Islamic Discussion Thread ٣

[Aellex]

Bro, the ones who forces the Hebrew off of their land were the Romans, not the Arabs. And nowadays, most zionist settlers aren't even Hebrew and as such have no connection to the land whatsoever.

The Romans started the job, the Arabs finished it but both were as much of a colonist as the other.
Anyway, the Jewish claim to their homeland stood even if the oppressor had changed in the mean time.

[Socialista Mozambique]

The Romans started the job, the Arabs finished it but both were as much of a colonist as the other.
Anyway, the Jewish claim to their homeland stood even if the oppressor had changed in the mean time.

The Jewish takeover of Israel was one of death, slaughter and battle. In history of the Levant, the Jews were just as colonialist as the Romans, Arabs and British. All had God/s on their side.

[The Eternal Aulus]

Bro, the ones who forces the Hebrew off of their land were the Romans, not the Arabs. And nowadays, most zionist settlers aren't even Hebrew and as such have no connection to the land whatsoever.

The Romans started the job, the Arabs finished it but both were as much of a colonist as the other.
Anyway, the Jewish claim to their homeland stood even if the oppressor had changed in the mean time.

According to that logic the Spanish and French should gtfo from Basque land.

[Pilarcraft]

Bro, the ones who forces the Hebrew off of their land were the Romans, not the Arabs. And nowadays, most zionist settlers aren't even Hebrew and as such have no connection to the land whatsoever.

The Romans started the job, the Arabs finished it but both were as much of a colonist as the other.
Anyway, the Jewish claim to their homeland stood even if the oppressor had changed in the mean time.

I'm not sure what your stance on this is, so I'm going to use the popular analogy here. The Jewish claim to their homeland is as legit as that of the Native Americans. But, if the Native Americans wanted to kill all Whites who were in The Americas, I wouldn't side with them.
the same goes for Israel and the problem between Jews and Arabs.

[Socialista Mozambique]

I'm not sure what your stance on this is, so I'm going to use the popular analogy here. The Jewish claim to their homeland is as legit as that of the Native Americans. But, if the Native Americans wanted to kill all Whites who were in The Americas, I wouldn't side with them.
the same goes for Israel and the problem between Jews and Arabs.

I completely disagree, in no way is the Jewish claim to the Levant comparable to the Native Americans. The Native Americans were largely the first people, whereas the Jews were invaders who burned down pre-existing cities and defeated local kingdoms until they had complete hegemony over the area.

[The Eternal Aulus]

Does historic legitimacy really matter? If Palestinians want their land back they should just unify and fight the Israelis and drive them out. But so far they're incapable of doing so due to trivial shitty reasons.

[Pilarcraft]

I'm not sure what your stance on this is, so I'm going to use the popular analogy here. The Jewish claim to their homeland is as legit as that of the Native Americans. But, if the Native Americans wanted to kill all Whites who were in The Americas, I wouldn't side with them.
the same goes for Israel and the problem between Jews and Arabs.

I completely disagree, in no way is the Jewish claim to the Levant comparable to the Native Americans. The Native Americans were largely the first people, whereas the Jews were invaders who burned down pre-existing cities and defeated local kingdoms until they had complete hegemony over the area.

that statement is factually incorrect, to be honest. The Semitic People have always been the original people of the Levant. Apart from the Persian Races (that came from India and Russia, originally, and settled all the way to Iraq and Syria), the Israelites would be one of the first people to make Levant their home.

[Socialista Mozambique]

that statement is factually incorrect, to be honest. The Semitic People have always been the original people of the Levant. Apart from the Persian Races (that came from India and Russia, originally, and settled all the way to Iraq and Syria), the Israelites would be one of the first people to make Levant their home.

Now you're just being intellectually dishonest. The Semitic People are not just Jews, including Caananites and other Semitic speaking peoples.

[Aellex]

I'm not sure what your stance on this is, so I'm going to use the popular analogy here. The Jewish claim to their homeland is as legit as that of the Native Americans. But, if the Native Americans wanted to kill all Whites who were in The Americas, I wouldn't side with them.
the same goes for Israel and the problem between Jews and Arabs.

My stance is that one shouldn't whine about getting hurt after throwing the first punch along with an healthy dose of Vae Victis.

[Aellex]

According to that logic the Spanish and French should gtfo from Basque land.

