Arab anti-Jewish terror BEFORE creation of Israel

[hellheaven1987]

I always thought Jews mean the followers of Judaism, regardless the race.

[Blaze86420]

The Israeli-Arab conflict predated Israel's foundation. The notion that Arab-Jewish violence's existence prior to the establishment of the state is evidence that the Arabs were the instigators is laughable. The Balfour declaration became public long before Israel declared it's independence, and Arab frustration in the British mandate was a result of massive Jewish migration and intentions of carving a new state from Arab territory.

I find it funny that the left is constantly accused of being an enemy of national integrity and a stable social fabric, yet are criticized for their support of Palestinian self-determination. Principle and consistency aren't the characteristics of the pro-Israeli crowd; it's more partial to rhetoric and lying.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

and Jewish terrorism

But after being left to rot for years in Europe it's hard to blame them.

[Kissaki]

Right, We'll get in touch wth the canaanites then, since you'll want to give back the land that you stole from them. I mean, if we're basing this on who lived where in ancient history.

I predict the above is going to be conveniently ignored.

[sumskilz]

I predict the above is going to be conveniently ignored.

I'm certain both parties in this dispute have Canaanite ancestors.

[Turtler]

The Israeli-Arab conflict predated Israel's foundation. The notion that Arab-Jewish violence's existence prior to the establishment of the state is evidence that the Arabs were the instigators is laughable. The Balfour declaration became public long before Israel declared it's independence, and Arab frustration in the British mandate was a result of massive Jewish migration and intentions of carving a new state from Arab territory.

I find it funny that the left is constantly accused of being an enemy of national integrity and a stable social fabric, yet are criticized for their support of Palestinian self-determination. Principle and consistency aren't the characteristics of the pro-Israeli crowd; it's more partial to rhetoric and lying.

Really? I find it funny that for someone who is so antagonistic to "rhetoric and lying" would ruin their own post and credibility (which got off to a rather good start in the first paragraph except for the last bit) with the second.

The bottom line is that far from all of the territory in what is now Israel was ever "Arab territory", and if you were truly interested in opposing "lying and rhetoric" you would know this. Given that the tensions between the Jewish population that lived in the region through the diaspora to the time of the Mandate were very, very bloody obvious to all observers.

And you would also know that a lot of said "Arab territory" that actually was Arab territory was not "territory" in the meaning you are trying to apply to it. They tended to be landholdings of so and so Arab (often absentee) landowner that was lived on and worked by ethnically Arab tenants (if that word is even accurate given how little rights they had). Who often tended to own "Israeli territory" that was lived on and worked by Israeli tenants (with the same caveat about the use of the word tenants). But the combination of Turkish imperial hostility before the war, WWI, and various conflicts between the landowners and with the Western powers after the war more or less cleaned them out. So much- perhaps even most- of the Arab-to-Jewish land turnover after WWI came about because when the Balfour Declaration was signed and relatively well educated, rich, and connected Jews from the West and the rest of the Muslim world came in, the older generation of Arab landowners were happy to have the (feudal) contracts and fiefs they had bought out in order to regain some degree of financial solvency, with these purchases being awkwardly translated into claiming it indicated a purchase of the land.

I'm not going to say that all of these dealings were morally sound or ethical. In fact, I think more than a few of them were undoubtably not, and we can even see in some of the wordings where some of the parties involve din some of these contracts (both Jewish "Israeli" and Muslim Arab) tried to avoid the issue of whether the often long-suffering Arab Muslim tenants had any right or say in what was happening ot the land they lived on and had worked. However, the fact that they were deemed fair enough to the British government that arbitrated everything says something considering the British were not exactly well disposed to Jewish nationalism for long (as is also the explanation for why the "land stealing" during the Mandatory period are largely myths: the British army was usually on station to toss the people they regarded as trespassers out).

It's just that when the next generation of Palestinian Arab leadership took over (probably around the late 20's early 30's), they tended to be less than happy about these dealings for reasons both legitimate and illegitimate, and before long the militants in that camp were interested in overturning them and the rest of the status quo by force. Often genocidal force, as Amin al-Husseini showed.

And again: this is before we get into the fact that not even all of this land was "Arab land" even by this loose definition, and various parts had more or less retained a Jewish majority throughout the time period. Which before and after the war was claimed for just about no legitimate or logical reason.

As a final note, let's not forget the form that that "Arab frustration" often took: violence, terrorism, conventional war, and outright attempted genocide on a scale that even the real whackjobs of the Zionist camp hardly ever could measure up to (again, just ask the British, who had to deal with both). Heck, nevermind the fact that al-Husseini (who historically gets the credit for being a founding father of the Palestinian nationalist struggle) was only put into place by the British over the protests of the majority of the Palestinian Arab elite who thought he was a genocidal nutjob. Quite accurately, as the events of 1936-9, his alliance with the Nazis, and his brilliant idea for an extermination camp (yes, an extermination camp, not a concentration camp) in Nablus showed.

