‘Occupied Pleasures’ – Palestinian Resiliance in the Face of Occupation

Not everyone throws stones at soldiers' heads.

In some Arab countries doing yoga is risky-- its considered a Hindu practice (actually it is-- also Buddist I believe.) and "militants" are not amused. They may get away with this for a while in the "West Bank", but I doubt the would get away with it in Hamas occupied Gaza

Actually, looking at the photo, its not Gaza.

Maybe Israel should end the occupation and allow Palestinians to have unoccupied pleasures...

Here are some of those "concentration camp" restrictions - these in Gaza:

None of those photos were "Hamas approved".

So here are ones of the West Bank that have not been approved for circulation.

I think that's sand rather than rubble in the Gaza photos, and Randy, did Israel bomb Ramallah? I haven't heard that yet.

As you well know, the Israelis don't go out bombing for pleasure. They do what they can to stop missiles and rockets being bombed on their innocent civilians. I'm not going to go through that with you again, flame, so don't expect me to respond to any more of your baits.

By the way, nice to see you again. I've missed you. Where've you been?

The photos are not from travel folders, but they are on topic. Pictures of rubble would NOT be on the topic of this article. But if you insist, here is a change of pace to what you might consider more realistic:

You know, the funny thing is I posted this to show that there are, notwithstanding "occupation", some things in Palestinian life that are pleasant. However, it seems that some feel that Palestinian life can not possibly ever be anything but a horror - kind of like being stuck in the mud verbally, eh?

Did the Japanese have any of these?

Hey flame,

Since you've been gone, all of these countries have been bombing ISIS targets.

So many women and children have died, simply because they are the friends and family of ISIS.

So, so unfair.

Palestinian Resiliance in the Face of Occupation

"Occupation"? Of what? Jordanian territory? Jordan was the previous "occupier", having held the region from 1947 to 1967... but Jordan has renounced all claims as part of its peace treaty with Israel. "Occupied" implies that the region belongs to a country other than that actually holding it... but there is no such other country.

This is an abuse of the English language, in an effort to trick listeners into imagining a history that in fact never existed.

The Israelis seem to have forgotten that's not their land they're building on.

Oh? Whose land is it? Jordan's? It cannot be "Palestine's" because there is no such country, and there never has been.

So... whose?

Collateral damage is a fact of every single armed conflict known to man.

I'm against collateral damage. How 'bout you?

Wow.

You came up with at least 3 inferences, based on a simple statement on my part. This is fun. Let's try it again.

I think that terrorism is wrong.

Alternatively, a very real problem may be ill-handled because its parameters are not agreed... because some interested parties do not want reality to be taken in count.

The best place to live in the Middle East, for an ordinary-joe Arab, is Israel. The second-best is Judea and Samaria. That is reality.

You seem to have some difficulty reading and understanding even a simple sentence. I made no reference to opinion polls. I stated facts. Facts are not subject to polls.

But if you weren't inclined to cherry-pick, you might also have quoted

55% would prefer to live in Israel rather than in any other country

This is NOT contradictory. Israel is far from perfect, so critical opinions are to be expected. But when they get to the nitty-gritty... they prefer to live in Israel...

Reality...

I read the report and it is a mixed bag. In fact, there was only 700 interviews of both arabs and jews... not a true statistical analysis.

Did you read it, flame?? I kinda doubt it. You didn't quote the 55% who prefer to live in Israel... and now you don't answer Perrie with the statistical validity of the poll which is cited in the article.

Sloppy!!

flame,

You either have a reading-comprehension problem... or you are willfully obtuse. You invent stuff I never said, while ignoring what I actually did say.

Have a nice day...

.

it seemed

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

700 seems an adequate sample size to apply statistical tools.

700 total, meaning both Jews and Arabs polled. So that means approx. 350 of each, which is NOT a good statistical sample when talking about a country of over 8 million.

So I dismiss it because it was poorly done.

Just because others do bad stats doesn't make a example.

