The israeli palestinian debate

[nastynice]

Firstly, you have to leave aside lesser living conditions/income imo. Thats a problem but not what I'm talking about. Minority groups in the US have lesser incomes than whites but its not really a matter of government discrimination. Arab citizens of Israel have equal civil and democratic rights and equal rights under the law and the Israeli Supreme Court. This is not true of virtually any other state in the region with regards to minority groups (let alone their own citizenry.). Part of the economic difference has to do with the fact that Arabs don't generally serve in the Israeli Defense Forces (there exempt as are all non-Jews and don't serve even close to on mass) which has a significant impact on hiring practices and economic activities (since its a compulsary service much networking is made and the disciplne from the army is considered a valuable asset for many jobs in Israel much like it is in the West). Arabs while allowed to serve don't and it hurts them economically. I also won't deny that like minority groups throughout the world, there are certain factors that lower opportunity but this is not unique to Israel and is comparable to the US and other Western democracies.



In regards to the other issues, I'll address them in order.

Educational Resources-This is a problem in Israel imo because the fact that Jews and Arabs are in largely (except for a small number of exceptions) separate schools in separate school systems. The reason for this however is not like Black/White schools in the US but for religious reasons. There are many Jews learning in ultra-orthodox schools, and regular orthodox schools and then there are also Arab schools with some teaching some Islam. I would be in favour of more integration but alot of the seperation is self imposed by both parties for religious and cultural reasons and I have to respect the rights of individuals to somewhat make their own chocies and the country to have its own educational system (its not a completely secular state). There have reports about disparity between the Arab and Jewish schools in terms of resource but this launched a major controversy within Israel itself and a Commission designed to fix it. That isn't really the action of a racist state, this sounds like a state that has its problems but trying to fix it. Compared to its neighbours this is much more equal and democratic and is comparable with the problems inner cities schools face in the US, Canada and elsehwere in terms of inequitable resources.

Laws Targeting Them-I dont know what your talking about for the most part. Arab citizens are equal under the law and discrimination practices by individuals and the government have commonly been knocked down by the Israeli Supreme Court. There have been attempts by far right parties to do certain discriminatory practices but they aren't the mainstream (and really compare to some of the extremists within European/American politics).

Immigration policy-The immigration policy is certainly different. I don't disagree but Israel is not a secular state with equal policies. Its a Jewish state, abeit one that respects the rights of its minority citizens. The country is not set up to have immigration of non-Jews otherwise it would compromise its position as a Jewish state and the homeland of the Jews. The right of return is not universal, I agree but I don't really see the problem with Israel discriminating with its immigration policy considering its not supposed to be a neutral multicultural state.

Also again Israel has more people who are not Jewish becomes citizens and accepts more refugees per capita (many including Non-Jews who become citizens) than any other country in the region and deals with refugees much more humanely than the other countries in the Middle East. I


All of these factors illustrate that Israel has fairly good equality "(if not perfect and improvement can always happen) for its minority citizens especialyl considering the hostile relationships that neighbours have with it and the close relationship that has existed between some Israeli Arabs and Israel's enemies (many suicide bombers for instance were Israeli Arabs). Despite this potential hostility Israel should treat its Arab citizens like anyone else and I think it can say with some pride that it does. Also, again its worth comparing Israel's human rights against its neighbours and enemies (including the Palestinians) and also compare its human rights record considering the security threats it has. One should be consistent and fair when judging Israel's record.

It IS a matter of govt discrimination in the us, I live in Chicago and you gotta be batshit blind not to see that.

This link has more links within showing the discriminatory laws
http://imeu.net/news/article0021536.shtml

You say Israel isn't a racist state, then at the same time casually state that of course they have diff immigration policies because it's a Jewish home state. You can't have it both ways, either they have race based policies or they don't. I find it hard to believe that you truly feel Arabs in Israel aren't second class citizens, they're very open about it, it's not some kinda secret. It seems as tho it just trying to convince urself of something which u know isn't true.

