It's ironic you should say that. Not so long ago you seemed to think that diversity was a good thing,and monoculture bad. Yet above, you mention the word "Arab" four times and never once does "Jewish" enter into it. Your unwitting implication is that their tolerance was founded on the Jews' sublimating their own identity. Well, I have things to do. I'll let you stew in your rage for a while.
You think their religious distinction is relevant to their cultural assimilation? Thats an interesting outlook. I could never tell when I met an Arab Jew or an Arab Christian in Saudi Arabia until they told me their religion. Can you tell Jews in America by any other way?
Why would the Palestinian partition have any effect at all on Arabs living in Iraq? I mean, who happen to be Jewish. You make it sound like ah well, who can blame those Muslim Arabs for getting all pissed off at what was happening over in Palestinian and threatening Jew Arabs who were their neighbors. Come on. Each person makes a decision and that's their responsibility to own up to said decision. Maybe you should go to KSA as a Jew one time. See what it's like. That isn't to say people are dumb enough to be played against one another, but first, you have to have a "one and another" to start with.
I was wondering if I could have a citation to the original source for this. For one, the word "Muslims" has been inserted and for all I know they may be referring to China or Persia :shrug: (when I read it I thought of India in a way) Secondly, 40 years of pan-Arabism has never produced a single unified state. It's a mirage. There is nothing stopping Syria and Iraq from combining to form one state - except the people in it. Or KSA for that matter. Or Egypt. etc... Each has it's own dictator who wants power for himself...
There is always two sides to a story. Naeim Giladi, Giladi has strong views on Zionism and its negative effects and his article begins with the following passage: "I write this article for the same reason I wrote my book: to tell the American people, and especially American Jews, that Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel; that, to force them to leave, Jews killed Jews; and that, to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands, Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace initiatives from their Arab neighbors. I write about what the first prime minister of Israel called 'cruel Zionism'. I write about it because I was part of it." Giladi's position that the bombings were "perpetrated by Zionist agents in order to cause fear amongst the Jews, and so promote their exodus to Israel" is shared by a number of anti-Zionist authors, including the Israeli Black Panthers (1975), David Hirst (1977), Wilbur Crane Eveland (1980), Uri Avnery (1988), Ella Shohat (1986), Abbas Shiblak (1986), Marion Wolfsohn (1980), and Rafael Shapiro (1984). In his article, Giladi notes that this was also the conclusion of Wilbur Crane Eveland, a former senior officer in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who outlined that allegation in his book "Ropes of Sand" . Alternatively, historian Moshe Gat argues that there was little direct connection between the bombings and the exodus of Jewish refugees. Gat questions the guilt of the alleged Jewish bombthrowers who were found guilty in an Iraqi court of having perpetrated one of the bombings. He cites a rumour that a Christian Iraqi army officer "known for his anti-Jewish views", was initially arrested for the crime, but was evidently not charged despite the large number of explosive materials matching those used in an earlier synagogue bombing that were allegedly found in his home. He further cites a long history of anti-Jewish bomb-throwing incidents in Iraq. Israeli officials of the time and in particular Mordechai Ben Porat and Shlomo Hillel, prominent figures at the Iraqi Zionist underground, vehemently deny the charges. An internal investigation conducted in Israel in 1960 found no proof of an order to execute such an attack. More possible responsible parties have been suggested, such as the Iraqi CID and the Muslim Brotherhood. There is however, little in the way of completely definitive evidence either way. Jewish studies scholar, Philip Mendes suggests that, "It therefore remains an open question as to who was responsible for the bombings," claiming that "memories and interpretations of the events have further been influenced and distorted by the unfortunate discrimination which many Iraqi Jews experienced on their arrival in Israel (Black Panthers 1975:132-133; Shohat 1988; Swirski 1989; Massad 1996)." He does say, however, that Gat argues "convincingly" that there was "was little direct connection between the bombings and exodus." Historian Dr. Yosef Meir, a noted Iraqi Zionist underground operative, argues in a rebuttal article that while there is a direct connection, the culprits are the Iraqi government or Arab nationalists. He points to the fact that the bombings in question occurred after the Citizenship relinquishment act of 1950 had already expired and therefore no Jews could register for exit. He also notes that the two zionist operatives hanged were never charged with the masouda shem-tov bombing, but rather three unrelated bombings which occurred later. On the other hand, he lists the motives of the government and the pressure it exerted on "Near-East" (the company performing the airlifts). Yosef Meir's criticism points to circumstantial evidence that the Zionist movement had no motive while the Iraqi government and Arab