You need to read this:

surveysystem

So while this may show a trend, it is not an exact picture or could be totally wrong.

LOL Flame,

I didn't realize that we were going to play the game of who knows more. My degree was in Economics and accounting and I took advanced statistical economics... so I do understand the principles. The sample should have been larger, and we don't know diddly about the methodology.

So we can go back and forth about this, but I am sure I could find as many studies proving that arab israelis are happy as you could prove that they are not. The only thing that matters to me, is that they have not fled, as most jews have in other M/E countries, and that they are allowed the same privileges as the israeli jews, which they do. They even have seats in the Knesset. I'd like you to find one arab country that has a jew in their government.

Israel isn't perfect... but then again, what country is?

the whole conflict can be argued away by trivial semantic games

Occupation, ownership, sovereignty, aren't trivial or a game, and do go right to the crux of the issue. Why would one blithely gloss over this?

I was being sarcastic with mr bob. I dont' really believe that they can be glossed over.

Then how about an informative rebuttal, or answer to the original question then?

"Occupation"? Of what? Jordanian territory? Jordan was the previous "occupier", having held the region from 1947 to 1967... but Jordan has renounced all claims as part of its peace treaty with Israel. "Occupied" implies that the region belongs to a country other than that actually holding it... but there is no such other country.

Unless sarcasm was your sole answer

:~)

flame,

I do not know whether you are being disingenuous, or are demonstrating some sort of intellectual blindness...

If you know anything about the genesis of today's Middle East, then you know that the two states that were to be carved from the "Palestinian Mandate" already exist. Nearly three quarters of the mandate's territory was given to a Muslim state that is now Jordan.

You surely also know that in 1947, a UN plan to partition the remaining quarter between Jews and Muslims was accepted by the Jews but rejected by the Arab states, which invaded the region with the intention to destroy Israel before it could be born.

So I ask again... to what country do you consider that this region belongs?

MM,

But Bibi is building settlements at an outrageous rate on the land that would be controlled by the Palestinians in a two state solution.

Say what?

Do you imagine that there would not be negotiations about the exact position of a border? That either side expects a random 1948 cease-fire line to be appropriate as a permanent border?

Have ever you looked at the actual surface area of Israel settlements, compared to the total surface of Judea / Samaria?

C'mon!

Flame, you yup Randy's "Living Space" comment.

Both of you... that is so F'ed up.

There is no civil discussion to be had here.

Bob,

Do not expect an answer. It ruins their narrative of history.

In debate if you disagree you provide evidence and thought; not simple denial.

Then answer Bob's query. It's quite a simple question, instead of throwing around terms used by the Nazis.

This kind of shit is one of the reasons I figured it was pointless to participate in discussions here.

What is pointless is that you have a forgone conclusion about who is right and who is wrong... no gray.. just black and white. So when I read shit using Nazi terms, there is no discussion. You and Randy have both made your edict and Israel sucks....

Or...

You could answer Bob's question

And all with no reasoned response just some tyrannical emotional manipulation.

Now that is a joke. Terms like "living space" don't evoke emotions. Or your carefully drafted narrative that you made to Larry and not Bob... using words very carefully...

But these folks did have a name they were called Palestinian Arabs to distinguish them from Palestinian Jews some of which also traditionally lived in the area. And yes of course these folks had been acting as a political body since around the 1890 when they began protesting Zionism (no Zionism didn't start in the 1950s) to the Ottoman empire because of the rapid influx of Jewish immigrants into the area. All this in spite of Golda's disingenuous and self serving dismissal of them. A dismissal that set the tone which of course you and Bob are continuing here today.

Filled with half truths. There were Jews living there even before the zionist movement and there was a zionist movement, but at that point, and I am being very specific here, 1890's, the Turks ran the joint, and not the English. There is no proof that you can provide that the Jews were anymore helpful to the arab economy as the other way around. But hey, why deal with realities when you can have a evil bad guys and victims. Lots of Victims. But there were none at that point. Just two groups of people living side by side. Then WWII happened and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem got together with Hitler in an effort to rid the area of Jews. Hey.. where is that in your narrative.. I don't see that.

