Let's talk about European antisemitism

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Heresson
Do You think I don't know that?
Just not Russia, but USSR. Poland got tiny part of Saxony as well

No, I figured you knew it. I just was emphasizing German territory annexed by Poland after WW2 as an example of an agressive nation losing it's land to a neighbor after losing a war. The fact that Poland technically shrunk overall in size after the war isn't relevant to my point. I'm not complaining about Polish annexations of German territory, just pointing them out.
I personally don't care about Israeli annexations, and won't call for them to give land back until Germany is returned to it's 1937 borders.

[Heresson]

The difference is that Israel isn't a victim. I'd consider the creation of Israel the first land-grab itself, and some were happy to see the invasion of Arabs, as an opportunity to grab more land than UN gave them.
Also, it started the fight in 1967, even if it was prevention (mind noting that it was not acting as if it wanted the peace badly - f.e. it violated neutral zones over the Syrian boarder .And it was Israel to invade Egypt in 1956, it was Israel to invade Lebanon in 1982...
Arabs were not agressive nation when it comes to Israel. They didn't want new lands. They wanted to take back lands unfairly taken away from them. Of course, they were hopeless in defending their rights to this ground: they didn't cooperate with British mandate, they didn't show up at UN session... They say than not present does not have right, but it's not true.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BlackCat
If you think that it was the jews that avioded to integrate into those communites they lived in, then you are totally wrong.

It's fortunate that it's not what I think, then The Jews did want to integrate (i.e. to have an integral part in the gentile society where they lived), but they certainly didn't want to assimilate. Plenty of practices surviving today are a legacy of the period where the Jews fought most actively against assimilation (Mevouchal wine is an example). It was a success.

I'm not even misjudging this Jewish resistance to external culture, at the contrary. Thanks to that, many cultural treasures of the ancient times were conserved (Oral and written tradition, Hebraic language etc). However, when you have resisted assimilation for centuries, and when many Jews continue to cherish and defend their cultural specificity, well, you shouldn't be shocked that people acknowledge the cultural difference.

If tomorrow we polled the Americans, and 85% agreed with the statement "Italians have a different mentality and way of life from the Americans", would this denote a deep anti-Italian streak? I don't think so.

It is true that they had problems with mixed marriages, but witch religious society didn't have that ? Their main problem was that they was almost without any rigths - wasn't allowed to own land etc - the only area where they were tolerated was in economics, so it was natural they got into that niche.

That's perfectly true, and this is why there is a large difference between Jewish and Christian (at least Catholic) culture about money. Working on money was somehow dirty to the Catholics (and at least in France, a great many people are very discreet about their earnings), whereas to the Jews, money and money-jobs were what fed the family.

[Ned]

Spiffor, there are some hard core bigots here in America who continue to refer to themselves as "Americans" and immigrants from countries other than Northern Europe as foreigners, even if they have been here for some time. What they are saying if one decodes the biggotry is that Christian/Germanic culture is what they are, and the others are of lesser races/cultures.

I am sure people who say that "we" are French and "they" are not, where the others are from lands others than France or perhaps Northern Europe, are expressing the exact same kind of cultural/racial bigotry.

[Spiffor]

I absolutely agree, and with the figures we have at hand (in Italy), 22% think so (that Jews are not "real Italians"), which is 22% of antisemitic bigots.
There's a big difference between these 22%, who see the Jews as not real Italians, and the 46-51% who see the Jews as having different lifestyles/relationship with money from the rest of their society. The former implies that Jews should be second-rank citizens (= bigoted), the latter doesn't.

[Zevico]

the first land-grab itself, and some were happy to see the invasion of Arabs, as an opportunity to grab more land than UN gave them.

That is, without a doubt, the biggest load of garbage I've ever heard. If you knew anything about the situation back then, you would know that the Israeli army was a ragtag organisation with no armor, no air force to speak of, and practically no navy. Their force was outnumbered and outgunned. Trying to continue a war when your odds of winning are bad is an act of complete stupidity.

Also, it started the fight in 1967, even if it was prevention

You said it, not me. Whole armies mass on every one of its borders, Arab leaders declare a struggle to wipe out Israel, and then Israel should just twiddle its thumbs and wait to be destroyed.

Arabs were not agressive nation when it comes to Israel. They didn't want new lands. They wanted to take back lands unfairly taken away from them.

The 47' lands never belonged to either the Kingdom of Jordan, the then Kingdom of Egypt, Iraq, etc, etc, etc. Nor did the 48' ones, for that matter. If they wanted to make this a war for the Arabs of then-Palestine, they would have said so at the outset, in 48'. They began trumpeting Palestinian nationalism much, much later than that. For them, it was a war of conquest.

[Az]

I don't see anything wrong about people wanting over people to assimilate into their culture..... The same goes with jews. Jews shouldn't be held to a lower standard in their social norms, just because it's "tradition". Same goes with arabs, and other muslims.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by BlackCat

No, but how do you descide witch historical events that has to be undone ?

You can't "undo" history. It wouldn't be history if you could do that.

It could be real fun to find out how eourpas borders should be. The same goes for America, Australia, New Zealand etc - how would you descide how borders should be drawn according to history before pre western influence ?

They shouldn't be drawn according to history, they should be drawn according to the present and future.

Only someone who thinks that there is a "right to conquest" would want to "undo" history according to the conquests of the past.

Read me right, I think it's a new concept, not more than highly 50 years old.

I'm not sure what you are refering to here.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Zevico

That is, without a doubt, the biggest load of garbage I've ever heard. If you knew anything about the situation back then, you would know that the Israeli army was a ragtag organisation with no armor, no air force to speak of, and practically no navy. Their force was outnumbered and outgunned. Trying to continue a war when your odds of winning are bad is an act of complete stupidity.