Or the fact that from the ramblings the Arab League sometimes sprouted between its' founding and roughly 1973, the issue was never about the "intentions of carving out a new state in "Arab Territory" (whatever that may be)", it was about the mere existence of Jews in the area of the Mandate being an affront to the Arab/Muslim (pick one for emphasis depending on who was talking, be they some of the whackjob Islamists of Indonesia going for the latter or some of the relatively rare diehard anti-Semite Christian Arabs in Lebanon going for the former). Which was why the conduct of the armies most heavily involved and invested in the conflict- that of the Hashemites in Trans-Jordan the Muhummad Ali Dynasty in Egypt, and some of the harder core Palestinian Arab Militias who might have been fighting for decades beforehand- was downright genocidal at least during the early phases, while the other combatants (including the Israelis, the Lebanese, and even the Iraqis and Saudis) were not.

I am not going to deny how much of a FU mess this entire situation is, or that the people who identify themselves as Palestinians have confronted many wrongs and have legitimate grievances. But if you act normally as you have now you are little (note: little meaning that you may be somewhat better) than the OP here.

Please do some actual research. Starting perhaps with ties of the Palestinian (Arab?) cause to the various Pan-Arabic and Pan-Islamic causes, so that perhaps you can understand why the left is criticized for both (rightly and- I will freely concede- wrongly).

[Cyclops]

I'm certain both parties in this dispute have Canaanite ancestors.

I agree, but the religious narrative of mystical Zionism is that Israel was founded by invaders not related to the locals.

I support the practical political project of Israel as a national home for Jews (founded and defended with great courage and pragmatism by largely left-wing Jewish leaders like Ben Gurion and Meir) but I find the religious quest for some re-established Kingdom of David dangerous religious claptrap.

Accepting religious rubbish as the basis for political decisions justifies evil consequences like universal Inquisition and Jihad.

[Turtler]

While I agree with most of what you say (or disagree with it so minorly it's not what I will bring up here), a slight point of order and factual correction.

I agree, but the religious narrative of mystical Zionism is that Israel was founded by invaders not related to the locals.

Actually, both narratives (religious and not) dovetail in that they claim that the modern state of Israel was founded by the relatives of the locals who weren't dispersed by the Diasporas "coming back to roost", so to speak. And that the local Arabs/Palestinians/Palestinian Arabs/Whatever the "correct" term to call them now is are not related to the pre-Arab migration inhabitants of the region. There are all kinds of problematic aspects with this and especially those who believe it as a justification for anything and everything, but that's the basic narrative and I figure if we're going to criticize we should at least get what we're criticizing accurate.

Where there might be some grind is where the pre-modern states of Israel and Judah were formed, with the religious traditions speaking of a war to drive out or wipe out the pre-existing populations to establish it. I'm not sure if that is what you are referring to with this, but it seemed like you were referring to the modern one given the middle paragraph.

Accepting religious rubbish as the basis for political decisions justifies evil consequences like universal Inquisition and Jihad.

Well, in all due fairness accepting secular rubbish as the basis for political decisions justifies evil consequences as well. To stay relatively on topic here, various lovely gentlemen like the Stern Gang were not only motivated by religion but also racism and totalitarian ideologies (mostly vis-a-vis Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy), and the various modern/post-WWI calls for the genocide of that Israeli national home have been grounded not just in religious Jihad but also in racial and national terms (and with ties to said totalitarian ideologies). So singling out the problem with such thinking as it simply being religious is also problematic.

[Cyclops]

While I agree with most of what you say (or disagree with it so minorly it's not what I will bring up here), a slight point of order and factual correction.

Thanks for the corrections, I am happy to be informed where I am ignorant.

Actually, both narratives (religious and not) dovetail in that they claim that the modern state of Israel was founded by the relatives of the locals who weren't dispersed by the Diasporas "coming back to roost", so to speak. And that the local Arabs/Palestinians/Palestinian Arabs/Whatever the "correct" term to call them now is are not related to the pre-Arab migration inhabitants of the region. There are all kinds of problematic aspects with this and especially those who believe it as a justification for anything and everything, but that's the basic narrative and I figure if we're going to criticize we should at least get what we're criticizing accurate.

Thats fair enough. I think there is a basic justice to the idea "the Jews are getting massacred, lets give them a homeland", and I should have made that clear.

Where there might be some grind is where the pre-modern states of Israel and Judah were formed, with the religious traditions speaking of a war to drive out or wipe out the pre-existing populations to establish it. I'm not sure if that is what you are referring to with this, but it seemed like you were referring to the modern one given the middle paragraph.