Up to the point of Balfour the Palestinian Arabs had been living in the area under the direct rule of a variety of Arab nations. Arabs ruling Arabs. And with the Balfour declaration rule of the area passed to the Brits.

Wrong again. The Turks ran the whole place until the Brits. Come on, you can do better.

And please tell me when did Golda get into the picture? Before her birth? Here let me set history straight for you. It wasn't Golda, but Herzl who promoted zionism and Ben Gurion who started modern Israel. If you can't even get those facts right, then you don't know your history.

So there is your reasoned response.

"What utter bullshit".

What is utter bullshit is that narrative you gave and the use of offensive terms and not expecting a reaction. Chose your words better and I will do the same. I hope that this response wasn'ttyrannical emotional manipulation. Sheesh.

Excerpt from a seed I wrote on the Middle East Affairs Group in January.

thenewstalkers

Speaking before a Palestinian Arab delegation in March 1921 Churchill stated:

"It is manifestly right that the scattered Jews should have a national center and a national home to be re-united and where else but in Palestine with which for 3,000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated? We think it will be good for the world, good for the Jews, good for the British Empire, but also good for the Arabs who dwell in Palestine and we intend it to be so; they shall share in the benefits and progress of Zionism."

Churchill further attempted to allay Arab suspicions by demonstrating that their economic fears were groundless. Jewish immigrants, he argued repeatedly, would not seize Arab jobs or Arab land. On the contrary, he said, Jewish immigrants would create new jobs and new wealth that would benefit the whole community.

In August 1921 he told another Arab delegation:

"I have told you again and again that the Jews will not be allowed to come into the country except insofar as they build up the means for their livelihood...They cannot take any man's lands. They cannot dispossess any man of his rights or his property...If they like to buy people's land and people like to sell it to them, and if they like to develop and cultivate regions now barren and make them fertile, they then have the right to do so."

"There is room for all. No one has harmed you. The Jews have a far more difficult task than you. You only have to enjoy your own possession; but they have to try to create out of the wilderness, out of the barren places, a livelihood for the people they bring in".

In the same statement he complained to the Arabs that it was not fair of them to refuse to negotiate:

"It is not fair to come to a discussion thinking that one side has to give nothing and the other side has to give large and important concessions, and without any security that these concessions will be a means for peace".

Churchill was repeatedly frustrated by the Arab leaders who made no effort to accommodate Jewish aspirations or to take account of Jewish needs. In Churchill's eyes, the members of the Arab delegation were not doing what politicians are supposed to do: they were not aiming to reach an agreement - any agreement. Apparently unwilling to offer even 1% in order to get 99%, they offered no incentive to the other side to make concessions. Churchill remonstrated with the Arab leaders - to no effect.

Oh look up... I did.

thenewstalkers

I can back every fact up. Can you?

Palestinians had been living in the area for a long time. The ottoman empire began to allow jewish immigration into the region. The new settlers began starting an economy and purposefully excluded the folks who had been living there because they weren't Jewish.

Wrong. First the wordPalestinian was invented by Arafat. It was never used prior to him. Second, there was always a Jewish presence there. Third During the times of the Turks, there was a hope of Arab nationalism, that eyed the for their own independence, one that didn't include the Jews living there. Forth, Zionism happened until the 1890's.

I never commented on Golda.

Golda is the one who first made the claim that there was no such thing as a Palestinian people and therefore Israel didn't really usurp anyone's right to self rule.

In a sense she was right, in that Arafat made up the name. She was wrong in the fact that there were people who lived there (past tense)and then fled Israel because their arab brothers promised in the war of "48 that they would wipe Israel off the map. It didn't happen. Then their arab brothers didn't want them... so they went back a displace people. Didn't you ever wonder what is the difference between arab Israelis andPalestinians? The Arab Israelis, never left in the war of '48. They were not displaced people.