Saudi also has American and European citizens, who actually live in better conditions and have better facilities than many Saudi nationals. Does this mean they are not a racist state? Do you think they are? Because I do.

No matter how u want to slice it, Arabs receive less resources for their education system, so I'm not really sure where ur trying to go with all that, as none of that changes the fact.

And yes, every country in the world has economic disparity. And when that that disparity can be clearly broken down by race, there is always a racist agenda behind it be it the after effects of imperialism or slavery or whatever.

[nastynice]

There's both. There are Jews who left before the war for economic or religious regions but also those who left because of rising anti-semitism (which caused their low economic conditions) and unequal rights but I was referring to those who got expelled or fled for their lives after the start of the 1947-1948 conflict.


While you have some history right you have it wrong. They weren;t demanding the Palestinians to be part of Israel. They didn't want an Israeli state and when they went to war with Israel they kicked out the Jews or enhanced discriminatory conditions so much they felt they had to leave.



This is sort of unrelated. Lebanon war happened because of Hezbollah and Iran potential conflict is because of its leadership vitrol towards Israel combined with nuclear ambitions and support of terror.

While these states might be adverse to Israel and hate/hurt their jewish populations its not entirely related.




Why?

From 1948-1970 800,000-1,000,000 Jews were expelled or forced to flee to Israel. That number actually is larger than the number of Palestinian refugees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_...sh_.22Nakba.22 (Decent background)
And the difference is these people have become part of Israel as citizens because Israeli gave a **** what happened to them. The Arab nations took no responsiblity for the Palestinains and made them remain in refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon and Jordan untill this very day.

From 1948-1967 Jordan controlled the West Bank and yet didn't make the Palestinians citizens, Egypt had Gaza and kept them excluded as well.

We never hear about these issues though when discussing the reasoning for the conditions in Palestinian areas.

I'm not saying Israel is blame free but its neighbours are certainly largely at fault for this conflict by repeatedly going to war, turning down peace and not helping the Palestinians themselves. Arafat also screwed the Palestinians multiple times with his fanatical leadersip, corruption and lack of desire to really make peace. The Palestinians could have had a state multiple times already and have turned it down. Hopefully, Abas is serious now with his attempts to restart talks.

Maybe ur right that I got my history wrong, or maybe it is u that got their history wrong. Quotes from wikipedia (and the numbers which I came across and stated earlier sure seem to back these statements up)

Historian Tom Segev stated: "Deciding to emigrate to Israel was often a very personal decision. It was based on the particular circumstances of the individual's life. They were not all poor, or 'dwellers in dark caves and smoking pits'. Nor were they always subject to persecution, repression or discrimination in their native lands. They emigrated for a variety of reasons, depending on the country, the time, the community, and the person."[121][better*source*needed]

Iraqi-born Israeli historian Avi Shlaim, speaking of the wave of Iraqi Jewish migration to Israel, concludes that, even though Iraqi Jews were "victims of the Israeli-Arab conflict", Iraqi Jews aren't refugees, saying that "nobody expelled us from Iraq, nobody told us that we were unwanted".[122] He restated that case in a review of Martin Gilbert's book, In Ishmael’s House.[123]

Yehuda Shenhav has criticized the analogy between Jewish emigration from Arab countries and the Palestinian exodus. He also says "The unfounded, immoral analogy between Palestinian refugees and Mizrahi immigrants needlessly embroils members of these two groups in a dispute, degrades the dignity of many Mizrahi Jews, and harms prospects for genuine Jewish-Arab reconciliation." He has stated that "the campaign's proponents hope their efforts will prevent conferral of what is called a "right of return" on Palestinians, and reduce the size of the compensation Israel is liable to be asked to pay in exchange for Palestinian property appropriated by the state guardian of "lost" assets".[124]

Now, u r right, AFTER the Palestinian exodus Arab countries DID start racist policies toward Jews. They said they would if the Palestinians weren't allowed home. Israel did indeed agree to take them back at one point, but only if they could resettle them where they pleased (classic oppressor tactic?), so the Arab states rejected it. Not saying this as an excuse, just giving the proper context.

