Israel demands $300B from Arab countries

[Zevico]

You said putting Mussolini into power meant aiding the Nazis, which implied that the very act of supporting Mussolini's coup in 1922 meant supporting a German political movement that was probably completely unknown at the time.

This exchange simply illustrates the importance of precise communication. You're making hay out of a disagreement between us that either doesn't exist, or, at any rate, is too broadly defined.

I am not knowledgeable about Mussolini's Italy. For the purpose of this conversation only, I accept that the premise that it may not have been racist in character.

However, Mussolini's alliance with Nazi Germany was an alliance with a racist entity. The purpose of that alliance was to secure the perceived common interests of Nazism and Italian fascism--world and/or regional domination.

That purpose is evil. Aiding Nazism compounded that evil.

I would be willing to state that the Finns' willingness to fight the Soviets is a distinct matter, morally speaking, as they were between a rock (Nazis) and a hard place (Communists).

My point is that these specific examples have weight only when grounded in their historical context. The Iraqi military was openly coaxed into pro-Nazism by the Germans. It promoted that policy and it promoted well. Look up "Farhud." They instigated an anti-Jewish riot, for goodness' sake.

You're not a wormhole alien form Deep Space Nine you can't claim to be unaware of the linearity of time.

Yes I am. I hope that settles this argument once and for all.

Even Chandra Bose paid lip service to Nazi ideals when he was negotiting with them to obtain support of his bid to drive the British out of India, and after all, Chandra could make a valid claim of Aryan status. That's something the Arabs couldn't do.

I don't give a damn if Chandra Bose was a hypocrite. I'm not discussing Indian colonial policy. That's not relevant to this discussion, which concerns the implications of racism and Nazism in the Middle East.

Look, you said that Arabs sent Libyan Jews to Bergen Belsen, an idea that's completely ridiculous considering that Libya at the time was controlled by the Italians and Germans.

No, I make the point that even nations under occupation make moral choices. There is a reason why the Danes saved almost every Jew in Denmark. That took everyone--from the Danish government, to private citizens, ordinary Danish fishermen--and it was their moral choice as individuals and, in turn, as a society, to make that effort. Libya's Jews did not benefit from a similar effort. That speaks to the Libyan society and its morals as much as any other.

No it wasn't. Jews had been dehumanized in Europe for more than a thousand years.

So too in the Middle East. Jews and Christians were designated "dhimmis" under the Ottoman system. Their position in distinct legal and semi-autonomous communities, subject to distinct taxes, rendered them aliens in their own lands. That never changed.

The main point is that to the Arabs of post WW1 era the Balfour proclamation legitimized European occupation of the middle east

British. Not European. And it was one of a series of many policy statements on the Middle Esast by hte British and the French. And the language you use is confusing. If "to the Arabs...the Balfour proclamation legitimised...occupation," that suggests that the proclamation convinced the Arabs of the legitimacy of European occupation. Which is not the case.

the "promised land" would become a permanent European settlement.

Do I undestand you to suggest that "the Arabs" took Israel to be a "permanent European settlement"?

I can guarentee you that if the British or French had constructed settlements in the Middle East their settlers would have gotten the same treatment.

And?

As a matter of fact the European occupation of the Middle East was best with a nearly unending string of uprisings, guerilla attacks and sabotage.

And?

Actually there were Zionist organizations scattered throughout the Middle East.

And?

The quotes I posted were from people who immigrated to Israel after the foundation of Israel. Well maybe they didn't know what they were talking about.

What's true for them isn't true for the entire population. You read up on the Farhud and talk to me about Iraqi Jews not fearing persecution.

Iraqi christians have been fleeing Iraq because Iraq has been a violent unstable mess, and they know that as Christians they have a better chance of being accepted in the US and Europe.

Legally they have as much of a chance of geting to the US and Europe as any refugee. Incidentally, Christians are being targetted specifically in Iraq and elsewhere. That's not merely a consequence of instability. That's a consequence of ethnic-religious hatred and rivalry. Ditto, Egyptian Copts, where the evidence is much clearer.

What rebellion?

In the metaphysical sense, any break from the established order of Islamic supremacy is a 'rebellion' for which Islam cannot be to blame and for which outsiders--Jews and Christians--are to blame.

So what if Arabic Christians and Jews lived in peace under a system dominated by Islamic domination if the majority of people in that area were Muslims.

