branch of the Muslim Bothers) that will never recognize Israel under any circumstance, its is also responsible for many terror acts over the years.

Ajidica already answered that.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13244964&postcount=110



Hmmmm, really?:


Link to video.


Link to video.

1) "Israeli borders" are just everything Israel currently occupies... which already shows bias, because West Bank (East Jerusalem included), Golan Heights, and Shebaa farms are NOT part of Israel.

2) Criticising "improper" name of Palestine. Whatever the reasons, this name exists for 2000 years... C-mon...

3) 1:43 smuggling praise of Jewish religion by the way
OMG what a sham. Judaism as a religion of the oppressed and bad Romans suppressing it...
Numbers blown out of proportions... Misregarding facts (Hadrian as the one who destroyed Jerusalem in II century while it wasn't quite so I believe, perhaps I am wrong).

4) Unlike what the authors of the film want us to think, Palestine name continued to be used... I do recall finding it in X century source...
And in fact, Golda Meir used to use this "artificial" term a lot in her autobiography. And other zionist leaders.

5) Hitti, like many other Great Syrians, especially Christians, had his own political agenda - Great Syria...

6) Zahir Muhsin does not speak for everyone... Not everyone in Arabic world was pan-Arabist... These words come from a member of a pan-Arabic organisation that PLO once was... in a time when pan-Arabism was still alive...

7) Transjordan may have been the majority of the original Palestine, but it's almost fully desert. Jews took the borders of the mandate as the borders of their ancestral lands as well.

8) PLO did not say West Bank etc is not part of Palestine. It just said it doesn't want to exert authority in the areas controlled by Jordan...
YES, obviously the reason for the change in the charter was 1967 war. Because Jordan did not own these lands anymore so Palestinians could claim them for themselves.

9) the use of "Judea and Samaria", which is Israeli israelising "euphemism" for West Bank, clearly shows the pro-israeli bias of this film. And THESE are resurrected terms, not used for many centuries but perhaps by western or Jewish pilgrims.

Yeah, sure, Palestinian identity is just a tool for fight against Israelis. As if it was important if they fight for freedom in the name of Arabism or Palestinianism... And as if Arabs were just so malicious that they don't want to live under Israeli occupation.

I will not even comment on the "Palestine was empty" and "Arabs laid Palestine to waste" rubbish. Every Arab country was so "empty" there. And if it was so empty, why did have to Israelis throw the Palestinians out? Why did they have to take their houses and lands, and still do? Why didn't they want them to come back in?

Unlike what the film tries to tell us, there were almost no Jews in Palestine in XIX century... and certainly not in villages...

Jews were NOT a majority of Jerusalem until zionism started, I believe... The film wisely says that Muslims were 1/4 of its population... Yes, because actually there were more Arab Christians than Muslims there at some point, not to mention there were also Armenians etc.

And Jerusalem was not representative anyway. It was one of few places in Palestine Jews were present at all.

Circassians were settled, because they were refugees! They remain separate from Arabs until now, and actually are serving Israel... And there are few of them... Algerians? Perhaps a few, but not many. It's just "you too" policy. Jews, almost all of them, are late migrants to Palestine, so they try to show indigenous population as migrants too.
It's not true there was some massive Arab imigration... how so...? Any proof? Any reason? why would there be? Just an Israeli hoax... And I always say: if there was immigration from Syria or Egypt... local Christians would have been Syriac... Greek-Catholic... Copts... while they are still almost entirely Greek-Orthodox... and there are no shias too, apart from some druze, who actually also serve Israelis...
And Abd al-Hamid was busy killing Armenians and persecuting liberals, too busy to actually think about such unimportant place as Palestine in these days.

And to say that if one would exclude from Palestinian refugees those that haven't lived in Palestine 2 years earlier on, there would be almost none of them is simply a LIE. A blatant lie, Domen.

No, it's not true Zionists were settling empty lands. Sometimes yes, especially before 1948... But even then Jews were concentrated in major cities and not in villages... just like any other colonial population.

King Abd Allah was actually in close relations with Jews, and met with Golda Meir, which is mentioned in her autobiography, and he carved up Palestine hands in hands with Israel...

It's a lie and propaganda that Jews caused an economic boom that attracted Arabs... Jews could hardly provide work and opportunities for Jews coming from Europe... Zionist organisations were forcing Jewish companies to hire Jews only... and in general, there was almost no industry in the land, while in the places they bought, zionists were getting rid of Arabs and placing Jews. So why would anyone come?

Yes, until 1948, when great ethnic cleansing and land-grab took place, Jews were buying the land... and just evicting the tenants.

It's VERY convenient to limit the problem to what was happening before ww2 and not to mention that Palestinians were forced out in 1948...

 

[HannibalBarka]

... Rather, I am saying that is understandable and not idiotic at all to assume such a connection as a precaution....

that is why I always assume every criticism of :
1. Hamas as just plain islamophobia and racism againt Arabs
2. USA as just plain anti-americanism
3. Pope as just plain christianophobia and anti-catholicism etc

 

[Tahuti]

that is why I always assume every criticism of :
1. Hamas as just plain islamophobia and racism againt Arabs
2. USA as just plain anti-americanism
3. Pope as just plain christianophobia and anti-catholicism etc

Let's face it: Without Israel, Jews in by then used-to-be Israel will be physically threatened, unless the Palestinian factions fundamentally change their nature. The same cannot be said about Palestinians in Gaza without Hamas, Americans with the USA, or Catholics without the Pope. Sentiment against Israel usually have vastly different motivations than sentiment against the pope.