[nastynice]

There was a competition between Jews and Arabs in the land for sure but there also had been a historical amount of antisemitism in these regions and several of the Arab leadership were aligned with the Nazis during the 1930's as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni

This guy for instance.

I mean they were aligned with Nazis due to their resistance against British imperialism right? So how does that change a populations perception of a people? If Jews had been living there for so long with no major issues (generally speaking) why would the perception and their treatment change all of a sudden? We have (relatively) good relations with china, that doesn't automatically lead to people in our population to be pro communist (or whatever combo deal they got going on there). We have hood relation with Saudi, doesn't mean our population automatically becomes pro monarchy.

Also, how did this antisemitism start in Europe? I know someone said Germany was hurting so they decided to take their frustration out on the Jewish minority, but that makes no sense. They spent so many resources to slowly integrate their racist policies throughout the country, I find it hard to believe a country would spend so much resources based on just being frustrated and taking anger out on minorities.

[nastynice]

I don't understand how you jump to the conclusions with the links that I provided.

It's not systematic displacement because they legitimately bought the land and decided to kick people who happened to be Arab off of their land. It was their land, they can do whatever they want with their property.



The Russians persecuted everyone who didn't agree with them politically and started targeting minorities who refused to convert to Christianity.

As a result, during the turn of the 19th century, the mass Jewish exodus immigrated to nearby countries in order to avoid the Russian pogroms and various other pogroms. At the same time, many countries were suffering from an economic depression and became frustrated. They took their anger out at minorities and blamed them for their economic problems. Many of the minorities were Jews escaping discrimination in their home countries or nomadic tribes like the gypsies.

The Nuremberg Laws just made this line of rhetoric more popular and more widespread.



They wanted a two-state solution and they got it. Britain allotted land to the Jordanians, the Egyptians, the Palestinians and the Israelis. Had the Arabs not gotten nationalistic and their religion stuck up their *******s and chose to let Israel be, there wouldn't have been an issue. Instead, they ****ed it up by invading Israel and failed.

My dude, u keep saying it wasnt systematic displacement but then Immediately describing methods of systematic displacement.

I'm not sure about the Russian thing, but werent they a pro atheist anti Christian government?

Same thing as said in an earlier post, they took their anger out on them doesn't really make sense. It might have played a role in it, but that can't be the full story. It makes no sense.

And WHO wanted a two state solution? And WHO got it? This seems the root of the problem, these zionists wanting a Jewish majority state in a land that did not have a Jewish majority. So obviously one must displace a population in order to achieve that. That what it sounds like to me

[Freakazoid]

My dude, u keep saying it wasnt systematic displacement but then Immediately describing methods of systematic displacement.

So if I buy a house, I can't evict the occupants?

Systematic displacement implies that there was a plan put together to displace the Palestinians. There was no such plan. People with money just chose to buy land and settle there. This was occurring prior to the Zionist movement.

I'm not sure about the Russian thing, but werent they a pro atheist anti Christian government?

The Empire fell in 1917 but by then the Jewish population in Russia had already dwindled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of...sus.5D_.5B2.5D

Same thing as said in an earlier post, they took their anger out on them doesn't really make sense. It might have played a role in it, but that can't be the full story. It makes no sense.

You're pretty biased. It seems like you just want there to be some secret underlying narrative just so you could rationalize your prejudice.

Regardless, it's basic psychology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory

And WHO wanted a two state solution? And WHO got it?

Who the **** cares? The British could have given the land to Russia if they wanted to. They wanted a two-state solution because it was the only compromise that made sense. Neither the Arabs or the Zionists wanted it.