Second-class citizenship and dehumanisation of one kind speaks to how people think and act towards one another. People were and are willing to die for the right to dominate Christians and Jews and create or preserve that dominion. If they don't succeed, they start looking to blame those Christians and Jews for being the cause of their failures.

The important fact is that Muslims accepted them and did not persecute them.

Second-class citizenship is a form of persecution. One that you apparently don't have any problem with.
Incidentally, it was only the beginning.

Face it, you're just against self-determination for colonial peoples.

Self-determination is fine by me. The United States' act of self-determination was a marked success for the people of the United States. It prospered as a result. Last I checked I'm an Australian, a part of a formerly colonial society whose act of "self-determination" similarly resulted in the betterment of the lives of its citizenry.

Self-determination is not, however, always and necessarily desirable. German self-determination resulted in Nazism and ultimately, in the temporary destruction of the German state. Now, I'm not saying that Weimar Germany should have been wiped out, but I am saying that there was every reason to wipe out Germany's "self-determinedly" Nazi empire.

The point being that there are sometimes good reasons to oppose "self-determination" if its proponents' interests differ from yours.

Wow. How often have we seen colonialism and the 'white man's burden' supported on Apolyton?

What nonsense.

And what's with Arab in quotes? Like Arab is a made-up ethnicity.

No, I put it in quotations to further reinforce my point that Arabs are not a political or social unit. They may share a common language, and in some cases, a common faith or culture, but they do not share common political interests. Put another way, I'm making the point that a pan-Arabist analysis of the Middle East is often unhelpful.

[Zevico]

I should add that the argument that Islamic domination and persecution of Jews and Christians was a perfectly "peaceful" outcome is immoral nonsense. Subjugation is always backed by the sword. The threat of violence and the force of the state underlied this so-called 'peace.' In the same way we might call Saddam's tribal-Tikriti-Sunni domination of Iraq "peaceful." The fruits of his labour show how "peaceful" ethnic supremacism is. D. Strangelove's defence of it is unbecoming.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And what's with Arab in quotes? Like Arab is a made-up ethnicity.

Actually Zevico all but said that nonsense.

[Al B. Sure!]

a

Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, states that
"If we look at the considerable literature available about the position of Jews in the Islamic world, we find two well-established myths. One is the story of a golden age of equality, of mutual respect and cooperation, especially but not exclusively in Moorish Spain; the other is of “dhimmi”-tude, of subservience and persecution and ill treatment. Both are myths. Like many myths, both contain significant elements of truth, and the historic truth is in its usual place, somewhere in the middle between the extremes."[8]

[Dr Strangelove]

I should add that the argument that Islamic domination and persecution of Jews and Christians was a perfectly "peaceful" outcome is immoral nonsense. Subjugation is always backed by the sword. The threat of violence and the force of the state underlied this so-called 'peace.' In the same way we might call Saddam's tribal-Tikriti-Sunni domination of Iraq "peaceful." The fruits of his labour show how "peaceful" ethnic supremacism is. D. Strangelove's defence of it is unbecoming.

By the 20th century muslims were the overwhelming majority throughout the areas of the middle east we've been discussing, and they had been the majority for over one thousand years. Christians and Jews were minorities living amongst a Muslim majority, so for Muslims to form the governments of these areas wasn't subjugation. Were these areas taken by force 1300 years ago? Sure, but that's the way things were 1300 years ago. Read the Bible, you'll find that the Jews originally wrested their "promised land" from the Canaanites. Christians conquered their kingdoms too. The important fact is this: from medeival times up to the Balfour proclamation their had never been a pogrom in the Muslim dominated middle east. The history of Europe is quite the opposite.

Oh, and I might point out that Sunnis were a minority in Iraq. Sunnis had been accustomed to being the rulers of the Shia majority back in Ottoman times. Then after WW2 the British installed a monarchy in Iraq. They chose a noble house from Saudi Arabia, Sunnis of course, to rule over Iraq. They weren't considering the needs or wishes of the people of Iraq, the particular rival house they chose were long-standing rivals of the house of Saud. Putting them on the throne of Iraq killed two birds with one stone, it removed a potential trouble maker from Saudi Arabia, who's oil the British had begum to exploit, and it put a puppet in control of Iraq, a place which showed promise for oil exploration.

