Many of his claims seem to be the talking points set forth by Israeli supporters circa 1975.
Yes it is like a time machine to 1975 or at the best 1985.
It is unfortunately a sour fact that the majority of the Arab states in a fit of the bigotted idiocy chased out or rendered impossible the continued residence of their Jewish arab populations, and this is a major component of the Israeli population.
For this there is the shared responsability
It was the reaction and the policy of the idiotic copying of the exclusive ethnic nationalist model of Europe aping the colonial powers, and it failed on all accounts.
so it is not so simple to point only at the European origin or only blame the colonial power - the British although those same British also gifted us with the Ibn Saud and the Wahhabite power structure that might have been avoided, all for the imperial gains that did not outlive their imperial plotters. Better the Ottoman model than the Ibn Saud or the Nasserites…
the original sin of the creation is a fact that is not goint to change.
The Israel exists and it will exist, the egges were broken and the origins debates are sterile.
Contrary to the retreading of the rhetoric of 1975 and the non histoircal fabrication factiods based on asserting we are still in in the disastrous decade , the majority of the middle eastern states have accepted this and the resolution around some dignified resolution with the assuaging of the coners about Al Aqsaa mosque are the only real objectives.
To retire the continue assertions about the Palestinians, the total refugee and descendant popualtion by the UNHCR as of 2015was 5.1 millions.
Of these 5.1 millions, the 2 millions live in the West Bank and the Ghaza strip.
Of the remaining 3.1 millions, 2.1 millions - about 70% of the population outside of the Israeli sphere, they hold the Jordanian citizenship and are not at all restricted.
The Syrian residents, who were the 17% of the population outside of the West Bank and the Ghaza strip, had no legal restrictions other than shared with other non citizens of the Syrian republic, that is they could not own agricultural lands and some other restrictions shared with other resident non citizens. Of course after the start of the civil war of the Syria they have more pressing concerns than not owning agricultural lands.
the only population that meets the asserted stereotype brought forward from the 1975 is the Lebanese residents where the restrictions are about more the delicate balance inside of the Lebanon - the Syrians refugees now face the same cold political calculus in the Lebanon.
I’m sorry, but that is anti-historical nonsense.
Have you never heard of the Iran-Iraq War (which created more casualties than all of the Arab-Israeli Wars put together - by a factor of ten?)? Or the Lebanese Civil War?
What about the destruction of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria? The Hama massacre?
ME modern history has more to it than the Arab-Israeli conflict - which, in terms of actual casualties, is historically a pretty minor affair, comparatively.
According to this site, the total of Arabs (91,000) and Jews (25,000) killed in all of the Arab-Israeli conflict - from 1860 to the present - is 116,000:
That includes every battle, every Intafada, everything.
The Iran-Iraq War alone was an estimated one million Iranian lives and 250,000 - 500,000 Iraqi lives:
Similar comparisons can be made with the Lebanese Civil War (though to be fair, Israel meddled in that), the various conflicts within Syria, the War in Yemen, etc. etc.
Of course, these casualty figures are all subject to considerable dispute - but what is not disputed is that, as aggravating as the Arab-Israeli conflict no doubt is, in terms of destructiveness it doesn’t rank at the top in the modern ME. That dubious honor is held by other wars.
In short, the Arab-Israeli conflict isn’t, somehow, unique in terms destructiveness or of importance in the ME - it is only unique because the country on one side of it is a developed nation, who happens to be inhabited by Jews. The ME is filled with ethnic and religious conflicts, some much more severe.
You are simply repeating stuff you know isn’t true. Half the Jewish population of Israel originated in the ME. You know that, right?
In any event, I have no idea what of value is added by the notion that the ancestors of the other half came, originally, from Europe. I mean, they are there now. The conflict is between people who live in the ME right now. They do not think of themselves as “Europeans” but as “Israelis” and it smacks of exactly the sort of blood-and-soil nationalism that Jewish Zionists are often accused of to claim that their ancestry somehow “tags” them as unworthy.
I agree it was a horrible thing to respond to injustice with injustice. But there was a first injustice was there not?
The lack of shame and chutzpah displayed by those guilty of such sin might be galling to those being oppressed by Israel.
Its hard to forgive when the transgressor never seeks forgiveness and instead continues to act like they did nothing wrong. It is hard to move past that. I hope they can but I understand why the opportunism and oppression by the zionists make it a tough pill to swallow.
If there was a single first injustice, it was the Holocaust. Without the Holocaust, Jews would not have felt the desperate need for a state of their (our, I guess, based on the ancestry “rules”) own. Which does not excuse any subsequent injustice.
So you think when people talk of peace in the middle east and the middle east conflict, they were talking about the Iran Iraq war?
In addition to the hundred thousand or so direct deaths from the wars, you also have over a million of Palestinian refugees living under Zionist oppression.
People would complain whether they were Jewish, South African or Klingon.
Nope, I don’t. Half the Jewish population might have SOME middle eastern blood in them but the majority of Jews in Israel have non-Middle Eastern blood in them.
This is the best I could find.
Here is some stuff on the Aliyahs including the aliyahs from Arab countries:
Don’t colonists frequently say exactly this?
So you don’t think that it is relevant that most of the Jews in Israel are descended from people who are not from the Middle East and very few are from Palestine. I mean what fault is it of the Palestinians that Iraq ejected all the Jews after the zionists seized Israel from the Palestinians?
Sure the holocaust was horrible but what does that have to do with Israel. You can see how Israel’s neighbors unjust eviction of Jews can be a response to Israel’s injustice against the Palestinians. Its harder to see any relationship between Germany’s nazi regime and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. If the Zionists decided to take Bavaria and Austria as their homeland, it would have at least made some sort of sense (and the post WWII refugees wouldn’t have had to travel as far to get there).