For example, I remember you dodging out of a discussion on IDF mowing the grass in Palestine in exactly the same way.

Yes, this is true, since I find those to be emotionally manipulativemetaphorsmeant to create good victims and evil dominating bad guys. Mowing people down... how utterly gross.

Really? You answered this question:

By what right does Israel rule a people that reject their rule?

LOL, that is a not a real question. That like saying what right do you have to tell your kid their bedtime. But I'll answer. Every right. Because had history played out differently and the war of 48 or 67 or 73 had gone any differently, there wouldn't be a Jew alive there, much less ask if they have the right to reject arab rule. Look around the ME. Not a Jew to be found. The arabs have told the jews no.... in fact, they have told them to drop dead. So why no outcry for all the Jews that had to flee Iran, Egypt, Iraq? Don't they matter? Where is your condemnation... the worlds? This is recent history as in the last 40 years. Where is your indignation for them?

BTW what group did the Turks or Ottomans belong to? Well gorsh... they were a Sunni Islamic state. Lots of Arabs and Persians. Nitpick much?

Now this is funny. Turks don't consider themselves arabs, but Muslims. Neither do Persaina. Both would be highly insulted by that comment. So no, not so much nit picking but this shows how much you don't get that region at all.

And of course now if I make any error in history in your mind you'll dismiss me and the the Palestinian people."

You see I've had a lot of these discussions so I know how they play; it's predictable.

Apparently not. Let me explain me to you. I don't dismiss anyone... not you.. or I wouldn't answer, and not thePalestinian people, since I feel that they wereduped. I have always believed in a two state solution. But what I have noticed from many who join the fray, is a combination of emotion laden language combined with historicalfallacies. Now I know they say that the history is written by the victors, but I don't think that this is what most Israelis saw as their future in 1948. I also don't think that most of the displaced arabs saw either. And in that, I find a great amount of sadness for both parties.

First: " Wrong. First the word Palestinian was invented by Arafat. "

You are wrong.

" The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt was in 5th century BC Ancient Greece "

As a region, not a people. That would make JordaniansPalestinian, too, which they would tell you they are not.

THE TERM PALESTINIAN

Henceforth the term Palestinian will be used when referring to the Arabs of the former mandated Palestine, excluding Israel. Although the Arabs of Palestine had been creating and developing a Palestinian identity for about 200 years, the idea that Palestinians form a distinct people is relatively recent. The Arabs living in Palestine had never had a separate state. Until the establishment of Israel, the term Palestinian was used by Jews and foreigners to describe the inhabitants of Palestine and had only begun to be used by the Arabs themselves at the turn of the 20th century; at the same time, most saw themselves as part of the larger Arab or Muslim community. The Arabs of Palestine began widely using the term Palestinian starting in the pre-World War I period to indicate the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people. But after 1948and even more so after 1967for Palestinians themselves the term came to signify not only a place of origin but, more importantly, a sense of a shared past and future in the form of a Palestinian state.

britannica

Second: Sorry, didn't see you state that. And since that land was always changing hands throughout history, I wasn't sure you knew that.

Third: I know all about Col. Lawrence... went to school in England.. remember? And it does matter, because had arab nationalism happened, the Jews would have been kicked out.

Forth:I didn't say you didn't... I was clarifying my timeline.

fifth: I did..

Sixth:No I am not as my posting from thebritannica confirms

Seventh: Living space is a Nazi term... and so by using it making that comparison. Mowing the lawn is saying that Israelis don't think thatPalestiniansare not human which is gross and both are meant to make an emotional reaction one way or another in a reader.

That was the fucked up comment you made about no civil discussion being possible. which begs the question why do you get to used terms like fucked up but I'm bad for saying bullshit to your bullshit?

Excuse me, but did you not get to say what you wanted to say? You did, right? So what are you talking about?

yeah, see I'm not obliged to chose my words according your standards but according to the CoC)

According to the groups standards (not mine)and no you are not. But then you get a reaction like this from me and wonder why.

