Jews went there on their own. In no small part from predominantly muslim countries where they faced systemic discrimination and, often, persecution.
Those from the Ottoman empire who didn't were largely genocided by their muslim neighbours to 'punish' them for the creation of Israel, which should give you clue that your idea that "different religions didn't have much beef" is complete bs.
Not to say the zionist jews aren't among the worst people as well, of course
Jews went there on their own.
To displace the native population. That's a war crime.
In no small part from predominantly muslim countries where they faced systemic discrimination and, often, persecution.
Not genocide, though. Unlike what's happening to Palestinians now which is another coordinated effort to get rid of them. The civilians are systematically attacked and pushed towards Egypt for that reason.
‘punish’ them for the creation of Israel, which should give you clue that your idea that “different religions didn’t have much beef” is complete bs.
When I write that “different religions didn’t have much beef” before the creation of Israel by religious fanatics, any action that happens afterwards is no counter argument to that.
Yeah, I think this idea comes from not really knowing much history then.
As long as there are different religions, there's been religious beef.
Jews living as minorities in predominantly islamic countries have experienced this by various degrees. Islamic law demands that they always be treated as second class citizens and, to no surprise, they have. And in certain periods in certain places, this was spiced up with some forced conversion or genocide.
Read up on this for a nice example. It's like claiming black African slaves had a nice life in the US until some troublemakers started demanding equal rights.
The mass migration towards Palestine and zionist efforts to create a majority jewish state there aren't a pinnacle of humanity, but it's important to know where it comes from
As an atheist I'm far from being an Islam defender but a special tax for "book religions" other than Islam and bans on certain jobs isn't genocide and really not an excuse to displace or even murder a Muslim population who wasn't even the ruling class that made those laws in the first place.
Islam isn't treating Judaism and Christianity the way it would treat polytheists like Hindus. Now that's a whole other can of worms but Palestinian genocide is inexcusable no matter how much anyone tries to justify it belittle it.
If you don't see having to choose between conversion or death, with hundreds of thousands killed, as genocide, what would you call it?
What about being killed in the street for wearing shoes as a jew?
What about legally being allowed to genocide jews because one was rumoured to have struck a muslim woman?
That's a strange idea of religions living peacefully together
What about legally being allowed to genocide jews because one was rumoured to have struck a muslim woman?
That's a bullshit lie. There was no Jewish genocide "because one was rumoured to have struck a muslim woman". Either you don't know what a genocide is and actively decide to stay uninformed or you're spreading propaganda. The only Jewish genocide happened in Europe at the hands of Nazis. Scattered instances of violent crimes are abhorrent but not genocide. Equating both borders on Holocaust denial because it belittles actual genocide.
So you think historians are lying about what happened under, for instance, the Almohads?
It's about your bs claim that jews were generally having a great time living under islamic regimes
Ironically you pointing towards the nazis is the whataboutism here
So you think historians are lying about what happened under, for instance, the Almohads?
[citation needed] specifically for a genocide after a single case of domestic violence.
You're conflating and misrepresenting two of the examples I gave. I wonder why.
I gave you the link these examples come from five posts up. If you can't be bothered to spend five minutes reading that, why are you so invested in this conflict (and discussion)?
Here's a bonus one to quench your thirst for whataboutism, from the same article:
He compelled them to wear distinguishing garments, with a very noticeable yellow cloth for a head-covering; from that time forward the clothing of the Jews formed an important subject in the legal regulations concerning them.
I gave you the link these examples come from five posts up.
Nothing about a genocide against Jews in there. You probably meant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1033_Fez_massacre which was obviously horrible but A) that's not genocide, B) was part of a wider conflict in which plenty of Muslims killed each other as well, C) was on a different continent, D) 900 years before anything modern Israel, so totally unrelated different ethnic groups living without much beef in the Western Asian strip of land that's the actual topic here.
Really shows how desperate you are at justifying a modern genocide when you have to reach almost 1000 years back into the past to find something that fits your agenda.
from the same article
Nope, the following line is not in the "History of Moroccan Jews" article. That line is from a different article from a non-NPOV source and that one also doesn't mention any genocide at all and even if it would, still not a justification of the modern genocide.
He compelled them to wear distinguishing garments, with a very noticeable yellow cloth for a head-covering; from that time forward the clothing of the Jews formed an important subject in the legal regulations concerning them.
Ah yes, they had to wear funny hats in a part of Africa. That has absolutely nothing to do with the Western Asian strip of land that is the actual topic but hey, this clearly justifies Palestinian genocide on a different continent 800 years later. Special rules also applied to Christians. Neither doesn't speak to how well the actual people lived with each other. Also nothing that justifies any genocide from the hands of modern Christians as well.
Well, if you want me to prove that some ultra-zionists chased a Palestinian family of their land in the West-Bank today because the latter had genocided them there yesterday, I agree that that is not the case.
But I hope to make you understand that this is still all part of a larger religious conflict. This isn't something that suddenly started in 1947. Your claim that they were all living happily together until the 1940's is too broad, and quite wrong.
There are plenty of examples of how jews were discriminated against, small and large, ancient and recent. I agree that in the relatively sparsely populated Palestininan territories themselves, there wasn't very much enmity. And that was probably one of the reasons the zionist movement chose it.
The first large waves of immigrants came from Russia and Eastern Europe because of the genocidal religious discrimination they faced there. Later those who experienced the same under catholic and islamic majorities, with the nazis taking the crown, followed suit.