[Dr Strangelove]

a

Even if the pre-20th century Middle East wasn't a "golden age of equality" it was for Jews much better than Europe, except for the part that Europe began getting ahead in terms of scientific and economic advances from the 18th century onwards. Shall we make an extensive list of the known massacres, pogroms, persecutions and forced displacements of Jews in europe?

[Dr Strangelove]

This exchange simply illustrates the importance of precise communication. You're making hay out of a disagreement between us that either doesn't exist, or, at any rate, is too broadly defined.

I am not knowledgeable about Mussolini's Italy. For the purpose of this conversation only, I accept that the premise that it may not have been racist in character.

You're the only person I know of who attempts to use his lack of knowledge on a subject as a positive point. I'm not certain I feel comfortable arguing with you. It's sorta like arguing with Jethro Bodine.

However, Mussolini's alliance with Nazi Germany was an alliance with a racist entity. The purpose of that alliance was to secure the perceived common interests of Nazism and Italian fascism--world and/or regional domination.

Actually it was more an alliance of opportunism, as was Japan's alliance or Finnland's alliance.

That purpose is evil. Aiding Nazism compounded that evil
I would be willing to state that the Finns' willingness to fight the Soviets is a distinct matter, morally speaking, as they were between a rock (Nazis) and a hard place (Communists). .

Germany's best steel came from Sweden. Swedish ore was required to make the infamous 88mm gun and the Panzer armor. In that way no one helped the Nazis more than the Swedes. The Swedes sold their ore to the Germans because they didn't want to be invaded. Were they evil?

My point is that these specific examples have weight only when grounded in their historical context. The Iraqi military was openly coaxed into pro-Nazism by the Germans. It promoted that policy and it promoted well. Look up "Farhud." They instigated an anti-Jewish riot, for goodness' sake.

SOME of the Iraqi army sided with the Nazis. The force that put down that rebellion included Iraqi and Jordanian troops. Do they not count?

You're not a wormhole alien form Deep Space Nine you can't claim to be unaware of the linearity of time.

Yes I am. I hope that settles this argument once and for all.

Even Chandra Bose paid lip service to Nazi ideals when he was negotiting with them to obtain support of his bid to drive the British out of India, and after all, Chandra could make a valid claim of Aryan status. That's something the Arabs couldn't do.

I don't give a damn if Chandra Bose was a hypocrite. I'm not discussing Indian colonial policy. That's not relevant to this discussion, which concerns the implications of racism and Nazism in the Middle East.

Look, you said that Arabs sent Libyan Jews to Bergen Belsen, an idea that's completely ridiculous considering that Libya at the time was controlled by the Italians and Germans.

No, I make the point that even nations under occupation make moral choices. There is a reason why the Danes saved almost every Jew in Denmark. That took everyone--from the Danish government, to private citizens, ordinary Danish fishermen--and it was their moral choice as individuals and, in turn, as a society, to make that effort. Libya's Jews did not benefit from a similar effort. That speaks to the Libyan society and its morals as much as any other.

How many Libyan Jews went to Bergen-Belsen? Even in Denmark some Jews were caught. While over 90% of Germany or Poland's Jews were killed less than 25% of the Jews of France, Italy, Russia SFSR and Denmark were killed. The best figure I can find is that 2000 Jews out of a population of 40,000 were removed from the Jewish quarters of Tripoli. That's about 5% of the population. That would make the Libyans considerably less harmful to Jews during WW2 than every country in Europe except for Denmark.

No it wasn't. Jews had been dehumanized in Europe for more than a thousand years.

So too in the Middle East. Jews and Christians were designated "dhimmis" under the Ottoman system. Their position in distinct legal and semi-autonomous communities, subject to distinct taxes, rendered them aliens in their own lands. That never changed.

Dhimmis was a mildly discriminating tax, it carried no onus with it. More importantly the population didn't periodically rise up and slaughter the Jews over some imagined magical injury.

The main point is that to the Arabs of post WW1 era the Balfour proclamation legitimized European occupation of the middle east

British. Not European. And it was one of a series of many policy statements on the Middle Esast by hte British and the French. And the language you use is confusing. If "to the Arabs...the Balfour proclamation legitimised...occupation," that suggests that the proclamation convinced the Arabs of the legitimacy of European occupation. Which is not the case.