I did reply in the first comment on this page.

But for good measure:

Golda is the one who first made the claim that there was no such thing as a Palestinian people and therefore Israel didn't really usurp anyone's right to self rule.

In a sense she was right, in that Arafat made up the name. She was wrong in the fact that there were people who lived there (past tense)and then fled Israel because their arab brothers promised in the war of "48 that they would wipe Israel off the map. It didn't happen. Then their arab brothers didn't want them... so they went back a displace people. Didn't you ever wonder what is the difference between arab Israelis andPalestinians? The Arab Israelis, never left in the war of '48. They were not displaced people.

So I didn't avoid the question and answer every question you asked. You probably don't agree, but that's OK.

No I reacted with F'ed up to the "Living space" comment by Randy and a quick tag team of "yup" by you, which shocked me that you would agree. So yes the emotion was mine... it was done so by both of your design. It happens when Nazis are brought into a conversation... Godwins law and all.

Way past my bedtime.

How it all started, I'm glad that it isn't forgotten.

The Arabs do not accept the Palestinian Arabs cause they view them as cowards. As such, not worthy of being counted or accepted as citizens. The Jews, in founding their nation promised the Palestinian Arabs that stayed, would become Israeli citizens with full rights and representation, which is a promise they have pretty well kept. Those that abandoned their homes and fled have become stateless people, much like the White Russians that fled the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. The White Russians eventually assimilated in whatever states they wound up in and disappeared from the world scene.

This, the Palestinians refuse to do. In many ways citing the same issues the Jews had for creating their own state. It is tragic yes, but, they have to take responsibility for their decisions, and in the society they are in, courage of convictions and willingness to defend those convictions is honored above all else. Deciding to stand up and defend their convictions after the cowardice of fleeing, is viewed with disgust.

The Palestinians do not get that honor amongst neither the Israelis nor the Arabs, all they get is disgust.

The Israelis know what it is like to be a despised people in their own country, but they also know what the repercussions are if one does not stand up for their convictions.

The Palestinians are learning that now, and have been for almost 70 years now.

Very good point Perrie.

I came back to check if the picture was changed and I find you still at it.

I have answered every question you asked. I can't help it if you don't read my replies. But again, for the record:

thenewstalkers

Really? You answered this question:

By what right does Israel rule a people that reject their rule?

LOL, that is a not a real question. That like saying what right do you have to tell your kid their bedtime. But I'll answer. Every right. Because had history played out differently and the war of 48 or 67 or 73 had gone any differently, there wouldn't be a Jew alive there, much less ask if they have the right to reject arab rule. Look around the ME. Not a Jew to be found. The arabs have told the jews no.... in fact, they have told them to drop dead. So why no outcry for all the Jews that had to flee Iran, Egypt, Iraq? Don't they matter? Where is your condemnation... the worlds? This is recent history as in the last 40 years. Where is your indignation for them?

At that point are you obliged to listen to my reasons and justifications or would you just toss me out?

I would toss you out, AFTER calling for your greybar taxi and after making it plain that you had made a grave mistake.

Problem is with your reasoning is this, Palestine was a stateless mandate controlled by the British post WWI and it continued to post WWII. The Jews have been in Palestine for thousands of years before there ever was a British mandate. So were the Arabs. It is home to both races who for most of the interceding few millennia cooperated with each other and lived in relative peace. It was when the Jews took leadership and decided to create a formal state in the region which the British was abandoning their mandate.

The Arabs decided rather than to cooperate and build a joint state. Decided that they should control and have the power in Palestine except the Arab could never get their act together and the Jews were not going to wait any longer. they had just learned what it was like being stateless people and that your adopted country could turn on you at any second.

That was the point of political separation of Arab and Jew and the animosity that continues to today.

Are they ruling others without their consent? they aren't. Is that plain enough for you?

All the Palestinians have to do is renounce terrorism and accept Israels right to be.

This they refuse to do, hence, they remain stateless people.

