sam04u, I respect the fact that unlike other members of this board you at least justify your opinions, but at the same time I'm not convinced.
sam04u said:
"Jews have suffered in foreign states"
Now the problem with this argument is that prior to the occupation of Palestine, the Jews had never suffered at all under Islamic or Arab leadership.
Come now, don't be ridiculous. My own family were Persian Jews, and we know from our own oral tradition that we left our home in Iran due to persecution several centuries before the creation of the State of Israel (though admittedly, I do not believe this was a common occurrence at that time). There are six generations of my family buried in Jerusalem - I am the 8th generation of Jews in my family to have been born in Israel (in modern times, at least).
But my own personal story aside, to claim that Jews were treated well under Islam is simply untrue. Bernard Lewis has written extensively on this issue and come to neutral conclusions (in my opinion), though you likely consider him a fascist revisionist neocon, or something along those lines.
sam04u said:
Infact quite the contrary. The Jews experienced what is considered by modern day scholars to be "The Jewish Golden Age", under the caliphate. Ofcourse modern day revisionists are trying to paint the Jews under the caliphate as "better than in other parts of the world", but the fact remains that they never suffered under the Arabs prior to the occupation of Palestine.
Jews
never suffered under the Arabs prior to the 'occupation of Palestine'? Well then, let's start at the very beginning - the time of Muhammad himself. In the time of Muhammad there were several Jewish tribes living in Medina (he spent a considerable amount of time trying to convert them, I might add). When it became clear that they would not convert to Islam, most were expelled from Medina. One tribe - the Banu Qurayza - was slaughtered in its entirety, save the women, who the Muslims took as booty. According to Ibn Ishaq:
Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza#cite_note-Guillaume463-37
Sounds like a great beginning to Jewish-Muslim relations to me, doesn't it? After this, Muhammad attacked the Jewish oasis of Kaybar (this is the origin of the modern chant in the Arab world 'Khaybar, Khaybar ya Yahoud'.
Later, under Caliph Umar, all Jews were expelled from the
Hedjaz. Later yet under Caliph Al-Hakim we had a period of relative 'tolerance' (in that there were no regular massacres), but I would hardly want to be a Jew or Christian at that time either. From Wikipedia:
In 1005, following the tradition of the caliphate, al-Ḥākim ordered that Jews and Christians follow
ghiyār "the law of differentiation" - in this case, the
mintaq or
zunnar "belt" (Greek ζοναριον) and
‘imāmah "turban", both in black. In addition, Jews must wear a wooden calf necklace and Christians an iron cross. In the public baths, Jews must replace the calf with a bell. In addition, women of the
Ahl al-Kitab had to wear two different coloured shoes, one red and one black. These remained in place until 1014.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hakim_bi-Amr_Allah#cite_note-7
You refer to the Jewish golden age in Spain - are you aware that there were several instances of large scale massacres of Jews in Spain at that time, as well as forced conversions? For example see the
1066 Granada massacre (in which Joseph Ha'Nagid and 4,000 other Jews were killed). Later, when the Almoravids conquered Spain, the Jewish quarter was destroyed once again, and again 50 years later when the Almohads conquered much of the Maghreb and Islamic Spain, at which time widespread massacres of Jews and forced conversions took place. Some 40 years later forced conversion of Jews began in Yemen, resulting in Maimonides' famous
Epistle to Yemen.
I could go on and on, but I think I have made my point clear. Admittedly the situation in Europe was far far worse and Jewish refugees from Europe would find relative tolerance in the Muslim world - but I would hardly call it an ideal peaceful life. There are some first-hand accounts from Jews who are still alive about how their lives were in the Muslim world during their lifetimes, there's a film which a friend of mine uploaded onto YouTube called 'The Forgotten Refugees', take a look at it if you're interested.
sam04u said:
Considering that, why would the Palestinians have to pay the price? Why couldn't Israel be founded in the middle of Europe? Could it be because under the Arabs they were treated so nicely, that they assumed they could just occupy the Palestinians land without a fight? Not a chance buddy.
You are making several false assumptions. Firstly, you insinuate that immigration of Jews to Palestine somehow meant they were 'occupying' it. The early waves of Aliyah stated explicitly that they wished to work together with "their brothers" the Arab inhabitants of Palestine. Regardless, I fail to see how Jews purchasing land and houses in Palestine constitutes a threat of so called occupation in and of itself. Even if we assume that the Jews intended from the beginning to carve out a state in Palestine (not an unreasonable assumption, but one which needs to be substantiated), this would in no way affect the land ownership rights of Palestinian citizens living in the Jewish state - the only reason so many Arabs were displaced was because the war of independence was declared by the Arabs. Had it not been declared they would have been able to continue living on their land regardless of who excercised sovereignty over it.
sam04u said:
Secondly I'll deal with the only valid argument which exists for a Jewish state.
"Unity and Self-determination"
Yes that's all well and good. But why should it be at the expense of the Palestinians who had been living there for a millenium? Why should the European Jews gain the right to self-determination at the expense of the Palestinians who did nothing to the Jews? What's more is that - in order for Israel to maintain it's state it has become far-right winged almost to the point of outright fascism. To maintain their state they have caused untold amounts of suffering amongst the Palestinians. This should be an extremely divisive factor within Israel, but suprisingly it isn't a big a deal as it should be. However there is a clear divide in Israel, which is contrary to the concept of unity which is commonly argued. What you find is that the urbanised Jews are against the settlers, who are against the orthodox Jews, and it's like a cycle. Israel is far from united.
I don't understand why Jewish self determination in Palestine had to come 'at the expense of the Palestinians.' The partition plan offered the only reasonable solution to the ongoing sectarian conflict in Israel (See Hebron Massacre, Arab Revolt of 1916-1918, Arab Revolt of 1936-1939, etc.) and further, the only reasonable solution for giving both national movements their right to self-determination. Indeed, as I said above, the only reason why Palestinian self-determination was not realised at that time is because the Arab states surrounding Israel declared war upon it the day after it proclaimed its independence. It is not as though a sovereign Paletinian state were having its territorial integrity violated as a result of this partition - a Mandatory power (Britain), upon termination of its mandate, had to consider the desires of the population - and that included the 35% of the population who were Jews. This was the only reasonable solution then, and it remains the only reasonable solution now - the two-state solution was then and is now the only rational solution, as it allows both populations to excercise their rights, without affecting land ownership.
