Posted on 07/31/2007 9:15:42 PM PDT by goldstategop
I think you captured it exactly — the Jewish God beat the Islamic moon god, and they cannot tolerate that.
Thank you.
First, you have to remember that liberalism is, in fact, a mental disorder. Reason plays no part in their thought process.
They are enamoured of the head-cutters for no other reason than they are perceived as victims of imperial America. Their sorry lot in life is the fault of evil corporate America. If we weren't mucking about in their countries, stealing their oil, those poor deluded souls would go back to praying five times a day to their false gods and leave everyone alone.
Plus, by trying "educate" us about Islam by shoving it down our kids throats in public school, they promote "diversity". Little Johnny goes home after school and starts questioning his parents about his own faith. And if all faiths are equally good, then why stick with any one in particular when you can just hang a crystal around your neck and proclaim yourself "spiritual". Plus, anything they can do to poke a sharp stick in the eye of Christain is just good fun.
Not only were the Jews buying the land, they were buying from those same Ottoman landlords the palestinians were complaining to. In addition, the Ottoman title holders were selling it to the jews for many times its actual value. Much of the land that was sold was the worst possible available; no water, bad soil, etc. The ottomans were laughing all the way to the bank. They sure pulled a fast one on those dumb Jews.
Once the land was purchased, local muslim authorities did everything to drive them off the land or prevent them from being able to work it, in spite of the jews willingness and desire to work with their neighbors.
And in spite of every roadblock thrown in their way, they turned legally purchased land (most of which had been idle and non-productive for centuries), into flourishing farms that raised the standard of living for all.
And that is historical fact.
The Middle East's only democracy has recently enjoyed spectacular economic progress and unprecedented success in blocking and deterring terror attacks from its many Islamo-Nazi adversaries.ZC, this is something worth carving on the Statue of Liberty:
There is no such thing as an "autochthonous" or "indigenous" people. Everyone came from somewhere else.
Thanks for the kind words!
Did the attacks upon the Jews occur, or not?
You were in Guatemala in 1974?
Yep. Sort of similar to how American government officials treat American jobs.
In addition, the Ottoman title holders were selling it to the jews for many times its actual value.
Many times what the local market thought it was worth. Ultimately it was the Jews, with their modern technology and superb work ethic, who got the great bargain.
Much of the land that was sold was the worst possible available; no water, bad soil, etc.
This has been exagerated. If it had really been that bad no amount of effort or technology could have redeemed it.
Once the land was purchased, local muslim authorities did everything to drive them off the land or prevent them from being able to work it, in spite of the jews willingness and desire to work with their neighbors.
This too has been exagerated. The attitudes of the authorities were mixed. At different times Jews were supported in their efforts in the hope that they would lead to modernization of the larger society. At first, though, this was the rule...but then Jews learned how to play the game. No protection, no further purchases, and no international loans...and there was always armed resistance. Certainly, you remember that the Jewish Legion under Zhabotinsky fought with the British against the Ottomans - gross treason - for which the received the Balfour declaration in payment.
And that is historical fact.
Not really, you've slanted it quite a bit...but even if it were true you've overlooked the central facts. Jews were coming into a foreign country with the intent of making part of it their own, with their own separate laws, religion, culture. This went way beyond what the Ottoman culture could tolerate, beyond what any culture could tolerate.
Why were they doing this? Because they were sick of living in other peoples' countries. Sick of pogroms in Orthodox Russia, in Catholic Poland, in Protestant Germany, in the Caliphate, in Catholic and Almohad Spain, in Byzantium, in Rome. Sick of it all. They were determined to take back their ancient homeland and if others didn't like it they could go to hell.
Of course. How else could I see it?
Of course they occured. And the Grand Mufti was an actual, real-life Nazi...intent on extirmating every Jew he could find. Arabs weren't saints. At best they were primitives, 500 years behind the West as Zhabotinsky said. At worst, they were complete savages.
Why the facination with Jabotinsky? He represented not even the majority view in Palestine during the time. It seems to me that you are making his viewpoint the primary one. It was not.