MM,

He still building settlements in the occupied territories. with no intention of dismantling them as he annexes the ground and area they are in.

Every government in the world uses "eminent domain" to acquire land that it considers necessary.

Once again:

If there is ever a Palestinian State in Judea/Samaria, it will occupy negotiated borders, rather than a random cease-fire line from a war that is now nearly seventy years in the past. The settlements will be part of those negotiations.

Filled with half truths.

Yes.

Two possibilities here:

• Hypocrisy. flame knows the actual facts, but is consciously warping them, in order to "win the argument", without regard to truth.
• Ignorance. flame does NOT know the actual facts -- is simply parroting half-truths found on many pro-Palestinian sites. Having advanced these half-truths as more than that, flame is now stuck: either he must recognize having been taken in, and stand corrected... or must persist in untruth. flame has chosen to persist.

NM,

This, the Palestinians refuse to do.

Not quite... It is very much a two-way street. You are right that all the other -- far larger -- post-WWII population displacements were absorbed within a decade, while the Arabs of Palestine were not.

I do not agree, though, that this is due to the Arabs from Palestine. Until the 1947-48 war, there was a great deal of movement between the Jordan Valley and the rest of the Arab world. A considerable influx from Mesopotamia, in particular. Since there was no significant cultural/religious differentiation between the Arabs of these different regions, and most of their migrations were clandestine, the amplitude is not precisely known... but it is at least in the tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands.

There was no reason for the refugee Arabs of Palestine not to be resettled in other Arabs regions of the Middle East, after the 1947-48 war. There was no "Palestinian identity" at the time. Assimilation would have been easy.

But the Arab states, humiliated in that war, had a reason to keep the refugees in that status. The "Palestinian people" was born in refugee camps maintained by the Arab states for that purpose: to create a permanent weapon against Israel.

The Palestinians deserve our sympathy because they have been profoundly abused. Not by Israel, but by their Arab "brothers"...

That very well could be, I always wondered WHY the Arab states would not allow them to assimilate.

This give me a plausible explanation. It also explains why the Palestinians do not get along with the other Arab states.

But I have one issue with this position, if they know they are being used and they have to know from there Israeli Arab brethren that they have a place as long as the give up their hate, why wouldn't they work towards their desires from within? Are they that obstinate that they can't let go, or is it generational now something that has been imbued upon the children that they have always hated Jews? (which has never been the case)

It is the worst example of human exploitation that has ever happened, if this is really the case. Right up there with the Jewish overseers.

if they know they are being used and they have to know from there Israeli Arab brethren that they have a place as long as the give up their hate, why wouldn't they work towards their desires from within?

Good question. I wonder, though, to what extent they understand their own history. Who is telling them the truth? Certainly not their "leaders" (who are in fact their "masters"). Those "leaders" have no interest at all in achieving peace, which would strip naked their abuse of the people.

So the Palestinian people is kept ignorant, to the advantage of Hamas and the PLO.

It is if you are talking about find an apartment, but it isn't when used with quotations...

Lebensraum listen ( help info ) ( German for " habitat " or literally " living space ") was an ideology proposing an aggressive expansion of Germany and the German people.

en.wikipedia

And since I have seen both terms used here in the past in that way... that is the way I took it.

Does Israel have the right to rule people that reject their rule?

The problem with your question is that it isn't a true question. It is one to direct the facts to a specific conclusion. So let me put it into perspective.

Gaza is run by Hamas, not Israel. Hamas is a terrorist organization, who is bent on the destruction of Israel. They have self determination. Israel does not rule Gaza.

The West Bank is run by the PA. The issue there is total autonomy. They have been given many chances at that, and all were turned down. This has been so frustrating that even Carter was fed up with the nit picking reasons for not signing a peace treaty under Arafat. Let's see what happens with Abbas.

The arabs that live within Israel are citizens with full rights. They even fight for Israel. So there is no issue there.

Are we done now?