How would it have looked if they didn't allow for the creation of the Jewish state after the Holocaust? What would have happened if they just handed over the Jewish population to an anti-semitic Arab nationalists? Ever heard of Rwanda?

This seems the root of the problem, these zionists wanting a Jewish majority state in a land that did not have a Jewish majority. So obviously one must displace a population in order to achieve that. That what it sounds like to me

Zionists actually just wanted land which the Jews could call their own. They didn't care if you were Arab, they just wanted land for their own.

In addition to that, Arabs weren't actually displaced until the Israeli-Arab war.

[nastynice]

So if I buy a house, I can't evict the occupants?

Systematic displacement implies that there was a plan put together to displace the Palestinians. There was no such plan. People with money just chose to buy land and settle there. This was occurring prior to the Zionist movement.



The Empire fell in 1917 but by then the Jewish population in Russia had already dwindled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of...sus.5D_.5B2.5D



You're pretty biased. It seems like you just want there to be some secret underlying narrative just so you could rationalize your prejudice.

Regardless, it's basic psychology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realistic_conflict_theory



Who the **** cares? The British could have given the land to Russia if they wanted to. They wanted a two-state solution because it was the only compromise that made sense. Neither the Arabs or the Zionists wanted it.

How would it have looked if they didn't allow for the creation of the Jewish state after the Holocaust? What would have happened if they just handed over the Jewish population to an anti-semitic Arab nationalists? Ever heard of Rwanda?



Zionists actually just wanted land which the Jews could call their own. They didn't care if you were Arab, they just wanted land for their own.

In addition to that, Arabs weren't actually displaced until the Israeli-Arab war.

Maybe you don't know what systematic displacement is. It doesn't have to be illegal. And of course it was a plan, u've been saying urself that they were trying to acquire land so they could have their own state, so they acquired it and kicked non Jews out. If this is not a systematic displacement then what is?

Even if they could do as they please with their land, this link shows much less land ownership compared to what Israel actually was when created. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewis...tine#section_3
So again, just an odd concept of how the state was carved out as is compared to how the demographics were before. Of course I know wikipedia isn't the best of sources, and if that website misinforms me then there's not mich I can do about it, but I'm just going off that for the time being.

Maybe I am biased, just as you obviously are, who knows, either way it doesn't change the facts. I have no narrative to fulfill, I'm just expanding my knowledge on the situation. If u take a look at the link above, you will notice reasons given for why the ottomans didn't want Jewish immigration to Palestine in the 1800's. Now those reasons don't necessarily make one side right or wrong, but they are actual reasons nonetheless. Saying people became anti Semitic because they needed someone to take their anger out on, or because their leader was friends with hitler, these are nonsense reasons. I'm a grown *** man, so please understand why 2nd grade answers aren't enough to satisfy me. Perhaps you're more in need of psychoanalysis than I am.

And what do you mean who the **** cares? The people living there care, what kind of dumb question is that. You've been tellin me this whole time that Jews wanted their own homeland, and now ur telling me neither the Arabs nor Jews wanted a two state solution. So I don't know where to go with that.

And if Europe wanted to make up for their persecutions, wouldn't it make sense to carve a state out of Europe? What did Palestine have to do with anything? What role did Palestinians play in the holocaust? Why should they move out of their homes in order to let Jews in?

I get what ur saying about Jews wanting a homeland, but what I'm asking is at who's expense did this come? This is the whole issue. If land magically came from nowhere then no one would have an issue, but the reality it came from somewhere.

[Freakazoid]

Maybe you don't know what systematic displacement is. It doesn't have to be illegal. And of course it was a plan, u've been saying urself that they were trying to acquire land so they could have their own state, so they acquired it and kicked non Jews out. If this is not a systematic displacement then what is?