And it's not like the local muslim population welcomed this stream of immigrants. They themselves were expecting to come out of the Ottoman empire, and later Mandatory Palestine, with an islamic Arab state (where they would remain first class citizens). This led to the first larger clashes following WW1 resulting in both sides polarizing and militarizing, and the creation of Haganah and Irgun. And they're still fighting the same fight today. Was it 'wrong' for all those jews to migrate there? Perhaps. Was it 'wrong' for the local muslims not to welcome them? Perhaps. But the history isn't as one sided as you describe it.
Jews went there on their own. In no small part from predominantly muslim countries where they faced systemic discrimination and, often, persecution.
Those from the Ottoman empire who didn't were largely genocided by their muslim neighbours to 'punish' them for the creation of Israel, which should give you clue that your idea that "different religions didn't have much beef" is complete bs.
Not to say the zionist jews aren't among the worst people as well, of course
To displace the native population. That's a war crime.
Not genocide, though. Unlike what's happening to Palestinians now which is another coordinated effort to get rid of them. The civilians are systematically attacked and pushed towards Egypt for that reason.
When I write that “different religions didn’t have much beef” before the creation of Israel by religious fanatics, any action that happens afterwards is no counter argument to that.
Yeah, I think this idea comes from not really knowing much history then.
As long as there are different religions, there's been religious beef.
Jews living as minorities in predominantly islamic countries have experienced this by various degrees. Islamic law demands that they always be treated as second class citizens and, to no surprise, they have. And in certain periods in certain places, this was spiced up with some forced conversion or genocide.
Read up on this for a nice example. It's like claiming black African slaves had a nice life in the US until some troublemakers started demanding equal rights.
The mass migration towards Palestine and zionist efforts to create a majority jewish state there aren't a pinnacle of humanity, but it's important to know where it comes from
As an atheist I'm far from being an Islam defender but a special tax for "book religions" other than Islam and bans on certain jobs isn't genocide and really not an excuse to displace or even murder a Muslim population who wasn't even the ruling class that made those laws in the first place.
Islam isn't treating Judaism and Christianity the way it would treat polytheists like Hindus. Now that's a whole other can of worms but Palestinian genocide is inexcusable no matter how much anyone tries to justify it belittle it.
If you don't see having to choose between conversion or death, with hundreds of thousands killed, as genocide, what would you call it?
What about being killed in the street for wearing shoes as a jew?
What about legally being allowed to genocide jews because one was rumoured to have struck a muslim woman?
That's a strange idea of religions living peacefully together
That's a bullshit lie. There was no Jewish genocide "because one was rumoured to have struck a muslim woman". Either you don't know what a genocide is and actively decide to stay uninformed or you're spreading propaganda. The only Jewish genocide happened in Europe at the hands of Nazis. Scattered instances of violent crimes are abhorrent but not genocide. Equating both borders on Holocaust denial because it belittles actual genocide.
PS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
So you think historians are lying about what happened under, for instance, the Almohads?
It's about your bs claim that jews were generally having a great time living under islamic regimes
Ironically you pointing towards the nazis is the whataboutism here
[citation needed] specifically for a genocide after a single case of domestic violence.
You're conflating and misrepresenting two of the examples I gave. I wonder why.
I gave you the link these examples come from five posts up. If you can't be bothered to spend five minutes reading that, why are you so invested in this conflict (and discussion)?
Here's a bonus one to quench your thirst for whataboutism, from the same article:
Nothing about a genocide against Jews in there. You probably meant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1033_Fez_massacre which was obviously horrible but A) that's not genocide, B) was part of a wider conflict in which plenty of Muslims killed each other as well, C) was on a different continent, D) 900 years before anything modern Israel, so totally unrelated different ethnic groups living without much beef in the Western Asian strip of land that's the actual topic here.
Really shows how desperate you are at justifying a modern genocide when you have to reach almost 1000 years back into the past to find something that fits your agenda.
Nope, the following line is not in the "History of Moroccan Jews" article. That line is from a different article from a non-NPOV source and that one also doesn't mention any genocide at all and even if it would, still not a justification of the modern genocide.
Ah yes, they had to wear funny hats in a part of Africa. That has absolutely nothing to do with the Western Asian strip of land that is the actual topic but hey, this clearly justifies Palestinian genocide on a different continent 800 years later. Special rules also applied to Christians. Neither doesn't speak to how well the actual people lived with each other. Also nothing that justifies any genocide from the hands of modern Christians as well.
Well, if you want me to prove that some ultra-zionists chased a Palestinian family of their land in the West-Bank today because the latter had genocided them there yesterday, I agree that that is not the case.
But I hope to make you understand that this is still all part of a larger religious conflict. This isn't something that suddenly started in 1947. Your claim that they were all living happily together until the 1940's is too broad, and quite wrong.
There are plenty of examples of how jews were discriminated against, small and large, ancient and recent. I agree that in the relatively sparsely populated Palestininan territories themselves, there wasn't very much enmity. And that was probably one of the reasons the zionist movement chose it.
The first large waves of immigrants came from Russia and Eastern Europe because of the genocidal religious discrimination they faced there. Later those who experienced the same under catholic and islamic majorities, with the nazis taking the crown, followed suit.
And it's not like the local muslim population welcomed this stream of immigrants. They themselves were expecting to come out of the Ottoman empire, and later Mandatory Palestine, with an islamic Arab state (where they would remain first class citizens). This led to the first larger clashes following WW1 resulting in both sides polarizing and militarizing, and the creation of Haganah and Irgun. And they're still fighting the same fight today. Was it 'wrong' for all those jews to migrate there? Perhaps. Was it 'wrong' for the local muslims not to welcome them? Perhaps. But the history isn't as one sided as you describe it.