The Arabs in the region kicked the Jews out because the Jews came in and annexed the region we now call Israel. You are mixing up your history and distorting your answer from today's perspective. Go back to the beginning.

Wrong. They were kicked out from Iraq in 1941 after a massacre occurred. They were kicked out of Iran after the revolution and mass killings. They were kicked out of Egypt were never treated as Egyptian and denied citizenship. They also did this with their other minority religions. After Israel, they were kicked out. Every arab state had anti Jewish policies that actually lead to more Jews immigrating to what would be or was Israel.

You can read more here:

en.wikipedia

By what right did the Jews annex Israel in the first place?

They were there in the first place. Long before the British mandate. You keep forgetting that. The fact that others immigrated there, was allowed. In fact, that is like asking if Muslims have the right to immigrate to Europe or the US. Here is the deal... they had no place else to go, since they were not wanted anywhere. As to why that got that tiny spot in the ME, the British gave it to them.

You need to read that article I posted. It is very clear about why Jews fled.

Iran: However, Jewish schools were closed in the 1920s. In addition, Reza Shah sympathized with Nazi Germany , making the Jewish community fearful of possible persecutions, and the public sentiment at the time was definitely anti-Jewish ^[54] [

Nothing to do with Israel. After the revolution, the Jewish population went from about 150,000 to 8,000, with a large majority coming to the US and Europe. Only 30,000 went to Israel. And it's this kind of persecution that is why Israel exists.

However the important point is that Jews have lived in the middle east under Muslim rule for a long time and this rule for the most part (not always) was more tolerant than what the Palestinians are currently experiencing under Jewish rule;

You have got to be kidding. They were kept as second class citizens in almost every arab nation, if not forced to convert.

The Ottoman Empire had served as a refuge for Spanish Jews who had been expelled from the Kingdom of Spain and its territories and possessions, especially after the fall of Muslim Spain in 1492 and Edict of Expulsion . This was also the case for the Maghreb in North Africa, where a Jewish quarter ( Mellah ), was installed in most large Arabian cities. Later the Jewish converts were driven out of Spain fleeing the Roman Catholic Inquisition .

In 1656, all Jews were expelled from Isfahan because of the common belief of their impurity and forced to convert to Islam . However, as it became known that the converts continued to practice Judaism in secret and because the treasury suffered from the loss of jizya collected from the Jews, in 1661 they were allowed to revert to Judaism, but were still required to wear a distinctive patch on their clothing. ^[24]

Confined to city quarters , the Bukharan Jews were denied basic rights and many were forced to convert to Islam. They had to wear black and yellow dress to distinguish themselves from the Muslims. ^[25]

Under the Zaydi rule, discriminatory laws became more severe against the Yemenite Jews , which culminated in their eventual exile, in what later became known as the Exile of Mawza . They were considered to be impure, and therefore forbidden to touch a Muslim or a Muslim's food. They were obligated to humble themselves before a Muslim, to walk to the left side, and greet him first. They could not build houses higher than a Muslim's or ride a camel or horse, and when riding on a mule or a donkey, they had to sit sideways. Upon entering the Muslim quarter a Jew had to take off his foot-gear and walk barefoot. If attacked with stones or fists by Islamic youth, a Jew was not allowed to defend himself. In such situations he had the option of fleeing or seeking intervention by a merciful Muslim passerby. ^[26]

In 1834, in Safed local Muslim Arabs carried out a massacre of the indigenous ( Old Yishuv ) Jewish population of that city in the Safed Plunder . ^{[ citation needed ]}

In 1839, in the eastern Persian city of Meshed , a mob burst into the Jewish Quarter, burned the synagogue, and destroyed the Torah scrolls . It was only by forcible conversion that a massacre was averted. ^[27] There was another massacre in Barfurush in 1867. ^{[28] [29]} In 1839, the Allahdad incident , the Jews of Mashhad , Iran , now known as the Mashhadi Jews, were coerced into converting to Islam . ^[30]