nationalists did, and accuses Giladi of withholding this information on purpose, calling it "an obvious attempt to mislead readers." Giladi also mentions Mordechai Ben Porat, a former Israeli Member of the Knesset, and a Cabinet minister, who was a key figure in the Zionist underground, as having been cited as one the figures responsible for the bombings by one of the Iraqi investigators into the bombings, in a book entitled "Venom of the Zionist Viper". Ben-Porat was one of several Israeli undercover Mossad agents arrested in Baghdad after the explosion; he was able to skip bail and flee to Israel. Mordechai Ben-Porat has vigorously denied this allegation, which he characterizes as akin to "blood libel", and which prompted him to write his 1998 book, "To Baghdad and Back". In it, Mordechai contends that the false charge against him was conceived at Iraq police headquarters. The affair has also been the subject of an anti-libel lawsuit by Ben Porat against a journalist who published Giladi's accusations. The lawsuit has been settled out of court with the journalist publishing an apology. For his 2006 book Occupied Minds, British journalist Arthur Neslen interviewed Yehuda Tajar, a Mossad agent who spent ten years of a 25-year prison sentence in Iraq, after being convicted for the explosions. Tajar insists that, although his undercover cell was prepared to carry out such acts, they did not in fact do so. The actual explosions, he claims, were the work of the Muslim Brotherhood. After several members of the cell were arrested, however, those still at liberty carried out other grenade attacks, in an attempt to show the innocence of those arrested. Giladi's article is regularly cited by anti-Zionists, including Jewish anti-Zionists, who claim that Zionism has a negative effect for Jews. Giladi also maintains a controversial stance regarding the Farhud, alleging that the British bear the bulk of responsibility as they instigated the event to blacken the image of the Rashid Ali government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naeim_Giladi
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hardly. Has religion nothing to do with culture? I'm hardly surprised. It isn't a good place to be too obvious about this kind of thing. Did you meet any Saudi Jews or Christians? No? How strange. If I were a more cynical person, I might say it sounds a little apartheid-ish. They're less oppressed and have the right to the same legal protections as anyone else? :shrug:
Well put, both points. Perhaps this is the "unity" Sam sometimes laments the lack of. Monoculture, in other words. Fascinating post.
It is you that is lacking the validity, SAM. People should do more looking into the biased picture you paint. excerpt, The Jewish exodus from Arab lands refers to the 20th century expulsion or mass departure of Jews, primarily of Sephardi and Mizrahi background, from Arab and Islamic countries. The migration started in the late 19th century, but accelerated after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. 800,000 to 1,000,000 Jews were either forced out or fled their homes in Arab countries from 1948 until the early 1970s; 260,000 reached Israel in 1948-1951, 600,000 by 1972. The Jews of Egypt and Libya were expelled while those of Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and North Africa left as a result of a coordinated effort among Arab governments to create physical and political insecurity. Most were forced to abandon their property. By 2002 these Jews and their descendants constituted about 40% of Israel's population. One of the main representative bodies of this group, the World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries, (WOJAC) estimates that Jewish property abandoned in Arab countries would be valued today at more than $300 billion and Jewish-owned real-estate left behind in Arab lands at 100,000 square kilometers (four times the size of the State of Israel). The organization asserts that the Jewish exodus was the result of a deliberate policy decision taken by the Arab League. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands Someone has an axe they are grinding and we all get three guesses as to who and the first two guesses don't count.
Thanks, I may do more looking into the stories that SAM has been telling to get a more honest review.
It was all one empire remember?The Ottoman empire under Millet system? You can read the book I linked earlier for evidence how the partition of Palestine was seen as all the Arabs as a continuation of the colonialism they were fighting against. Thanks I went to the US as a Muslim, enlightening enough. The Jews I met in KSA you couldn't tell apart from the others. Not really, see what happened in Rwanda, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Ireland. You can create the "other" What makes your wiki link [which can be edited by any Tom Dick and Harry] more valid than the first person account I linked to? Or the published history of Iraq? The incident in Basra where the Jews were perceived as welcoming the occupation [which is eerily similar to the picture in Poland] was the starting point for the exodus. Not surprisingly, when the partition occurred as it did and the Arab league fought it [and lost], they blamed the Jews for their support of Zionism over nationalism. Arab Jews were forced for the first time to choose between being Arab and Jews. There is evidence that the Zionists did everything they could to bring the Jews over to Palestine because their aim was to create a demographic reality.