: D

[Of Traditionalist Tory Toffs]

Israel was a nation set up with ye goode intentions to be a beacon of Jewish morality and decency. However, since the 1960s it has been heavily corrupted into a spoiltstate Utopian Chillstatean satellite!

https://www.haaretz.com/blogs/routine-e ... m-1.652818
https://www.timesofisrael.com/parents-o ... f-neglect/
http://israellawblog.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... r-are.html
http://forward.com/sisterhood/174940/a- ... eli-style/

However there is hope for ye olde traditionaliste cause

Check out this article that ye olde elders can take heart in:
https://www.thejc.com/education/educati ... in-1.61659
Would be grateful for ye thoughts
POAH POAH POAH GOD SAVE THE KING!

[Alsheb]

Bro, the ones who forces the Hebrew off of their land were the Romans, not the Arabs. And nowadays, most zionist settlers aren't even Hebrew and as such have no connection to the land whatsoever.

The Romans started the job, the Arabs finished it but both were as much of a colonist as the other.
Anyway, the Jewish claim to their homeland stood even if the oppressor had changed in the mean time.

Since when do religions have a right to a specific territory?

[Pilarcraft]

The Romans started the job, the Arabs finished it but both were as much of a colonist as the other.
Anyway, the Jewish claim to their homeland stood even if the oppressor had changed in the mean time.

Since when do religions have a right to a specific territory?

not this again.
When we say Jew don't mean a person who has a judaistic religion, we mean the Semitic race often called the Jewish people, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

[Alsheb]

The Romans started the job, the Arabs finished it but both were as much of a colonist as the other.
Anyway, the Jewish claim to their homeland stood even if the oppressor had changed in the mean time.

I'm not sure what your stance on this is, so I'm going to use the popular analogy here. The Jewish claim to their homeland is as legit as that of the Native Americans. But, if the Native Americans wanted to kill all Whites who were in The Americas, I wouldn't side with them.
the same goes for Israel and the problem between Jews and Arabs.

The Natives have even more right, since they are still actually living on their ancestral lands. The zionists just came around 2000 years after the Hebrews left the Holy Land and were like "oy this is mine now". And like I said before, most of them aren't even Hebrew anymore and have no ancestral link to the original Diaspora.

[Alsheb]

Since when do religions have a right to a specific territory?

not this again.
When we say Jew don't mean a person who has a judaistic religion, we mean the Semitic race often called the Jewish people, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

Which most Israelis aren't. The majority of them are Caucasians, not Hebrew at all.

[Pilarcraft]

I'm not sure what your stance on this is, so I'm going to use the popular analogy here. The Jewish claim to their homeland is as legit as that of the Native Americans. But, if the Native Americans wanted to kill all Whites who were in The Americas, I wouldn't side with them.
the same goes for Israel and the problem between Jews and Arabs.

The Natives have even more right, since they are still actually living on their ancestral lands. The zionists just came around 2000 years after the Hebrews left the Holy Land and were like "oy this is mine now". And like I said before, most of them aren't even Hebrew anymore and have no ancestral link to the original Diaspora.

the "natives" are the arab, turk, and previously roman colonials who overtook their homes after exporting them.
And no. the Zionists actually are pretty Hebrew.

[Alsheb]

I'm not sure what your stance on this is, so I'm going to use the popular analogy here. The Jewish claim to their homeland is as legit as that of the Native Americans. But, if the Native Americans wanted to kill all Whites who were in The Americas, I wouldn't side with them.
the same goes for Israel and the problem between Jews and Arabs.

My stance is that one shouldn't whine about getting hurt after throwing the first punch along with an healthy dose of Vae Victis.

How did the Arabs throw the first punch? They took the land from the Byzantines, not from the Hebrews.
There was barely any animosity between Arabs and Jews before the Zionists came flocking en masse in British ships.

[Alsheb]

The Natives have even more right, since they are still actually living on their ancestral lands. The zionists just came around 2000 years after the Hebrews left the Holy Land and were like "oy this is mine now". And like I said before, most of them aren't even Hebrew anymore and have no ancestral link to the original Diaspora.

the "natives" are the arab, turk, and previously roman colonials who overtook their homes after exporting them.
And no. the Zionists actually are pretty Hebrew.

I meant Natives as in Native Americans. They have more right on America than the zionists do to Israel, as the Native Americans still live in their ancestral homeland whereas the zionists just came by after 2000 years of diaspora and somehow believe they still own the land.

[Alsheb]

The zionists have as much right to Palestine as the Celts have to France. Excuse me, I meant to say Gaul.
Let's prepare the Irish-Scottish invasion for the reclamation of their ancestral Gaulic homeland then.

