That would be a big deal.
That’s not a justification; that’s might makes right, and pure barbarism.
It’s not anti-Semitism to persecute Jews unless the Jews are being persecuted specifically for being Jews. If Genghis Khan kills everyone in a city including the Jews, that doesn’t mean he cared a whit about the Jewishness of his victims.
Well, but that’s rather broad-brushed, then. What you originally said was:
That seemed to imply that you were talking about persecution that specifically singled out the Jews. If instead you’re just talking about religious persecution that includes Jews among other groups, then your original statement isn’t that meaningful. By those standards, Muslims have been persecuted by nearly every major religious group for millennia too (or at least, for over one millennium, or as long as they’ve been around). So have Buddhists. So have Hindus.
(By the way, just a protocol request: would you kindly identify in your quotes the poster you’re quoting from, or at least indicate when you’re switching from one poster to another? It gets a little confusing trying to figure out which statements that you’re responding to were made by whom.)
Cite for pre-Israel Muslim massacres of Jews, or cite for dhimmi laws sometimes being harsh? For the former, here’s part of Abraham Ibn Daud’s account of Samuel and Joseph ha-Nasi, which both showed the heights that Jews could reach in Muslim societies and also what could happen if they were seen as reaching too high:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/ha-nagid.html
Here’s a link talking about the Almohades in Morocco, which also discusses some of the limitations of dhimmitude:
There are other examples of large scale violence against Jewish communities in the Muslim world predating Israel. If you want to know about the variable status of dhimmis in Islam, I’ll have to get that information to you another time. There’s no doubt in my mind that the treatment of dhimmis in medieval Islam was better than the treatment of non-Christians in medieval Christianity, but better is a long way from good.
This issue was discussed pretty thoroughly in the ancient thread Over-generalizing but: Why do Muslims hate Jews? with citations for Captain Amazing’s point provided by Tamerlane in this post.
And would be just another chapter in the long history of Israel and the Palestinians, remember Gaza? It was a one week wonder after the settlers left, and now no one really (in a generalised sense) really cares much about it anymore. The same thing will happen to the West Bank.
So what? It’s Human nature for ‘might makes right’ the same thing also applied to the Nuremburg trials of 45’ or recently Saddams trial in Baghdad. Israel is military stronger than the Palestinians, more economically and politically successful, and will use those factors as leverage in order to secure ‘its’ peace.
But we’re not talking about that situation, we’re talking about the rights of people who are considered ‘people of the book’ being reduced to second class citizens for the foreseeable future, and that IS persecution against them and their Christian counterparts.
So what ? Have you ever heard of a concept called “right and wrong” ?
Are you talking about the Jews in the old days, or the Palestinians right now ?
Say what? I’m confused, especially how the “people of the book” part fits in. It seems to me that you are saying that Jews in Israel will be reduced to second-class citizens and that somehow this will also result in the persecution of Christians.
The best I can come up with is that you think the Palestinians will persecute all “people of the book” and that will include Christians. But that doesn’t make any sense because the Palestinians are (mostly) Muslims and therefore also “people of the book”.
And in any case, I don’t see how it is inevitable that the Jews would become second-class citizens in a Palestinian state. Sure, it seems quite possible, but not certain. Is it because Palestinians are often treated like second-class citizens in Israel?
Or, wait a minute, are you refering to the historical persecution of Jews by Muslims? I’m just not sure what you are getting at.
Try Googling the Hebron Massacre of 1929.
(Never mind…should have read the whole thread.)
It’s not a matter of right or wrong, it’s a simple statement of fact, Israel is militarily superior to the Palestinians and most of its allies, and will use such an advantage as much as possible for it’s own ends.
The Jews in the old days obviously.
I was talking about persecution of Jews/Christians when they were resident in majority Muslim nations, I wasn’t refering to Israel or what if scenarios.
Because they hate us. And perhaps not without cause.
But while the question whether or not their hatred is justified could lead to debates of infinite length and variety - and already has - it’s not really relevant. Over the past 60 years the Palestinians in the Territories and around the Arab world have nurtured a sense of animosity towards the Jews in Israel (and those in the West Bank in particular) deeper than you could possibly comprehend. Right or wrong, for my nation to allow people who feel that way any power over any of our citizens would be an act of amazing stupidity. And while we may act stupid occasionally, we’re not that stupid.
If that was true, they’d just kill them all. Unless you are a sociopath, right and wrong is always a consideration in how you treat other people. As well, it always should be.
You do realize you appear to be arguing that Israel is evil ?
Don’t put words into my mouth, it’s pretty well documented that states with the power to implement policies they deem acceptable to the survival of their peoples will do so. Right and wrong might be a factor in it, but it’s not the only major factor present.
Please do not forget there is a sizable Arab (Muslim and Christian) minority with full rights and Knesset representation within Israel.
The old saw is that generals always prepare to fight the last war. My generalized impression is that since 1947, Israel has focused on its necessity to fight conventional military campaigns (of which it’s faced several). I think by the '70s, it was taken as pretty well established that individual or dis-unified opponents of Israel (basically, most nearby Islamic countries) could not militarily prevail, and that the only threat to Israel was a successful pan-Arab/pan-Islamic alliance that achieved real unity of political purpose and military tactics – at which point there was some non-zero chance they could push Israel into the see in conventional military confrontation.
To Israel’s great relief, most of its rivals couldn’t quit bickering or backstabbing long enough to coordinate effectively. Conversely, the one thing Israel would have to be afraid of is an “Arab strongman” who could rally (sincerely or otherwise) all the Arab/Muslim countries to make effectual common cause under his banner. Nasser had to be a real concern in this regard, and Saddam (probably quite insincerely, but with some charisma and apparent military success) also posited himself in this role. So if I am Israeli leadership thinking in the traditional don’t-let-the-Arabs-unify-effectively defensive mindset, fracturing Saddam’s unified Iraq has to seem like a potentially-helpful thing. Similarly, Camp David and Gulf War I had to look good because they peeled away pan-Arab unity by having various Arab states collaborate with the U.S., thus sowing discord and distrust among the constituencies of any would-be pan-Arab leader.
Now, this old-school thinking doesn’t take into account the fact that disunified, disaffected Arab/Islamic factionalism, while it certainly precludes for the foreseeable future any coordinated multi-Arab-nation conventional military invasion of Israel, creates other risks for Israel and the U.S. But that’s a notion that we’re all just now discovering the full ramifications of. So pre-Iraq-II, and given Israel’s past bombing of Iraq’s N-sites, I can see the Israelis thinking that the U.S.'s toppling Saddam was likely all upside for them, even if the outcome didn’t work out quite that way.