These wiki articles aren't made up bullshit. By your attitude I can recognize only your reference is valid and all other are not. Sorry SAM thats not the way things work.
They are not a substitute for more autoritative research either, especially when it comes to research on anything pertaining to Israel. From your earlier link, see discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands For issues related to Israel, I generally check anything in wiki with a primary source. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9474.shtml Original emails by CAMERA More emails by CAMERA
Note: This say much about the author. Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpymondays (talk • contribs) 19:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Explain exactly which parts of the wiki articles in which you're disagreeing. Don't think you can toss out every wiki article on the internet because you think its wrong. Provide references of the same quality to dispute any parts of any wiki articles. Start getting down to the Nitti gritty
SAM when ever you find incorrect information in a wiki article you can dispute it at wikipedia and they will listen. All you have to do is contact them.
OK... but, weren't the Ottoman's Turkish, Kurdish, Arabic, etc... ? I didn't think they were all Arabs? Not to mention all the types of Religions - Xians, Sunni, Shia... AND the Persian's weren't even a part of the Empire. Greece was a large Christian chunk of the Ottoman Empire - and not happy about it either. Second, weren't Arabs trying to get OUT of the Ottoman Empire? They weren't too happy about it either. I'm not sure about your hypothesis here. So, I would like to see a link to the citation for the quote. I'm not convinced it's authentic or if so it's not being misquoted. Michael You know, it seems to me that under Imperial Rome, when polytheism was normal, there were temples to Gods all over the place. People freely went from one to another. They kind of assumed the "lightening God" of this area was the same God in another area (even though that God had a different name, rituals, etc...). People moved form Temple to Temple - and they still do this in Japan. It's perfectly fine to go worship one God one day and another Goddess the next. Then came Xiantiy and when they got enough power they stomped out polytheism. As you can imagine - it just doesn't sit well with monotheists. As the Ottomans were also monotheists they naturally had this intolerance for other beliefs - and so yeah, it's good that they tried to legally protect non-Muslims, like Jews and Xians, from their own Citizens - but, when it's all said and done, isn't it sad that they had to. Isn't it? I don't remember this happening when people were polytheists.....
Not interested in competing with the pro-Israeli brigade in wikipedia really. Also, its much more helpful to look at these kinds of historical situations from more than one perspective, you can see how Naeim Giladi, a Zionist Jew from Iraq, personalises his account, because he lived through it and how Eric Davis gives a detached account because he is basing his views on an exhaustive search of print and audio media, rather than personal stories. I have yet to read the account from an Arab point of view but I haven't really looked for one yet. I think victims always tell their stories better than those who suffer from the guilt of victimising.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Think about this as well, the Greeks lost Constantinople. As city they founded, they built and they managed as a capital city for 1000+ years. Muslims took it. Took the land. Etc.... we don't see Greeks going ape shit do we? Think about this as well, the Ottoman's lost Greece as well as a lot of other territory. Why is it this small shit hole called Israel causes all the problems??? Surely that's nothing compared with losing all of Greece? I just think there is more to the story and I feel it has to do with age old prejudices between Muslims and Jews that finally simmered over. Greeks accepted they lost Constantinople. Oh well, such is history. Most Jews accept they lost their little Temple Mount. Maybe Arabs should accept they lost this chunk of land absorb the Palestinians and be done with it. Or maybe you think it would it be better if the Turkish gave back Constantinople to Greece. Iraq gave back Baghdad to Iran. And Muslims returned the Temple Mount to the Jews. But you don't think that's OK do you? Why? I see no difference. What's done is done. Time to move on. Three generations of kids have been born in Israel. It's not going back to anyone anymore than the Greeks will get the Capitol they founded back.
S.A.M., That aside, the quote you posted was interesting I would like to see a citation for it. Michael
Michael, you need to read a LOT more history. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Which one?
Sam, Your not going to get away with taking a broad stroke and toss out everything wikipedia makes available. Its pretty clear who came out ahead when the Arab Jews made their exodus to Israel and it was Arab league policy that caused most of it. Certainly not the bullshit you were presenting.
