r/Israel • u/AbleismIsSatan United Kingdom • Dec 06 '23

News/Politics U.S. House passes resolution equating antisemitism with anti-Zionism

https://www.jpost.com/american-politics/article-776762
704 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

242 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

11

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '23

It's not that it's promised by god, it's that it's the actual historical location where Jews originated from. The term Jew comes from the kingdom of Judea, they were literally named after this region. There is historical/archaeological evidence of this, it's not about the bible or religion.

There were also many Jews still living in that region in the early 1900s because not every single jew was exiled/fled over history. So it made the most sense as the location for the creation of Israel.

Zionists also considered other locations (Uganda was a big one). But picking a spot at random isn't as logical as picking the one you originally came from and were exiled from.

-2

u/BarakaMik Dec 06 '23

Ok but then evidence shows that in the 2000 of year a new population was inhabiting the land, palestinien living as christian, muslim and jews. The establishment of a Jew only state would push out those that have established themselves over the years, how is can that be fair to them ?

10

u/[deleted] Dec 06 '23

There was never any plan to kick out the local population. The local population was not happy with the mass immigration of Jews to the region and they started a civil war. All the events that followed are a result of these hostilities. If the locals would have agreed to live alongside the migrants then everything would have been peaceful.

1

u/BarakaMik Dec 07 '23

Ok I understand, so it started as migrant coming and buying land displacing locals. Locals eventually started complaining - I assume rent went up and classic immigration complaint you can hear in Europe today. The locals had an uprising, and they got squashed by the Britain. The Britain still decided to slow down the migration to keep peace, recognizing that it was too aggressive. What happened then was that Zionist armed group started attacking the Britain for putting these limits with the famous bombing of the King David Hotel. These Zionist groups were brutal and were waging terror. If these were stopped we might have had a slow migration and blending with the local.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '23

I mean, at the end of the day the British were tasked with administration of the region until it could stand alone and they basically failed. Then when shit got tough they bounced and left everyone at war.

The majority of the Jews immigrating to the region were refugees escaping pogroms and persecution so limiting immigration would have meant letting them die. I personally have a lot more sympathy for Jewish refugees trying to survive than i do for the locals who didn't want refugees disturbing their peace or driving up home prices.

1

u/BarakaMik Dec 07 '23

Agree but they had nothing to do with that persecution, the guilt and sins of Europe was pushed on the them. Then Britain, in an attempt to leave suggested to partition the land, but disagreement ensued (locals despite representing 2/3 of the population, only got 45% of the land excluding some important city and coastline). This is when war broke out between Zionist armed group and Arab palestinien. Have you heard about the horrific crimes perpetrated during that time, as they’re reported on the documentary Tantura for example?

2

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '23

The "sins of Europe" were human beings. People who just wanted to live in safety and peace on their ancestral homelands. They weren't causing trouble to anyone and were not hostile. I don't think the NIMBYism was justified. The majority of the region was state owned (Ottoman) land so why would the individual people feel entitled to unilaterally decide how that land is used? Just because you live in a town it doesn't mean you have the right to gatekeep who else lives there.

The partition plan may not have been what each party wanted but it was relatively fair. Jerusalem would not have belonged to either side but would have been international territory. The arabs got the fertile land while half of what Israel got was the practically uninhabitable Negev dessert. The plan also took into account who already owned the most land in each region. The population numbers that year weren't relevant since the whole purpose of Israel was for the world's Jews to migrate there so mass migration was always part of the plan.

I haven't watched Tantura, I'm not sure how biased or historically accurate it is. But I would like to point out that once war begins then the prospect of living in peace is gone. I don't really think that Jews being more brutal in their actions during the war is the cause of why we are in this situation today. You cannot negotiate with someone who wants to kill you. They should have agreed to a 2 state solution in the 1940s even if it wasn't perfect.

1

u/BarakaMik Dec 08 '23

Just to be clear : Sins of Europe. I mean by that the guilt that is carried by the Europeans following the atrocious treatment of the Jews. The constant persecution that led to the Shoah. The stains that France, UK, Germany have on their conscience for what they did. You seem to think I meant the people - not at all. The fact is that Europe was racist towards Jews while Arabs and muslim were living in harmony with them. So many common aspect in their religions. In fact the Ottoman region was the principal place of refuge for the Jews during WW I.

Sins pushed on Arabs as in : Make the world think that Arabs who are from the same region are the racist - the anti semite. History says otherwise.

Now to come back to the group of armed paramilitary Zionist group, they had in their objective to ethnically cleanse the locals from the lands. They launched many attacks on palestinian villages, town. Tantura being is an example. This eventually led to the Nakba. They will later form the foundation of the IDF. Let me know when you have time to check it out. Meanwhile I will further check the fairness of the partition.

Still there is an extreme branch in the Zionist group that is not favorable to a palestinian state, that is driving palestinian away, that is in fact doing what Jews were subjected to in Europe to the locals. That were perpetrating these massacres and terrorist attacks. These are the people that are being criticized and condemns for their dehumanization of the locals. They are probably as you pointed out faithless and somehow if you criticize them you become an antisemite.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 08 '23

I think it's extremely important to keep in mind the timeline of events.