There wasn't a plan because they've been doing it since the 1800s before Zionism became popular. Much of this was because they were driven out of their home countries so many Jews turned to their religious roots. Others chose to live in Poland, U.K etc

Were they systematically driving out the Polaks and the British too? That assertion is just stupid.

When did I say they were trying to acquire land so they could have their own state? I said that they were trying to acquire land because they were driven away from other countries and land is the first thing you buy when you settle anywhere.

Maybe I am biased, just as you obviously are, who knows, either way it doesn't change the facts. I have no narrative to fulfill, I'm just expanding my knowledge on the situation. If u take a look at the link above, you will notice reasons given for why the ottomans didn't want Jewish immigration to Palestine in the 1800's. Now those reasons don't necessarily make one side right or wrong, but they are actual reasons nonetheless. Saying people became anti Semitic because they needed someone to take their anger out on, or because their leader was friends with hitler, these are nonsense reasons. I'm a grown *** man, so please understand why 2nd grade answers aren't enough to satisfy me. Perhaps you're more in need of psychoanalysis than I am.

I'm not biased because I can very well admit that both sides have ****ed up. I have yet to see you even admit that the Arab side ****ed up on at least one thing.

Look at society today. Look at the number of people blaming illegal aliens for the recession. Do you really think it's that far fetched in an age where information isn't as readily available for people to scapegoat other people for their misfortunes?

Psychoanalysis? Seriously? What I posted wasn't psychoanalysis, it's basic psychology, in fact, it's far from psychoanalysis.

And what do you mean who the **** cares? The people living there care, what kind of dumb question is that. You've been tellin me this whole time that Jews wanted their own homeland, and now ur telling me neither the Arabs nor Jews wanted a two state solution. So I don't know where to go with that.

Neither the Arabs nor the Zionists (there's a difference) wanted a two-state solution because both sides wanted more.

The Arabs never wanted a two-state solution not because they were losing their 'land' but because of Arab nationalism. They ****ing negotiated with Hitler and talked about solving the Jew problem in Palestine (Final Solution).

And if Europe wanted to make up for their persecutions, wouldn't it make sense to carve a state out of Europe? What did Palestine have to do with anything? What role did Palestinians play in the holocaust? Why should they move out of their homes in order to let Jews in?

I get what ur saying about Jews wanting a homeland, but what I'm asking is at who's expense did this come? This is the whole issue. If land magically came from nowhere then no one would have an issue, but the reality it came from somewhere.

Because Britain essentially owned Palestine and that's what they wanted to do with it (hand it over to the UN)?

The Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust, but it was up to the U.N to decide whatever the **** they wanted to do with the land.

At what cost? If the Arabs didn't invade Israel and if their economy didn't collapse, the Palestinian exodus would have never happened.


Honestly, I don't think you even read my posts at all. It just seems like you skim over it and then fill in the blanks on your own. I'm done here. I can see why jrice is no longer responding to you.

[stephkyle7]

I had written a essay length post regarding my research on this topic in the last few days and it got deleted before i could post it LOL.

maybe thats for the best as Ill now condense it into gereally points.

One, all three abrahamic religions all lived in peace at many different points in time.
two, Islam was started to be a unifying religion for christians and jews.

Three. Jews were either forced out or left on their own accord after Romans put down revolts and placed paganism as the prevailing religion.

four. Caligula was the first person to demonize the jewish people for refusing to errect statues and temples in his name after he declared himself a GOD.
calling then the "plague" of the middle east.

Five .Once the Roman empire went christian, they ruled for 500 years ,but wouldnt let jews back in.

Six. Mohamed first told his follwers to pray towards Jureusalem in unity with Jews who he viewed as being the same religion, The Koran was given to him through The Angel Gabriel,and is very closely related to the writings in the Holy Bible, he did not change the direction of prayer to Mecca until The Jewish scholars in Jurusalem rejected his story.

7) the Growing Muslim armies after conquering Jureusalim invited the jews back as their brothers and rebuilt jewish temples and even allowed christians to stay.