From 1948 to 1967
After 1948, since the old walled city in its entirety was to the east of the armistice line, Jordan was able to take control of all the holy places therein. While Muslim holy sites were maintained and renovated,[207] contrary to the terms of the armistice agreement, Jews were denied access to Jewish holy sites, many of which were destroyed or desecrated. Jordan allowed only very limited access to Christian holy sites,[208] and restrictions were imposed on the Christian population that led many to leave the city. Of the 58 synagogues in the Old City, half were either razed or converted to stables and hen-houses over the course of the next 19 years, including the Hurva and the Tiferet Yisrael Synagogue. The 3,000-year-old[209] Mount of Olives Jewish Cemetery was desecrated, with gravestones used to build roads, latrines and Jordanian army fortifications. 38,000 graves in the Jewish Cemetery were destroyed, and Jews were forbidden from being buried there.[210][211] The Western Wall was transformed into an exclusively Muslim holy site associated with al-Buraq.[212] …Many other historic and religiously significant buildings were demolished and replaced by modern structures during the Jordanian occupation.
Do not appear to accuse other posters of lying. If you feel you must, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
What does that have to do with Israel? Are you kidding? It’s the very reason for Israel’s formation!
You are correct, they usually don’t.
In fact, most people (in the West) are not even aware that there is a vicious war going on right now in Yemen.
This speaks more to the point I’m making - that in the West, the perspective found in the news, and repeated by commentators, is skewed. They “care” more about what happens in Israel-Palestine, than in anything else that happens in the ME.
What you appear to be arguing is that this skewed perspective is correct.
I don’t understand why the origins of the “blood” are important.
Does the fact that Arafat’s father was descended from an Egyptian mother, and he was born in Cairo, make him of “Egyptian blood” and so ineligible from being considered “really” Palestinian?
If Arafat’s father had won this court battle, Arafat would presumably have grown up in Egypt.
I think that would be an absurd contention - Arafat became part of the growing ethno-nationalist movement (eventually leading it) that became “Palestinian”.
Similarly, Israelis - whatever their family origins - gave up whatever national identity they may have originally had, and became part of a new ethno-nationalist movement - that became “Israeli”. They even adopted a common language (Hebrew) not actually used by any of their immediate ancestors.
They are now simply a group of people living in the ME - an nationalist ethnicity.
I have no idea what colonialists say.
I think you miss the point of what “colonialism” means.
It means that the “colonialists” are actively working on behalf of the “metropolitan” nation - in short, exploiting the “colony” for the benefit of the “mother” nation.
The American states were “colonies” of England. They ceased to be “colonies” and became an “independent nation” when they rebelled. The rebellion occurred exactly because the locals claimed that they were being exploited too much on behalf of England - the colonizing power.
“Colonialists” are, basically, the population more loyal to the mother nation than to the “colony”, that is, the agents of foreign exploitation.
That’s what distinguishes them from another category: “immigrants”.
The Jews of Israel were never “colonists” in that sense - they were never the agents of a colonizing power. Turkey, then England, were the “colonizing powers” - the foreign entities that controlled the country. The Jews of Israel were immigrants.
The locals already there may well dislike immigration - see, for example, the Trump phenomenon in the US - but that doesn’t magically transform “immigrants” into “colonists”. Hispanic folks may be immigrating (legally or otherwise) to the US in record numbers - which may transform the demographics, pissing off the existing inhabitants - but, regardless of what any may say, they are not doing so as agents of Mexico, to exploit the US for the benefit of Mexico.
They are doing so on their own initiative, to benefit themselves.
The same was true of the Jews immigrating to what was then the territory “Palestine”. The difference is that they wished to establish their own state there - where none had existed before. In the US, there is an already existing nation (the US). There was no existing nation-state called “Palestine”.
No.
I don’t consider the fact that the ancestors of many Israeli Jews have “non resident of Palestine” blood of the slightest relevance - any more than I would consider it relevant that Arafat has "“non resident of Palestine” blood and was, in fact, born in Cairo. That fact doesn’t discredit him as a “Palestinian” and it doesn’t discredit an Israeli with (say) a Romanian mother as an “Israeli”.
Not their fault at all.
What fault is there for those Iraqi Jews - having been ejected from Iraq and immigrated to Israel, the only country that will take them - for living in a country which had displaced those same Palestinian?
Say this hypothetical Iraqi Jew were to end up living in a house on the very location of a displaced Palestinian family. Is he then expected to admit his fault, and vacate the premises - and presumably go back to Iraq?
But Iraqis have no doubt long ago taken the place his ancestors came from. They are unlikely to admit their fault in turn and vacate the premises for our Iraqi Jew. Plus, Iraq is a bit devastated by war at the moment.
You can’t turn back the clock in this way; it is neither just nor practical.
The Biblical account of how all this started is at least 3,000 years old …
And it’s equally bullshit.
It’s popular to think the conflict is that old, but in reality it’s more like a hundred years old.
Yup, both parties to it are basically children of European-style ethno-nationalism.
Both sides look to ancient historical predecessors for inspiration, but the movements that created the conflict are wholly products of modernity.
Many date the violence to having the Brits divvy up the Middle east but others date it back to the Crusades or even earlier. So it’s a reasonable position, even if a minority one.
no it is not. There is no historical continuity between the crusades and the events of the 20th century, it is not a reasonable anlaysis, it is pure ideology.
I don’t really think it is. The Arab Nationalist movement dates to the 1860s-1870s The modern Zionist movement dates to the 1880s-1890s, or if you really want to push it back as far as you can, Montfiore’s efforts to encourage Jewish settlement of Palestine in the 1830s. So while there’s always that temptation to find ancient roots to conflict, this has modern roots.