[Pilarcraft]

My stance is that one shouldn't whine about getting hurt after throwing the first punch along with an healthy dose of Vae Victis.

How did the Arabs throw the first punch? They took the land from the Byzantines, not from the Hebrews.
There was barely any animosity between Arabs and Jews before the Zionists came flocking en masse in British ships.

Arabs pulled the first punch by invading Israel in 1948 Arab–Israeli War, originally.
Even before that? well we could go a lot farther back, but that's irrelevant to this topic. Arabs attacked first, both as Palestine and as International wars.

[The Eternal Aulus]

It's a very old conflict. Jewish buyers of Ottoman Palestinian lands in the 19th century were already expelling farmers from said lands.

In 1897, an Arab commission was formed in Jerusalem, headed by the mufti, to investigate land sales to Jews. Its protests led to the cessation of these sales for a number of years. Arab peasants usually protested if Jewish landowners ousted them from their homes, and violence and armed resistance did occur. However Jewish landownership was accepted if the peasants were permitted to stay.

Yusuf al-Khalidi, a prominent Jerusalemite, wrote to the chief rabbi of France that the implementation of Zionism would require "brute force". Rashid Rida stated in 1902 that Zionism did not simply seek a safe haven for the Jews, but aimed at national sovereignty. Naguib Azoury, a Maronite Christian from Beirut, predicted violent clashes between Arabs and Jews in Palestine.

The British also granted Zionist requests that Hebrew become a language with an equal status to Arab in official proclamations, that Jewish government employees earn more than Arab and that the Zionists were permitted to fly their flag, whereas Arabs were not. Many Jews in Palestine acted as if the achievement of a Jewish state was imminent. Furthermore, in 1919 some Jewish papers called for forced emigration of Palestinian Arabs.

[Pilarcraft]

It's a very old conflict. Jewish buyers of Ottoman Palestinian lands in the 19th century were already expelling farmers from said lands.

In 1897, an Arab commission was formed in Jerusalem, headed by the mufti, to investigate land sales to Jews. Its protests led to the cessation of these sales for a number of years. Arab peasants usually protested if Jewish landowners ousted them from their homes, and violence and armed resistance did occur. However Jewish landownership was accepted if the peasants were permitted to stay.[8]

Yusuf al-Khalidi, a prominent Jerusalemite, wrote to the chief rabbi of France that the implementation of Zionism would require "brute force". Rashid Rida stated in 1902 that Zionism did not simply seek a safe haven for the Jews, but aimed at national sovereignty. Naguib Azoury, a Maronite Christian from Beirut, predicted violent clashes between Arabs and Jews in Palestine.

so hold on. Jews bought the lands... but Arabs refused to get out of said lands if the owner of the lands wanted them to?
I mean, they did continue to do that all the way until Israel was formed, but still

[The Eternal Aulus]

It's a very old conflict. Jewish buyers of Ottoman Palestinian lands in the 19th century were already expelling farmers from said lands.

so hold on. Jews bought the lands... but Arabs refused to get out of said lands if the owner of the lands wanted them to?
I mean, they did continue to do that all the way until Israel was formed, but still

The farmers weren't the owner of the land. That was usually a ruler of said land. The Ottoman empire had a sort of feudal system. So essentially the land was bought from a local ruler and the Arabs (who had nothing to say) were expelled.

[Pilarcraft]

so hold on. Jews bought the lands... but Arabs refused to get out of said lands if the owner of the lands wanted them to?
I mean, they did continue to do that all the way until Israel was formed, but still

The farmers weren't the owner of the land. That was usually a ruler of said land. The Ottoman empire had a sort of feudal system. So essentially the land was bought from a local ruler and the Arabs (who had nothing to say) were expelled.

so... the Arabs were angry that, instead of the "arabian former owner of the land they worked on", "the Jew who owned the land they worked on" had expelled them?
look. this is antisemitism. pure and simple.

[The Eternal Aulus]

The farmers weren't the owner of the land. That was usually a ruler of said land. The Ottoman empire had a sort of feudal system. So essentially the land was bought from a local ruler and the Arabs (who had nothing to say) were expelled.

so... the Arabs were angry that, instead of the "arabian former owner of the land they worked on", "the Jew who owned the land they worked on" had expelled them?
look. this is antisemitism. pure and simple.

Well, I wouldnt like it either to be expelled for no reason. Imagine you living on a piece of land for 40 years and suddenly you had to go - I wouldn't like it either. No matter if I had to go because of a Jew or a Christian.

I don't see how it is blatant antisemitism.