For the next 500 years Jureusalem fell into neglect and disrepair to the point where Mark Twain said it was a slum.
During this time there was a rise in ARAB nationalism, while at the same time a influx of immegrating Jews.
The jews claimed the had birth rights and had been forced to flee, the Arabs claimed they left because they wanted to, and no one had madse them.

The British mandate sperated one homeland for each side but the ARABS refused.
Now, I embolden ARABS, becasue that is a nationality, not a religion, which is why the confusion and bitterness gets intertwined.

Muslims had never had a Problem with Jews....ARABS did.This is one reason why they refer to them as Zionist, not israelis.
what we are seeing now is the Morlocks and the Eloi...no doubt about it.
These are brothers and sisters seperated by 1500 years who have grown apart in appearance and philosophy, if not so much by religions which are almost mirror images of each other.

It is sad, and utterly pathetic, but the reality from my research is that the land should belong to the jewish people.
It had been theirs.
By force of arms it was taken first by pagans, then By christians, then By muslims.In their absence their bloodlines rejected the old faith in favor of a new one, and in their new surroundings some of the genetic traits which made them similar were lost in the gene pools.

But,ultimately these are brothers killing each other, not over religion, but Power and control.

Please chech out the PBS documentary Juresalem center of the world by two cats productions, it is enourmous in its scope and detail chronicaling the vents which shaped the city of Juusalem and the surronding areas.
http://www.twocatstv.com/films/

[nastynice]

I think the current situation doesn't go back much further than 100-150 years. To me basically seems to come down whether or not you think imperialism should be the dictating principle in lands thousands of miles away or not. I don't, some people do.

I don't agree with u saying a land belongs to a people who were there since they were there a thousand years ago, cuz then can't you say before those people were other people, so shouldn't the land belong to them then? Seems to open up a can of worms

[stephkyle7]

That is a intentionally limited view on the debate.
The argument must be contained to the last 100 years?
Why?

Muslim Armies advanced on Jerusalem without porvocation.
So that was ok, but latter it wasnt?Additionally it seems rather obvious Jews Fled Roman persecution.
It was the Roman way,to eliminate all opposition.
The thousand or so Jews that escaped to Masada, could easily have been starved to death through embargo, but the Romans through great effort built a ramp up to the fortress.
IMO this shows the extent to which the Romans were determined to drive Jews fro Judea.

When Constantine declared Chrisitanity the desired Religion of the Roman Empire, they refused Jews re entry to the area for 500 years, but The Jewish people still wanted to return.

Muslims influence in the area grew and various centers of Muslim power changed hands ending with The Ottomans.But The Muslim movement did not persecute or Vilify Jews.
They rebuit temples in jerusalem and welcomed Jews back into Judea, This move was an acknowledgement of their right to the lands.

Really, the ONLY HUGE problem starteded when the "white" jews started returning from 500 years of exile, But IMO ultimately its not religion that is at the center of the problem, it is money and power.


It is important to understand, The influx of Jewish wealth into the region angered many aristocrasies in the region.
They had for 1700 years existed unchallenged in regards to the economic structure of surfdom/nobelty that was the worldwide norm until the 1700s.

houndreds of thousands of Arabs began flooding into the region attracted by the Better economic situation that these wealth jews were creating.better jobs, better pay, etc.
This is what started the hostilities.
Not a religious disagreement, but the Aristocratic Arab leaders, excercising influnece on the religious leaders to demonize the jews becasue they were winning support and changing the economic enviorment.

Like I said...Its always money Bro.
always......

[nastynice]

Ok that's cool, I guess we disagree. From what I know, before the British empire everyone in the area was allowed to do their thing and roll as they please without having to deal with discrimination, which is why all that seems irrelevant as far as the present situation at hand. It wasn't until certain imperialists started making particular decisions to reflect their accord rather than the population's desires that these problems started arising, which is the same formula used all over Africa and parts of Asia, leaving particular populations in a state of perpetual war. This isn't me trying to point the finger, I'm just pointing out a certain reality.