No, in the eyes of some Europeans re-establishing a Jewish homeland was seen as a noble cause. You see, even liberal and enlightened Europeans, such as G.K Chesterson considered the settlement of Jews in Europe the "Jewish Problem."

the "promised land" would become a permanent European settlement.

Do I undestand you to suggest that "the Arabs" took Israel to be a "permanent European settlement"?

Yes, most of the early settlers sent by Zionist organisations were European.

I can guarentee you that if the British or French had constructed settlements in the Middle East their settlers would have gotten the same treatment.

And?

The natives didn't want immigrants unless they were manking the policy. You know, Australia is so very underpopulated, and there are so many nations which are over-populated. I thinks its time the United Nations started dictating immigration policy for Australia. Don't you?

As a matter of fact the European occupation of the Middle East was best with a nearly unending string of uprisings, guerilla attacks and sabotage.

And?

Meaing the natives of the middle east were not discriminating in their insistance that they should be self-governing, including determining who should be allowed to settle in their countries.

Actually there were Zionist organizations scattered throughout the Middle East.

And?

Societies which encouraged Sephardic jews to move to Israel. For one thing they knew that their claim to the land would be pretty hard to make if their were only a handful of settlers in Palestine. They needed numbers to make their argument convincing.

The quotes I posted were from people who immigrated to Israel after the foundation of Israel. Well maybe they didn't know what they were talking about.

What's true for them isn't true for the entire population. You read up on the Farhud and talk to me about Iraqi Jews not fearing persecution.

One incident in the entire history of Iraq? How many similar or worse incidents could you find in the history the UK?

Iraqi christians have been fleeing Iraq because Iraq has been a violent unstable mess, and they know that as Christians they have a better chance of being accepted in the US and Europe.

Legally they have as much of a chance of geting to the US and Europe as any refugee.

But once here or in Europe they know they will be accepted more readily. Also, there are charitable organizations that help Iraqi christians get papers and make arrangements.

Incidentally, Christians are being targetted specifically in Iraq and elsewhere. That's not merely a consequence of instability. That's a consequence of ethnic-religious hatred and rivalry. Ditto, Egyptian Copts, where the evidence is much clearer.

Virtually all the bombings in Iraq have been against Sunnis or Shias, with the occassional Christian church.

What rebellion?

In the metaphysical sense, any break from the established order of Islamic supremacy is a 'rebellion' for which Islam cannot be to blame and for which outsiders--Jews and Christians--are to blame.

Metaphysical sense? Can we stick to reality?

So what if Arabic Christians and Jews lived in peace under a system dominated by Islamic domination if the majority of people in that area were Muslims.

Second-class citizenship and dehumanisation of one kind speaks to how people think and act towards one another. People were and are willing to die for the right to dominate Christians and Jews and create or preserve that dominion. If they don't succeed, they start looking to blame those Christians and Jews for being the cause of their failures.

The important fact is that Muslims accepted them and did not persecute them.

Second-class citizenship is a form of persecution. One that you apparently don't have any problem with.
Incidentally, it was only the beginning.

And it was also at a time when Jews faced more severe discrimination in Europe, like restritions on where they could live and what jobs they could hold. People claim the Karl Marx was Jewish. He wasn't. His parents converted to Lutheranism before he was born because they wanted him to become a lawyer. People claim that Benjamin Disraeli was Jewish. He wasn't, he was a member of the Church of England, for the same reason. In the muslim world Jews and Christians often served in high government posts. The Ottoman Empires most feared naval officer was a Jew. [/quote]

Face it, you're just against self-determination for colonial peoples.

Self-determination is fine by me. The United States' act of self-determination was a marked success for the people of the United States. It prospered as a result. Last I checked I'm an Australian, a part of a formerly colonial society whose act of "self-determination" similarly resulted in the betterment of the lives of its citizenry.

Self-determination is not, however, always and necessarily desirable. German self-determination resulted in Nazism and ultimately, in the temporary destruction of the German state. Now, I'm not saying that Weimar Germany should have been wiped out, but I am saying that there was every reason to wipe out Germany's "self-determinedly" Nazi empire.[/quote] Germany got itself self-determined 60+ years before the nazis came to power. Please stop using metphysical logic.

The point being that there are sometimes good reasons to oppose "self-determination" if its proponents' interests differ from yours.

You mean like "wogs", "fuzzy wuzzies", "aboriginals"? They're not civilized like us, right?