Quite right again, there were religiously framed arguments in the Old Testament for the formation of David's sate and its successors and I find them dodgy too, but they're ancient history. I was really making an observation related to criticisms of "the left" when so many important agents in the creation of Israel identified as left wing.

Well, in all due fairness accepting secular rubbish as the basis for political decisions justifies evil consequences as well. To stay relatively on topic here, various lovely gentlemen like the Stern Gang were not only motivated by religion but also racism and totalitarian ideologies (mostly vis-a-vis Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy), and the various modern/post-WWI calls for the genocide of that Israeli national home have been grounded not just in religious Jihad but also in racial and national terms (and with ties to said totalitarian ideologies). So singling out the problem with such thinking as it simply being religious is also problematic.

Yes I should have said "non-rational and non-democratic", you're quite right again. Nazi thinking was anti-intellectual, mystical, ahistorical and emotional. Soviet-style "Communist" ideology was pseudoscientific and often idolatrous toward its leaders (eg the Kims). in the creation of Israel I see many rational and democratic elements, such as the kibbutz idea adopted from the Templers.

I have a problem with religiously (which to my liberal agnostic mind means arbitrary and non-rational) defined states. I think the Papal states were an abomination that did much to corrupt the Church. I have a problem with Saudi Arabia and the rules about excluding kafirs from Mecca. I have a problem where groups are excluded, denied and destroyed for not being like someone else (such as the caste system in India, or the troubles in Ireland).

The positive aspect of Israel is the creation of a safe place for a persecuted and nearly destroyed people. Its a shame another persecuted people have emerged from its creation. I have relatives in the major communities and religions at odds in Israel (except Druze) and I do get worked up and express myself emotionally at times about it. I hate the feeling that my family are killing each other and thats how the bloodbath in Israel feels.

[Bruriya]

I see that the majority of participants of discussion ignore a question of the Arab terror BEGUN by Arabs, or cynically declare: "both parties are guilty". That is, in their opinion, the victim is guilty that dares to be protected and revenge! It is judaeophobia or simply moral perversity?

The Israeli-Arab conflict predated Israel's foundation. The notion that Arab-Jewish violence's existence prior to the establishment of the state is evidence that the Arabs were the instigators is laughable. The Balfour declaration became public long before Israel declared it's independence, and Arab frustration in the British mandate was a result of massive Jewish migration and intentions of carving a new state from Arab territory.

From the Jewish territory which has been taken away by Arabs. You "forgot" that Jews lived and had the state in "Palestine" long before Arabs, and never refused it.

"Originally Posted by TWWolfe View Post
Right, We'll get in touch wth the canaanites then, since you'll want to give back the land that you stole from them. I mean, if we're basing this on who lived where in ancient history."
I predict the above is going to be conveniently ignored.

1. These people disappeared long ago.
2 . According to the Bible, God took away from them this earth for their immorality and cruelty (in particular, for frequent human sacrifices and a ritual paederasty), and gave to Jews. I don't know, whether there is God, but the Hebrew ethical monotheism is much better than hanaanean paganism is the fact. Whereas Muslims have no moral advantages before Jews, but is much worse than us.

I doubt that the Palestinian Arabs have at least 5% of the Jewish gens From where it could undertake? Romans, suppressing the Jewish revolts of 67-70 and 132-35 years, arranged in the Country of Israel the real genocide; many Jews were taken out from here as captives and slaves or ran. Later Christian repressions compelled many Jews to immigrate.

[Dromikaites]

1. These people disappeared long ago.
2 . According to the Bible, God took away from them this earth for their immorality and cruelty (in particular, for frequent human sacrifices and a ritual paederasty), and gave to Jews. I don't know, whether there is God, but the Hebrew ethical monotheism is much better than hanaanean paganism is the fact. Whereas Muslims have no moral advantages before Jews, but is much worse than us.

Be very careful with the religious arguments, because you expose yourself to similar "intelligent" counter arguments.

Here is one: God hates Jews because they crucified His Son. So whatever bad things happen to the Jews is simply the just retribution for the evil nature of the Jews, who don't repent to this day. How could the Jews repent? Simply! By converting to Christianity immediately. Only then they would have the right to reside in the Holy Land.

How about that?

I doubt that the Palestinian Arabs have at least 5% of the Jewish gens From where it could undertake? Romans, suppressing the Jewish revolts of 67-70 and 132-35 years, arranged in the Country of Israel the real genocide; many Jews were taken out from here as captives and slaves or ran. Later Christian repressions compelled many Jews to immigrate.

More shooting yourself in the foot?

If you claim the Jews were practically driven out of Palestine by the Romans then it means the Arabs were the majority there before the Jews expelled them. So you've undermined the legitimacy of the state of Israel just like you would have done if you were on Hamas' payroll.

My sincere advice to you: stop writing without thinking. You are an embarrassment to the Israeli cause.