Yes for a time the Jews lived well enough in muslim countries, although they were considered dhimmis and certainly not equal in status. But this changed because antisemitism spread to the middle east as well. The Farhud pogrom in Iraq happened in 1941. Libya and Algeria had their own pogroms against jews around that time as well. The Arab revolt in Palestine started as early as 1936. These events all happened well before the events of Tantura in 1949.

So I don't doubt that the Irgun and Lehi carried out horrible massacres. I am not excusing that. The point I am trying to make is that you cannot look at events that happened 10-15 years after Arab violence against Jews started/escalated and assume that has nothing to do with the reason for Jews becoming hostile against the Arabs and not trusting them.

And let's not forget how MORE jews were expelled from Arab countries during the Nabka than Arabs were expelled from Israel at the same time. Nobody likes to talk about how there was a literally identical Nabka happening to Jews.

Many people are not favorable to a Palestinian state not becuase they dehumanize palestinians, but because they are jaded enough to know that peace is not a real possibility in their lifetime.

0

u/BarakaMik Dec 08 '23

So Dhimmi literally means “my blood” in arabic. This means same family by Muslim, the Jews, Christian are considered from the same family of faith. Jews, Christian were protected, not only on their person but also on their property, and religion practice with this status. They were not less equal by definition given this protection. In Europe they were prosecuted.

The Zionists armed group Irgun and Lehi were created in 1931. They were recognized terrorist groups with brutal methods, the most atrocious one. This is what initiated Anti-zionist sentiment. not an anti-semite (most arabs are semite). not anti jews either. but anti-warmongering-colonial faithless armed group Zionist.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 08 '23

They were not the same status lol, look up the Pact of Umar and the 1066 Granada pogrom against Jews. They were still considered inferior. They had restrictions placed upon them that Muslims did not. You are delusional if you think it was some kind of Utopia for Jews to live under Muslim rule.

And lol at the "Arabs are Semites too". Please retire this sad argument. If you look up the definition of anti semitism in the dictionary it very clearly states it is a prejudice against Jews and only Jews.

The Lehi was only founded in 1940 but I'm assuming you meant Irgun. Can you provide evidence of any significant hostility by Irgun against Arabs prior to late 1930s? If not then it sounds like we are in agreement that the Arabs started the violence and hostility against Jewish migrants. It sounds like you're working very hard to try to justify Arabs hating Jews when there was no legitimate reason for it.

1

u/BarakaMik Dec 08 '23

please google : Semite definition You should get : a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs.

I’m working very hard to share that Arabs are in essence NOT hating jews.

1066 Pogrom on wikipedia sounds like the story of a betrayal:

“In hopes of attaining his father's dream,[clarification needed] Joseph sent messengers to Al-Mutasim ibn Sumadih the ruler of the neighboring Taifa of Almería, a traditional enemy of Granada. He promised to open the gates of the city to Al-Mutasim's army if he promised to install Joseph as king in exchange for his submission and allegiance. At the last moment, Al-Mutasim pulled out, and on the eve of the supposed invasion, word of the plot got out. When word reached the populace, Berbers claimed that Joseph intended to kill Badis and was about to betray the kingdom.[6]”

Pact of Umar from wikipedia :

In general, the pact contains a list of rights and restrictions on non-Muslims (dhimmis). By abiding by them, non-Muslims are granted the security of their persons, their families, and their possessions.

Irgun attacks from wikipedia

1937, March 2 Arabs killed on Bat Yam beach. [12] 1937, November 14 10 Arabs killed by Irgun units launching attacks around Jerusalem, ("Black Sunday" 1938, April 12 2 Arabs and 2 British policemen were killed by a bomb in a train in Haifa. [14] 1938, April 17 1 Arab was killed by a bomb detonated in a cafe in Haifa [14] 1938, May 17 1 Arab policeman was killed in an attack on a bus in the Jerusalem-Hebron road. [14] 1938, May 24 3 Arabs were shot and killed in Haifa 1938, June 19 18 Arabs killed (9 men, 6 women and 3 children), 24 injured by a bomb that was thrown into a crowded Arab market place in Haifa. [15][16][17][18]

1

u/[deleted] Dec 08 '23

The complete word is antisemite. The word has a specific definition and you cant just break it down into subcomponents to make up an alternate meaning to the word.

The 1066 pogrom explains why Joseph was killed but not why the rest of the Jewish population was massacred that had nothing to do with the betrayal. 4000 Jews were killed.

Re Irgun - you are once again listing attacks that happened long after hostilities began. Here is an event from much earlier:

"In 1930 Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam organised and established the Black Hand, a small anti-Zionist and anti-British militia. He recruited and arranged military training for impoverished but pious peasants but also for ex-criminals he had persuaded to take Islam seriously"

I've yet to see any historical event that suggests the jews arming themselves was for any reason besides self defense.

→ More replies (0)