I'm not trying to dismiss your idea of tracing history back a thousand years, I'm just pointing out what confusion it brings along with it, as everybody can be traced back to tens of thousands years earlier, it's almost meaningless at a certain point, right? Hell, I know many Israelis haven't even been in the area 50 years, and I already feel they have some type of claim and their absolute removal is not any type of viable or coherent solution. It's just not that simple at this point.

[stephkyle7]

I have no doubt that "Imperialist" mentallity has caused strife around the Globe.But The practice of imposing a Central Rule wasnt limited to western philosophy.Empires where the norm for thousands of years.Including the macedonian and Achemenid(persian) empires.

One of the Commonalities of most empires was tax collection through Fuedal Governance.

The Muslim empires werent as accepting as you seem to believe.They extarcted a toll for their tolerance. they forced Christians and jews to "pay" for thier religious freedom a practice known as The "Jizya".

They also lived by a different set of rules that didnt apply to Muslims regarding citizenship,Lordship,they were "second class' citizens,and were made to accept that or suffer the consequences.

British Imperialism was different in that they were interested in Efficiency and bringing things up to a standard.

Much of that sentiment was derived from Cecil Rhodes.
He Founded DeBeers Diamonds and was one of the richest men in the world at the time of his death.



"I have considered the existence of God and decided that there is a fifty fifty chance that God exist. Therefore, I propose to give Him the benefit of the doubt. Now, what would this God want for the world? He would want it well run.
I have viewed the peoples of the world and have come to the conclusion that the English speaking race is the highest ideals of Justice, Liberty and Peace. Therefore, I shall devote the rest of my life to God's purpose and make the world English.
I shall work for the furtherance of the British Empire, the bringing of the whole civilized world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States of America, for the making of the Anglo Saxon world into One Empire. What a dream, and yet it is possible, it is probable.............

Rhodes is also Known for the Rhodes Scholarship.

So yes, British Imperialism was a different flavor then most others(the Romans were clearly very invasive in their approach as well)But the entire concept was based Taxes.

Kings on top, then Nobels, then Lords, then Villiens, the surfs.


What Changed was when jews started returning to the Holy Lands.they Brought Money with them.

While the entire Muslim world was operated under a fuedal like system known as Timar. The differences were small but important.
One of which was that the "surfs" were no longer slaves.

It would be wrong to search for the roots of the timar system in feudal Europe for a number of reasons. One of the reasons is that in the feudal system the peasants are literally slaves of the landowning class. In the timar system, the timariots, unlike the landowners in feudalism do not own the land, only the right to collect the tax from the reaya. The people on the other hand are not slaves of the timariots, but free people who have rented the land in exchange for paying tax. Another difference is that feudal landowners have a political power over their land. They are able to apply their own law, and assemble their own force. With this force they can even fight against the king. Therefore in a feudal system the power is not central, but consists of many small units. The same thing cannot be said in the Ottoman Empire. The central rule is absolute, and the sipahis are forces of the Sultan, not the timariots.

Instead of feudalism, the roots of this system can be found in previous Islamic countries, under the name of ikta system. In the Islam law one type of land is owned by the government to use or give to certain high-ranking people. These people would pay tax to the government in return. This tradition was adopted by the Seljuks before the Ottoman Empire. The lands were called ikta, and were very similar to timars. As a result it is possible to mention that the ikta system was a previous version of the timar system. Later on the Ottomans used this system to create a massive military force, converting it to the timar system.


The money the jews brought with them changed the dynamic,they were able to Buy land outright.This caused the migration of Arabs to the "money center".
This enfuriated Sultans who relied on the Poor as their working classs.
They in turn through Religious leaders who were secondary in authority to them, demonized the jews to undermine thier influence.