In 1840, the Jews of Damascus were falsely accused of having murdered a Christian monk and his Muslim servant and of having used their blood to bake Passover bread . ^[32] A Jewish barber was tortured until he "confessed"; two other Jews who were arrested died under torture, while a third converted to Islam to save his life. Throughout the 1860s, the Jews of Libya were subjected to what Gilbert calls punitive taxation. In 1864, around 500 Jews were killed in Marrakech and Fez in Morocco . In 1869, 18 Jews were killed in Tunis , and an Arab mob looted Jewish homes and stores, and burned synagogues, on Jerba Island . In 1875, 20 Jews were killed by a mob in Demnat , Morocco; elsewhere in Morocco, Jews were attacked and killed in the streets in broad daylight. In 1897, synagogues were ransacked and Jews were murdered in Tripolitania . ^[27]

en.wikipedia

This was long before Israel was even a question.

These strained relations could have been anticipated. Imagine if black folks decided that Washington DC was theirs and they began a massive push to annex it into an African state? People in DC gonna like that?

That is a false analysis. DC was never a colony since the US. And if we wanted to be quite accurate, blacks do dominate the politics of the area, since they are the largest population.

The problem here is that your arguments are subjective and not objective. You approach every question with the assumption that Jews have priority of importance over Palestinians.

That is your opinion. Yet I find actual sources (careful picked not to be from a jewish resource) that supports what I am saying. I have never said that Jews have priority over Palestinians. What I have said is that Israel had a right toexistand thatthePalestinians could have remained there, but chose not to. Once they left in '48 in the hopes of driving the Jews out of the tiniestswathof land in the ME, they lost their chance of return. This was their choice. Furthermore, I don't support everything that the Israeli government does, but I do support the right for it toexist. Now how different is our POV in that statement?

So the Palestinian people is kept ignorant, to the advantage of Hamas and the PLO.

Pretty much. They have been handed so many agreement opportunities that were turned down. Why else could that be?

There will not be peace between Israel and the Palestinians in our lifetimes, if ever. Instead of seeking peace and attempting to build a decent future for their children, Hamas is too busy training the next generation of terrorists.

thenewstalkers

Mike,

I am hopeful with West Bank and Abbas. Then those who don't want to live under Hamas will be able to move.

Perri, I agree there is no hope for Gaza as long as Hamas remains in control, though I no longer have optimism for the West Bank Palestinians under Abbas and the PLO. Every time I see or hear the slightest rational conciliation from him, it vanishes when he dedicates a school/playground/street after a mass-murdering terrorist.

I've given up trying to understand the Palestinians. Each year Israel becomes stronger and more prosperous while they are mired in poverty, stagnation, and violence. They could have a bright future if they would simply sit down with the Israelis and negotiate a final settlement. The Palestinians would be showered with aid money from the West to develop their economy and would gain much in expertise cooperating with the Israelis. With peace, the beautiful beaches in Gaza and the Christian holy places in the West Bank could be filled up with Western tourists. It just doesn't make sense.

Well, I happen to agree with you totally Mike. It is a bit odd. Abbas really could do better for his people.

I have read the remaining comments to try and get a fix on your position flame. If I'm understanding correctly, you believe thatIsrael has no right to be where it is, any right to claim that land; nor, any justification for protecting that land as their own or their claim on it.

The invariable consequence of course being that Israelshould then suffer the just dessertsfor insisting that they do have a right to self determination. Namely, Israel deserves to suffer terrorists attacks; they've in effect, earned them.By thatassessment the results of a couple of world wars or numerous global treatiseand declarations, don't stack up against your personal take on themoralization of the Israeli/Palestinian issue, and reinterpretation of world history. Of course it's also that much more appealing when one can also spin Righty-war-hawk imagery into aligning the downtrodden or dull witted to cry out for mercy, on behalf of extremists even more downtrodden and dull witted. Allthe whilenot even mentioningthe narrative of thenear genocide of the Jewish people, theHolocaust. What a spin, what a move. You got serious skills there flame.

But hey, that's what apologists do, right?!

:~)