Actually, Jews were doing pretty good since the Nachon (?) action, that is since the operation which was supposed to secure the road from Jerusalem to the coast.
The came another victories, like capturing Jafa and Hajfa and getting rid of their citizens.
Also, Israelis bought Czechoslovak weaponry and some planes as well (officially it was for a documentary about RAF), Hagana was stockpiling weaponry for some time already. Organisations like Irgun Cwai Leumi had some experience as well.
Jordan wasn't really wanting to destroy Israel. It didn't cross UN boundaries - Israel did not have such scruples.
The fightts in Jerusalem and on the road to it occured from the start; and these were not the lands Israel was supposed to get according to UN.

You said it, not me. Whole armies mass on every one of its borders, Arab leaders declare a struggle to wipe out Israel, and then Israel should just twiddle its thumbs and wait to be destroyed.

I don't say it should. This war is acceptable, just that it's not so obvious who's the agressor. You can't be 100%
sure if Arabs would have attacked.

The 47' lands never belonged to either the Kingdom of Jordan, the then Kingdom of Egypt, Iraq, etc, etc, etc. Nor did the 48' ones, for that matter. If they wanted to make this a war for the Arabs of then-Palestine, they would have said so at the outset, in 48'. They began trumpeting Palestinian nationalism much, much later than that. For them, it was a war of conquest.

Bs.
Muslim Palestine first belonged to the caliphate, then to Tulunid emirate of Egypt (I'm not sure about Ichshidids), then again to the caliphate (of Baghdad), then to Fatimid caliphate of Egypt, later on to Ayyubids (except for crusaders' part) of Egypt and Syria, later on to Mamluks of Egypt, later on to Ottomans, but was autonomous for some time, and for some time it belonged to Muhammad Ali's Egypt - until Europeans forced Egyptian retreat. Later on it was promised to the Arabs by the British, but somehow it didn't come true.
1920 Faysal was proclaimed king of Syria and Palestine in Damascus (was forced out by the French and eventually became king of Iraq).
1948 (I think) Abd Allah was proclaimed king of Palestine

[Brent]

Killing and rape are very comparable. Survival of the "fittest" is what is barbaric. Persuasion is civilized.

The Israelites are God's chosen people, chosen to have specific responsibilities to the rest of the world. The culture should not dilute itself into nonexistence. People should ideally marry people with whom they share the most important things in common, their beliefs, otherwise divorce is much more likely.

I refer to myself more as Norwegian than American, but only because being American is obvious. The same with other nationalities: They are technically American first, but it is obvious so their ethnicity is more interesting. I appreciate my Norwegian heritage because it is my heritage, I do not consider myself or my nationality superior. The more exotic the nationality I encounter, the more interesting.

Cultures do have their own attributes, but this in no way, shape, or form is a basis to judge individuals.

The Arabs have a lot of lands. The Jews should have a land too. Do not the Cherokee, Navajo, and Inuit have a right to lands of their own?

The weak shall inherit the earth. If the weak win a war, they deserve it more than the strong. As with America.

[Az]

Jordan wasn't really wanting to destroy Israel. It didn't cross UN boundaries - Israel did not have such scruples.

While the first part may be right, the second part is bull****: Otherwise, they wouldn't have captured eastern Jerusalem.

Also, Israelis bought Czechoslovak weaponry and some planes as well (officially it was for a documentary about RAF), Hagana was stockpiling weaponry for some time already. Organisations like Irgun Cwai Leumi had some experience as well.

That has nothing to do with what he said: Israel didn't have any serious armor at all, for example.

About your mention of the victories: well, duh! we won, didn't we? Of course we were the better fighters. That doesn't mean that we didn't have a disadvantage in material resources. It just means that we used them a lot better.

[Heresson]

While the first part may be right, the second part is bull****: Otherwise, they wouldn't have captured eastern Jerusalem.

My partial mistake. It did cross UN boarders for Jerusalem, but not UN boarders for Israel.

[Az]

My partial mistake. It did cross UN boarders for Jerusalem, but not UN boarders for Israel.

Well, since we've established that they don't have too much of a problem crossing UN boundries, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't take a chunk out of Northen Israel, for example, had they had the chance.

[Mr. Harley]

Heresson - it's nice to see someone else who has not bought into the poor "state of Israel" crap. And for those of you hassling him, note that he also indicated that the 1967 "war is acceptable" I think any rational person agrees.

However, look at his history. Why not ask Molly Bloom to referee? What, you won't (because in those areas of histroy he's sharp and will also call the BS exactly what it is)? Maybe, just maybe, it's because Heresson is doing a very nice job of refuting it's never been the Arabs/Palestinians land?

I will even grant Israel is more of a democracy than the states around it. So was South Africa, and in the 1850's the American south was more democratic that most of the world. All of which have no bearing with how Israel treats it's Muslim minority, or the Muslim's on the West Bank. Since Zionism is part of being Jewish for many (not all, I said many) of the individuals justifying this, and since these are the same individuals claiming that you can seperate Judaism - the religion - from Judaism - the culture - from Judaism - the ethnicity, by that reasoning, Zionists are racist. Please note I don't necessarily agree, I am using reducio ad (not so) absurdem.

[Heresson]

Well, Jerusalem had no army to defend it nor nationality to do so. Also, Jews have taken their part of it anyway,
and it was a pretty important city.
Conquest of Eastern Jerusalem simply didn't cost much,
and attempt of conquering Israel could.


---

shawn, thanks.
But molly is no authority for me.
He's often biased, ignorant, and too self-confident.