You seem to put the horse before the cart in alot of your analysis of what happened in Palestine. Of course, without knowing what you posted in #11, I am at a disadvantage.
In trying to draw power back to Istanbul and away from the periphery, the Ottomans leveled taxes against the farmers in all of the empire. The system was corrupt and the taxes were far too burdensome for the local farmers to bear. To stop paying taxes, the farmers made a deal with the effendis. They would sell them their land and keep working it as if nothing happened. This very real sale had consequences. The effendis sold it to the Jews. The local farmers failed to recognize the sale. The Jews bought 7% of the available land in Palestine. Not all of it swamp land and desert. Most of it the best land in Palestine. Those were legitimate sales.
But the real division between Jew and Palestinian came when the British, hoping to stop Arab riots in Palestine, which broke out when the French removed Feisal as king of Syria, curtailed Jewish immigration into Palestine. Now, Jews could only immigrant if their was a job waiting for them. Many of these jobs, previously held by Arabs in both industry and agriculture, were given to or held for immigrating Jews.
One cannot look at the desperate need of 1946 and 1947 and use it to judge Jewish aspirations and Jewish politics from 1880 onward. It evolved according to internal and external realities. One certainly cannot make Jabotinsky the standard. You would be better served to use David Ben Gurion's slow realization that the Jews would have to fight for Palestine. He did not arrive in Palestine believing that to be true, and he worked hard to prevent it from happening. When he realized Israel would have to be won militarily, did he turn his attention to making sure that the Israelis won.
I am trying to figure out what it was that you saw in Guatemala. What exactly are you trying to say about Guatemala that is relevant to the situation in Israel?
Apparently, then, Mr. Medved's comments were not "complete bulls**t," as you originally charged. At worse, his history was incomplete—which of course is what one would expect when the writer or speaker offers "a brief history of the early conflict."
At least we can agree on the character and conduct of the Grand Mufti.
His English was pretty good, too.
At worse, his history was incomplete
No. It was a gross distortion. Since I find it impossible to believe that a man of Medved's stature was unaware of Zhabotinsky I think he knowlingly and purposefully distorted history in order to solicit support among conservatives.
And what of your failure to mention the fact hat more Arabs than JEw igrated to Palestine from 1890 to 1945 or that 3/4 of Palestine was set aside exclusively for Arabs?
What I saw in Guatemala was rich Guatemalans of Spanish descent pushing Indians off their ancestral lands so they could sell it to Americans and Europeans. All done legally, of course. Do I have to spell out the parallels?
What of it?
Arabs were citizens of the Ottoman Empire (or kindred of such living in nearby states which had formerly been Ottoman), European Jews were not. Do you want to compare post WWII migrations of Americans to different states to Mexican immigration to this country?
... or that 3/4 of Palestine was set aside exclusively for Arabs?
Gee, how about returning the Pacific Southwest to Mexico? That would still leave us with 3/4ths of our country.
In it I pointed out that Zhabotinsky (or Jabotinsky) wrote "Wall of Iron" in 1923 before the riots Medved cites...and that complaints by Arab farmers against Jewish landlords went back to 1890, almost to the time of the first aliyah and the beginning of the Zionist dream. Therefore Medved was distorting history significantly.
It's true Zhabotinsky's was a minority view but history has shown that his was correct and the majority socialists' wrong. Also his importance in the formation of the state canNOT be exagerated. It was he who founded the Jewish legion and, by extention, the Israeli army. He died in 1940 after desperately warning the Jews of Europe to flee. Menachem Begin was his successor...but not his equal.
But the real division between Jew and Palestinian came when the British, hoping to stop Arab riots in Palestine, which broke out when the French removed Feisal as king of Syria, curtailed Jewish immigration into Palestine.
I disagree with your interpretation. The real division between Jew and Arab was quite apparent to Zhabotinsky in 1923. The British did their best to heal the rift, trying not to alienate either Jew or Arab (for their own reasons). They failed...and everyone else since has also failed.
You do make an important point here...which might bear generalization. The Ottomans were a declining power showing all the characateristics of such. The late Romans and the Byzantines did the same thing. Cilizations, it seems, either expand or die.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.