They were dirty, money worshipers, they wanted to end Islam, all the same propaganda every nation in the history of man has used to try and control their populace.
Whats happened in the last 100 years is that the religious leaders of these nations have wrested control from the Sultans, the Shas , the dictators, the kings...but for the very same reasons, continued the demonization of Jewish people because SHEEP NEED A WOLF.

For the US it was the Brits, and then The communists.
The jewish and Muslim people are from the same lineage, even if the european genetic traits the exiled jews absorbed for 500 years have lightened thier skin, they are still Brothers and sisters killing each other over power and money.

[papipapsmanny]

First from the U.S standpoint.... I don't even know why we are involved other than trying to gain peace. I would be neutral with Israel. There is not one benefit with us being such strong allies with them, like at all.

First this is mainly a religious conflict, and it isn't just the arabs attacking, it is a War. The Israelis want land for themselves, the Palestians want it as well, simple as that.

Israel does many things to provoke violence upon themselved (outside of the whole being at war factor), for instance building homes on disputed territory.

Israel is not fully a democracy because you can only get so high up in the government if you are Muslim.

And Biblical claims are such ********, that has no credibility at all, like at all. In the end it is a religious war over a tiny piece of **** land.

The Catholics gave up this fight after the Crusades, and since the Templars basically took all the important artifacts away all lot of the so called holy artifacts aren't even there anymore. The Catholics basically said wow this is just a waste of time, and just created the Vatican and was like, yea this place is now the ****, Jerusalem was sooo 2000 years ago.

[Twitchy]

First from the U.S standpoint.... I don't even know why we are involved other than trying to gain peace. I would be neutral with Israel. There is not one benefit with us being such strong allies with them, like at all.

Having an ally in the region is actually pretty important because most of the surrounding nations aren't exactly fans of the US.

Israel does many things to provoke violence upon themselved (outside of the whole being at war factor), for instance building homes on disputed territory.

That's one thing, care to name another?

Israel is not fully a democracy because you can only get so high up in the government if you are Muslim.

Actually Israel is a full democracy. And for the record I know there are Muslim's in the Knesset (around 10%) and in the Supreme Court. They're also given full and equal rights to all other Israeli citizens, which is something that isn't afforded to citizens in other countries in the Middle East.

Muslim's also don't have to serve in the army.

And Biblical claims are such ********, that has no credibility at all, like at all. In the end it is a religious war over a tiny piece of **** land.

First of all, I think it's fairly disrespectful to call it a "tiny piece of **** land". And you don't have to go all the way back to Biblical times to worry about claims on the land.

[papipapsmanny]

Having an ally in the region is actually pretty important because most of the surrounding nations aren't exactly fans of the US.



That's one thing, care to name another?



Actually Israel is a full democracy. And for the record I know there are Muslim's in the Knesset (around 10%) and in the Supreme Court. They're also given full and equal rights to all other Israeli citizens, which is something that isn't afforded to citizens in other countries in the Middle East.

Muslim's also don't have to serve in the army.



First of all, I think it's fairly disrespectful to call it a "tiny piece of **** land". And you don't have to go all the way back to Biblical times to worry about claims on the land.

Its not disrespectful its a fact. It is a desert area with no oil, and is such a small area, its basically a piece of **** land, how is that offensive, did I hurt that area of land's feelings?

Okay what other claim is there? The British Mandate, where Britain was basically like uhh yea here you all go, now live with it.

But hey the Israelis defend it well, that is why it is their land now.

Oh and don't act like Israel doesn't provoke many of the attacks against it, especially with the current Prime Minister. Who completely attacked Obama when he said the whole Pre 1967 borders crap.

If I was Obama I just would have been like well **** if you are going to act like that were just gonna stop being allies with you and funding the hell out your ****.

To be honest most of Europe does not like Israel. I don't really care because there is no benefit to be allies with them. The countries around them don't like us mainly for the very reason we are such strong supporters of Israel.