For illustration, I would consider myself hostile to North Korea, on the basis that I oppose its ideology and not Koreans. When Iraq II started, a sharp distinction was usually made between George W. Bush, and Americans in general. Too many full-time Israel-haters seem to imply one cannot be meaningfully opposed to Israel, without also believing in tinfoil-hattery about Jews controlling the world. Should I live in Israel and see it destroyed by the Palestinian groups, I genuinely expect to die.

 

[Agent327]

Unrelated to the thread, but still...

I'd say that is actually unrelated to anything. Which is why I don't mind reposting it for all to see.

 

[Traitorfish]

Let's face it: Without Israel, Jews in by then used-to-be Israel will be physically threatened, unless the Palestinian factions fundamentally change their nature. The same cannot be said about Palestinians in Gaza without Hamas, Americans with the USA, or Catholics without the Pope. Sentiment against Israel usually have vastly different motivations than sentiment against the pope.

For illustration, I would consider myself hostile to North Korea, on the basis that I oppose its ideology and not Koreans. When Iraq II started, a sharp distinction was usually made between George W. Bush, and Americans in general. Too many full-time Israel-haters seem to imply one cannot be meaningfully opposed to Israel, without also believing in tinfoil-hattery about Jews controlling the world. Should I live in Israel and see it destroyed by the Palestinian groups, I genuinely expect to die.

"I'm not saying that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism, but it totally is"?

(I mean, I know that's what you're saying, but there's a heavy suggestion of guilt-by-association, heavy enough that I'm not sure what the practical difference is between your post and the above.)

 

[Ajidica]

One thing I've always been a bit confused about, if it was justified for the Haganah, Palmach, Irgun, and Sten gangs to fight for Israel against the British -using what can only be described as terrorist tactics- why is it not justified for Palestinians to fight for a Palestine against the Israeli government?

 

[timtofly]

Breaking up an empire is not civil war?

 

[Tahuti]

I mean, I know that's what you're saying, but there's a heavy suggestion of guilt-by-association, heavy enough that I'm not sure what the practical difference is between your post and the above.

Yeah, I know what you are saying and I can understand that. However, nobody of respectable intelligence buys the idea that Geert Wilders is merely targeting Islam as he says he is. I guess that it is the closest parallel to a significant body of Anti-Israel sentiment.

One thing I've always been a bit confused about, if it was justified for the Haganah, Palmach, Irgun, and Sten gangs to fight for Israel against the British -using what can only be described as terrorist tactics- why is it not justified for Palestinians to fight for a Palestine against the Israeli government?

Well, here is a surprise: Not everything was justified and certainly not terrorist attacks. People moved on eventually.

The ends of the Palestinian groups are vastly different than that of the British though, and that makes them less trustworthy. The British wanted to be appease the Palestinians, though not too much. Eventually, the British left Palestine because they were realising they were pissing off both the Jews and Palestinians as long as they stayed, without unambigously supporting either side.

 

[Agent327]

The ends of the Palestinian groups are vastly different than that of the British though, and that makes them less trustworthy.

Less trustworthy than the British?

The British wanted to be appease the Palestinians, though not too much. Eventually, the British left Palestine because they were realising they were pissing off both the Jews and Palestinians as long as they stayed, without unambigously supporting either side.

Not quite. The whole 'move Jews back to Israel' idea was British to begin with. They then allowed as many Jews in Palestine as possible - which makes the idea that they tried to 'appease' the Palestinians doubtful, to say the least. In short, the British caused a problem by their own accord and proved unable to solve it. Which, to this date, Israel has proved equally unable to solve. Unfortunately, it is now up to Israel.

 

[Tahuti]

Not quite. The whole 'move Jews back to Israel' idea was British to begin with. They then allowed as many Jews in Palestine as possible - which makes the idea that they tried to 'appease' the Palestinians doubtful, to say the least. In short, the British caused a problem by their own accord and proved unable to solve it. Which, to this date, Israel has proved equally unable to solve. Unfortunately, it is now up to Israel.

That doesn't contradict my earlier statement, for it is in fact true that the British initially supported Zionism and allowed many Jews to come in. Without Britain's crucial help in the 1910s and 1920s, Israel as we know it would not exist. However, things changed after the Palestinian revolts of the 1930s, and Britain tightened immigration restrictions for Jews to appease the Palestinians. However, the Palestinians did not want any Jews at all, so the British policy of restricting Jewish immigration still did not satisfy the Palestinians, in addition to pissing off the Jews. Ultimately, given the circumstances, it was the right call for the British to leave.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

There is no smiley adequate to express the genius of this.

Disagreed.

 

[Agent327]

That doesn't contradict my earlier statement, for it is in fact true that the British initially supported Zionism and allowed many Jews to come in. Without Britain's crucial help in the 1910s and 1920s, Israel as we know it would not exist. However, things changed after the Palestinian revolts of the 1930s, and Britain tightened immigration restrictions for Jews to appease the Palestinians.

Since your original contention was that the British didn't unambiguously supported either side, I'd say you've now in fact contradicted yourself. If Britain hadn't agreed to the plan to move Jews 'back to Israel' there wouldn't have been a conflict with Palestinians in the first place. So much for unambiguity.